Should Christians Have Guns?

[Drew]

Sorry Drew, but your rhetoric here ....

Tell me one thing I have posted that is "rhetoric"

....is exactly what the left leaning liberals say all the time, and I will not abide it.

Now here is an example of rhetoric, but from you, not me. Like so many others you use "labels" like "liberal", perhaps hoping the stink of it will stick.

The issue isn't GUNS. The ISSUE is the society in which we live. It comes down to the individual person. PERIOD!

Where is your case? Where is your evidence that the present American society is better off with guns than without. I have never said that there are not societal factors at play. I pretty much agreed with another poster that wide availability of guns is not a problem in Switzerland. Its a multi-dimensional issue, no doubt.

You have no evidence that my firearms will ever hurt anyone.

Irrelevant. Neither I nor anyone else has asserted that they have a case that any particular person will abuse their gun.

Millions of gun owners around the country are in the same boat as me. Law abiding, sane, level headed. We keep our guns locked up, . . . and/or teach our young people how to PROPERLY use them safely so accidents don't happen. I will not be infringed upon because a few idiots harm others.

Bad argument. That's like saying people should be allowed to have lions as pets because only the "idiot" lion owners let their pets roam free and eat people. The fundamental question is societal benefit - is a society better off with guns or without. And since you self-identify as a non-Christian, I will not bring in that dimension of the issue.

 

[bibleMAN]

Okay. There are various regulations. If you want a fully automatic weapon, you must pass tough checks from the BATF and FBI. I wouldn't have one, though I would pass the checks. Too much money to operate it with ammo prices as they are.

Right. That's a good law, and really, what practical purpose does an automatic gun have? I mean unless your up against a pack of wild bears or something lol

 

[Drew]

The primary reason for the amendment was to guarantee the states the right to maintain an armed population for the purpose of maintaining a militia in order to defend from a tyranical central government and maintain their sovereignty. Once the population becomes disarmed, it is much easier for a dictatorship to take over and the writers of this amendment feared such an event.

Well, we know that many nations have existed in stable form for decades with a disarmed populace and guess what? No tyranny. So the implied argument here is pretty weak.

I take offense to being identified as careless or unChristian simply because I own firearms.

I am sure many people get offended when they are challenged on their beliefs. Your personal indignation is not legitimate currency in this discussion (and neither is mine).

Like about 95% of those that own firearms, mine are stored in a locked cabinet or safe separate from my ammunition. To suggest that the presence of my arms in my home increases the risk of me using them against my family is ridiculously absurd.

Has someone made this particular statement. Well, since I see little actual data from the pro gun crowd, consider this:

From a Study published in the New England Journal of Medecince in 2008 (authors = Miller and Hemenway)

The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the U<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:country-region>nited States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling. There are at least a dozen <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S. </st1:country-region>case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored. The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. Moreover, the increased risk of suicide is not explained by increased psychopathologic characteristics, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts among members of gun-owning households.


Now this is only one dimension of the issue, but the data suggests that a gun in the home is correlated with increased risk of suicide.<O:p</O:p

 

[Sparkey]

right - collectors have no legitimate use for firearms. Obviously they don't want to join the ranks of mass-murders so they need to be prohibited from collecting the objects of their interest.

Museums have no legitimate use.
Historians have no legitimate use.

Sheesh... Admit that there are uses for firearms of all types (other than murder) and we can begin to make some progress. Until then, I bid you adieu.

 

[Deavonreye]

As I said in a previous post, Drew, . . . you can have the "last word", but your posts are completely unconvincing, and yes, . . . is exactly like the liberal rhetoric, regardless of whether or not you think so. I disregard liberal ideologies.

bibleMAN, people like them because they get a thrill out of blasting away. Kari, from Mythbusters, said that she was more of a "gun control person" until she got to shoot some full auto stuff. I think it would be a hoot, personally. . . . . . . .and a waste of money at the same time. All of that to say that it is a hobby that people enjoy, including me [for the most part, though I'm not adamant about target shooting].

 

[Drew]

Without my firearms I could just as easily…actually it would be easier to just grab any one of the boning knives, fileting knives, butcher knives, meat cleaver, claw hammer, screw driver, or any other of a host of handy weapons around my home as well as yours and the job could be done faster and with more pain than with one of my guns.

You are speculating. As much as what you say here might seem to be common sense, the actual hard data suggests otherwise, at least in respect to the matter of suicide (please see previous post). The researchers found that a gun in the house was associated with "a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide".

 

[Drew]

As I said in a previous post, Drew, . . . you can have the "last word", but your posts are completely unconvincing, and yes, . . . is exactly like the liberal rhetoric, regardless of whether or not you think so. I disregard liberal ideologies.

Then why are you not arguing the point and instead resorting to name-calling, though the use of that tired and over-used term of demonization "liberal".

And you are clearly mistaken in respect to who is using rhetoric. Anyone who knows what rhetoric actually is can easily see that you are using it much more than I am.

 

[Deavonreye]

Let's not get caught up on words, Drew. The fact is, the position you hold is found on the left/liberal side. You have no idea what their ultimate game plan is. They enjoy leading the masses in their direction. Their goal is one of socialism, and socialism works best when the populous is disarmed.

State the source of these "researchers".

 

[Drew]

Surprise, surprise. No gun rights supporter, besides Deavonreye, is willing to "own" the positions held by Old Tractor:

1. That Japan and some European countries are "effeminate";

2. That the relatively high level of gun crime in the USA is due to blacks using guns.

DeavonReye, do you really agree with this? It seems that you do - you clearly affirmed the post from which these assertions are drawn.

 

[Deavonreye]

You're not going to pull in into a debate on race. This topic is about guns.

 

[Drew]

Let's not get caught up on words, Drew.

The point is that, like so many others, you take the easy way here - essentially demonizing those who disagree with you.

State the source of these "researchers".

What do you mean by "source". The material I posted was from one of the most prestigious and peer-respected journals in the world - the New England Journal of Medecine.

 

[Drew]

You're not going to pull in into a debate on race. This topic is about guns.

I am sorry, but it was you who clearly affirmed the content of a post that lay the blame for higher gun violence in the USA on blacks. It was not me who introduced race - it was Old Tractor and then you (when you affirmed his post).

Do you really agree with this or not? Its no crime for you to say that you did not intend to affirm this particular part of the post - no one is perfect.

So here is your chance - do you, or do you not agree with Old Tractor that blacks using guns are responsible for higher levels of gun crime in the USA?

 

[Deavonreye]

Excuse me, but show me where I called liberals "demonized"? I called them wrong.

 

[Drew]

In case any of you are champing at the bit to take me on some more, I will probably only get around to making more contributions tomorrow sometime.

 

[Drew]

Excuse me, but show me where I called liberals "demonized"? I called them wrong.

The very use of the term "liberal" has become a term of demonization - it turns the discussion from its proper focus on the issue and makes it into a disagreement between a wise and good "us" and a bad "liberal" them. That is demonization, at least of a sort.

 

[Deavonreye]

I am sorry, but it was you who clearly affirmed the content of a post that lay the blame for higher gun violence in the USA on blacks. It was not me who introduced race - it was Old Tractor and then you (when you affirmed his post).

Do you really agree with this or not? Its no crime for you to say that you did not intend to affirm this particular part of the post - no one is perfect.

So here is your chance - do you, or do you not agree with Old Tractor that blacks using guns are responsible for higher levels of gun crime in the USA?

What if my reposting it was about the fact that Switzerland, very much into each man having a weapon, being similar to other "gun controlled countries" . . . showing that it isn't about a machine, but the people in a country? You read into that what you will.

 

[Sparkey]

I am sorry, but it was you who clearly affirmed the content of a post that lay the blame for higher gun violence in the USA on blacks. It was not me who introduced race - it was Old Tractor and then you (when you affirmed his post).

Do you really agree with this or not? Its no crime for you to say that you did not intend to affirm this particular part of the post - no one is perfect.

So here is your chance - do you, or do you not agree with Old Tractor that blacks using guns are responsible for higher levels of gun crime in the USA?

The skill needed to intrepret statistical data is obviously missing. Why even bring race into the subject? Angry and violent mis-use of lethal force is not, I repeat not predicated on race.

Rephrase the question, should Christians be allowed to be employed (by governmental authorities) as police officers? Can there be any situation where protection of society is allowed and vital? Can Christians be prohibited from serving the public because they don't believe in willful sin? This subject is controversial enough without trying to introduce racial prejudice here.

 

[Deavonreye]

The very use of the term "liberal" has become a term of demonization - it turns the discussion from its proper focus on the issue and makes it into a disagreement between a wise and good "us" and a bad "liberal" them. That is demonization, at least of a sort.

That's your opinion, Drew. Call it "demonization" if you want. Facts are facts. Your anti-gun slant IS a liberal agenda.

 

[jasoncran]

That's your opinion, Drew. Call it "demonization" if you want. Facts are facts. Your anti-gun slant IS a liberal agenda.

drew isnt an american, at all. neither is free both are canadian.

 

[Deavonreye]

drew isnt an american, at all. neither is free both are canadian.

Oh! Okay!!

Thanks for that, jason.