Christians and Firearms

[Neogaia777]

Normally you would be right, but this is a situation where innocent people are dying and we have an obligation to try to change that, especially when it costs us nothing but a few pointless guns that nobody needs anyway. We...our society, is killing innocent children.

We need to stop.

Sure guns aren't the crux of the problem, but what in God's name do we need them for? They're not protecting us, they're killing us.

People in other areas might not "need them" anymore, or see a need for them anymore, but some of us live in places where they still see a lot of use, and are still "very necessary" as far as we are concerned, etc, and is something we would like to pass on to our children as a part of life that we think teaches them some very, very valuable lessons, like where their food actually comes from, and at what price, or the prices or true costs involved in that, etc...

And we'd like to teach them a thing or two about "survival", and how to survive as well, and what it really means to be truly independent, etc, which is supposed to be a part of being an "American" I think, etc...

We also don't like it when we all become way, way too dependent on just only the system, or just only the government to always provide only always, etc, and we don't think our children should 100% totally adopt those views either, etc, but should still know something about "living off the land", and/or providing for yourself, etc, which includes guns, and some survival knowledge and/or skills about surviving also, etc...

That entire culture could be 100% completely lost forever if we take everybody's guns away, etc, and is akin to a kind of "cultural genocide" to us, etc...

If certain restrictions actually worked, then I'd say let's impose them, etc, but many states have already tried it and it has been shown that they really do not work, etc, but that the only solution to keep us from seeing it, etc, would be to take all guns away, and everybody's guns away, etc, and you can't expect us to accept that, can you...?

I'd like to see different rules or laws or restrictions maybe, that were for heavily populated urban areas, but that also were not imposed for much more rural or country areas, etc...

Or the age limit for firearms be increased federally to 21, etc, and that parents who had firearms that got into the hands of their children doing something like this, or these kinds of tragedies that we see, if they were younger than 21, be able to be sued, or criminally prosecuted, or put into jail or prison, etc, so that they would be much more "encouraged", to make sure that doesn't ever happen with their kids, etc, and so that they would teach them and/or educate them properly, and so they would be forced to be personally responsible for them in that area personally, etc, up to 21 years of age, etc...

Anyway, there has to be other ways, and other solutions other than taking everybody's guns away, and taking them all away everywhere period for forever after that period, etc, because you can't expect us to accept that, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I posted this just now in another thread as my proposed solution for now, etc...

As far as guns getting into the hands of our children is concerned, I just suggested raising the federal age limit for firearm ownership to 21, and making parents personally and directly responsible for their own kids and their own firearms in that area, etc...

This would make it so that parents could still take their own kids out and teach and educate them about guns and shooting them, etc, but when they got home, then if the parents were smart and truly responsible (and if there were some serious consequences for them if they didn't do it, etc) the guns would be kept with the parents, and locked up, or have locks on them, that only the parents had the keys to, and/or knew where they keys were or are to them period, etc...

This would keep all children/people from being able to legally have and possess their own firearms until they were 21, etc, and would make the only place their kids younger than that could get them or have access to them, from only other parents or adult hands who could be put in jail or prison if their kids ever did anything like this, or if any kids period maybe, that got access to them by other adults hands who were over 21, but didn't keep them locked up and/or put away properly period, etc...

I think something like this could solve/resolve a lot of the problems with our children having open access to firearms, etc...

I think anywhere you have kids and guns together in the same house, all firearms should always be kept with the parents, and locked up so that only they ever have direct access to them at all whenever they wanted to at all period, etc....

And making some laws around that, is probably much more reasonable and acceptable than taking everyone's guns away period, etc...

Parents, or adults over 21, would need to keep them locked up, or locked, at all times in the house, or in any house whenever or wherever any children ever come into them, or are ever present in them, or could ever have open access to them period, or else face the consequences, period, etc....

And if the parents or adults over 21 ever choose to break those laws, period, then they will have to face the consequences of those laws if anything ever happens with either their own, or with those children, period, etc, and this would hopefully encourage them not to ever do that ever, period, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I posted this just now in another thread as my proposed solution for now, etc...

As far as guns getting into the hands of our children is concerned, I just suggested raising the federal age limit for firearm ownership to 21, and making parents personally and directly responsible for their own kids and their own firearms in that area, etc...

This would make it so that parents could still take their own kids out and teach and educate them about guns and shooting them, etc, but when they got home, then if the parents were smart and truly responsible (and if there were some serious consequences for them if they didn't do it, etc) the guns would be kept with the parents, and locked up, or have locks on them, that only the parents had the keys to, and/or knew where they keys were or are to them period, etc...

This would keep all children/people from being able to legally have and possess their own firearms until they were 21, etc, and would make the only place their kids younger than that could get them or have access to them, from only other parents or adult hands who could be put in jail or prison if their kids ever did anything like this, or if any kids period maybe, that got access to them by other adults hands who were over 21, but didn't keep them locked up and/or put away properly period, etc...

I think something like this could solve/resolve a lot of the problems with our children having open access to firearms, etc...

I think anywhere you have kids and guns together in the same house, all firearms should always be kept with the parents, and locked up so that only they ever have direct access to them at all whenever they wanted to at all period, etc....

And making some laws around that, is probably much more reasonable and acceptable than taking everyone's guns away period, etc...

Parents, or adults over 21, would need to keep them locked up, or locked, at all times in the house, or in any house whenever or wherever any children ever come into them, or are ever present in them, or could ever have open access to them period, or else face the consequences, period, etc....

And if the parents or adults over 21 ever choose to break those laws, period, then they will have to face the consequences of those laws if anything ever happens with either their own, or with those children, period, etc, and this would hopefully encourage them not to ever do that ever, period, etc...

God Bless!

I'm now doing this in two threads now, lol...

Or rather make it so that anyone over the age of 21, and who has firearms in their house, or dwelling place, and does not keep them locked, or locked up, and who does not allow anyone under the age of 21 to know where their key is, or have their key(s), make it so that they could face some very serious prison time, if anyone who is under the age of 21, and who is invited into their house, and who is under the age of 21, ever gets into their house and gets ahold of them (their firearms, etc) (that were not locked up or secured, etc) could face some very serious prison time, and probably a national beating from the public, if they somehow get their firearms that were not locked, or locked up, and commits some kind of great atrocity with them, etc, anyway, make it so that there could be some very very serious, and very lengthy, very serious legal consequences for that, (prison time), if it ever happens, or of it is ever allowed to happen through their great negligence, etc...

And not to mention the probably even more severe, and serious, beating and/or outcry from the public that they would have to live with for probably the rest of their lives after that, if they were to ever allow that to happen, etc...

Anyway, despite that, etc...

I think you get what I am saying, etc...

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but make some laws like that, etc...

Everything short of a break in that they couldn't have possibly been made aware of, etc, anyway, make some laws like that, etc...

(Let the lawyers pound out all the rest of the details, etc)...

(It's what we pay them for, after all, etc)...

God Bless!

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think people should be free to own firearms unless they've demonstrated themselves a danger to the public. Christians are not an exception to this. The idea that only the modern nation state should have firearms is gross in concept to me.

 

[partinobodycular]

I think people should be free to own firearms unless they've demonstrated themselves a danger to the public.

You don't get it. It's not about whether you or I can handle a firearm responsibly. It's about whether we as a society have demonstrated the ability to handle them responsibly. It's about whether we can keep them out of the hands of people who will misuse them. If we can, then fine, I say let anyone who wants to own one own one. But clearly we can't, and for this reason, we being responsible citizens must do the things that we might otherwise abhor...we must relinquish our rights and our arms for the good of others.

Society comes with more than just rights, it comes with responsibilities, and sometimes those two things conflict, at which point we need to decide which we value more, our rights or the well-being of our neighbors. Hopefully someday we'll have a society in which we don't have to worry about who's child is going to die next. At which point I won't care whether or not my neighbor owns a gun. Because it simply won't matter. But until then the responsible among us must do that which we would rather not, we must impinge upon the rights of ourselves and perhaps more regrettably upon the rights of our neighbors. Because the only other option seems to be to let more innocent people die.

 

[Neogaia777]

I posted this as a continuation of what I was saying in another thread and thought I should post it here...

Well, what I proposed would keep them from having to ban certain kinds of weapons, or place certain kinds of restrictions on them (magazine restrictions, etc) but would go a whole heck of a lot further than either one of those ever would I think, in keeping people over 21 responsible for them, and keeping them out of the hands of those under 21 I think, by severely restricting/limiting their open access to them that they seem to have so very easily a lot of time right now, etc...

I mean, who wants to be the idiot over 21, who, when a law was passed saying they have to lock them up, and greatly restrict access to the keys, etc, anyway, who wants to be the idiot who, when a law or some laws were passed like that, their unsecured guns falls into the hands of a less than 21 year old who then commits some kind of great atrocity with them, and then has to go to jail and/or prison for a while, and then who also has to then also, live with that for the rest of their lives in the face of the rest of the American public also for the rest of their lives, etc...?

Because I certainly know that I "wouldn't want be that guy", etc, or man, or woman, or person, or family, etc...

Because you'd think that might be a "pretty good deterrant", etc, because I know it most certainly would be for me, etc...

And you wouldn't necessarily have to place bans on so-called assault style weapons or restrict magazine capacities right now to do it right now either, etc...

We are only talking about upping the age limit and holding gun owners above that age limit responsible for those below that age limit should they fall into their hands and they commit some kind of great atrocity/crime with them that was easily preventable by those above that age limit had they been obeying the law and taking those laws seriously concerning those below that age limit, etc...

And we'd do this with some pretty severe consequences for those above that age limit if anything should happen with their guns by those below that age limit, etc...

And then the public if we had those kinds of laws in place, etc, OMW the public would all but crucify them over and over again for the rest of their life if anything ever happened like that ever again after that, etc...

Sounds pretty reasonable for now to me, etc...?

Enough to make anyone think twice about it I would think, etc...

And we could do this while also making efforts to solve the real problems for them even ever happening in the first place, with people of all ages in this country, as well, etc...

But hopefully with this at least, we'd see a very great reduction in them being done in schools, or by 18 year olds against other 17-18 year olds still in high school, etc...

God Bless!

 

[dogs4thewin]

Well that's a bit of a non sequitur. Americans accept that people will die in various manners, but they weigh the benefits of those activities against that inevitable loss of life, and then do their best to mitigate them. Americans do that with almost everything.

In other words, people choose which deaths they're willing to accept, and in the case of gun deaths Americans have decided that 45,000 gun deaths per year are a perfectly acceptable price to pay. They may care, but they don't care enough to actually do anything about it, they'd rather let them die. It's a conscious choice. When you advocate for gun ownership you're advocating for people to die.

or are you advocating for people to live? One way or another (especially here) there will be guns. People who wish harm on others will use other means if there are no guns, so is it better for "good" people to have the right to defend themselves or for the only people that have guns by the people who want to do harm to others?

 

[partinobodycular]

One way or another (especially here) there will be guns. People who wish harm on others will use other means if there are no guns, so is it better for "good" people to have the right to defend themselves or for the only people that have guns by the people who want to do harm to others?

Obviously, in a world in which a small number of people can inflict an egregious amount of harm on others, the best option is for only those people with a demonstrable need should be allowed to own guns.

I agree in principle that a free people should have the right to own guns, but not when that right comes at the cost of other people's right to live in safe and secure communities. The latter right outweighs the former.

The argument that by outlawing gun ownership one guarantees that only bad guys will have guns overlooks the fact that the bad guys already own guns. So it's not like they would subsequently have more guns. It simply assumes that the only thing deterring them from using those guns, are good guys with guns. But is that really the case? It assumes that policemen with guns aren't enough to deter them, and that only us well armed civilians can possibly keep them in check.

But this makes me wonder, how did those other countries like Australia possibly manage to survive the onslaught of crime that must have inevitably followed their outlawing of gun ownership? It must have been a miracle.

You wanna know what I think? I think that bad guys buy guns, not so much to facilitate crimes, but for the same reason that most good guys buy guns, to protect themselves from bad guys with guns. So we're all buying guns to protect ourselves from somebody else that's got a gun. And the bad guys mostly end up shooting other bad guys. And the kid in the hood has to buy a gun to protect himself from the other kids in the hood who had to buy a gun for the exact same reason, and the cycle just keeps repeating itself. And the only way to stop it is to make it harder to get guns. Then the policeman doesn't have to shoot the black kid every time he makes an even remotely threatening move, and the subsequent riots don't have to tear our society apart.

So how about we do this, we outlaw gun ownership for ten years. We confiscate as many guns as we can, we compensate their owners, and then at the end of the ten years we have a vote about whether to extend the ban. If we vote no then the previous owners will be allowed to buy them back. Or we may vote to allow some types of guns but not all of them. Then we can begin to lay to rest some of the dire predictions about all of the evil that outlawing gun ownership will cause, and we may just find that we really didn't need all of those guns after all.

 

[Astrid]

Do you believe that your your right to feel safe trumps my right, and my family's right to feel safe without having to arm ourselves everywhere we go, in our schools, and in our churches, and in our supermarkets?

Such a silly strawman

 

[partinobodycular]

Such a silly strawman

Would you at least agree that the gun ownership debate is replete with strawman arguments on both sides?

 

[Astrid]

Would you at least agree that the gun ownership debate is replete with strawman arguments on both sides?

Of course.
So dont add to it or invent things about me!

 

[partinobodycular]

Would you at least agree that the gun ownership debate is replete with strawman arguments on both sides?

Of course.

Great. Would you also agree that people have the right to live their lives without the fear of being gunned down in their supermarkets, schools, and churches?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Not a trick question, I'm legitimately curious what responses I'll receive to this. I just read about the church shooting in California. Someone cited in the article said their church is one of the largest in the country and they have many parishioners who carry firearms in service along with police presence. Got me thinking.

Do you think Christians should own and/or carry firearms?

I voted other... I currently have a SAKO TRG 22 Stealth 308 with tripod muzzle break and Leopold Mark4 8-25 with tactical mill rectical. I also had a Smith and Wesson M&P 9mm hand gun with a trijicon scope. I only purchased them to use them as a sport and hobby for long distance target shooting for the rifle (up to 1km) and short distance (50m) for the pistol. I recently sold my pistol and haven't used my rifle for a while now so thinking of selling it as well. I never purchased these for self protection and would never dream of using them on anyone. I like it as a sport although we are living a little far from the range now so do not have much use and time for it. As Christians I do not think God wants us to have these for self defense.

God bless

 

[Rajni]

Ok, I want to pose this question right now for all, ok...?

Do you think it is truly right to blame gun posession/ownership as the true real source of the problem in situations like this or tragedies like this, etc...?

Yes or No...?

I would say no. In fact, gun ownership averted what would have been yet another shooting at a crowd in West Virginia. I posted a thread about it a few days ago. What's interesting is that while MSNBC and CNN seem to have been completely silent about this event, it's been reported in other news sources as far away as India.

Police: Woman killed man who fired rifle into party crowd


-

 

[Walk together]

Not a trick question, I'm legitimately curious what responses I'll receive to this. I just read about the church shooting in California. Someone cited in the article said their church is one of the largest in the country and they have many parishioners who carry firearms in service along with police presence. Got me thinking.

Do you think Christians should own and/or carry firearms?

I believe every adult of sound mind and physical ability should carry a handgun at all times as this would dramatically reduce the frequency and volume of hate shootings. It's a pity that psychiatrists and medical professionals have no way of determining the people that can be trusted in society.

 

[o_mlly]

Do you think Christians should own and/or carry firearms?

The answer is the same as the answer to, "Do Christians have a right to self-defense?"

"The issue is about using guns as self defence in a domestic context.

Home invasion news headlines

In the year ended April 2021, around 2.4 percent of households in Australia had experienced a home burglary.

 

[partinobodycular]

In the year ended April 2021, around 2.4 percent of households in Australia had experienced a home burglary.

Funny thing though guns in homes are six times as likely to be used against one of it's own members as it is to be used against anyone else. Maybe people should consider that the next time they're thinking about buying a gun for protection. The gun most likely to be used against your loved ones...is yours.

 

[Darkhorse]

Funny thing though guns in homes are six times as likely to be used against one of it's own members as it is to be used against anyone else. Maybe people should consider that the next time they're thinking about buying a gun for protection. The gun most likely to be used against your loved ones...is yours.

That's odd. I grew up around guns, and I have owned a gun since I was 11 years old. I have slept with one under my pillow for over 35 years and I carry one almost everywhere I go. In all that time, none of these terrible, horrible guns have injured or even threatened anyone in my family. I don't understand it...

 

[o_mlly]

Funny thing though guns in homes are six times as likely to be used against one of it's own members as it is to be used against anyone else.

Interesting statistic. Can you give a citation to the study?

 

[Astrid]

You don't get it. It's not about whether you or I can handle a firearm responsibly. It's about whether we as a society have demonstrated the ability to handle them responsibly. It's about whether we can keep them out of the hands of people who will misuse them. If we can, then fine, I say let anyone who wants to own one own one. But clearly we can't, and for this reason, we being responsible citizens must do the things that we might otherwise abhor...we must relinquish our rights and our arms for the good of others.

Society comes with more than just rights, it comes with responsibilities, and sometimes those two things conflict, at which point we need to decide which we value more, our rights or the well-being of our neighbors. Hopefully someday we'll have a society in which we don't have to worry about who's child is going to die next. At which point I won't care whether or not my neighbor owns a gun. Because it simply won't matter. But until then the responsible among us must do that which we would rather not, we must impinge upon the rights of ourselves and perhaps more regrettably upon the rights of our neighbors. Because the only other option seems to be to let more innocent people die.

What dangerous things do ,"we" all handle 100% responsibly?