Guns Guns Guns

[Beto]

So where does everyone stand on the "right to bear arms" issue? I'd like to hear the pros and cons. I'm kinda divided right now, between the ideal and the realistic positions.

[Dantalion]

I think it has got something to do with the prevalent lone ranger fantasy.
I mean, don't take me wrong, I'm pro-gun if the owner is highly trained in it's use, but I think that people consider themselves to be potential Chuck Norris-clones waaay too fast. Machismo is awesome but not a good ally in debates

Waiting for a thoughtful pro-gun response on Strider's post

If Strider324 is making an argument against guns then his point isn't reasonable. His point mainly addresses gun storage and accidental shootings and even on these points he makes an unreasonable case. I'd want to know what evidence does he have to support his claim that accidental shootings are a mass problem? Then, I'd want him to offer evidence and/or a logical reason to support his FICTIONAL story which coincidently plays to his own bias when he spins it in such a way so that they'll be an accidental shooting. Look out--- now every single occurrence of a house break in will always end in an accidental shooting thanks to Strider324.

Lets charicature the anti gun position scenario. It's 3 a.m. and a guy breaks into a family's house. The family doesn't believe in guns because they may accidentally shoot at each other, including the kids. So the guy who is armed heads upstairs and finds a DEFENSELESS family upstairs. Now, either he robs the family if his only intention was to rob and not physically or sexually assault the family or worse. Or perhaps when the cops arrive, he takes the family hostage. You see how easy it is to spin a story and then to have the audacity to think that the story reflects how all cases will turn out?

While, we can't prove that any of the scenarios, Strider's or mine, will take place, but I don't find it far fetched to say that a family who know how to use firearms would do better defending themselves than some DEFENSELESS family who has to hide. And while also hiding, the family has to hope all the bad guy wants is just to take some valuables and then leave immediately afterwards.

You can't just make your case on the highly unlikely scenario that A. somebody will break into your house B. he's armed C. He wants to rape or murder.
It's like you're saying that every person who commits a criminal act is a likely rapist or murderer. Meanwhile a gun in the house is far more likely to be used against a relative or loved one than succesfully preventing murder or rape by burglars.
Are you saying you find it MORE farfetched a gun in the house will be used by accident+stolen+used on a loved one+used against the owner than it will be used to defend yourself from the elusive psycho ?
You really think the latter happens more than the former combined ?

So basically, the price you pay for being able to shoot another person trying to hurt you is paid by all kinds of gun deaths, accidental or purposely used on schoolchildren, family members, cops etc, and for you, that price is worth it ?

That's fair enough, but IF that is the case, you should just admit it for the highly selfish attitude it is.

(And by the way, when you say it's not the gun that kills, but the intention and the person and that a gun is a tool like a knife or hammer, it's not the gun that defends either, a knife or a hammer would do that job as well right ??)
You need MORE GUNS to protect yourself from GUNS who got there because of loose arm laws IN THE FIRST PLACE

[rosey]

So where does everyone stand on the "right to bear arms" issue? I'd like to hear the pros and cons. I'm kinda divided right now, between the ideal and the realistic positions.

Since this is a site dedicated to debating Christianity, the Christian view should be expressed.

[Jesus said,] "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. "

In context of Christ's very plain teaching, it is difficult for me to understand a Christian advocating the right to bear arms.

The right to bare arms on the other hand ...

Jesus' words meaning it would seem "don't sweat the small stuff". And frankly, getting shot or not getting shot in the face is no small matter.

[Angel]

I think it has got something to do with the prevalent lone ranger fantasy.
I mean, don't take me wrong, I'm pro-gun if the owner is highly trained in it's use, but I think that people consider themselves to be potential Chuck Norris-clones waaay too fast. Machismo is awesome but not a good ally in debates

Waiting for a thoughtful pro-gun response on Strider's post

If Strider324 is making an argument against guns then his point isn't reasonable. His point mainly addresses gun storage and accidental shootings and even on these points he makes an unreasonable case. I'd want to know what evidence does he have to support his claim that accidental shootings are a mass problem? Then, I'd want him to offer evidence and/or a logical reason to support his FICTIONAL story which coincidently plays to his own bias when he spins it in such a way so that they'll be an accidental shooting. Look out--- now every single occurrence of a house break in will always end in an accidental shooting thanks to Strider324.

Lets charicature the anti gun position scenario. It's 3 a.m. and a guy breaks into a family's house. The family doesn't believe in guns because they may accidentally shoot at each other, including the kids. So the guy who is armed heads upstairs and finds a DEFENSELESS family upstairs. Now, either he robs the family if his only intention was to rob and not physically or sexually assault the family or worse. Or perhaps when the cops arrive, he takes the family hostage. You see how easy it is to spin a story and then to have the audacity to think that the story reflects how all cases will turn out?

While, we can't prove that any of the scenarios, Strider's or mine, will take place, but I don't find it far fetched to say that a family who know how to use firearms would do better defending themselves than some DEFENSELESS family who has to hide. And while also hiding, the family has to hope all the bad guy wants is just to take some valuables and then leave immediately afterwards.

You can't just make your case on the highly unlikely scenario that A. somebody will break into your house B. he's armed C. He wants to rape or murder.
It's like you're saying that every person who commits a criminal act is a likely rapist or murderer.

Your assessment of my view is incorrect because I never said all home break-ins will lead to sexual and physical assault, although, I don't deny the possibility those acts occurring sometimes.

It's interesting that you choose to focus on rape and murder but yet avoid the most obvious criminal offence, which is the unlawful break-in and even burglary. If someone does enter my house unlawfully, then I'm not going to sit around and weigh the likelihood of what he's (or they) are going to do or if they are armed. Even if the suspect(s) being unarmed or being a rapist is unlikely, I don't want that rare occurrence to happen to my family. I don't give "criminals" the benefit of the doubt when they are in the act of a crime and when my family is involved.

Meanwhile a gun in the house is far more likely to be used against a relative or loved one than succesfully preventing murder or rape by burglars.

Do you have evidence to support your claim that guns in homes are used more for domestic violence than for self-defense and at what number would you consider it a "problem"? I'd also wonder if cops have a problem with shooting their kids and spouses since they get to take their guns home. There are more deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicles than gun deaths, should the chance of getting in a car accident lead to the banning of cars?

Are you saying you find it MORE farfetched a gun in the house will be used by accident+stolen+used on a loved one+used against the owner than it will be used to defend yourself from the elusive psycho ?
You really think the latter happens more than the former combined ?

No. What I said is that an ARMED family has better chances than an UNarmed family at successfully stopping a person who breaks into their house.

What I also want is evidence of your claims that guns in the household lead to gun crimes (assault with the gun and other gun related crimes in the household) more times than self-defense.

So basically, the price you pay for being able to shoot another person trying to hurt you is paid by all kinds of gun deaths, accidental or purposely used on schoolchildren, family members, cops etc, and for you, that price is worth it ?

That's fair enough, but IF that is the case, you should just admit it for the highly selfish attitude it is.

No, that is not the price of high gun ownership but rather the price of high gun availability with POOR regulations/enforcement and most importantly LACK of security at schools to where anyone can walk in.

(And by the way, when you say it's not the gun that kills, but the intention and the person and that a gun is a tool like a knife or hammer, it's not the gun that defends either, a knife or a hammer would do that job as well right ??)
You need MORE GUNS to protect yourself from GUNS who got there because of loose arm laws IN THE FIRST PLACE

Okay. I'm not disputing that it's the person that uses the gun, knife, and hammer to kill rather than the gun, knife, and, hammer acting on their own. And I can see that SOME times, a hammer and knife may do but sometimes those aren't effective, not just if the criminal has a gun, but also because he may have a knife or because you have to get close to the criminal to use a knife and hammer which may lead to you also being injured. With a gun, I can stay at a safe distance and injure the criminal enough with MINIMAL damage to myself.

You need MORE GUNS to protect yourself from GUNS who got there because of loose arm laws IN THE FIRST PLACE

I don't necessarily think we need more guns but rather more security, esp. armed security. We also need more effective regulations, screening, and enforcement to help safeguard against bad people getting their hands on guns. Also guns are not just to protect against other guns, but against ANY crime where a physical threat is involved. The use of the gun will come in depending on the type of threat.

[Dantalion]

I think it has got something to do with the prevalent lone ranger fantasy.
I mean, don't take me wrong, I'm pro-gun if the owner is highly trained in it's use, but I think that people consider themselves to be potential Chuck Norris-clones waaay too fast. Machismo is awesome but not a good ally in debates

Waiting for a thoughtful pro-gun response on Strider's post

If Strider324 is making an argument against guns then his point isn't reasonable. His point mainly addresses gun storage and accidental shootings and even on these points he makes an unreasonable case. I'd want to know what evidence does he have to support his claim that accidental shootings are a mass problem? Then, I'd want him to offer evidence and/or a logical reason to support his FICTIONAL story which coincidently plays to his own bias when he spins it in such a way so that they'll be an accidental shooting. Look out--- now every single occurrence of a house break in will always end in an accidental shooting thanks to Strider324.

Lets charicature the anti gun position scenario. It's 3 a.m. and a guy breaks into a family's house. The family doesn't believe in guns because they may accidentally shoot at each other, including the kids. So the guy who is armed heads upstairs and finds a DEFENSELESS family upstairs. Now, either he robs the family if his only intention was to rob and not physically or sexually assault the family or worse. Or perhaps when the cops arrive, he takes the family hostage. You see how easy it is to spin a story and then to have the audacity to think that the story reflects how all cases will turn out?

While, we can't prove that any of the scenarios, Strider's or mine, will take place, but I don't find it far fetched to say that a family who know how to use firearms would do better defending themselves than some DEFENSELESS family who has to hide. And while also hiding, the family has to hope all the bad guy wants is just to take some valuables and then leave immediately afterwards.

You can't just make your case on the highly unlikely scenario that A. somebody will break into your house B. he's armed C. He wants to rape or murder.
It's like you're saying that every person who commits a criminal act is a likely rapist or murderer.

Your assessment of my view is incorrect because I never said all home break-ins will lead to sexual and physical assault, although, I don't deny the possibility those acts occurring sometimes.

It's interesting that you choose to focus on rape and murder but yet avoid the most obvious criminal offence, which is the unlawful break-in and even burglary. If someone does enter my house unlawfully, then I'm not going to sit around and weigh the likelihood of what he's (or they) are going to do or if they are armed. Even if the suspect(s) being unarmed or being a rapist is unlikely, I don't want that rare occurrence to happen to my family. I don't give "criminals" the benefit of the doubt when they are in the act of a crime and when my family is involved.

Meanwhile a gun in the house is far more likely to be used against a relative or loved one than succesfully preventing murder or rape by burglars.

Do you have evidence to support your claim that guns in homes are used more for domestic violence than for self-defense and at what number would you consider it a "problem"? I'd also wonder if cops have a problem with shooting their kids and spouses since they get to take their guns home. There are more deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicles than gun deaths, should the chance of getting in a car accident lead to the banning of cars?

Are you saying you find it MORE farfetched a gun in the house will be used by accident+stolen+used on a loved one+used against the owner than it will be used to defend yourself from the elusive psycho ?
You really think the latter happens more than the former combined ?

No. What I said is that an ARMED family has better chances than an UNarmed family at successfully stopping a person who breaks into their house.

What I also want is evidence of your claims that guns in the household lead to gun crimes (assault with the gun and other gun related crimes in the household) more times than self-defense.

So basically, the price you pay for being able to shoot another person trying to hurt you is paid by all kinds of gun deaths, accidental or purposely used on schoolchildren, family members, cops etc, and for you, that price is worth it ?

That's fair enough, but IF that is the case, you should just admit it for the highly selfish attitude it is.

No, that is not the price of high gun ownership but rather the price of high gun availability with POOR regulations/enforcement and most importantly LACK of security at schools to where anyone can walk in.

(And by the way, when you say it's not the gun that kills, but the intention and the person and that a gun is a tool like a knife or hammer, it's not the gun that defends either, a knife or a hammer would do that job as well right ??)
You need MORE GUNS to protect yourself from GUNS who got there because of loose arm laws IN THE FIRST PLACE

Okay. I'm not disputing that it's the person that uses the gun, knife, and hammer to kill rather than the gun, knife, and, hammer acting on their own. And I can see that SOME times, a hammer and knife may do but sometimes those aren't effective, not just if the criminal has a gun, but also because he may have a knife or because you have to get close to the criminal to use a knife and hammer which may lead to you also being injured. With a gun, I can stay at a safe distance and injure the criminal enough with MINIMAL damage to myself.

You need MORE GUNS to protect yourself from GUNS who got there because of loose arm laws IN THE FIRST PLACE

I don't necessarily think we need more guns but rather more security, esp. armed security. We also need more effective regulations, screening, and enforcement to help safeguard against bad people getting their hands on guns. Also guns are not just to protect against other guns, but against ANY crime where a physical threat is involved. The use of the gun will come in depending on the type of threat.

mm, I agree with you on almost everything you've stated there.

It is indeed interesting to note that we do differ when it comes to burglary.
The reason I mentioned rape and murder is because that are things where I would approve the use of lethal and armed self defense.

Now, acts of breaking in, trespassing, theft etc are crimes directed primarily against property.
From a moral point of view (not a constitutional) I can't condone the actual killing of another human being when your own life or that of a loved one isn't in direct danger.
When you advocate the use of armed and lethal self defense in those cases you don't differentiate in the crime, meaning for you at that very moment a burglar is indeed the same as a murderer/rapist, a thought process we only find in some absolutist regimes.

Now it is true that it's improbable or even impossible for you to know INTENT, that is, how the hell do you know a burglar isn't going to come up to your bedroom or has other more malevolent intentions than stealing?
While this is true, it's a dangerous philosophy to immediately assume the worst situation possible, but in this case, I agree with not giving the benefit of the doubt.

HOWEVER, aren't there several and necessary steps between doing nothing and blowing another person's brains out ?
I would for instance argue that the mere act of letting burglars know you're there, that you're armed etc would be enough in most cases to scare away the burglar. Result: you are safe, maybe nothing is stolen even, and you didn't just kill another human being.

Now, let's assume even now you still won't give that benefit of the doubt (remember, we are now dealing with cumulatively slim chances of situations potentially happening here).
Why not hold them at gunpoint ? ONLY those with a deathwish (small minority of small minority of small minority) won't be stopped by this act, all others will.

And yes, if you hold them at gunpoint, and they don't appear affected by that or start react violently, by all means shoot.
But we are now operating on a very small percentage of burglaries here, minimizing the actual need for killing while you are still protecting yourself and others.

That's really what I'm missing here, a sort of natural or moral reaction that shows good people to be inclined not to kill their fellow men until it's absolutely necessary.

But I agree with all other things.
AH, that study that you asked of me, I can link it but I did some more research and the study doesn't really pass the requirement of peer review unchallenged, so consider that one withdrawn until I find some better ones, since I actually give a crap about the quality of my sources

[Serpent Oracle]

So where does everyone stand on the "right to bear arms" issue? I'd like to hear the pros and cons. I'm kinda divided right now, between the ideal and the realistic positions.

Since this is a site dedicated to debating Christianity, the Christian view should be expressed.

[Jesus said,] "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. "

In context of Christ's very plain teaching, it is difficult for me to understand a Christian advocating the right to bear arms.

The right to bare arms on the other hand ...

Another example of the clash between the will of heaven and the will of earth.

As was discussed on another thread.

As a British citizen I am used to the fact that even our police are not armed, unless they are responding to an armed offence being committed or likely to be committed.
However they do carry a Tazer an ASP baton and Mace and wear stab proof vests...which I think is sporting of them.
It means our criminals don't feel the need to tool up with firearms...
Safer all round.

[Albert]

[Jesus said,] "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. "

In context of Christ's very plain teaching, it is difficult for me to understand a Christian advocating the right to bear arms.

I can see the point you are making. I'm curious, how does that work with a situation such as in John 18:22-23?

John 18:22-23(NASB) When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?� Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?�

It's obvious that Jesus didn't just turn the other cheek, right? Do you believe that it's possible that guns could be used for protection only?

[barcelonic]

Nobody has the 'right to bear arms'; it is ridiculous if you ask me.

If I were being savagely attacked and my only recourse was to pluck my assailant's eyes out with my thumbs I might be seen as justified to do so.
However, that does NOT mean that, long after my attacker has left and I am safe again, I retain that permission!

I think people need to reconsider the distinction between a legal right and a right in and of itself.

I think it's about time the gun advocates found another argument which isn't so thoroughly dependent on a highly revered, traditional legal document such is any constitution.

[Kuan]

I support it, but restricting access is good. I love guns, I have special permits, and every class of gun. I Practice with them and use them frequently, (an expensive hobby...) My viewpoint is, we can make it hard to get them, but if your mentally competent, a quality citizen, with a clean record, you should be able to go through the processes to get a weapon. I dont mind them making it hard, thats a good thing. I have nothing to worry about either, i have a spot clean record. Only 2 driving tickets.

[Furrowed Brow]

[Replying to post 57 by barcelonic]
I think you hit on something here. Do I have the right to gauge out someone's eyeballs. Clearly not. This is obscene, However if they attack me and are throttling me with intent to suffocate me and I gauge out their eyeballs...should I face criminal sanction...clearly not again. Seems to me that the right to bear arms is bogus. It is like asking for the right to threaten to gauge out someone's eyes if they might attack. As I say it may be forgivable but it is not a right.

Why is this debate simply not an issue in Europe, whilst it is such a major issue in the US? I understand that the genie is out of the bottle in the US. But are there any European countries or any other country for that matter clamouring for the right to bear arms? I don't think so. Yet when was the last time the US put a million people on the street to protest against the policies of its government, or had a general strike?

[Philbert]

The gun issue points to something far larger and more important.

Guns are a technology we've proven that society can't handle.

Don't worry about guns, which are small potatoes. Worry about all the many other more powerful technologies we are busy busy busy creating as fast as we can, that we also won't be able to handle.