Christian Goodreaders discussion

The recent Oregon community college shooting sparked a discussion, on another thread, of the issue of private ownership and use of guns; and I thought it deserves a thread of its own. Most Christians would agree that this isn't a subject explicitly dealt with in the Bible (except for Christian pacifists, who would argue that the New Testament makes a blanket prohibition of the use of ANY weapon, in which case guns would be included). But it's an issue on which Christians have a variety of strong opinions; and like our opinions on every other issue, these relate to our faith, which is the context for how we live and think in every area and issue of life.

The predictable response of the political class and news media to the Oregon tragedy, and every other mass shooting, has been to spin the story as an argument for banning privately owned guns. Interestingly, guns WERE banned from the Oregon campus, and the administration had previously rejected the idea of arming even the security guard. When an active shooter ignored the ban --which should not have been a surprise!-- the campus, like others, was a defenseless killing zone.

From a Christian standpoint, the existence of guns, either in private or government hands (and for that matter the existence of armies and police forces, and of prisons) are not positive goods in themselves; they're reflections of the utter fallenness of this world, and could not exist apart from that fallenness. Within a fallen world where some people aggressively want to kill others, mass shootings (and other shootings of innocents) have been prevented on a number of occasions by security guards or civilians who have used firearms defensively and appropriately, even though these are systematically under-reported in the media. (This, of course, isn't the same thing as brandishing a gun, or shooting without understanding the situation that you're shooting in.) I don't have links in front of me, but numerous ones can be supplied. The point also needs to be made that the type of commentary on gun violence which focuses entirely on the gun, while essentially ignoring the idea of any moral responsibility on the part of the shooter, is not an honestly complete and responsible attempt to understand the phenomenon. It is, instead, an ideologically-driven exploitation of the phenomenon to advance an agenda, and should be understood and analyzed as such.

This is a debate I see frequently on TV and social media, but rarely do I see it outside the confines of American gun violence. Imo one of the reasons for this is that there's so much more gun violence in America than in other nations (excepting those at war). I am perplexed by the whole gun issue in America, and I cannot understand why so many people seem to believe that the only way to solve American gun violence is to have more guns. It saddens me when I hear people mocking Australia's gun laws, suggesting that we have been hoodwinked into handing over our guns, even though this has saved lives.
I do agree Werner, that guns are a tool and how we use them reflects our fallen state. But they are a highly dangerous tool, and putting powerful weapons in hands of disgruntled, angry people is in my mind bizarre.
I don't think this issue will ever go away for the American people, guns are too much a part of your culture, and too connected to the faith of many for this too happen. But somehow, you need to find away to reduce the huge rate of gun violence and keep powerful guns out of the hands of those who would use them to hurt others.

I guess I come under the blanket of one of the 'pacifists', because I honestly don't understand how anyone can read the words and actions of Jesus and assume that he's fine with us all carrying guns to defend ourselves.

There are endless arguments about the fact that 'of course, Jesus would want us to defend ourselves', but the only passage in the bible where Jesus even remotely discusses being armed is when he tells the disciples to have a sword handy. Many claim this means that Jesus is just fine with weapons to defend ourselves, although this doesn't seem to be backed up by other passages, especially the very following scene, when Jesus rebukes Peter for trying to use what probably is the same sword to defend them against the soldiers coming to arrest Jesus. I therefore believe that when Jesus spoke to them about having a sword he was probably being ironic, or was simply indicating there were dangerous times ahead. This is borne out by the fact that all the disciples, except for John, died violent deaths, and the apocryphal stories that tell us this don't give any indication that they tried to defend themselves, although they do tell us very little. Certainly, the evidence of the many martyrs of the early church make it unlikely that any of them put up a fight, or very few.
When Jesus did speak of enemies, he spoke of loving them, praying for them and even assisting them (such as in carrying their packs, which would have been something the oppressive Romans forced the Jews to do). I think he suggested this, not because he wanted us to be weak and downtrodden, but because he knew there is a degree of empowerment in refusing to respond to violence with violence. However, this is a painful and difficult thing for most of us to consider, as we are hardwired to fight back and take revenge.
As far as the issue of gun control in America goes, it's such an issue because America is the civilised nation with the most gun violence. I believe this is not because there are so many guns, but because of the country's attitude towards them. They arm themselves because the constitution wants them to guard against the government in case it starts to oppress the people. I think this might have led many Americans to think of guns as a problem-solving tool, which is a dangerous thing, especially if you have mental problems. Also, the insistence that all types of firearms MUST be available with no restrictions, means that anyone has easy access to them. The common argument against restricting guns is that criminals will get them anyway. That's true, but restrictions may well ensure that people with mental problems can't, and I think it's better a gun isn't in easy reach of them when they snap.
Also, it must be remembered that gun restrictions don't mean that no one can own any sort of gun. Surely a handgun is enough to defend a family? Do people really need anything greater than that? I can't see why that is necessary.
A lot has also been said recently about some of the most recent shootings in America, and how if the people who were targeted had been armed, they would have been able to take down the attacker. However, I saw an interview from at least one person at one of these shootings who said he had been armed, but hadn't wanted to take his gun out in case someone mistook him for the shooter and shot him instead. This is the inherent problem in shooting back if you're not in a uniform. How do security and police tell you from the attacker if you're shooting too? How does another armed civilian know you're a 'good guy' and not the 'bad guy'? I think it's only a matter of time until a 'good guy' who pulls his gun out to take out the 'bad guy' is killed in a hail of bullets because people don't realise what he's doing. Sad to say, I don't think even that will change the situation in America.

Thanks for your comments, Lynne. You said so much I wanted to say, but couldn't find the words to.

No problem. I know it won't convince some people; I've argued with plenty, and it doesn't seem to make a difference. However, perhaps it might sway some people sitting on the fence.

I don't think we can change the minds of those already made up. But I've appreciated the opportunity to share my thoughts here, and be part of the debate. And it's good to know I'm not the only one out there thinking along these lines.

You're certainly not. I think even some Americans are starting to change their minds.

Those who hold strong opinions on either side of the issue usually do so for reasons that are deeply rooted in broader and more basically fundamental ways of how they view the world. Modifications in those views only come when the person is ready, and usually involve slow shifts over time, until something reaches a tipping point. Dramatic conversions are possible (like that of a former vocal "gun control" advocate after he was the victim of a mugging), but they probably aren't the norm, and don't usually result from exchanges of rational arguments. That's not to say that those discussions don't have value.

Lynne wrote: "I think it's only a matter of time until a 'good guy' who pulls his gun out to take out the 'bad guy' is killed... because people don't realize what he's doing." That certainly could happen, even though it never has yet in all of the hundreds (at least) of documented cases where defensive use of a firearm saved lives. The scenario lends itself to a couple of analogies. Both seat belts and vaccines are technologies whose proper purpose is to protect and save lives. Overwhelming statistical evidence suggests that this is their usual effect, and most people would see that as intuitive. But there certainly are cases where both have been used with a protective intention, only to result in serious injury or death for the user (due to allergic reactions, contaminated vaccines, riders being trapped in burning vehicles by their belts, etc.) Vocal opponents of seat belts and vaccines fixate on these unusual incidents and ignore the usual norm, because the bizarre exceptions are what advances their argument. And the argument is based only very secondarily on a few horror stories; it's based primarily on an ideological principle (in these cases, that requiring any kind of safety precaution is an intolerable affront to natural human liberty). The parallel in the case of defensive use of guns is exact; in the overwhelming majority of cases, proper use of guns has the desired effect, but opponents adduce horror scenarios (which in most cases would be avoidable or unlikely) in order to offset the effect of normal experience and intuition. And again the main force behind the argument is not fear of the horror scenarios per se, but the ideological conviction that pointing a gun at another person for ANY reason is immoral and/or un-Christian. (The analogy fails on one point, however; seat belt and vaccine opponents typically only want to abolish laws requiring their use, not to prohibit other people from using them. Gun opponents, however, aren't in a position of being legally forced to carry or own them; but they want to prohibit others from doing so.)

Janelle mentioned Australia's gun laws as a model for the U.S. The conventional reasoning of Americans who extol the Australian model is something like: "See, Australia has proved that if you ban guns and confiscate every one of them, no criminals can ever get them any more, so the problem is solved!" If we take that argument at face value, Australia is an island country, to which it's relatively easy to control outside access. The U.S. has very porous land borders thousands of miles long on both its north and south. Both imports of illegal drugs and illegal immigration are already nominally banned, but both flow into the country at astronomical levels. A large segment of the U.S. political class and punditocracy stridently asserts that attempting to stop either flow is absolutely impossible and should be abandoned. Interestingly, these are usually the same politicians and pundits who simultaneously claim that a legal ban on gun importation could and would be easy to enforce. The glaring contrast in the two positions invites skepticism (especially if you consider that guns are probably much easier to smuggle than human beings). Even though a ban on gun ownership in the U.S. would definitely disarm the law-abiding populace, it's incredibly counter-intuitive to assume it would effectively disarm the criminal element, terrorists, the deranged, etc.

More could be said on this topic on both sides (and undoubtedly will be), but I need to get offline soon. I'll close by noting that the thread on Christian pacifism is open, and obviously related to this one. We've had some discussion of the former here, and that's fine, because they are so interrelated; but some people might want to comment on the other thread as well, where they can perhaps explore that aspect in more depth. That link is: www.goodreads.com/topic/show/17520872... .

Genesis 9:6 - "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Luke 22:36 - "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Luke 22:38 - "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."

More could be said, but I will concentrate on two things in particular that Werner mentioned.

Both seat belts and vaccines are technologies whose proper purpose is to protect and save lives.

There is a significant difference between both of these examples and the use of firearms. That is, seat belts and vaccines are designed only to help. Yes, there are cases where vaccines have failed and have unfortunately caused death/injury to the person who has received them, but this was not why they were created and those who make them make great and continual efforts to prevent this happening.

However, guns by their design and use, while they may save, are more than likely going to kill and injure someone while doing so. That is what they're designed to do. While the threat of a gun may stop some, it's still the threat of injury or death that stops them, nothing else, and those involved in the many shootings in America this year were stopped only by death. If guns are used effectively, death or injury WILL result. That is not the case with seat belts or vaccines. Of course, people will then say, 'But it's only the bad guys getting killed, so it doesn't matter.' I'm not sure that's a sufficient argument for justifying free-for-all ownership for everyone on every type of firearm there is.

Janelle mentioned Australia's gun laws as a model for the U.S. The conventional reasoning of those who extol the Australian model is something like: "See, Australia has proved that if you ban guns and confiscate every one of them, no criminals can ever get them any more, so the problem is solved!"

The amount of times I hear people saying Australians aren't allowed to own guns! For the record, Australians can own guns, and many do. However, there are restrictions on the kinds of guns they can own, and also those with criminal records or a history of mental problems cannot own them. These seem sensible rules to me. Also, no one in Australia is naive enough to think that criminals can't get them. Of course they can. I comment on this further down in my post.

Australia is an island country, to which it's relatively easy to control outside access.

Not true. There is a significant problem with smugglers (i.e. criminals) bringing things in via the vast and therefore difficult to police borders that surround our entire country. Is it harder to bring things via boat than to jump a border? Perhaps, but it's definitely not impossible and is done frequently.

The bigger problem in America, is that while all states in Australia are usually in accord with the federal government (with certain exceptions, of course) many American states appear to be almost autonomous from their federal government. This would certainly make gun laws hard to pass and would make their effectiveness in one area difficult to measure, as while one state might have gun restrictions, what's to stop someone getting a gun from another state? It's a problem, certainly, but to then say that nothing will be done while the death toll from firearms continues to mount because it's all too hard seems an insufficient argument. Surely something should at least be attempted, especially since we're talking about people's lives.

Even though a ban on gun ownership in the U.S. would definitely disarm the law-abiding populace, it's incredibly counter-intuitive to assume it would effectively disarm the criminal element, terrorists, the deranged, etc.

A ban on gun ownership in America, for a start, is unlikely to strip every gun from everyone. Just as in Australia, if something did come into place, it would likely restrict ownership of certain types of firearms, and not let them be available to everyone.
And yes, criminals will still be able to get guns. But an extra advantage of having more stringent gun laws is that it provides something additional to charge criminals with. Australia's government can charge people for simply possessing one of these illegal firearms, thus, if they're discovered, they can take them away and often take action against the individual or group prior to a crime being committed. It provides the police with an extra bit of strength when fighting crime. It's the same with potential terrorists.
And it's not at all ridiculous to assume that it would be good if it disarmed the deranged. Not everyone who's deranged will insist on owning a semi-automatic firearm if they're not readily available. They're more likely to get one if they're as easy to buy as a loaf of bread. Also, there's the unknown quantity to worry about. Regular people have certainly been known to snap and go on killing sprees. Isn't it better that their arsenal isn't quite so deadly?

You've made some good points, Lynne.
Werner, I'm not suggesting that America should have the same gun laws as Australia, or even that guns should be banned. They're obviously an important part of American culture and lifestyle. To me the point isn't to ban guns, it's to prohibit access to powerful weapons by those who are likely to use them to harm others. I don't know know how reliable the evening news is, but one of the comments I heard recently is that there are people on the no fly list in America because of terrorism links, who would still have legal access to guns. Surely there is a way to limit access to powerful weapons by those who are a risk without infringing on the civil rights of those who aren't. Yeah ok, this would still mean that some people slip through the system and obtain guns illegally, or who engage in gun violence with no prior history. But it seems nonsensical to me that because the "bad guys" can get guns you may as well just let them have them anyway.

Werner, I've gone back and read through your original comments, and I feel like I need to clarify something. I don't have an ideological bias against guns or war. I'm a pacifist as much as possible, but I recognise that in this fallen works there are times when we need to fight. World War 2 is one example of a war that the Allies needed to fight. We couldn't very well just sit back and let Hitler and the Japanese emperor engage in megalomania.
As for guns, I grew up in a farming area where guns are a necessity. I see that guns have their place as recreational items and as tools.
So in all of my comments I'm not arguing for or against any ideology. I'm just expressing my heartache over the enormous rate of gun deaths in America and my confusion over why this seems to be tolerated and accepted. I'm also making the suggestion that perhaps more arms aren't the only way to prevent further gun massacres.

Well said, Janelle.

Thanks Lynne.
I've said fallen works in my last comment, I meant to say fallen world, but the auto correct must have caught me out. I can't edit my comments on my iPod so my mistake will just have to stay there.

Australia does not have a huge 'gun culture'. Kids generally aren't brought up learning how to shoot in urban areas - rural differs due to guns as part of culling of pests etc Giving toy guns is far less popular as a gift in recent years also.

Don't worry about your minor typo, Janelle, we know what you meant! And thanks for the helpful clarification. Your heartache is shared by Christians on both (or all) sides of the firearms issues, and I don't know of any Americans who actually view violent loss of innocent life with tolerance and acceptance. (But if there are any who do, they shouldn't!)

Lynne, I am aware that Australia doesn't have a blanket ban on gun ownership; my oldest daughter and son-in-law live in Australia, where my wife and I visited in 2007, and though my son-in-law is very anti-gun, I'm acquainted with other Aussies who own firearms. But American anti-gun advocates who hold up Australia as a model usually assume or imply (incorrectly) that it has the same total ban that they ultimately want for the U.S. In message 8 above, I was paraphrasing their usual argument (and I'll edit that comment to make the meaning clearer), and then went on to respond to that argument, "if we take [it] at face value." (Though I don't think we should, for various reasons --not least the ones you mentioned!) Also, it IS true that "It's relatively easy to control outside access" to Australia --but the key word there is "relatively" (compared to the U.S.). As you correctly pointed out, controlling boat-borne smuggling along Australia's long coastline is a significant challenge, and infractions are frequent. But they're already a lot more frequent in the U.S., and even harder to police. (This already includes illegal gun smuggling --guns can be imported into the U.S. legally, but only through licensed importers and subject to customs duties and paperwork, and criminal elements already prefer to avoid those restrictions. :-( )

Just as Americans are often poorly informed about actual Australian and European gun laws, many foreign observers have misconceptions about the laws here, as exemplified by the suggestion that guns here are "as easy to buy as a loaf of bread." It's correct that U.S. Federal gun laws are supplemented by state and local laws, some more stringent than others (and some extremely stringent). However, Federal laws regulate interstate commerce in guns, as well as retail purchases in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The National Firearms Act of 1934 barred persons convicted of violent Federal or state felonies from owning guns. To my knowledge, there is no controversy in the U.S. over that prohibition. The Gun Control Act of 1968 expanded the prohibition to include ALL felons, even nonviolent ones. (There is some debate over whether this goes too far, but not over the ban on violent offenders.) By the terms of the latter act, it is also a Federal crime to sell or transfer a gun to any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution. Every sale by licensed firearms dealers is subject to a Federally-mandated and administered background check, to enforce these prohibitions; and it is also illegal to engage in the firearms business without the license. Also, Federal law has barred civilians from owning automatic weapons ever since the 1930s. (I'm not sure if that provision is in the 1934 law cited above or another statute from the same era.) Hopefully, this factual information will supply some background perspective for our discussion.

Lynne and Janelle, you've made other points in your thoughtful and articulate posts above, which also deserve a response and which I'm not ignoring. But for now, other duties call, and I need to get offline!

Interesting discussion. The laws are only as good as we can enforce them. Our government tends to pass new laws and then ignore or half heartedly enforce existing laws while pushing for even more stringent and progressive laws to be passed all the while encroaching on American's constitutional rights. I am all for realistic solutions to problems that will actually "fix" a situation. However, many of the politicians and proponents that are taking advantage of these horrendous mass shootings aren't being intellectually honest concerning their desire to ban weapons nor the "solutions" they put forth. In reality, these would do nothing to stop these shootings.
The founding Fathers of this nation (though not perfect) did believe in God and His divine laws. They created what I believe to be one of the greatest written documents in human history: The U.S. Constitution. They foresaw a need for the populice to protect their God given rights of free speech, freedom of religion from tyranny of any kind. That is why they created in our constitution the right to keep and bear arms.
I am horrified at the mass shootings that have taken place and will continue to take place. The problem is that laws are a kneejerk reaction to a much deeper problem... The human heart. It is there that hope lies not in laws. As Christians we have the answers.

I don't usually jump in online discussions of this nature, but this thread is exceptionally good natured so I'm going to go ahead and jump :)

First, I don't own a gun (nor do I have a desire to).
i don't have a problem with anyone else owning one as long as they don't use it to commit a crime.

I believe the heart of the gun problem in USA is a spiritual one. It has just never made sense to me that making guns illegal is going to have much effect on a person with a criminal mindset.

We certainly need better regulations that would keep guns from the mentally ill. However, where there is a will there is a way.

IMO we need to help our culture have more respect for life. Without that, I don't think we can pass enough laws to make a difference.

I have an idea, instead of just making guns illegal...

...why not just make MURDER illegal?

That would eliminate gun, bladed weapon, bludgeoning weapon, strangulation, and all other forms of murder!

Wait... MURDER IS ALREADY ILLEGAL!

I guess making something illegal doesn't stop it!

Help me out here. What s the motivation to have a gun, want a gun, encourage others ( family, neighbours, friends) to have a gun in their home?
Police in Australia carry a gun and when they mingle among us we respect it and in some ways are glad it's not us who has one.

Werner, my take away from your last comment is that we are all being fed half truths by the media, depending on how reporters want to spin a story. From what I've seen, media here in Australia focusses on America's resistance to the tightening of gun laws after significant gun violence. And American media, when discussing Australian gun laws, focuses on our tighter laws, without mentioning what they actually entail. Neither are giving the full story, and many are just accepting what they are being told.
There's also a lot of misinformation being pedalled in social media. Recently a friend sent me a link on Facebook that was supposedly a letter written by an Australian police officer complaining about the rise in crime since guns were "banned" "last year", and how most Australians were against these new laws. The letter was intended to encourage Americans not to follow in the same path. It frustrated me to think that this trash, which contained barely a word of truth, was being shared and believed.

DJ, I've heard the argument quite often that the issue with gun violence lies not in the gun, but in the heart of the person who holds it. And I agree, the sinful human heart is the source of of harmful sinful behaviour. But I've often thought that while this is true, it is negligent to ignore the weapon in the criminal's hand. I'll give you an example. Person A walks into a building with several guns, with the intent kill or maim as many people as possible. Several doors up, Person B walks into another building with the same intent, but instead of carrying guns, he has several knives. In both cases, the criminals have the intent to kill. But the capacity of Person B to do so is significantly less than Person A's capacity.
My point is, while the heart matters, the weapon is important too. I would be interested to know your thoughts on this DJ (or anyone else). I've often wondered about this, but I've never had the opportunity to ask anyone.

K, I found your point very interesting. We really don't have a gun culture, do we. Several people have mentioned their constitutional rights regarding weapons, and the need to defend themselves against tyranny. And I can see why such a culture would develop in America when its founders were fleeing persecution. I just wonder why Australia didn't develop a similar culture, when our founders (the white ones anyway) were mostly convicts and their jailers. I only know one person who kept a gun for recreation, and he was viewed as an oddball. And the only time I've ever seen a gun was in the hands of a police or army officer. I know most farmers have them, but I don't ever see them. Like you I'm happy that the cops have guns and most of us don't. But this seems to be a very frightening situation for many of our American friends.

Janelle, I've seen those Facebook comments that say crime has risen drastically in Australia after the new gun laws, I was wondering if that was true. Thank you for clarifying. I have become very cynical of our own media in regards to "news". Everyone spins it.

I confess as to being uncertain what God's will is in this. I am a bit troubled by the comments that Christians make concerning support for gun rights. It's not that I'm against those rights, it's that it gives the impression of Christians supporting violence. I don't believe this is the image of Christ we want to present to the world.

However, I do understand the need for the right to bear arms. A friend of mind owned a store in a bad part of town. His store was broke into after hours and he was in the building alone, he was seriously beaten and would have been killed. But he had a gun and was able to shot the robber. He killed the robber. Now this is a true event. My friend is a Christian. I know Jesus says to love your enemies and I pray I never have to make that decision.


This is a complex issue. One thing I would say to my fellow American Christians is to examine this issue outside of its political context. Often, I feel that we Christians support or object to certain issues due to the political party that is supporting the issue.

Janelle, I read your comment again about the knife or gun senerio.
The bad guy with the knives would do less damage than the bad guy with the gun (in theory). So it would be better, if we were able to stop the use of guns by the bad guy. Yes he would still have knives but again would (in theory) do less damage.

But I think the problem is that criminals would still have guns and all the law would do is take away the guns from the victims and they would not be able to defend themselves.

However, as a Christian I am hoping for a better way in Christ. I want to preach peace in this senerio.

When I think of rights to be honest 'bearing arms' wouldn't even be a consideration. If we hear a car backfire and someone thinks it might be a gun they ring the police. Kids learn self defence through things like martial arts. We have a big anti bullying emphasis and it seems to conflict with that if we would then say you can't say bad things to others, walk away --- not shoot them or anything similar.

Banner, the problem with the supposed letter from the police officer is not only did reducing guns not make an impact on crime, the actual gun buy back was in the 90's. The letter is totally bogus.

Hmmm... lets see...

...someone breaks into our homes... WE CALL ON PEOPLE WITH GUNS (police)

...some terrorists start shooting and blowing people up... WE CALL ON PEOPLE WITH GUNS (police, FBI, etc.)

...some nation attacks our nation... WE CALL ON PEOPLE WITH GUNS (military)

Apparently guns are a solid deterrent and solution to these violent situations...

...what would happen if you did not NEED to CALL the police and WAIT 15 minutes????

I'm sorry Robert, I don't get what your point is. Are you suggesting that it would be better not to call the police at all and just deal with it yourself?

K I've never desired the right to bear arms either, but clearly for many people it's a treasured right.

Janelle, I don't mean to be presumptuous (and Robert can correct me if I'm wrong), but I took his point to be the same one that's implied in the often-quoted statement, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." (And in some areas, a lot longer than that.) That is to say, everyone agrees that the police or other first responders should be called in an emergency as soon as one can reach a phone (which is not always instantly), but that in an immediate life-and-death emergency where the threat is so imminent that a delayed response will clearly sacrifice innocent life, most victims would prefer to have some means of defense until the police can arrive. (Some U.S. law enforcement professionals have publicly stated that this reasoning is entirely valid.)

Ok thanks Werner. I've heard several times the police in America suggesting people arm themselves in such situations. It's not something we hear in Australia.

Banner wrote: "I don't usually jump in online discussions of this nature, but this thread is exceptionally good natured so I'm going to go ahead and jump :)

First, I don't own a gun (nor do I have a desire to). ..."
 
I don't usually like to jump in either, but Werner always carries on civil conversations, and when I saw you, I decided to chime in and say, AMEN! I agree with you.
 

Werner wrote: "Don't worry about your minor typo, Janelle, we know what you meant! And thanks for the helpful clarification. Your heartache is shared by Christians on both (or all) sides of the firearms issues, a..."
 
You are so awesome! *g* I just had to let you know how very much I appreciate how you handle anything you take on/tackle here.   ♥

"I believe the heart of the gun problem in USA is a spiritual one. It has just never made sense to me that making guns illegal is going to have much effect on a person with a criminal mindset.

We certainly need better regulations that would keep guns from the mentally ill. However, where there is a will there is a way.

IMO we need to help our culture have more respect for life. Without that, I don't think we can pass enough laws to make a difference. "

Banner said that--I say AMEN!
Thank you, Werner!
 

Thanks for commenting, Urs, and thanks for the kind words! We all contribute to making this group a place where we can share together in Christian reflection, in the atmosphere of Christian love and acceptance that the Holy Spirit wants to enable.

Werner wrote: "Thanks for commenting, Urs, and thanks for the kind words! We all contribute to making this group a place where we can share together in Christian reflection, in the atmosphere of Christian love an..."
 
Always welcome! :) Oh, I know we all do, but you are one of the "big dogs," and you always do that job well. :) I always feel safe and comfortable here.
 

Urs wrote: "I always feel safe and comfortable here." Wonderful, Urs! That's how we hope to make everyone feel.

I am finding this very interesting and uplifting.
So far I'm seeing Christians from Australia and America examin this issue from our Christian perspective. There maybe other nations involve (please forgive me if I missed it). We are all members of the same kingdom.

I believe God's word provides guidance to us all to live godly in this present world; regardless of exactly where we live in the world. :)

There have been a lot of good comments already and I haven't thought on them enough just yet. But thanks to everyone for the discussion so far.

Janelle wrote: "DJ, I've heard the argument quite often that the issue with gun violence lies not in the gun, but in the heart of the person who holds it. And I agree, the sinful human heart is the source of of ha..."

Hey Janelle, God Bless you!
To answer your question, who is to say that person (B) will walk in with knives? I guess what I'm saying is that we have to stop using "theories" and "straw man" arguments... the reality is that person B is never going to walk in with knives, he or she will always walk in with the biggest baddest weapon or gun they can find. The reality is that you can never close "pandoras box".
Guns are here and they are not going anywhere. By creating more laws against guns we are only hurting the rights of lawful people who live and abide by the law. Criminals don't nor will they ever.
I am a spirit filled, born again Christian. Jesus is everything to me. He is My Lord and God, my teacher and friend. I live my life to the best of my ability in His Grace and love. I strive to walk in His strength and power but I fail daily and He picks me up and dusts me off like a loving Father and encouragingly spurs me on. The point is that we live in a fallen and broken world. It won't be made perfect until He returns. I say all this to draw a distinction. Jesus on one hand instructs and commands to be as wise as serpeants and as innocent as doves.
We unfortunately live in a world that is ruled by force, this was never God's intent however it is the reality that we live in. I would much rather have a gun to protect my family and loved ones than to be at the mercy of a criminal who has a weapon. Somebody earlier in this conversation cited the fact of Nazi Germany in world war 2. The Nazi's began stripping guns from the populace early to aid in their consolidation of power. Nation after nation has done the same thing which has stripped the populace from the ability to defend itself.
I for one as an American citizen believe in my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the founding fathers thought it was an important enough right to aid in the protection of the many other rights bestowed on us by our Creator.
I firmly believe that there is a time for peace, a time for war, a time to speak and a time for silence. There is a time to stand up and defend oneself and a time to lay down sacrificially. This can and does honor God. We can't or shouldn't look at a scripture and apply it broadly without correctly interpreting the scripture, it's intent and context and application in our exact circumstances and life. Look at King David and his life. There was a time for him to be a priest and worshipper of God and there were times for him to be a warrior...
Forgive me if I am rambling... I haven't had much sleep (Lol). Love the openess and respect on here. God Bless!

You've said a lot of good things DJ, which I can't comment on right now. I just want to quickly say that I agree most criminal's will put their hands on the biggest baddest weapon they can. In Australia, this is often a knife instead of a gun. And the ability of the criminal is therefore hindered because of the weapon he has been able to obtain has less killing potential. I can see from everyone's comments that in America, it's unlikely that he would carry a knife.
I think the greatest thing I will take away from this conversation is the hope that we have in Christ. This world is indeed fallen, and sometimes we need conversations like this to deal with that fallenness. But a time is coming when all these things will be forgotten. Sin and grief and sorrow will be no more.

Janelle wrote: "I'm sorry Robert, I don't get what your point is. Are you suggesting that it would be better not to call the police at all and just deal with it yourself?"

What do you think? Murderer coming in your house armed with a gun. Decides to shoot your baby. You have to wait for the police.

Are your odds of saving your baby better if you are armed or if you wait for the police?

I also find it very interesting that the places in the USA with the most strict gun laws... are normally the MOST DEADLY AND DANGEROUS.

I worked in full time ministry in New York City for four years. Outreach to the homeless... troubled youth... children... hospitals... prisons... etc.

I could tell you some stories... (I was not armed and never have been yet. But I don't want anyone taking my rights away.)

Check the gun violence and gun law stats for...

Washington DC
Chicago
New York
Los Angeles
etc.

Robert, I guess not being armed I'll have to place both myself and my family in the hands of God.

Janelle wrote: "Robert, I guess not being armed I'll have to place both myself and my family in the hands of God."

So, you prefer to let your baby die... when it may be that God had provided the tool to save the baby???

Just curious, do you think that the God of the OT is a different God from the God of the NT?

This thread has evoked a lot more comment than any of the other ones in the Current Events folder, and it's been gratifying to see a civil discussion on an important topic among Christians with different views. (The possibility of enabling that kind of discussion, IMO, is one of the great potential benefits of the Internet. As Banner noted above, this thread has been good natured, despite the fact that we have strong opinions on the subject; people have been exposed to other viewpoints to consider, and factual information has been shared that hopefully has helped educate some of us to things we didn't know.

That said, I think that by now we've pretty well sketched the main lines of reasoning behind both the pro- and anti-firearms perspectives. Moreover, we may be reaching the point where strong expressions of opinion can, unintentionally, make some participants in the discussion feel personally attacked or misrepresented; and of course no one would want that. So as the person who started this thread, I'm going to exercise my option of closing it to further comments after I've posted this. I appreciate the contributions (some of which obviously took a lot of time and thought) of everyone who's commented, and they'll remain here as a resource for others to read in the future!