The Gun Control Debate

[Miranda&James 8]

I dunno - I think bringing Christianity into the mix is a bit of a red herring. Plenty of people identify themselves as Christian, Muslim or whatever and then go on to do things that are quite separate from the ideals of their faith. Put simply, people lie, cheat and sin all the time (some folks who identify themselves as Christian prove themselves to be les "Christian" than self-proclaim atheists. Comes down to individual conscience and character - an inevitable part of the process really.

I don't think banning guns is a particularly good idea, not given their context in current US history. By that I don't mean the constitutional argument as I think that's rather overused (again given that it is essentially a retread of similar legislation in the British bill of rights) but rather the sociological conditions in some US cities. I can see why a person would want a weapon for self-defence in a city with a high crime-rate.

That said - I am worried about the cavalier attitudes taken by the NRA to sensible suggestions - like the now-defunct Assault Weapons bill. Their gung-ho attitude does more harm than good IMO - that and of course they represent the friendly public face of the arms industry and related lobby groups.

Well, I was merely trying to respond to what Purple_Hibiscus said. I don't think religion has to be brought into it either - my main point is people can and will always find verses to support what they think without taking into account the true context of the verse. Although, I do believe that owning a gun is not against Christian principles. And Cassie, I certainly was not implying your choice of not owning a gun is un-Christian.

Besides, to ever think that any Christian will always live up to the ideals of what one thinks a Christian should is unrealistic - one of the main tenets is that we are sinners who are not perfect and will never be perfect!

[Ban Hammer 13,136]

Reverting to written coloquialisms I see.

However, back to topic. I don't see how I can be more clear. Gun ownership and use of a gun for self defence are actually two quite seperate issues.

I believe self defence with the use of a gun is against the doctrine of christianity, specifically the teachings of christ as I understand them.

Try nailing me to a cross and i will shoot your #######. Is that christian enough for ya?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'm probably going to stir up a hornet's nest with what I'm about to say, but... why the hell not?

I really think some people are taking the wrong approach in viewing the Bible's message literally. Why do I say that? Well, here's why:

1. You can pull just about any quote or passage from the Bible and use it to prove your point, regardless of what stance you have. Are you for the ownership of guns? The bible can help you! Against owning guns? The Bible can help you too! How about abortion? Those who're pro-choice can point to it and those who're pro-life can point to it as well. What about the people in favor of or against the death penalty? Same deal. What this all boils down to is that the Bible only proves the points we want it to prove, so long as we conveniently neglect the other points that disprove them. It can be used "for" or "against" almost any argument, so using it as the basis for your position (no matter what it is) already weakens your stance.

2. The Bible, even if it was the "word of God" (and I'm not so sure of that since we can't prove or disprove it, which is essential to science and religion completely relies on faith), that entire message was written down centuries ago and then translated and re-translated by human beings who all had their own very human prejudices and agendas. So whatever the original message may have been, it's practically guaranteed that it's been perverted and changed (if for no other reason, translations never come out perfectly word-for-word) and the Bible is probably a much different book today than it would have been at the beginning.

3. When the Bible was written, the times were just a little different. I realize some people might say that the time period isn't important and that it's the message that matters. Fair enough, but sometimes the message itself was written with a certain "day and age" in mind and no longer holds true. This doesn't mean the stories in the Bible aren't good ones or are worth any less, it just means they may not have the same cultural significance they once did.

[Miranda&James 8]

I'm probably going to stir up a hornet's nest with what I'm about to say, but... why the hell not?

I really think some people are taking the wrong approach in viewing the Bible's message literally. Why do I say that? Well, here's why:

1. You can pull just about any quote or passage from the Bible and use it to prove your point, regardless of what stance you have. Are you for the ownership of guns? The bible can help you! Against owning guns? The Bible can help you too! How about abortion? Those who're pro-choice can point to it and those who're pro-life can point to it as well. What about the people in favor of or against the death penalty? Same deal. What this all boils down to is that the Bible only proves the points we want it to prove, so long as we conveniently neglect the other points that disprove them. It can be used "for" or "against" almost any argument, so using it as the basis for your position (no matter what it is) already weakens your stance.

2. The Bible, even if it was the "word of God" (and I'm not so sure of that since we can't prove or disprove it, which is essential to science and religion completely relies on faith), that entire message was written down centuries ago and then translated and re-translated by human beings who all had their own very human prejudices and agendas. So whatever the original message may have been, it's practically guaranteed that it's been perverted and changed (if for no other reason, translations never come out perfectly word-for-word) and the Bible is probably a much different book today than it would have been at the beginning.

3. When the Bible was written, the times were just a little different. I realize some people might say that the time period isn't important and that it's the message that matters. Fair enough, but sometimes the message itself was written with a certain "day and age" in mind and no longer holds true. This doesn't mean the stories in the Bible aren't good ones or are worth any less, it just means they may not have the same cultural significance they once did.

I think this debate would require an entire new thread

Politics AND religion in a thread....ruh roh!

[garya505 2]

I can see this thread is about to tank, so I'll add one more thing. Each incident such as the NIU murders brings forth the outrage of the anti-gun crowd. According to NHTSA, we had 15,121 deaths due to drunken driving in 2006. This is an average of 41 HOMICIDES PER DAY commited by drunken drivers. Where's the outrage?

[rebeccajo 14]

I can see this thread is about to tank, so I'll add one more thing. Each incident such as the NIU murders brings forth the outrage of the anti-gun crowd. According to NHTSA, we had 15,121 deaths due to drunken driving in 2006. This is an average of 41 HOMICIDES PER DAY commited by drunken drivers. Where's the outrage?

Plenty of outrage for that out there too, Gary. Because of it, we've all seen loads of changes in our communities - stiffer enforcement; permanent loss of license for repeat offenders; real jail time for third offense drivers.

Times change. Drunk driving changed. Gun production has changed. Things have to change with the times to provide for public safety.

How we solve it - I don't know. I'm not that smart. I have my opinions, but they are just that.

By the way - that pic of your boy in the new hat is cuter than a bug's ear.

[Ban Hammer 13,136]

I can see this thread is about to tank, so I'll add one more thing. Each incident such as the NIU murders brings forth the outrage of the anti-gun crowd. According to NHTSA, we had 15,121 deaths due to drunken driving in 2006. This is an average of 41 HOMICIDES PER DAY commited by drunken drivers. Where's the outrage?

Plenty of outrage for that out there too, Gary. Because of it, we've all seen loads of changes in our communities - stiffer enforcement; permanent loss of license for repeat offenders; real jail time for third offense drivers.

Times change. Drunk driving changed. Gun production has changed. Things have to change with the times to provide for public safety.

How we solve it - I don't know. I'm not that smart. I have my opinions, but they are just that.

By the way - that pic of your boy in the new hat is cuter than a bug's ear.

imo - education. i and a few others in this thread learned not to mess with firearms at an early age, to respect them. perhaps we need mandatory gun training nationwide.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

[Peikko 1,575]

Just to clear up one thing. I didn't introduce the subject of religion just 'because', it was in direct resonse to an earlier post.

No Charles, I don't think teaching everyone how to handle a gun will solve anything and as one of these 'no nanny state' people, I am suprised you are even suggesting it.

[Ban Hammer 13,136]

Just to clear up one thing. I didn't introduce the subject of religion just 'because', it was in direct resonse to an earlier post.

No Charles, I don't think teaching everyone how to handle a gun will solve anything and as one of these 'no nanny state' people, I am suprised you are even suggesting it.

good thing you're not a fish, you'd be caught on the first cast

[Scott & Lai 12]

I'm still waiting to hear which specific teachings/values of Christianity preclude the use of guns for self-defense. You can't make a claim that a Christian who uses guns for self-defense is hypocritical without backing it up with actual Christian teachings.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, I am sure you are right.

After doing a little search on profiles of some gun killers who fit the random killing spree profile, it turns out that not just a few have not only had the proper documentation to own a gun but also have previously belonged to gun clubs and been universally perceived as responsible gun owners. While education is always a good thing it would appear that it doesn't really ensure that you won't turn the gun onto your fellow humans for no apparant reason.

[Ban Hammer 13,136]

oh joy now gun owners are potential killers too!

[Peikko 1,575]

Post 329 on this thread. If you read the whole thing it explains the rationale based on christ's teachings. However, I agree with those who said this thread could derail very quickly into a religious debate. You are, I am sure, perfectly aware that there are many, many christians who do believe quite literally that to defend themselves with physical violence does go against what they believe christ taught.

oh joy now gun owners are potential killers too!

Well, clearly that is true. Anyone who has a gun has the potential to kill someone. There isn't really any getting around that. However, if you are suggesting that I believe that all gun owners are going to become manic murderers then you have completely misunderstood what I stated.

[Peikko 1,575]

I dunno - I think bringing Christianity into the mix is a bit of a red herring. Plenty of people identify themselves as Christian, Muslim or whatever and then go on to do things that are quite separate from the ideals of their faith. Put simply, people lie, cheat and sin all the time (some folks who identify themselves as Christian prove themselves to be les "Christian" than self-proclaim atheists. Comes down to individual conscience and character - an inevitable part of the process really.

I don't think banning guns is a particularly good idea, not given their context in current US history. By that I don't mean the constitutional argument as I think that's rather overused (again given that it is essentially a retread of similar legislation in the British bill of rights) but rather the sociological conditions in some US cities. I can see why a person would want a weapon for self-defence in a city with a high crime-rate.

That said - I am worried about the cavalier attitudes taken by the NRA to sensible suggestions - like the now-defunct Assault Weapons bill. Their gung-ho attitude does more harm than good IMO - that and of course they represent the friendly public face of the arms industry and related lobby groups.

Well, I was merely trying to respond to what Purple_Hibiscus said. I don't think religion has to be brought into it either - my main point is people can and will always find verses to support what they think without taking into account the true context of the verse. Although, I do believe that owning a gun is not against Christian principles. And Cassie, I certainly was not implying your choice of not owning a gun is un-Christian.

Besides, to ever think that any Christian will always live up to the ideals of what one thinks a Christian should is unrealistic - one of the main tenets is that we are sinners who are not perfect and will never be perfect!

Part in bold - Of course, however I do believe that the idea is to attempt to live without sin. I don't think anyone advocates that one can knowingly sin or sin with premediation and then claim that man is imperfect so that doesn't count. If one believes that to act agressively even in defence of oneself is infact against christianity then one can not go around armed with a gun, or hold a gun in one's house for those 'what if' scenarios.