Should Christians Have Guns?

[Pizzaguy]

Enough with the slogans please- please deal with the actual fact that many other advanced nations are safer to live in than the US even though the general population do not have guns.

Drew, please deal with the fact that the thread is about the USA.

I do not live in such a place, I was car jacked by a team of four thugs - my only way out was to draw the gun. It's not about a theory or about where someone else lives - it's about MY life. It's not even about a possibility, this actually happened to me.

And it' has happened to many others. No less than two cabbies were killed by (what we can assume) was this same team. (And even if it's a different team, who cares?)

Now, if you can address my post and event specifically, I think you and I can have a discussion. Otherwise, we can't.

 

[Drew]

The only reason why Jesus told them to go ahead and buy a sword is so that the prophecy about Jesus could be fulfilled. He had to be reckoned among the transgressors. They became transgressors , the moment they has swords.

Luk 22:36 And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment.

You are quite right. Those who favour gun freedom are quick to pick one verse out of context. Understood in context, Jesus is arranging for His own arrest - and the way to do this is to be seen as a "transgressor". Jesus is in no way endorsing the use of the sword here.

 

[Pizzaguy]

You are presuming that "protecting your family" is best done via the gun. Not only are there a myriad of other ways to "protect your family", like dealing with the social problems and institutional evils ...

Drew, this is an idiotic response. You are not discussing anything with me, you are talking past me.

When someone breaks into your home, you do not respond by "dealing with social problems".

 

[Drew]

Drew, this is an idiotic response. You are not discussing anything with me, you are talking past me.

It is unfortunate that you feel the need to characterize me as an idiot. While I understand it is frustrating to find your points countered, the appropriate response is not to dismiss me as an idiot, but to actually deal with the point I have raised.

Now, please explain to the readers how it is you know that being armed is the best response to the threat of attack, especially in light of the fact that many nations are safer than the USA, and the people there have no guns. This fact alone proves that it is possible to have a relatively safe society without guns.

And even if this thread is "about the USA", what is going on in other countries is clearly relevant - if low levels of violent crime can be achieved in other nations without an armed populace, why can't the USA adopt the same model?

When someone breaks into your home, you do not respond by "dealing with social problems".

My point was that there are ways to reduce the likelihood that someone will invade your house in the first place.

 

[Drew]

Did Jesus say it's okay to kill people in self defense?

Is that what he meant by "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39

That must have been a translation error. Perhaps what he REALLY meant was "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, pull out a revolver and shoot them in the guts."

. I agree with the general point of your post. However, this is a really hard issue to actually deal with. We all want to live, and it is natural to be inclined to think about dealing with a threat to your life by shooting at it.

I am not entirely sure that this text alone really makes a strong case for going the route of non-violence. I have heard credible arguments that this text does not really mean what it seems to mean, and that it is not really a statement against the use of force.

Be that as it may, I think it is otherwise clear that we are now in the age of the Kingdom of God. And one feature of that age is the beating of swords into plowshares. In the long run at least, Christians should be advocating for different solutions to the violence problem.

"Getting the drop" on the bad guy is really just a way of being better than the enemy at using his own tools.

 

[Sam21]

You are quite right. Those who favour gun freedom are quick to pick one verse out of context. Understood in context, Jesus is arranging for His own arrest - and the way to do this is to be seen as a "transgressor". Jesus is in no way endorsing the use of the sword here.

It is not "gun freedom" IT IS FREEDOM! You sound like there is some big daddy government and we are all just silly little children and the elect should not allow us morons to own a gun because we may hurt each other. If you believe that you should not own a gun then do not own one, I believe differently and that belief is between God and myself.

 

[Pizzaguy]

My point was that there are ways to reduce the likelihood that someone will invade your house in the first place.

I am not talking about a likelihood. I am talking about a reality.

Since you cannot deal with reality, you and I are finished.

 

[Drew]

It is not "gun freedom" IT IS FREEDOM! You sound like there is some big daddy government and we are all just silly little children and the elect should not allow us morons to own a gun because we may hurt each other.

Well, does your "big daddy government" allow you to get drunk and drive a car? Your objection is really besides the point - it is the proper role of government to protect its citizens. The "freedom" argument really does not work since I suspect you are all in favour of restricting the freedom of someone to drive drunk.

If you believe that you should not own a gun then do not own one, I believe differently and that belief is between God and myself.

If I used your line of reasoning, I could equally well post this:

If you believe that you should not drive drunk then don't drive drunk, I believe differently - that its my right to drive drunk - and that belief is between God and myself.

Do you see the problem?

 

[Sparkey]

What's the point here?

Are you asking if Christians should use guns to murder others?
Should Christians have hands? Surely men have died at the hands of others.

 

[Sam21]

. I agree with the general point of your post. However, this is a really hard issue to actually deal with. We all want to live, and it is natural to be inclined to think about dealing with a threat to your life by shooting at it.

I am not entirely sure that this text alone really makes a strong case for going the route of non-violence. I have heard credible arguments that this text does not really mean what it seems to mean, and that it is not really a statement against the use of force.

Be that as it may, I think it is otherwise clear that we are now in the age of the Kingdom of God. And one feature of that age is the beating of swords into plowshares. In the long run at least, Christians should be advocating for different solutions to the violence problem.

"Getting the drop" on the bad guy is really just a way of being better than the enemy at using his own tools.

You are scripturally incorrect, we are not in the age when we beat swords into plowshares,that is yet to come, we are in the age when Jesus said," I come not to send peace but a sword". The tribulation is ahead, the battle where the antichrist is defeated. We are in warfare at this time. Listen,no christian wants to kill anyone, a gun is a way of keeping people from being killed,did you not read the story by PG?
Listen please,there was a retirement settlement(old folks)that were being robbed almost every night so they all bought guns and had an instructor teach them how to use them properly. When the story was being told two years had passed without a robbery and without anyone being killed...can you recognize what that means.

 

[Drew]

What's the point here?

Are you asking if Christians should use guns to murder others?
Should Christians have hands? Certainly men have died at the hands of others.

This is not a valid argument - it involves the same error as the "we should ban cars since they kill more people than guns" argument. Clearly "hands" are vital tools for living. Guns are not - many societies get by quite nicely without them.

 

[Drew]

You are scripturally incorrect, we are not in the age when we beat swords into plowshares,that is yet to come, we are in the age when Jesus said," I come not to send peace but a sword".

I am prepared to argue in detail that we are indeed in the age of beating swords into plowshares. Many Christians, most perhaps, fail to realize that the Kingdom is already here - Jesus is already king. I will provide them soon.

 

[Drew]

Just because a Christian owns a gun, doesn't mean that he or she is ready or willing to take a life.
Why does a police officer have a gun? To protect himself and to protect the public.

Mat 26:52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (NKJV)
KJV Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Putting this scripture in "context" is:
#1 Christ Jesus said, Scripture had to be fulfilled concerning this situation.
#2 Christ Jesus said, If He wanted to, He could call 12 legions of angels to come to His rescue.
#3 Christ Jesus said, I am not a thief, so why are you coming after me with swords.

KJV Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Mat 26:55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
Mat 26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

Mat 26:55 Christ Jesus was saying you would be justified coming at me with swords if I was a thief.

I do not understand your point in respect to this text. I will guess that this is your argument.

1. There are a number of texts that have Jesus making statments against the use of weapons;

2. However, these texts do not generalize - they are specific to a particular situation.

3. Therefore, those who oppose gun freedom should not invoke such texts as arguments against gun freedom.

Well, I am perfectly happy to agree with this shape of argument. But let's be clear - if Jesus does make injunctions against the use of weapons that are specific to particular situations, it simply does not follow that we are to conclude that Jesus is generally "OK" with the use of weapons.

All we could conclude is that the particular texts in question should not be used as arguments against the use of weapons.

 

[Drew]

Question: Why did Jesus allow Simon Peter to carry a sword? Was it not for protection?

You presume that Jesus was in the business of pointing out each and every
"sin" that He encountered. If He had done that, He would never have had time for anything else. I don't see how Jesus' silence to Peter about his (Peter's) sword is an endorsement of the right to bear arms. Jesus had more important things to do than to comment on every individual sin that He might have encountered.

So, if I'm a Christian who owns a gun, and a thief is breaking into my house with the intent of harming my family, not because I'm a Christian mind you, but because he holds no value for human life or his own, and I warn him that I have a gun, but he doesn't listen, I shoot him and kill him, then that means that I am ready and willing to take a life? Am I not protecting the life of others?

Again, and like all the others, you are not engaging the broader issue. First, you should acknowledge that it is at least possible that society can take steps to reduce the likelihood of a home invasion in the first place. Second, you overlook the possiblity that having a gun in the house during the 99.9999 % of the time where there is no intruder does not otherwise place you at more risk - an angry husband uses the gun on a cheating wife, or the gun is used to commit suicide. In fact, the data suggests just this - that having a gun in the house places you at more risk of a violent end, not less. Third, you ignore the symbolic value that goes along with the Christian owning a weapon in the first place, namely that this Christian has chosen to achieve even a good goal (protecting the family) using a tool of violence.

You are creating a highly artificial situation - by framing the problem as you do, you appeal to a relatively unlikely scenario and ignore the broader set of considerations.

 

[Sam21]

I am prepared to argue in detail that we are indeed in the age of beating swords into plowshares. Many Christians, most perhaps, fail to realize that the Kingdom is already here - Jesus is already king. I will provide them soon.

OK....when you provide proof that we are in the age when "we are not going to study war no more" then I will be glad to melt down my little pistol and make it into a garden tool.
You do realize that the disciples of Christ, while walking with Christ on the earth, carried swords. When Jesus told the disciples to sell their stuff and buy a sword they told the Lord that they already had two swords. No offense Drew but you are trying to use christianity to promote liberal politics.

 

[Deavonreye]

Well, does your "big daddy government" allow you to get drunk and drive a car? Your objection is really besides the point - it is the proper role of government to protect its citizens. The "freedom" argument really does not work since I suspect you are all in favour of restricting the freedom of someone to drive drunk.


If I used your line of reasoning, I could equally well post this:

If you believe that you should not drive drunk then don't drive drunk, I believe differently - that its my right to drive drunk - and that belief is between God and myself.

Do you see the problem?

Interesting that you would bring up "drunk driving". There are restrictions [and arrests for those who violate it] for those who drive drunk. Do a search on "accidental firearm deaths" and "drunk driving deaths", . . . then pick which battle is more important for you. . . . then question your authorities as to why every car isn't, by law, required to have a breath analyzer [to test for blood alcohol levels] that must be used before the car can start!!!

Say what you will, Drew, . . . but I do not buy into the liberal media's attempt to demonize gun owners.

 

[Deavonreye]

I would point out that jasoncran is correct in regards to the UK. Knives have simply replaced guns as the principle weapon in homicides. Since the effete British goverment has failed in its attempt to control crime by depriving their subjects (as opposed to citizens ) of firearms ownership they are now working on the problem by creating "anti-stab" knives:

First 'anti-stab' knife to go on sale in Britain - Times Online

I really don't know why they don't simply ban all knives. It would make as much sense.

As usual, there is always the person who desires to make a "loaded" comparison of crime rates in the US vs. effeminate Euro countries, Japan, etc. This is a deliberately false comparison of cherry-picked countries. They never cite, say...Switzerland. Switzerland has universal military service. After their active service, men remain in the ready reserve (something comparable to the national guard) until essentially old-age and take their military, fully automatic weapons and keep them at home (with an "emergency supply" of ammunition).

Thus, almost every adult male in Switzerland has a full-auto military weapon kept in his home or domicile. The homicide rate in Switzerland is comparable to that of other European countries that have "gun control".

The crazy Swiss gun nuts who by law mandate that adult citizens have "assault rifles" in their homes have a homicide rate (per 100,000 population) of 0.70 while...

Norway - 0.60
Germany - 0.86
Sweden - 0.90
Spain - 0.90
Netherlands - 0.92
Denmark - 1.01
Ireland - 1.12
United Kingdom - 1.28
Portugal - 1.20
Italy - 1.20
Ireland - 1.12
France - 1.40
Belgium - 1.49

And, there's that other sissy, effeminate land for comparison...

Canada - 1.81

Since, among european countries which are always used as a comparison with the US, firearm availability does not seem to correlate to high homicide rates, it is possible that cultural factors are more important than simple availability of firearms.

One could also cite regimes where there is no access to firearms such as:

Cuba - 5.50

The fact that the US homicide rate is 5.00 is perhaps indicative of cultural factors. Where the race of the perpetrator is known, african-americans represent 51% of perpetrators while only 12% of the total population (Dept Of Justice - FBI Uniform Crime Reports). Once african-americans are factored out, the crime rate of "europeans" in the US is comparable to "europeans" in europe.

Lastly, I have quite an arsenal myself and my guns have killed fewer people that Ted Kennedy's automobiles. ;)

Good post, old_tractor. Bears repeating.

 

[Drew]

You do realize that the disciples of Christ, while walking with Christ on the earth, carried swords.

I have addressed this in an earlier post.

You presume that Jesus was in the business of pointing out each and every "sin" that He encountered. If He had done that, He would never have had time for anything else. I don't see how Jesus' silence to Peter about his (Peter's) sword is an endorsement of the right to bear arms. Jesus had more important things to do than to comment on every individual sin that He might have encountered.

When Jesus told the disciples to sell their stuff and buy a sword they told the Lord that they already had two swords.

This text about buying a sword does not support the position that Jesus endorsed people arming themselves. Cornelius has addressed this text, which is often misread as Jesus endorsing weapons. Here is my own version of the same general argument that Cornelius put forth:

The following text, from Luke 22, is often used to support the right to bear arms:

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. <SUP>37</SUP>"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." <SUP>38</SUP>They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."<O</O

Obviously a “superficial” reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right” to carry a weapon. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to bear arms (swords or otherwise).

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for” at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for” at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to self-defence with weapons".

In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.” Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to bear arms” interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to bear arms”, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to bear arms” interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

No offense Drew but you are trying to use christianity to promote liberal politics.

Speculation for which you have provided no evidence. Please address the actual arguments.

 

[Drew]

Interesting that you would bring up "drunk driving". There are restrictions [and arrests for those who violate it] for those who drive drunk. Do a search on "accidental firearm deaths" and "drunk driving deaths", . . . then pick which battle is more important for you. . . . then question your authorities as to why every car isn't, by law, required to have a breath analyzer [to test for blood alcohol levels] that must be used before the car can start!!!

I am sorry but this argument is simply not relevant to the matter at issue. Another poster has argued that that possessing a gun is about "freedom". I merely pointed out the obvious - that we rightly restrict freedom in any of a number of areas. Perhaps it would be good to fit cars with breathalyzers. But my point remains - one cannot simply appeal to "freedom" in order to justify guns. Drunk drivers could do exactly the same thing.

And the fact that drunk drivers kill more than are accidentally killed by handguns is hardly an argument. That's like saying I should be allowed to let my pet lion roam free in the neighbourhood since drunk drivers will kill more people than my lion ever will.

Say what you will, Drew, . . . but I do not buy into the liberal media's attempt to demonize gun owners.

This statement is highly ironic, given the overall tenor of this thread.

I am not the one demonizing, it is people like you and Sam who have used the "liberal" label. Have I appealed to "labels"? No.

I have been called an idiot by that paragon of politeness PizzaGuy. Have I returned the insults? No.

It has been suggested that I am less of a man because I do not support gun ownership? Have I insulted others this way? No.

It has been suggested that I live in "namby pamby" land. Have I made similar insulting remarks? No.

So please, do not lecture me on demonizing and direct that critique where it belongs - the others in this thread who advocate for guns.

 

[Drew]

The crazy Swiss gun nuts who by law mandate that adult citizens have "assault rifles" in their homes have a homicide rate (per 100,000 population) of 0.70 while...

Norway - 0.60
Germany - 0.86
Sweden - 0.90
Spain - 0.90
Netherlands - 0.92
Denmark - 1.01
Ireland - 1.12
United Kingdom - 1.28
Portugal - 1.20
Italy - 1.20
Ireland - 1.12
France - 1.40
Belgium - 1.49

And, there's that other sissy, effeminate land for comparison...

Canada - 1.81

Now the fact that it is only military personnel who are required to have guns is at least arguably relevant - there could be other "screening" tests that lower the risk that a violent or mentally unstable person would get into the military in the first place. I would bet that the guy from Arizona who shot the congresswoman with a legally purchased gun would probably never make it into the Swiss army.

In any event, I believe I have never claimed that it is a universal truth that gun control always reduces violence. Sure, it may be the case that gun freedom works in Switzerland. This is not an entirely black and white issue. However what does seem clear is that in the specifically American context, gun freedom seems to come at a pretty high price, as the event of Arizona last month sadly attest.