Gun Control Debate

[Jamdoc]

Fair enough. I know lots of people that enjoy the use of firearms for such recreation. This is just another use of a very safe non violent device.

Many things on this earth are very useful and a form of tool or recreation for the vast majority of those that use them.

Many things on this earth are used for violent and evil actions... by those that are evil..... that are otherwise devices used daily by the vast majority of people.

Yup I'll always support hunters even though I don't think I could do it myself unless I was starving, not that I can physically hike around anymore anyway.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yup I'll always support hunters even though I don't think I could do it myself unless I was starving, not that I can physically hike around anymore anyway.

I come from a hunting family. The killing part is but a very small, however necessary step. The fellowship with others. The time in nature and the beauty of all the other sites you see while hunting.. is what draws me.

The meat is great.. you cannot get it anywhere else.. but.. when all is said and done.. it's not cheaper than store bought.

It is physical and the weather can be nasty.. cleaning the animal is not for the squeamish either.

 

[rturner76]

This is not going to be a good system for the vast majority of the populous of our great countries. They want a defenseless and helpless population.

I'm sure "they" would but I would also like to see and end to mass shootings. Don't know how to accomplish this though

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm sure "they" would but I would also like to see and end to mass shootings. Don't know how to accomplish this though

That is a tough one. Sad to hear of them.
I guess they would have to find the motivation for them. It would be a start.
Doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason from what we hear up here in Canada.

You could have every single teacher and staff at any school required to carry a sidearm and be trained how to use it.

This may be met with backlash... but think about it... They would never ever have to use it.... unless they needed to.
If they needed to... they would be super glad to have it and be trained to use it.. to stop the violence.

And... if every single teacher and staff person at a school was packing.. and trained... what kid is going to take a chance at taking a gun in there.

It's like carrying an epinephrine pen.. for anaphylactic shock from allergies..

You may carry it for 75 years and never need it... But... one person is choking to death and you have it.. you can save their life.

I totally agree with the right to bear arms.
However, I also believe that there has to be more background checks and control of who can legally have them.

We all know that there are people who get them legally .... and it leaves us uneasy.

Canada is pretty strict.. too strict. The US could step it up a bit in some states.

 

[rturner76]

I totally agree with the right to bear arms.
However, I also believe that there has to be more background checks and control of who can legally have them.

That's the thing. It's like we want to protect ourselves but with every teacher carrying a gun what is to stop a teacher from blasting away their students? I understand that people who want to mass shoot, go for places where guns are banned so there is less of a chance that someone will shoot back. Then, do we want multiple shooters on the scene? Bullets flying everywhere and hitting bystanders is also a hard way to go. I think people should be able to guard their homes but I question whether people should be allowed to shoot up a mall when someone draws a gun. Is it run and hide or shoot back considering innocent bystanders?

 

[Neogaia777]

I used to have and keep guns (or a gun or two) around for very different reasons than I have or would keep them around for now, now they are mainly for recreation and for any possible survival situations that might be coming really soon, or very possibly very soon maybe, etc.

Nowadays I expect a total societal/economic/national/global collapse at any given time, or at any given moment, etc, and that's why I would have them or keep them around now, etc.

Self-defense and hunting in situations like those or like that mainly, etc.

God Bless!

 

[JacksBratt]

That's the thing. It's like we want to protect ourselves but with every teacher carrying a gun what is to stop a teacher from blasting away their students?

You have got to be kidding.. That's when you move to another country.... how do you vet your teachers?

If it gets to that point... the teacher in the next room would have to end them.

I understand that people who want to mass shoot, go for places where guns are banned so there is less of a chance that someone will shoot back. Then, do we want multiple shooters on the scene?

Better to have even one good guy and one bad guy than just one bad guy and a bunch hiding from them.
The more good guys the better.

Bullets flying everywhere and hitting bystanders is also a hard way to go.

That is true... That's what the training is for.
Then it's a choice of:
1/ guaranteed multiple deaths with no chance but to wait for police.. or
2/ much lower chance of an incident in the first place.. but if so.. the slim chance of collateral damage with training.

I think people should be able to guard their homes but I question whether people should be allowed to shoot up a mall when someone draws a gun. Is it run and hide or shoot back considering innocent bystanders?

I think that the best defense would be "run and hide" even when armed. Then.. use safe tactics to take them out.
Still, IMO, it is better to have a short shoot out than a 20 minute or 60 minute rampage of some wack job shooting fish in a barrel until they run out of ammo and kill themself anyway.

 

[rturner76]

Better to have even one good guy and one bad guy than just one bad guy and a bunch hiding from them.
The more good guys the better.

I don't think "good guys" and "bad guys" gets to to root of the problem. What is a teacher decides to be a "bad guy?"

1/ guaranteed multiple deaths with no chance but to wait for police.. or
2/ much lower chance of an incident in the first place.. but if so.. the slim chance of collateral damage with training.

In the 2 options, what if a teacher opens fire and shoots innocent bystanders? Should we welcome those deaths?

I think that the best defense would be "run and hide" even when armed. Then.. use safe tactics to take them out.
Still, IMO, it is better to have a short shoot out than a 20 minute or 60 minute rampage of some wack job shooting fish in a barrel until they run out of ammo and kill themself anyway

If your best defense is to run andhide, why gear up teachers to kill other students?

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't think "good guys" and "bad guys" gets to to root of the problem. What is a teacher decides to be a "bad guy?"

In the 2 options, what if a teacher opens fire and shoots innocent bystanders? Should we welcome those deaths?

If your best defense is to run andhide, why gear up teachers to kill other students?

What is the chance of a rouge teacher? Especially if they, also, are fully aware that every staff in that building is armed?

We shouldn't welcome any deaths. Sometimes people have to take radical action to avoid a much worse outcome.

What I should have said is "get to cover". It's like putting your oxygen mask on before you help others... You cannot help if your dead... So.. get to cover, plan your take down.

 

[rturner76]

What I should have said is "get to cover". It's like putting your oxygen mask on before you help others... You cannot help if your dead... So.. get to cover, plan your take down.

Teachers are usually not big into toting guns around. If you make it mandatory for all teachers to carry a gun what's to stop a student from hitting their teacher upside the head and taking their gun? A lot of questions on this issue.

 

[Postvieww]

I see Christians all over the mao when it comes to the topic of owning and using firearms to kill your neighbor.

Some say it is your right and even duty to defend the Christian way of life from the infidels. I think more Christians are pacifists and would rather take a bullet that give one.

Would you rather you and your family take bullet from an evil attacker or would you rather be able to defend yourself and those you love ? It really is a simple question? I believe scripture does say that those who do not provide for their own are worse than an infidel.

 

[rturner76]

Would you rather you and your family take bullet from an evil attacker or would you rather be able to defend yourself and those you love ? It really is a simple question? I believe scripture does say that those who do not provide for their own are worse than an infidel.

Some would rather kill or be killed and some like Jesus Christ would rather be killed than kill.

 

[Jamdoc]

Some would rather kill or be killed and some like Jesus Christ would rather be killed than kill.

Jesus wasn't telling you to lay down your life to be robbed or raped or just murdered for some sicko's twisted fetish.
Jesus told you to lay down your life for your faith.
Someone breaking into your home meaning to cause you and your family harm is not there to persecute you for your faith and your murder is a great martyrdom for the gospel. They're just looking to steal and your body being warm and able to report his crime is an inconvenience to him.

WHEN Jesus was on the Earth He didn't tell His disciples to be armed and protect themselves. He provided for them, they lacked nothing But when Jesus was going to be leaving, returning to Heaven, He told His disciples to be armed. Because He was no longer going to be providing for them the same way.
Oh God does provide, but it's the exception to the rule rather than the rule of this world. This world is cursed, and part of the curse is that God makes us provide for our own needs, showing ourselves to be inadequate. So yes, God will let someone murder you over $10 in your wallet, and it won't accomplish anything for the gospel, just a random act of violence if you don't protect yourself.

God's provision is MOSTLY in the Kingdom when He is on Earth with us again.

Until then, it's a cursed world, and part of that curse, is fending for your own food, and your own protection.

 

[rturner76]

Jesus wasn't telling you to lay down your life to be robbed or raped or just murdered for some sicko's twisted fetish.
Jesus told you to lay down your life for your faith.

If I'm not mistaken he said "lay down your life for your friends."

Someone breaking into your home meaning to cause you and your family harm is not there to persecute you for your faith and your murder is a great martyrdom for the gospel. They're just looking to steal and your body being warm and able to report his crime is an inconvenience to him.

That's why I said some would rather kill than be killed and some would rather be killed than kill. It's a choice we all have. Jesus chose to be killed rather than kill.

God will let someone murder you over $10 in your wallet, and it won't accomplish anything for the gospel, just a random act of violence if you don't protect yourself.

That's why I say God gives us the choice to kill or be killed. What I'm saying is don't feel righteous for killing someone.

 

[Jamdoc]

If I'm not mistaken he said "lay down your life for your friends."

There's a difference between risking your life to save another as a good act, and just being a victim of a crime not willing to take action to defend yourself and your family, and in your family's case, defending them is putting your life on the line to protect another.

There's nothing noble or godly about letting a home invader kill you, and your entire family.

There's a large difference between being martyred for faith (which is commendable) and just being the victim of an armed robbery that becomes homicide.

That's why I said some would rather kill than be killed and some would rather be killed than kill. It's a choice we all have. Jesus chose to be killed rather than kill.

Jesus was choosing to die for a higher cause, to take the penalty of death for all that would believe in Him. Jesus was not just being robbed. Jesus told His disciples after He left, they would need to be armed.
You're called to lay down your life for the gospel, not because someone wanted to steal a few bucks from you or carjack you.

That's why I say God gives us the choice to kill or be killed. What I'm saying is don't feel righteous for killing someone.

and there's nothing righteous about being a victim of a random crime that has nothing to do with your faith either.

But you are permitted to defend yourself in both the old testament and new when it comes to just crime.

 

[guyver]

Don't give up your guns America. Because we did and this is what we got for it during the so called pandemic.
These people were protesting against the mandates and this was the government response for that.

EXCLUSIVE: Police deploy counter-terror squad on construction workers in Melbourne

 

[JacksBratt]

If I'm not mistaken he said "lay down your life for your friends."

That's why I said some would rather kill than be killed and some would rather be killed than kill. It's a choice we all have. Jesus chose to be killed rather than kill.


That's why I say God gives us the choice to kill or be killed. What I'm saying is don't feel righteous for killing someone.

I really think it's wrong to compare why I would let myself be killed for... compared to the savior of all mankind.
Jesus came for one purpose... to die for me.. and you... and the entire human race.

Do you actually think that Jesus would repremand anyone for taking the life of someone who was trying to kill them... if that was the means it took to preserve ones one life?

 

[BurningBush84]

"“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed". Exodus 22:2

"Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to die" Proverbs 24:11

 

[rturner76]

There's a difference between risking your life to save another as a good act, and just being a victim of a crime not willing to take action to defend yourself and your family, and in your family's case, defending them is putting your life on the line to protect another

I don't disagree with this but I believe there are some Christians who refuse to kill period as in "thou shall not kill."

There's nothing noble or godly about letting a home invader kill you, and your entire family.

Many Christians believe there is nothing noble or godly in the taking of a life.

There's a large difference between being martyred for faith (which is commendable) and just being the victim of an armed robbery that becomes homicide

Yes, still many Christians believe it is wrong to take a life.

Jesus was choosing to die for a higher cause, to take the penalty of death for all that would believe in Him. Jesus was not just being robbed. Jesus told His disciples after He left, they would need to be armed.
You're called to lay down your life for the gospel, not because someone wanted to steal a few bucks from you or carjack you.

Could he have defended himself? I'm sure he could have toppled the entire Roman empire. But he chose peace. "Blessed are the peacemakers.:

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I have formed no opinion on this subject, I have done very little research but I am interested to learn about this issue.

I would like to see where Christians stand on this subject, and share why they are either opposed to citizens owning guns or in support of it.

I find the people who end up using guns to enforce their opinions are from the dregs of humanity, might as well legalize flamethrowers and poison gas while we're at it.

Because when a mob is coming, crowd control is essential.

I am not in favor of people owning guns.