What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Teach them the beauty of guns

Should Children be allowed to learn to shoot guns under adult supervision?

  • yes

    Votes: 14 66.7%

  • no

    Votes: 7 33.3%
  • Total voters
    21
No plans, but I have thought about it. I would take a class on it first, or have someone who owns one teach me. I know the most important stuff (don't fire into the air, don't point at people even in jest, always treat a gun as if it's loaded, etc), but I wouldn't say I know enough to handle one without learning from someone who does.
 
questdriven said:
No plans, but I have thought about it. I would take a class on it first, or have someone who owns one teach me. I know the most important stuff (don't fire into the air, don't point at people even in jest, always treat a gun as if it's loaded, etc), but I wouldn't say I know enough to handle one without learning from someone who does.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that reminds me. The four rules of gun safety. When my kids wanted to handle a gun, they had to recite all four rules first. After awhile they get ingrained into you, probably why I forgot about them, lol. Anyway here they are;

1. All Guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything that you're not willing to destroy.
3. Finger off the trigger until the sights are on target.
4. Be sure of your target, and what is beyond.
 
Speaking of gun safety and having kids in the house, Is there a trigger lock for a double barrel shotgun?
 
jeff77 said:
Speaking of gun safety and having kids in the house, Is there a trigger lock for a double barrel shotgun?
Click to expand...

Does it have a single trigger, or double triggers? I'm not aware of any that are made for a double trigger SG, all the triggerlocks I've seen were set up for single triggers.

What about running a (coated) cable down one of the barrels, and put a padlock on it? It could be easily removed and would keep it safe from children.
 
I think if one were to argue that the Bible takes an anti-weapon stance, you'd have to also argue that it takes an anti-self defense stance. I don't feel it does.

Re, what Jesus said to people when he drew his sword, can at first glance be deemed anti-sword. But the fact that Peter had a sword at all? Wouldn't Jesus have said something sooner about Peter having a sword if owning and carrying one at all were the issue?
I'd think looking at the context of the verse would be paramount. Defending yourself from robbers or murders, criminals, is different than being attacked by officers of the government (such as the ones taking Jesus to be trialed). You fight the arm of the law, defend yourself with a weapon, you're likely going to die by the same weapon from their hand, whether the government's in the right or wrong. You're just at a major disadvantage, there.
And then the fact that in the Bible there are numerous examples of people using weapons, many by divine instruction.
Hm...another thought...if the Bible is anti-weapon, wouldn't owning a weapon have been against the law in ancient Israel? (I don't believe the OT laws apply today, believing this is obvious by looking at the historical context and the purposes behind the laws. However, if not owning a weapon were to be on par with the 10 commandments, which still apply, then it follows to reason that the OT laws would have prohibited ancient Israelites from owning weapons.)

Just some thoughts off the top of my head, no deep analysis.
 
Last edited:
questdriven said:
I think if one were to argue that the Bible takes an anti-weapon stance, you'd have to also argue that it takes an anti-self defense stance. I don't feel it does.

Re, what Jesus said to people when he drew his sword, can at first glance be deemed anti-sword. But the fact that Peter had a sword at all? Wouldn't Jesus have said something sooner about Peter having a sword if owning and carrying one at all were the issue?
I'd think looking at the context of the verse would be paramount. Defending yourself from robbers or murders, criminals, is different than being attacked by officers of the government (such as the ones taking Jesus to be trialed). You fight the arm of the law, defend yourself with a weapon, you're likely going to die by the same weapon from their hand, whether the government's in the right or wrong. You're just at a major disadvantage, there.
And then the fact that in the Bible there are numerous examples of people using weapons. Someone earlier brought up Nehemiah defending wall weapon in hand while building it.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head, no deep analysis.
Click to expand...
ov vey the Christians that fought in the revolutionary war were in sin.
 
Edward said:
Does it have a single trigger, or double triggers? I'm not aware of any that are made for a double trigger SG, all the triggerlocks I've seen were set up for single triggers.

What about running a (coated) cable down one of the barrels, and put a padlock on it? It could be easily removed and would keep it safe from children.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a double trigger.
 
questdriven said:
I think if one were to argue that the Bible takes an anti-weapon stance, you'd have to also argue that it takes an anti-self defense stance. I don't feel it does.

Re, what Jesus said to people when he drew his sword, can at first glance be deemed anti-sword. But the fact that Peter had a sword at all? Wouldn't Jesus have said something sooner about Peter having a sword if owning and carrying one at all were the issue?
I'd think looking at the context of the verse would be paramount. Defending yourself from robbers or murders, criminals, is different than being attacked by officers of the government (such as the ones taking Jesus to be trialed). You fight the arm of the law, defend yourself with a weapon, you're likely going to die by the same weapon from their hand, whether the government's in the right or wrong. You're just at a major disadvantage, there.
And then the fact that in the Bible there are numerous examples of people using weapons, many by divine instruction.
Hm...another thought...if the Bible is anti-weapon, wouldn't owning a weapon have been against the law in ancient Israel? (I don't believe the OT laws apply today, believing this is obvious by looking at the historical context and the purposes behind the laws. However, if not owning a weapon were to be on par with the 10 commandments, which still apply, then it follows to reason that the OT laws would have prohibited ancient Israelites from owning weapons.)

Just some thoughts off the top of my head, no deep analysis.
Click to expand...
I agree with this all accept the sentence that begins with However.
 
jeff77 said:
Yeah, it's a double trigger.
Click to expand...

Probably have to go with a cable lock brother. You could even make one. Measure the barrels, double the length plus add a few inches, have a hardware store crimp loops on the ends, paint the cable with the plastic dip that they sell for tools (good stuff, I've used it) and getcha' a padlock. Tada locked up from children.
 
Classik said:
All this whole thing is a cultural issue, people. But I'd heed to what Christ would teach on the issue
Click to expand...

I find it very very curious that you're anti-gun Classik. You're very intelligent and a Christian to boot...and yet seem to have a hard time with discerning that it is the evil in the heart of man, and not in the gun...??

:confused:couch
 
questdriven said:
I think if one were to argue that the Bible takes an anti-weapon stance, you'd have to also argue that it takes an anti-self defense stance. I don't feel it does.

Re, what Jesus said to people when he drew his sword, can at first glance be deemed anti-sword. But the fact that Peter had a sword at all? Wouldn't Jesus have said something sooner about Peter having a sword if owning and carrying one at all were the issue?
I'd think looking at the context of the verse would be paramount. Defending yourself from robbers or murders, criminals, is different than being attacked by officers of the government (such as the ones taking Jesus to be trialed). You fight the arm of the law, defend yourself with a weapon, you're likely going to die by the same weapon from their hand, whether the government's in the right or wrong. You're just at a major disadvantage, there.
And then the fact that in the Bible there are numerous examples of people using weapons, many by divine instruction.
Hm...another thought...if the Bible is anti-weapon, wouldn't owning a weapon have been against the law in ancient Israel? (I don't believe the OT laws apply today, believing this is obvious by looking at the historical context and the purposes behind the laws. However, if not owning a weapon were to be on par with the 10 commandments, which still apply, then it follows to reason that the OT laws would have prohibited ancient Israelites from owning weapons.)

Just some thoughts off the top of my head, no deep analysis.
Click to expand...
Are you not taking that Jesus-sword issue out of context or misinterpreting the verses? Why would God need a sword to protect Himself? What did HE tell Peter about sword when Peter cut of an ear? :crying
 
That's what I was addressing, actually. I was trying to ascertain the context of what was said. I'm not saying the sword was to protect Jesus. But Peter had one, that much is indisputable, and I seriously doubt that Jesus didn't realize this until he had gone and cut off someone's ear. Yet he didn't address it until Peter used it.
Based off this, my point was that if Jesus had a problem with Peter owning a sword, which is used for fighting or self defense, He would have told Peter to get rid of it before Peter ever had a chance to cut someone's ear off.

Does this mean Peter was carrying one around all this time, throughout the entire? We simply aren't told. Perhaps it wasn't important enough to mention.
 
Edward said:
I find it very very curious that you're anti-gun Classik. You're very intelligent and a Christian to boot...and yet seem to have a hard time with discerning that it is the evil in the heart of man, and not in the gun...??

:confused:couch
Click to expand...
Evil in the heart of man? You are missing up the whole thing here. What about stray bullets? What about manslaughter? Are all these from an evil heart?

I didn't say Christians who have guns are evil or do stuff from an evil heart...did I? Overly dependency on gun potency is actually what I'm against - which I believe isn't right for a Christian.

I have a question for you. Will toy answer this?
 
questdriven said:
That's what I was addressing, actually. I was trying to ascertain the context of what was said. I'm not saying the sword was to protect Jesus. But Peter had one, that much is indisputable, and I seriously doubt that Jesus didn't realize this until he had gone and cut off someone's ear. Yet he didn't address it until Peter used it.
Based off this, my point was that if Jesus had a problem with Peter owning a sword, which is used for fighting or self defense, He would have told Peter to get rid of it before Peter ever had a chance to cut someone's ear off.

Does this mean Peter was carrying one around all this time, throughout the entire? We simply aren't told. Perhaps it wasn't important enough to mention.
Click to expand...
Why did Jesus condemn Peter's attitude?
 
How familiar are you with people who use guns? The people I know have only used them rarely, if at all. They haven't used them for self defense unless it was needed.
Most of the time they have fired, it's been for target practice, or hunting.
 
Classik said:
Are you not taking that Jesus-sword issue out of context or misinterpreting the verses? Why would God need a sword to protect Himself? What did HE tell Peter about sword when Peter cut of an ear? :crying
Click to expand...

There's no mention of God needing a sword for protection.

Why did Jesus tell His disciples to buy a sword?

There is a correct answer for that question.
.
 
Classik said:
Why did Jesus condemn Peter's attitude?
Click to expand...
I addressed this very thing a few posts ago. Perhaps I didn't word it in such a way as to be easily understood. If you don't live in the US, English probably isn't your first language, correct?
Here's what I said:
I'd think looking at the context of the verse would be paramount. Defending yourself from robbers or murders, criminals, is different than being attacked by officers of the government (such as the ones taking Jesus to be trialed). You fight the arm of the law, defend yourself with a weapon, you're likely going to die by the same weapon from their hand, whether the government's in the right or wrong. You're just at a major disadvantage, there.
Click to expand...
In other words, Peter fighting the government taking Jesus to trial would have been a losing battle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top