Christian Viewpoint On The Gun Debate

BurningBush84 said:

That doesn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I think that was precisely the point. Your logic was used for other laws and you recognized the absurdity, but miss it with guns.

You had said, "Criminals don't care about gun laws. Felons are not allowed to possess any firearms.. " in defense of not enacting further gun laws.
An example using your same logic:
There are speed limits, reckless drivers ignore them, so we should eliminate them altogether it just slows down law abiding citizens.
You're right, eliminating law(s) because some may ignore them makes no sense. It doesn't make sense to use it in reference to gun laws either.

BurningBush84 said:

The odds of being a victim of a school shooting is extremely low. Armed teachers or security guards would make those odds even lower.

Click to expand...

Are you sure?
Currently, the odds of being involved in gun violence actually increases with your proximity guns.
You're more likely to be a victim if you have a gun in your home.

BurningBush84 said:

Do you realize that machine guns are already illegal ??

Click to expand...

Yes, fully automatic guns are illegal, but weapons like the AR-15 are not. The AR-15 was initially designed for the military. The M-16 is based on the AR-15. Neither of these weapons were designed to wound. They were designed to kill enemy combatants in the most efficient way possible. There's no reason for weapons like the AR-15 or those similar to it to be in the hands of civilians.

FenderTL5 said:

I could be wrong but I think that was precisely the point. Your logic was used for other laws and you recognized the absurdity, but miss it with guns.

You had said, "Criminals don't care about gun laws. Felons are not allowed to possess any firearms.. " in defense of not enacting further gun laws.
As example using your same logic:
There are speed limits, some ignore them, so we should eliminate them altogether it just slows down law abiding citizens.
You're right, eliminating law(s) because some may ignore them makes no sense. It doesn't make sense to use it in reference to gun laws either.


Are you sure?
Currently, the odds of being involved in gun violence actually increases with your proximity guns.
You're more likely to be a victim if you have a gun in your home.

Click to expand...

Who is committing all this "gun violence" ??? Felons. Why are Felons committing so much gun violence when they are banned from having guns ?? Don't felons realize it's illegal for them to have a gun ?? If you really cared about gun violence you would stop letting those offenders out of prison.

So teachers with gun safety training shouldn't be allowed to carry guns at school because they might injure another student while the students are getting murdered ???

So using that logic,, we let the perpetrator murder as much as they can. Ok. God forbid a good person with a gun save lives.

JosephZ said:

Yes, fully automatic guns are illegal, but weapons like the AR-15 are not. The AR-15 was initially designed for the military. The M-16 is based on the AR-15. Neither of these weapons were designed to wound. They were designed to kill enemy combatants in the most efficient way possible. There's no reason for weapons like the AR-15 or those similar to it to be in the hands of civilians.

Click to expand...

An AR-15 is a semi automatic rifle. Semi automatic rifles have been used by hunters for over 100 years . Semi automatic weapons are used for self defense. Semi automatic weapons have never been banned before. Why ban them now ??

BurningBush84 said:

An AR-15 is a semi automatic rifle. Semi automatic rifles have been used by hunters for over 100 years . Semi automatic weapons are used for self defense. Semi automatic weapons have never been banned before. Why ban them now ??

Click to expand...

There are many variations of semi-automatic weapons, ammunition types, magazine capacities, accessories, etc. Some semi-automatic weapons were designed with hunting for wild game and/or sports in mind while others for killing humans in an efficient manner. Not all semi-automatic weapons are created equal and an AR-15 is more effective at killing a large number of people in an efficient manner than most semi-automatic weapons. AR-15's have high capacity magazines that can be changed in less than 3 seconds. A 30 round magazine can be emptied in under 20 seconds allowing a gunman wearing a tactical vest with multiple pre-positioned magazines to fire 90 rounds in under a minute. It doesn't take an expert to do this, it can be done by just about anyone with some practice. An AR-15 also fires a lighter round at a faster speed than most semi-automatic weapons which has a much more devastating affect when it makes contact with a person's body.

AR-15's and similar "assault" style rifles are the ones that need to be banned.

In addition to banning assault style weapons like the AR-15, let's make the requirements for purchasing and owning a gun universal across all 50 states. Have provisions such as requiring registration and a license for each gun that a person owns, having a minimum age limit to purchase a gun of 21, require training and a proficiency test, and obtaining a letter from a doctor that an individual is of sound mind and body to own a gun before being allowed to purchase one.

Wouldn't these measures be fairly easy to implement? Wouldn't they address gun violence across the board? Not only would these measures reduce mass shootings, they would also go a long way in reducing the number of gun deaths in the US of all forms.

BurningBush84 said:

Who is committing all this "gun violence" ??? Felons.

Click to expand...

Stephen Paddock was not a felon when he shot up that concert in Las Vegas. The Columbine shooters, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech.. countless accidental, careless and domestic shootings do not involve individuals who are felons. That's delusional. I'm not saying that felons don't shoot others, they do. However to imply that only felons are the shooters is not reality. It's a dream world created by the radical gun lobby.

BurningBush84 said:

Why are Felons committing so much gun violence..

Click to expand...

Because our society makes it very, very easy and guns are everywhere. There's nothing to stop them, someone in the gun lobby could be inconvenienced..

BurningBush84 said:

So teachers with gun safety training shouldn't be allowed to carry guns at school because they might injure another student..

Click to expand...

You failed to include the word "kill."
You presume it could only happen "while the students are getting murdered.." In doing so you deny the reality that the odds of children being killed or injured is greatly increased with the addition of more guns, period, no third party shooter required.

I'm opposed to this idea - unless - the teacher actively pursues it and is willing to be licensed and participate in on-going, regular training similar to that required of law-enforcement. I see this a a rarity. YMMV.

More guns ain't the answer.

Guns save lives also. And some want to completely ignore that fact. Guns deter criminals. Thats why criminals target Gun Free Zones. Guns provide self defense/protection/peace of mind.. It's so hypocritical to see anti gun politicians surrounded by armed body guards . A gun ban won't turn a murderer into a saint. People can be run over, stabbed , poisoned , bombed , beaten to death with any object. A gun ban is like one step forward, yet 2 steps back . The mainstream media won't report on the good things good people with guns do . You have to buy an NRA magazine to find the good news about guns. Real news. Real cases where guns saved people .

FenderTL5 said:

Stephen Paddock was not a felon when he shot up that concert in Las Vegas. The Columbine shooters, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech.. countless accidental, careless and domestic shootings do not involve individuals who are felons. That's delusional. I'm not saying that felons don't shoot others, they do. However to imply that only felons are the shooters is not reality. It's a dream world created by the radical gun lobby.


Because our society makes it very, very easy and guns are everywhere. There's nothing to stop them, someone in the gun lobby could be inconvenienced..


You failed to include the word "kill."
You presume it could only happen "while the students are getting murdered.." In doing so you deny the reality that the odds of children being killed or injured is greatly increased with the addition of more guns, period, no third party shooter required.

I'm opposed to this idea - unless - the teacher actively pursues it and is willing to be licensed and participate in on-going, regular training similar to that required of law-enforcement. I see this a a rarity. YMMV.

More guns ain't the answer.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about reducing TOTAL casualties. If people get injured or killed in the crossfire it's worth it if it reduces total casualties. But your logic says no, let's wait for the police to do something. I'm betting those parents of the kids who were murdered at Uvalde wished a teacher would have been armed . That's a perfect example on how you can't depend on police.

sandman said:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's it.... that is my viewpoint

Click to expand...

Crucial term: "well regulated."

BurningBush84 said:

Guns save lives also. And some want to completely ignore that fact. Guns deter criminals. Thats why criminals target Gun Free Zones. Guns provide self defense/protection/peace of mind.. It's so hypocritical to see anti gun politicians surrounded by armed body guards . A gun ban won't turn a murderer into a saint. People can be run over, stabbed , poisoned , bombed , beaten to death with any object. A gun ban is like one step forward, yet 2 steps back . The mainstream media won't report on the good things good people with guns do . You have to buy an NRA magazine to find the good news about guns. Real news. Real cases where guns saved people .

Click to expand...

If more guns everywhere made us safer, America would be the safest country on earth. Instead, we have a gun homicide rate 26x that of other high-income countries.

The supposed "good guy with a gun" is rare, almost mythical.
I haven't compared the numbers but I'd be willing to guess that the instances of a good guy with a gun prevailing is less than the number of children killing themselves or others.

BurningBush84 said:

I'm talking about reducing TOTAL casualties. If people get injured or killed in the crossfire it's worth it if it reduces total casualties. But your logic says no, let's wait for the police to do something. I'm betting those parents of the kids who were murdered at Uvalde wished a teacher would have been armed . That's a perfect example on how you can't depend on police.

Click to expand...

What you are advocating increases the number of casualties. More guns = more gun violence. That holds true all over the world with no exceptions.
Uvalde had armed security.

My last thought.
The legislature in my state passed a series of laws designed to make it easier for "the good guys with guns."
They're moving toward an unfettered, open carry, environment.
What is the reality? THIS.

I think there is room for both views in Christianity. I can totally see a Christian deciding, I would rather lose my life than take one. The whole WWJD thing. With all of the power of God at his disposal, he didn't hurt anyone or even defend himself. He died in order to glorify God.

Then there is a person who wants to protect his family, and I think they should have the right to without being called unchristian. Even in the Bible, not all were called to martyrdom. There have always been Christian soldiers like the centurion Cornelius that was converted by Peter and he sent his household to Simon to be instructed in Christ's ministry.

Then, of course, people especially in rural areas hunt for a good portion of their year's meat.

What I don't agree with is when "preppers" or whoever stockpile their house with 15 different firearms to protect a family of 3. I think that is more of a secular pursuit.

BurningBush84 said:

I'm talking about reducing TOTAL casualties. If people get injured or killed in the crossfire it's worth it if it reduces total casualties. But your logic says no, let's wait for the police to do something. I'm betting those parents of the kids who were murdered at Uvalde wished a teacher would have been armed . That's a perfect example on how you can't depend on police.

Click to expand...

FenderTL5 said:

My last thought.
The legislature in my state passed a series of laws designed to make it easier for "the good guys with guns."
They're moving toward an unfettered, open carry, environment.
What is the reality? THIS.

Click to expand...

Do you know that people found guilty of misdemeanor domestic abuse can't legally possess firearms neither can felons. What percentage of gun crimes are committed by these people ?

Do you know gun violence stats are skewed because they include cops shooting bad guys? How is that fair ?

Spoons don't make people fat. Guns don't kill people. People kill people . People die every day. Let's ban cars. Lets ban drugs. Oh wait they already are.

A musket is no match against a bad guy with an AK-47.

If your so concerned on gun violence why vote for people who are soft on crime? How many of these people who committ gun crimes actually had a clean record ??

Why do politicians get armed security guards but your against tools for self defense for law abiding citizens???

Machine guns are already illegal and felons are not allowed to possess firearms. You should be happy with that.

BurningBush84 said:

Machine guns are already illegal and felons are not allowed to possess firearms. You should be happy with that.

Click to expand...

Why stop there?

Why not make the requirements for purchasing and owning a gun universal across all 50 states with:

• Universal background checks on all gun purchases and transfers, including private transfers and sales at gun shows;
• Require a 10 day waiting period on all gun purchases;
• Require registration and a license for each gun that a person owns;
• Have a minimum age limit to purchase a gun of 21 to purchase a handgun and require a hunting license for purchases of rifles or shotguns by adults under 21 who are not in the military or law enforcement;
• Require training and a proficiency test and;
• Obtain a letter from a doctor that an individual is of sound mind and body to own a gun before being allowed to purchase one.

None of the above would take away a person's right to keep and bear arms. They will still have the ability to purchase guns for hunting, target shooting, and protection.

BurningBush84 said:

View attachment 329157

Click to expand...

Ban high-capacity magazines, not the guns.
If you can't hit your game with five shots you shouldn't be hunting until you're a much better shot.

JosephZ said:

Why stop there?

Why not make the requirements for purchasing and owning a gun universal across all 50 states with:

• Universal background checks on all gun purchases and transfers, including private transfers and sales at gun shows;
• Require a 10 day waiting period on all gun purchases;
• Require registration and a license for each gun that a person owns;
• Have a minimum age limit to purchase a gun of 21 to purchase a handgun and require a hunting license for purchases of rifles or shotguns by adults under 21 who are not in the military or law enforcement;
• Require training and a proficiency test and;
• Obtain a letter from a doctor that an individual is of sound mind and body to own a gun before being allowed to purchase one.

None of the above would take away a person's right to keep and bear arms. They will still have the ability to purchase guns for hunting, target shooting, and protection.

Click to expand...

Hank77 said:

Ban high-capacity magazines, not the guns.
If you can't hit your game with five shots you shouldn't be hunting until you're a much better shot.

Click to expand...

BurningBush84 said:

Click to expand...

Do you think civilians will be fighting off foreign invaders with semi-auto rifles? If our military wanted/needed civilian volunteers they would supply us with magazines and ammunition.

Hank77 said:

Do you think civilians will be fighting off foreign invaders with semi-auto rifles? If our military wanted/needed civilian volunteers they would supply us with magazines and ammunition.

Click to expand...

I don't know the future.

“Better to have, and not need, than to need, and not have.”​

might need them to use against a tyrannical government or just general self defense

Gun control is already too strict.

If the police/SWAT, whose job is supposedly to bring everyone in alive, may use a firearm while raiding your house, you should also be able to acquire, train with, and use that same firearm (and accessories) to defend your house. That means short barrels, folding/collapsible stocks, silencers, 30-round mags, etc.