Christian Viewpoint On The Gun Debate

[ralliann]

Speaking from a biblical perspective this is my viewpoint on the gun debate. Christians should be for gun rights. Why? Because guns are used for hunting and the Bible justifies hunting. Even if you're a Christian pacifist you've got to admit that guns are used for hunting. So if for no other reason Christians should be for gun rights because guns are used for hunting.

It is ok, also for protection. There is nothing IMO, against self defense in scripture. To take the prohibition of violence in preaching the gospel for kingdom of heaven, and apply it to protecting yourself from a criminal that has nothing whatsoever to preaching the Gospel is out of context. You cannot bring about the kingdom of heaven by violence. That has nothing to do with protecting yourself in this world and this life. So, IMO I agree with you but, strictly apply it to spiritual matters like Christ did.

Mt 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

This has nothing to do with a criminal breaking into your home to kill you, for his own desires. It has to do with how we war for the kingdom of God.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

[JacksBratt]

You should have worded it this way to begin with instead of saying "All guns of the same caliber are the same...."

Yes, I should have been more explicit... I can see how it would be misunderstood.

I know what AR stands for and I still want the AR-15 along with similar "assault style" weapons banned, they have no place in our society. In addition to a ban on "assault style" weapons limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds, or better yet 5, on all other semiautomatic weapons.

I see no reason to ban AR style rifles... I do agree that there is no need for magazines with more than a 10 round capacity. And, yes, 5 or 6 would be better.. I would have no problem with that.

There is the argument that you can change a 5 round mag in a second or so.. making it arguable that it wouldn't change much.

There are far more superior rifles available for hunting and if the AR15 is banned, most serious hunters wouldn't object.

I totally agree.. If I was hunting in an area where I wasn't limited to "shotgun only" laws... I wouldn't use an AR.

But, not everyone thinks like you and me.

Further, I don't see how they are any more dangerous.

They just look dangerous and scary.

Like a tattooed up guy with a "Duck Dynasty" beard and wallet with a big chain on it.... who is actually a strong Christian youth leader....

Take these short barreled carbines away and the people motivated to do harm will ignore the law, mag limits or just go straight to easily concealed handguns.

Banning them is pointless based on how dangerous or not dangerous they are as firearms and pointless due to the fact that criminals don't care what is and isn't banned...

The only answer is deterrents like death penalties and other very harsh non negotiable penalties with no plea bargain or bail. IMO

 

[Postvieww]

There is the argument that you can change a 5 round mag in a second or so.. making it arguable that it wouldn't change much.

Great point! I think the call to ban guns and certain mags is not the solution. Security in soft targets and looking for signs which mass shooters usually give and are usually ignored should be priorities. Any person intent on murder can find a weapon if not a gun then something else. The woman in this last case had 14 minutes unchallenged what could she have done with sword in that amount of time? Security on site could have taken here out while she was coming through the door she shot out.

 

[BurningBush84]

Great point! I think the call to ban guns and certain mags is not the solution. Security in soft targets and looking for signs which mass shooters usually give and are usually ignored should be priorities. Any person intent on murder can find a weapon if not a gun then something else. The woman in this last case had 14 minutes unchallenged what could she have done with sword in that amount of time? Security on site could have taken here out while she was coming through the door she shot out.

I've heard you can modify clips and tape them together pretty easily to make it high capacity. But let's just keep chipping away slowly at the 2nd amendment. Until only single shot firearms are the only legal guns left. And what are you going to say when a family out in the country gets shot up by Mexican cartel members with
Ak -47's . When the police finally arrive they find the whole family dead with the Father clutching a musket in his hands. Maybe his family might have been saved if he were allowed to protect his family with a semi automatic firearm instead of a musket. The criminals don't care about gun laws. Felons are not allowed to possess any firearm. Machine guns are already illegal for civilians. Be happy with that. Provide gun training for teachers . Arm them. Hire security guards. I hear stories from old timers saying they used to bring guns to school and go hunting right after class. Semi automatic firearms been legal for a long time. Did these school shootings happen alot between
1920-1997 ??? Why not ? Something else going on in the world.

 

[BurningBush84]

And remember there is such thing as corruption in this world. That shooting a few years ago in Vegas seems suspicious. The pictures inside that hotel room seemed staged. Too manys guns too many shell casings. I wonder if the real killer was a government worker , maybe FBI. They murdered that Paddock dude and blamed him. They did this only to try and achieve their goal of banning guns. I know it's a conspiracy theory.

 

[Postvieww]

I've heard you can modify clips and tape them together pretty easily to make it high capacity. But let's just keep chipping away slowly at the 2nd amendment. Until only single shot firearms are the only legal guns left. And what are you going to say when a family out in the country gets shot up by Mexican cartel members with
Ak -47's . When the police finally arrive they find the whole family dead with the Father clutching a musket in his hands. Maybe his family might have been saved if he were allowed to protect his family with a semi automatic firearm instead of a musket. The criminals don't care about gun laws. Felons are not allowed to possess any firearm. Machine guns are already illegal for civilians. Be happy with that. Provide gun training for teachers . Arm them. Hire security guards. I hear stories from old timers saying they used to bring guns to school and go hunting right after class. Semi automatic firearms been legal for a long time. Did these school shootings happen alot between
1920-1997 ??? Why not ? Something else going on in the world.

One problem with this gun debate is the emotional response from many people. A tragedy like this happens and the knee jerk response is ban guns or high capacity magazines. IMO we have two types of people pushing this 1. Those in government and civilian life who know full well banning guns will never stop evil people from doing evil things . Those are intent on have total control over the populace and change our form of government to accommodate that goal . 400 million guns in the hands of the people is an obstacle to that goal. 2. Then we have those that through emotion and lack of knowledge react by calling for gun bans because they mistakenly think that will fix the problem. One liberal commentator on a certain news channel recently said that armed guards in our schools would traumatize our children while ignoring the trauma children have gone through that have lived through these shootings. We have armed guards to protect our politicians, our celebrities, our banks , our cities and streets, some of our stores, our judges but we cannot protect our children? Give me a break we spend billions on so called education where parents are asked to bring toilet paper and supplies and we cannot protect our children. How many more children have to die before something that will actually help is done. For now many are just content with the issue until they get their goal of banning weapons . This last evil shooter chose this church school because her other considered target had TOO MUCH security. When the dust settles on this story I believe we just might find this trans issue was involved in the motive.

 

[JosephZ]

IMO we have two types of people pushing this 1. Those in government and civilian life who know full well banning guns will never stop evil people from doing evil things . Those are intent on have total control over the populace and change our form of government to accommodate that goal . 400 million guns in the hands of the people is an obstacle to that goal. 2. Then we have those that through emotion and lack of knowledge react by calling for gun bans because they mistakenly think that will fix the problem.

There's another group which is larger than the two you mentioned combined. Those who don't expect additional gun regulations to stop all firearm violence, but know taking further action will greatly reduce the number of firearm injuries and deaths.

 

[Postvieww]

There's another group which is larger than the two you mentioned combined. Those who don't expect additional gun regulations to stop all firearm violence, but know taking further action will greatly reduce the number of firearm injuries and deaths.

I noticed no mention of what “further action” actually means or how said action would actually work. We had an assault weapon ban in place a few years back and a government study showed no measurable affect on crime. If further action means increased security at soft targets and greater awareness and more public involvement in reporting to authorities people with mental issues that usually show signs of a problem before they act that would be a good thing . But generic “further action “ is undefined and not a solution. I’ll stick with two groups I mentioned. If further action is undefined there is no way to determine that it will save lives!

 

[JosephZ]

I noticed no mention of what “further action” actually means or how said action would actually work.

I made a post earlier in the thread with a list of proposals.

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.

In addition to the list above; I would like to also see a ban on "assault style" weapons and high capacity magazines.

We had an assault weapon ban in place a few years back and a government study showed no measurable affect on crime.

That study is two decades old and only included data prior to and during the early years of the ban. It stated that it wasn't conclusive and that future studies would be needed. Since then numerous studies have shown that the assault weapons ban along with the ban on high capacity magazines did reduce gun violence and deaths. Below are a few of those studies:

• University of Massachusetts researcher Louis Klarevas, author of the book “Rampage Nation,” found that the number of gun massacres dropped by 37 percent and the number of gun massacre deaths feel by 43 percent while the ban was in effect compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed in 2004, those numbers dramatically rose – a 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.
• A 2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery found that, based on data from 1981 to 2017, there were fewer mass-shooting deaths while the ban was in place.
• A 2017 study in the Journal of Urban Health observed that law enforcement recovery of assault weapons fell nationwide while the ban was in base, indicating that they were used in fewer crimes, but increased after the ban expired.
• A 2021 Northwestern University study found the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) — that included a ban on large capacity magazines (limiting the number and caliber of bullets) — from 1994 to 2004 — resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths and number of gun injuries.

 

[Postvieww]

• 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.

1. Every gun purchase I have made required the FBI background check first. Not against it ,but how is more laws on this point going to affect the criminal and guns on the street changing hands. Truth is it will have no affect at on on the criminal.
2. Again how can this be enforced on the criminal? Truth is it cannot.
3. Requiring license and registration for each gun owed is the first step in gun confiscation and again will have no affect on the criminal and will only be a hardship on law abiding citizens opening the door for burdensome taxes or worse.
4. Minimum age not a bad thing but again it will have no affect on the criminal.
5. Training already required for most concealed carry license . Again no affect on the criminal.
6. A letter from a doctor to say you are sane??? If one cannot see the multiple problems that can arise from this someone is not thinking this thru to its logical conclusion. Again no affect on the criminal.

Tell me why is the first response alway a cry for more gun control when the most obvious solution that can have an impact and REALLY save lives is more security in places like our schools. Our children are worth protecting. This last tragedy potentially could have been stopped when the woman shot her way through the door by an armed secrurity guard but not one of your above proposals would have stopped this determined evil murder minded woman from caring out her mission. If a person cannot obtain a gun legally they will find a way to obtain one illegally.

 

[Postvieww]

That study is two decades old and only included data prior to and during the early years of the ban. It stated that it wasn't conclusive and that future studies would be needed. Since then numerous studies have shown that the assault weapons ban along with the ban on high capacity magazines did reduce gun violence and deaths. Below are a few of those studies:

The Federal Government’s Own Study Concluded Its Ban on 'Assault Weapons' Didn't Reduce Gun Violence | Jon Miltimore

The Department of Justice funded a study to analyze the government's previous ban on "assault weapons." The DOJ noted that decline in the use of assault weapons "was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns.”

fee.org

From the above article:

"Researchers noted there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms classified as assault weapons, but noted “the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns.”

Guns are not the problem people are!

 

[JosephZ]

From the above article:

"Researchers noted there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms classified as assault weapons, but noted “the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns.”

Like I said, that study is two decades old. At the time it was done, the ban was still in place. Here is what is written at the end of the study:

The effects of the AW-LCM ban have yet to be fully realized; therefore, we recommend continued study of trends in the availability and criminal use of AWs and LCMs. Even if the ban is lifted, longer-term study of crimes with AWs and LCMs will inform future assessment of the consequences of these policy shifts and improve understanding of the responses of gun markets to gun legislation more generally.

It goes on to say:

If the ban is lifted, it is likely that gun and magazine manufacturers will reintroduce AW models and LCMs, perhaps in substantial numbers. In addition, AWs grandfathered under the 1994 law may lose value and novelty, prompting some of their lawful owners to sell them in secondary markets, where they may reach criminal users. Any resulting increase in crimes with AWs and LCMs might increase gunshot victimizations, though this effect could be difficult to discern statistically. It is also possible, and perhaps probable, that new AWs and LCMs will eventually be used to commit mass murder. Mass murders garner much media attention, particularly when they involve AWs (Duwe, 2000). The notoriety likely to accompany mass murders if committed with AWs and LCMs, especially after these guns and magazines have been deregulated, could have a considerable negative impact on public perceptions, an effect that would almost certainly be intensified if such crimes were committed by terrorists operating in the U.S.

I noticed a RAND study was mentioned in the link you provided. Here are some excerpts from that one:

The study found the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) — that included a ban on large capacity magazines (limiting the number and caliber of bullets) — from 1994 to 2004 — resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths and number of gun injuries.

The bans [On assault weapons and high capacity magazines] could impact firearm-related violence by decreasing the number of shooting incidents, decreasing the number of casualties in a given shooting, and decreasing the incident casualty rate. That is, other things being equal, a shooter with an assault weapon or other semiautomatic weapon equipped with a high-capacity magazine can fire more ammunition and hence inflict more casualties in a given length of time than would a shooter using weapons with a lower rate of fire and capacity. In a mass shooting incident, the lower rate of fire should allow for more people to evacuate and for law enforcement or others to intervene more easily. To most precisely characterize the causal effect of these laws on violent crime or mass shootings, the ideal data would distinguish crime and violence outcomes by whether a designated assault weapon or highcapacity magazine was used.

There is little theoretical or logical basis to suggest that bans of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would impact rates of suicide or unintentional injury. And although these policies could plausibly impact defensive gun use, the magnitudes of any such effects are likely small. The FBI reported that, in 2017, just six of the 353 firearm-related justifiable homicides by private citizens involved any type of rifle.

We identified four qualifying studies that estimated the effects of state assault weapon bans on different aspects of mass shootings. Gius (2015c) found that these bans significantly reduce mass shooting deaths but have uncertain effects on injuries resulting from mass shootings. Using similar models, however, Gius (2018) found that assault weapon bans resulted in significantly fewer casualties (deaths and nonfatal injuries) from school shootings. Using a data set similar to that used in Gius (2015c), Luca, Malhotra, and Poliquin (2016) found uncertain effects of state assault weapon bans on the annual incidence of mass shootings. And Blau, Gorry, and Wade (2016) found that the bans significantly reduced the annual incidence of mass shootings.

Using a Poisson model and data from 1982 through 2011, Gius (2015c) tested whether state assault weapon bans influence public mass shooting fatalities or public mass shooting injuries, controlling for the federal assault weapon ban and state-level variation in demographic, socioeconomic, and criminal justice characteristics. Findings showed that state assault weapon bans had a statistically significant but smaller effect of reducing mass shooting death rates to 55 percent of what would have been expected without the bans, but results indicated uncertain effects on mass shooting injuries.

Using data from 1990 to 2014, the study showed that the presence of a state or federal assault weapon ban (these were collapsed into one dichotomous indicator) was significantly associated with a 54-percent reduction in the number of school shooting victims.

We did not identify any research that met our inclusion criteria and examined the effects of assault weapon or high-capacity magazine bans on the following outcomes:

• suicide
• unintentional injuries and deaths
• officer-involved shootings
• defensive gun use
• hunting and recreation.

Additional Findings on other Gun control measures:

• Available evidence supports the conclusion that child-access prevention laws, or safe storage laws, reduce self-inflicted fatal or nonfatal firearm injuries — including unintentional and intentional self-injuries — among youth. Evidence also supports the conclusions that such laws reduce firearm homicides among youth.
• There is supportive evidence that stand-your-ground laws are associated with increases in firearm homicides and moderate evidence that such laws increase the total number of homicides.
• There is supportive evidence that "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws increase both total and firearm homicides.
• There is moderate evidence that state laws prohibiting gun ownership by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders decrease total and firearm-related intimate partner homicides.
• There is moderate evidence that background check requirements reduce homicides.
• There is moderate evidence that waiting periods reduce firearm suicides and total homicides.
• There is moderate evidence that more-restrictive minimum age of purchase laws reduce firearm suicide.

 

[FireDragon76]

Speaking from a biblical perspective this is my viewpoint on the gun debate. Christians should be for gun rights. Why? Because guns are used for hunting and the Bible justifies hunting.

The Bible is ambiguous on this matter, and doesn't directly address the ethics of hunting or owning weapons. The Jews were pastoralists, not hunters. Judaism traditionally takes a negative view of hunting for sport, as well.

There's a documentary about the Rev. Rob Shenck exploring American Evangelicals and gun culture, called The Armor of Light. He explores the fear that underpins alot of American gun culture.

 

[FireDragon76]

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

There's precious little in the Christian tradition that really justifies taking up arms against the government, even though that concept might be shocking to Americans to learn.

The founders of the United States weren't relying upon religion to justify their armed rebellion, they relied upon secular humanism.

Christians are supposed to be looking forward to the Peaceable Kingdom, the vision of the prophet Isaiah, when the lion shall lay with the lamb, and swords will be beaten into ploughs.

 

[FireDragon76]

View attachment 329157

The pistol grip and magazine placement means it can be used in close quarters much easier than the Ruger Mini 14. Which is why you don't see guns like the Ruger Mini 14 in active shooter incidents.

 

[public hermit]

There's precious little in the Christian tradition that really justifies taking up arms against the government, even though that concept might be shocking to Americans to learn.

The founders of the United States weren't relying upon religion to justify their armed rebellion, they relied upon secular humanism.

Christians are supposed to be looking forward to the Peaceable Kingdom, the vision of the prophet Isaiah, when the lion shall lay with the lamb, and swords will be beaten into ploughs.

Agreed. It's amazing that Christians don't seem to understand. Jesus was clear, when being interrogated by Pilot, that his kingdom is not of this world. If it were, his followers would have fighting to keep him from being handed over. But since it is not, the use of force against the kingdoms of this world was not fitting.

"But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.’ Pilate asked him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’ Pilate asked him, ‘What is truth?’" John 18

We seem to have a really hard time listening to him and believing his power, which works through love and not violence, is greater than the powers available in this world.

 

[FireDragon76]

Agreed. It's amazing that Christians don't seem to understand. Jesus was clear, when being interrogated by Pilot, that his kingdom is not of this world. If it were, his followers would have fighting to keep him from being handed over. But since it is not, the use of force against the kingdoms of this world was not fitting.

"But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.’ Pilate asked him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’ Pilate asked him, ‘What is truth?’" John 18

We seem to have a really hard time listening to him and believing his power, which works through love and not violence, is greater than the powers available in this world.

You can blame "fire insurance" religion, I guess.

I'm not saying there's never a case for a Christian participating in armed conflict, of course. But not liking tea and stamp taxes doesn't seem like adequate justification.

 

[public hermit]

You can blame "fire insurance" religion, I guess.

I'm not saying there's never a case for a Christian participating in armed conflict, of course. But not liking tea and stamp taxes doesn't seem like adequate justification.

The idea that as a follower of Christ I need to prepare for an armed conflict with the government when no such conflict is on the horizon seems even less compelling.

 

[JacksBratt]

I've heard you can modify clips and tape them together pretty easily to make it high capacity. But let's just keep chipping away slowly at the 2nd amendment. Until only single shot firearms are the only legal guns left. And what are you going to say when a family out in the country gets shot up by Mexican cartel members with
Ak -47's . When the police finally arrive they find the whole family dead with the Father clutching a musket in his hands. Maybe his family might have been saved if he were allowed to protect his family with a semi automatic firearm instead of a musket. The criminals don't care about gun laws. Felons are not allowed to possess any firearm. Machine guns are already illegal for civilians. Be happy with that. Provide gun training for teachers . Arm them. Hire security guards. I hear stories from old timers saying they used to bring guns to school and go hunting right after class. Semi automatic firearms been legal for a long time. Did these school shootings happen alot between
1920-1997 ??? Why not ? Something else going on in the world.

Absolute truth.

The governments of the US and Canada want to use the high crime rates as a springboard to make guns the villain... in order to make naive people believe that guns need to go.... In order to disarm the people... in order to be able to remove more and more rights and freedoms with absolutely no strong resistance.

Look at what Justin Trudeau did to "his people" when they had one of the most peaceful protests ever on that large of a scale... And that protest was for mask mandates... They cleaned the streets and had bouncy castles... He froze their bank accounts and trampled them with horses...

Enacted our Emergencies act.. cause they honked their horns at him

Imagine what would happen if they remove the right to own property, worship, own a ICE vehicle, eat meat, farm, travel, ... The last thing they want is people to be able to resist.

These governments want an unarmed public.. bar none. This is real.

 

[JacksBratt]

And remember there is such thing as corruption in this world. That shooting a few years ago in Vegas seems suspicious. The pictures inside that hotel room seemed staged. Too manys guns too many shell casings. I wonder if the real killer was a government worker , maybe FBI. They murdered that Paddock dude and blamed him. They did this only to try and achieve their goal of banning guns. I know it's a conspiracy theory.

Yep, now they just let crime rates rise, lower funding for police... and then say " guns are the problem"

A young man was just stabbed to death in Toronto.... Haven't heard a cry for banning of knives...