Newtown Massacre & Gun Control

[Byblos]

AS shown above, these questions are absurd.

Actually, they aren't.
The one act of direct violence in the NT in which a person hurts another to save another is when Peter attacks and cuts the ear off on of the slaves that came with the guards to arrest Jesus and what did Jesus say and do?
Of course this is Jesus we are talking about.
I think that you would be hard press to find Jesus being against self-protection BUT you would be even MORE hard pressed to find Him being for killing as a solution to a problem of this magnitude.

Jesus had no problem whatsoever displaying his anger and dismay at the money changers for defiling God's house. He pretty much physically man-handled them outta there. Do you understand what the symbolism represents?

[jlay]

AS shown above, these questions are absurd.

Actually, they aren't.
The one act of direct violence in the NT in which a person hurts another to save another is when Peter attacks and cuts the ear off on of the slaves that came with the guards to arrest Jesus and what did Jesus say and do?
Of course this is Jesus we are talking about.
I think that you would be hard press to find Jesus being against self-protection BUT you would be even MORE hard pressed to find Him being for killing as a solution to a problem of this magnitude.

Would Jesus play video games?
get married?
play sports?
buy Christmas presents?

Peter's act was against an official, which would be the equivalent of endorsing attacking law enforcement. The Bible makes specific statements about submitting to the authorities. We don't have to guess or discern in that case. It is clear cut. But once again, we are conflating one example as proof of another. "We shouldn't own guns because Peter was rebuked for attacking a soldier."
There is no question Jesus had chosen His disciples and called them to a life that required them to abandon everything. Anyone here living that life? Please speak up? No. People today also want to conflate being a disciple to being a believer.
One thing you won't hear from me is statements saying, "Jesus would or wouldn't own a gun, etc."

So, let's suppose there are no guns, just as in Jesus' time. Someone breaks into your home and is attempting to rape your wife. Should you intervene? Even if it means physically harming the assailant? Now, folks can say, "I'm just going to follow Jesus" all they want. But what kind of person wouldn't intervene?
I'll tell you what I hear. A bunch of self-righteous mumbo jumbo veiled in liberal rhetoric.

[B. W.]

Just recall the ornamental Christmas bulb of Mao hanging on the president's Christmas tree and how many of his Czar's love the Utopic Government of Red China which has the strictest Gun control laws out there...

Now read the facts...

ABC News report
December15, 2012

What was supposed to be another day of learning at an elementary school in central China instead turned to one of terror, as a man slashed 22 children and one adult with a knife.

The injuries were gruesome, and reportedly include cut-off fingers and ears, but this story had a different outcome from the massacre 8,000 miles away in Newtown, Conn. Everyone survived

Private ownership of firearms is banned in China, making gun crimes rare in the country, according to the Chinese government’s official English language website. Pistols and revolvers are permitted for hunting, and only with permission.

Instead, knives have become the weapon of choice in China. While the United States combats gun violence, China has dealt with a spate of knife attacks in which the victims, while scarred, often survive.

School attacks in China (2010–2012)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured. Analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kind of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.[1]

March 2010
Nanping school massacre

On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping, Fujian province; The attack was widely reported in Chinese media (called sparking fears of copycat crimes. Following a quick trial, Zheng Minsheng was executed about one month later on April 28.

April 2010
Just a few hours after the execution of Zheng Minsheng in neighboring Fujian Province, in Leizhou, Guangdong another knife-wielding man named Chen Kangbing, 33 at Hongfu Primary School wounded 16 students and a teacher. Chen Kangbing had been a teacher at a different primary school in Leizhou; he was sentenced to death by a court in Zhanjiang in June.

On April 29 in Taixing, Jiangsu, 47-year-old Xu Yuyuan went to Zhongxin Kindergarten and stabbed 28 students, two teachers and one security guard; most of the Taixing students were 4 years old.

On April 30, Wang Yonglai used a hammer to cause head injury to preschool children in Weifang, Shandong, then used gasoline to commit suicide by self-immolation.

May 2010
An attacker named Wu Huanming, 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010; early reports were removed from the internet in China, for fear that mass coverage of such violence can provoke copycat attacks. The attacker later committed suicide at his house; he was the landlord of the school, Shengshui Temple private kindergarten, and had been involved in an ongoing dispute with the school administrator about when the school would move out of the building.[12]

On May 18, 2010 at Hainan Institute of Science and Technology a vocational college in Haikou, Hainan, more than 10 men charged into a dormitory wielding knives around 2:30 am; after attacking the security guard and disabling security cameras, 9 students were injured, 1 seriously. The local men attacked the dorm in an act of revenge and retaliation against college students following conflict the previous day at an off-campus food stall in which 4 students were injured, for a total of 13.
August 2010

On 4 August 2010, 26-year-old Fang Jiantang slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a kindergarten in Zibo, Shandong province. Of the injured, 3 other children and 4 teachers were taken to the hospital. After being caught Fang confessed to the crime; his motive is not yet known.

August 2011
Eight children, all aged four or five, were hurt in Minhang District, Shanghai when an employee at a child-care centre for migrant workers slashed them with a box-cutter.[18]

September 2011
In September 2011, a young girl and three adults taking their children to nursery school were killed in Gongyi, Henan by 30-year-old Wang Hongbin with an axe. Another child and an adult were seriously wounded but survived. The suspect is a local farmer who is suspected of being mentally ill.

December 2012
Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing

On 14 December 2012, a 36 year-old villager in the village of Chenpeng, Henan Province, stabbed 23 children and an elderly woman at the village's primary school as children were arriving for classes. The attacker was restrained at the school, and later arrested. All of the victims survived and were treated at three hospitals, though some were reportedly seriously injured, with fingers or ears cut off, and had to be transferred to larger hospitals for specialized care.

Causes

Prof. Joshua Miller, chair of Social Welfare Policy at Smith College, attributed the attacks to stress caused by "rapid social change, mass migrations, increasing disparities in wealth and weakening of traditions." Some sociologists believe some of these attacks may be due to the PRC government's failure to diagnose and treat mental illness

It is not about guns, folks - Rahm Emanuel Said, "Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste..."

I don't trust the progressive (Marxist) left's agenda, total control.

There is a real reason the framers placed the right for citizens to bear arms in the US Constitution.

[PaulSacramento]

AS shown above, these questions are absurd.

Actually, they aren't.
The one act of direct violence in the NT in which a person hurts another to save another is when Peter attacks and cuts the ear off on of the slaves that came with the guards to arrest Jesus and what did Jesus say and do?
Of course this is Jesus we are talking about.
I think that you would be hard press to find Jesus being against self-protection BUT you would be even MORE hard pressed to find Him being for killing as a solution to a problem of this magnitude.

Would Jesus play video games?
get married?
play sports?
buy Christmas presents?

Peter's act was against an official, which would be the equivalent of endorsing attacking law enforcement. The Bible makes specific statements about submitting to the authorities. We don't have to guess or discern in that case. It is clear cut. But once again, we are conflating one example as proof of another. "We shouldn't own guns because Peter was rebuked for attacking a soldier."
There is no question Jesus had chosen His disciples and called them to a life that required them to abandon everything. Anyone here living that life? Please speak up? No. People today also want to conflate being a disciple to being a believer.
One thing you won't hear from me is statements saying, "Jesus would or wouldn't own a gun, etc."

So, let's suppose there are no guns, just as in Jesus' time. Someone breaks into your home and is attempting to rape your wife. Should you intervene? Even if it means physically harming the assailant? Now, folks can say, "I'm just going to follow Jesus" all they want. But what kind of person wouldn't intervene?
I'll tell you what I hear. A bunch of self-righteous mumbo jumbo veiled in liberal rhetoric.

In His own words, To live by the sword, to die by the sword, that was Jesus rebuke on Peter ( that and Peter's lack of understanding about what was going on and why it had to happen).
This isn't about what we think Jesus would do in regards to gun ownership, it is about whether we think Jesus would agree that the problem to gun violence is MORE guns, especially in the schools. I doubt that many would say that His answer would be yes.

In regards to your comment on "self-righteous liberal rethoric":
A little background info on me:
I am a former Canadian peacekeeper and I saw active duty in Bosnia.
I was a "long range reconnaissance scout" which is a fancy name for a sniper and my specialty in Bosnia was counter-sniping and those familiar with the war in the Balkans knows what that means.
It may be because of that that I have a different perspective to guns than most, and I certainly have a different perspective when it comes to TALKING about taking a life.
Look, my point is simply this, people are making this about gun control and it is NOT about it, it is about WHY people find it acceptable to KILL others, even children, and WHAT we can do to STOP it.
I know it is far easier to adress the HOW and that is what we have been doing in what seems like forever and that has NOT gotten us anywhere and I think that it is time to address WHY people do this, WHY those around them have "no idea" and why, society in general, is ok with the message that violence is an acceptable way of dealing with our problems.

[neo-x]

neo-x wrote:
Here's a question to you Jilay and others with the same stance. If Jesus was living today in America in house in Texas, and some home invasion occurred trying to kill his mother Mary and his brother or sisters. Do you think Jesus would run and get his semi-automatic to whack some dudes because this isn't about preaching but duty?

AS shown above, these questions are absurd.

Not at all. This is a simple question, given what we have from the gospels. You just don't like these because the honest answer goes against what you are saying here.
Plain question, would Jesus kill (weilding gun, axe, sword, dagger or whatever), in any circumstance, even in his day and age? Whats your position on this one?

Peter's act was against an official, which would be the equivalent of endorsing attacking law enforcement.

So does that mean, if it hadn't been any official, it would have been alright? You seem to be out of context here. The point was not who was being attacked but what Christ told peter.

Would Jesus play video games?
get married?
play sports?
buy Christmas presents?

These acts are irrelavent, they are not life-death decisions, they are mere trivial things of life that would be irrelevant to even us lving today.

There is no question Jesus had chosen His disciples and called them to a life that required them to abandon everything. Anyone here living that life? Please speak up? No. People today also want to conflate being a disciple to being a believer.
One thing you won't hear from me is statements saying, "Jesus would or wouldn't own a gun, etc."

And there are people today who abandon everything when they are called by the lord. But I think the west has not seen people like these lately.

So, let's suppose there are no guns, just as in Jesus' time. Someone breaks into your home and is attempting to rape your wife. Should you intervene? Even if it means physically harming the assailant? Now, folks can say, "I'm just going to follow Jesus" all they want. But what kind of person wouldn't intervene?
I'll tell you what I hear. A bunch of self-righteous mumbo jumbo veiled in liberal rhetoric.

This is quite a sorry argument and strawman here. We are not talking about just physical harm but killing. Everyone in the position would try to intervene, may be even kill the guy but that will be out of gut instinct, not of any Christian teachings.

The persecutuion is a different thing. My family was threatened twice by muslim extremists, we don't own a gun even when armed men came to my home. They slapped and hit my father for preaching the gospel to muslims. We didn't hit back. I guess you would suggest I do something as a self defense but then that is something that will leave no difference between me and them. We are ordered to pray for those who persecute us because they are lost. I don't know how you take that verse but it sounds easy to understand on the face of it. I am not being self-rightoues but if you don't see the sense of what is being said here then I suggest you try doing it on your own and see if you think it is self-righteousness.

It's certainly reported more, but other parts of the world suffer random acts of violence. In the US it stands out like a zit on a super model, as it should. But I think it is in error to say it happens more.

The U.S, does not suffer from random attacks, school shootings now seem to be quite a few. The problem is obviuos with terrorists in my country but the U.S has the most cases of serial killers, divorce rates, abortions, gun violence. I mean you can't seriously think its normal? I still see the inability to accept that there is indeed big gaping holes which need to be addressed. I say this with sincerity. Like paul said, lets not deny there is no problem. There is some problem, and it especially is highlighted in younger people in schools. A terrorist in a third world country is probably trained in a terrorist camp, where do you think Adam Lanza was trained to commit this crime? You are mixing the two and treating them togther.

Jesus had no problem whatsoever displaying his anger and dismay at the money changers for defiling God's house. He pretty much physically man-handled them outta there. Do you understand what the symbolism represents?

Not sure what you are saying here but if you are saying Jesus would have killed some guy or approved of it then I am not sure what to say to you. Osama was hated by almost everyone in the west and yet, Christ died for him as well and in all honesty, we are no different then he is, his sins are just more than the average joe. And may be you don't like the answer but it is true all the same. Without Christ, in God's eyes, Osama bin Laden and you and me and the pope are no different at all. Was there forgiveness for Osama had he came to Jesus? I am sure there was. But I am not sure if you would have forgiven him. That is our standard, that is how we judge, we rank, violence and we rank sin. We value justice over compassion. Christ almost did the opposite. To be honest Christ teachings are the hardest of all to follow.

[Rich]

This isn't about what we think Jesus would do in regards to gun ownership, it is about whether we think Jesus would agree that the problem to gun violence is MORE guns, especially in the schools. I doubt that many would say that His answer would be yes.

Actually, if you look at the comments, most people think that Jesus would choose more guns. I am amazed!

[Byblos]

Jesus had no problem whatsoever displaying his anger and dismay at the money changers for defiling God's house. He pretty much physically man-handled them outta there. Do you understand what the symbolism represents?

Not sure what you are saying here but if you are saying Jesus would have killed some guy or approved of it then I am not sure what to say to you. Osama was hated by almost everyone in the west and yet, Christ died for him as well and in all honesty, we are no different then he is, his sins are just more than the average joe. And may be you don't like the answer but it is true all the same. Without Christ, in God's eyes, Osama bin Laden and you and me and the pope are no different at all. Was there forgiveness for Osama had he came to Jesus? I am sure there was. But I am not sure if you would have forgiven him. That is our standard, that is how we judge, we rank, violence and we rank sin. We value justice over compassion. Christ almost did the opposite. To be honest Christ teachings are the hardest of all to follow.

What I'm saying is that Jesus was far more severe than that, he threw them out of God's house.

[neo-x]

What I'm saying is that Jesus was far more severe than that, he threw them out of God's house.

He threw out hyocrites who were selling religion, equal of give me and lord will give you back 10 fold preaching crowd you see on t.v these days. But not those who needed him.

[PaulSacramento]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... s/1787477/

1. When Twenty Minutes Is Forever. According to the CNN timeline for the Sandy Hook tragedy, "Police and other first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes after the first calls." Twenty minutes. Five minutes is forever when violence is underway, but 20 minutes -- a third of an hour -- means that the "first responders" aren't likely to do much more than clean up the mess.

This has led to calls -- in Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, St. Louis -- for armed officers or staff at schools. Some object. But we have people with guns protecting airports, hospitals and politicians. And leading anti-gun crusaders like New York's billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg and press lord Rupert Murdoch are protected by armed security teams that could probably topple some third-world governments. Why are our children less worthy of protection?

Then there are our homes. If police took twenty minutes to respond at a school, how likely are they to get to your house in time? For those of us without "security teams," the answer isn't reassuring.

2. Is Hate A Liberal Value? A 20-year-old lunatic stole some guns and killed people. Who's to blame? According to a lot of our supposedly rational and tolerant opinion leaders, it's . . . the NRA, a civil-rights organization whose only crime was to oppose laws banning guns. (Ironically, it wasn't even successful in Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.)
None

The hatred was intense. One Rhode Island professor issued a call -- later deleted -- for NRA head Wayne LaPierre's "head on a stick." People like author Joyce Carol Oates and actress Marg Helgenberger wished for NRA members to be shot. So did Texas Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias, who also called the NRA a "terrorist organization," and Texas Republican congressman Louis Gohmert a "terror baby."

Nor were reporters, who are supposed to be neutral, much better. As The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg commented, "Reporters on my Twitter feed seem to hate the NRA more than anything else, ever. "

Calling people murderers and wishing them to be shot sits oddly with claims to be against violence. The NRA -- like the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers or Planned Parenthood -- exists to advocate policies its members want. It's free speech. The group-hate directed at the NRA is ugly and says ugly things about those consumed by it.

3. We Don't Deal Well With Crazy People. Clayton Cramer makes this point in his recent book on the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, but the evidence is all around us. Parents of mentally-ill adults have a terrible time. Many mentally ill -- especially men -- wind up in jails, which have basically taken over from the old state mental hospitals, now shut down. We need to look at this again.

4. Things Aren't Really That Bad.Gun ownership is up, but crime is down. In general, crime in the United States has been declining for two decades. That's good news and shouldn't be lost in all the hype.

5. The War on Drugs. The drug war, according to many experts such as Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, is a major driver of violence in America. When you leave out suicides (which make up more than half of gun deaths) most actual murders in this country are criminals killing other criminals. It's been that way for years. Get rid of the war on drugs, legalize at least "soft drugs" like marijuana, and you'll have less of that. As The Atlantic noted this week, the single best anti-gun-death policy would be ending the drug war. It would save money, too, at a time when the government is broke.

Ah, yes, the government is broke. And nobody seems to have a plan to deal with it. No wonder they'd rather have us talking about gun control.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors

[jlay]

dARNIT,
Lost my post.
I've never called for more guns.
I've never said that more guns will fix anything.
I've never advocated killing.
I think killing anyone, in war or self-defense is a position we should NEVER desire to be in.
It is wrong to assume that supporting legal gun ownership is an endorsement of killing, or a desire to kill.
It is wrong to assume supporting legal gun onwnership is claiming that Jesus would own a gun.
Saying you would defend your family isn't being pro-killing, or saying Jesus 'would or wouldn't' do the same.
I see a lot of wreckless use of scripture to argue politics. Look at the political climate while Jesus walked the earth. There are many things today that I am convinced Jesus would simply not address, much the same as He did with His contemporaries. In fact Jesus was asked some loaded trick questions as well. Neo sounds like he is Saducee trained.

Actually, if you look at the comments, most people think that Jesus would choose more guns. I am amazed!

Ridiculous. Not sure what comments you are looking at.

Plain question, would Jesus kill (weilding gun, axe, sword, dagger or whatever), in any circumstance, even in his day and age? Whats your position on this one?

Neo. How about wielding flood waters? Or wielding an Army under Gideon. Need more examples.
Jesus was on this earth to offer His own life, and no I don't see our earthly Jesus killing anyone, nor would I speculte on such things. As I said, it reminds me of Christ being questioned about paying taxes. Oh, but that's trivial. I's a loaded question. I don't see Jesus enlisting in the Army either. There are many cultural and societial things that I don't think Jesus would speak out on one way or another. Rend unto Caesar. However God executed judgment and will execute judgment.

And there are people today who abandon everything when they are called by the lord. But I think the west has not seen people like these lately.

The operative term being "called by the Lord."
Sounds a little like your on your high horse. Since I live in the West, and know people called to minsitry.

These acts are irrelavent, they are not life-death decisions, they are mere trivial things of life that would be irrelevant to even us lving today.

Most gun ownership is trivial. Look at the statistics for yourself.

This is quite a sorry argument and strawman here. We are not talking about just physical harm but killing. Everyone in the position would try to intervene, may be even kill the guy but that will be out of gut instinct, not of any Christian teachings.

If you are going to accuse Strawman, you ought not at least build one yourself in the same sentnace.
Where did I claim that killing somone in self-defense is a "Christian teaching?" Bart had conflated being killed by home invaders to dying as a martyr. Why don't you point that out? You really think that is a valid position? Yet you are silent. So, I said that in THIS case Bart would be neglecting his duties as a provider.
I agree persecution is a different thing, and have already stated such in this thread, so I fail to see your point there. Maybe you didn't read my comments regarding this to Bart. I totally support your families reaction.

I think you are misrepresenting what is going on in the US versus the rest of the world. What happens in the US is widely publicized. Have you ever heard anything regarding what BW mentioned in China? I haven't? Why not?

Osama was hated by almost everyone in the west and yet, Christ died for him as well and in all honesty, we are no different then he is, his sins are just more than the average joe. And may be you don't like the answer but it is true all the same. Without Christ, in God's eyes, Osama bin Laden and you and me and the pope are no different at all.

Absolutley Christ dies for him. And Christ died for every person in prison for violent crimes. Should we let them go? Should we have let Osama go free, or brought him to justice?

[PaulSacramento]

Personally I support gun control like we have it here.
You take a safety course to make sure you don't kill youse;f or anyone else by being stupid and a criminal check is done,pass and you can by a rifle or shotgun.
If you want a handgun you must belong to a gun club OR need one for work.
No civilians get assualt rifles or automatics.
The issue, and it is a fair one, is that criminals don't go through legal channels to get firearms anyways, so what is the purpose of gun control besides restricting gun ownership to law abiding citizens?

[Canuckster1127]

Jlay, I'm not trying to insult you or anyone else but I certainly take ownership that I know how to use words to subtly (and some times not so subtly) push back on people. It's a product in part of the education system I was raised in, in Canada which is more British and that type of rhetoric is more common and indirect than what most Americans are used to and employ.

However, the fact still remains that I've demonstrated through a large preponderance of scripture and church fathers that the views of today's Christendom toward violence is very different than it was the early church. I know that pushes against conventional wisdom and the overwhelming indoctrination in today's religious circles of "Just War" and self-defense and quite honestly it pushes back against human nature which fears death and delights in creating hypothetical all or nothing scenarios to justify what we want to believe and if possible put a halo on it and make it seem like that's what God and Christ were saying all along.

It really is as simple for me as daring to believe Jesus meant what He said and that the early church, apostles and disciples connected directly to Him, understood it quite well before ensuing years and the formation of a church and state relationship rendered it necessary to find ways to elevate the needs of the state and the state church needed to find a way to rationalize it.

If you wish to make it about me to defend against the discomfort that I know that observation brings to many people, then that's up to you. All you've offered is your opinion without support from Christ's word and an appeal to "common sense." Common sense isn't the issue here. We either believe Christ said what he meant as an overwhelming sustained theme in Scripture or we decide to make Him mean what we want to say by finding ways to rationalize it and ignoring this very strong theme in the Gospels.

[RickD]

Staying on the topic of Rich's article:

Rich wrote:
The ultimate solution to the problem is to make all personal gun ownership illegal.

Is this really the solution to people slaughtering innocent teachers and children? Look at what B. W. posted. People will kill with whatever weapon they have at their disposal.
Which weapons are appropriate for personal use is another issue, and should be addressed.

Rich wrote:
His heart is broken that we value our “right” to own a semiautomatic machine gun over the lives of His children.

Again, responsible, law abiding gun owners have guns to protect the lives of their children. And, is there even such a thing as a "semiautomatic machine gun" ? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a "machine gun" by definition is a fully automatic weapon, and is illegal for personal use.

Neo wrote:
Not at all. This is a simple question, given what we have from the gospels. You just don't like these because the honest answer goes against what you are saying here.
Plain question, would Jesus kill (weilding gun, axe, sword, dagger or whatever), in any circumstance, even in his day and age? Whats your position on this one?

Neo, that question was already answered in scripture. Look at what happened when people tried to grab Jesus to kill him before his time to die. Jesus simply slipped away. If you were God in the flesh, you wouldn't need no stinking guns.

Neo wrote:
This is quite a sorry argument and strawman here. We are not talking about just physical harm but killing. Everyone in the position would try to intervene, may be even kill the guy but that will be out of gut instinct, not of any Christian teachings.

Where is the scripture that says not to defend our family when a drug crazed moron breaks into our home and attacks our family?

Neo wrote:
The persecutuion is a different thing. My family was threatened twice by muslim extremists, we don't own a gun even when armed men came to my home. They slapped and hit my father for preaching the gospel to muslims. We didn't hit back. I guess you would suggest I do something as a self defense but then that is something that will leave no difference between me and them. We are ordered to pray for those who persecute us because they are lost. I don't know how you take that verse but it sounds easy to understand on the face of it. I am not being self-rightoues but if you don't see the sense of what is being said here then I suggest you try doing it on your own and see if you think it is self-righteousness.

Neo, persecution for one's faith is a different thing than protecting your family in a home invasion, and I'm glad you see the difference. And, the U. S. is different from Muslim countries too. Neo if someone broke into your house and you saw them attacking your wife and children, would you just stand there and pray for their souls, or would you protect your family?

Canuckster wrote:
However, the fact still remains that I've demonstrated through a large preponderance of scripture and church fathers that the views of today's Christendom toward violence is very different than it was the early church. I know that pushes against conventional wisdom and the overwhelming indoctrination in today's religious circles of "Just War" and self-defense and quite honestly it pushes back against human nature which fears death and delights in creating hypothetical all or nothing scenarios to justify what we want to believe and if possible put a halo on it and make it seem like that's what God and Christ were saying all along.

Bart, I can understand this, if we were condoning gun owners to be violent. We're talking about owning a gun to use in emergency situation, if someone threatens one's family. Nobody here has advocated violence. I hope you don't believe you've shown through scripture that we can't protect our families.

Canuckster wrote:
We either believe Christ said what he meant as an overwhelming sustained theme in Scripture or we decide to make Him mean what we want to say by finding ways to rationalize it and ignoring this very strong theme in the Gospels.

Bart, the whole issue in Rich's article is summed up in his belief that prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning guns to protect their families would end the senseless slaughter of children in schools. Where has Christ said that gun ownership for protection is wrong?

Rich wrote:Actually, if you look at the comments, most people think that Jesus would choose more guns. I am amazed!

jlay wrote:
Ridiculous. Not sure what comments you are looking at.

jlay, I think Rich was referring to the comments after his blog article.

[PaulSacramento]

Lets be clear that there is gun control in prettymuch every country of thre world, incuding the US and in places like Brasil with more stricter gun control there is still more gun deaths than the US.
Banning ALL guns may seem like the right move but criminals don't get guns legally so I don't know how MUCH it would truly matter.
I don't think that it is realistic to ban guns BUT I do NOT think that MORE guns is the solution to gun violence.

[Canuckster1127]

Rick, thanks for bringing it back to the original post.

I don't believe absolute gun control is "the" answer. I don't think there is any way to ensure that tragedies like this won't happen. We live in a fallen world and I understand that guns and other weapons can and will be used by unstable people no matter what we do.

That is no excuse however for inaction, not is it a rational argument that because we can't eliminate a problem that we can't manage the risks better.

I think an examination of our gun laws and enforcement is a reasonable thing to look at and it's sad to me that it's taken 6 and 7 year olds being slaughtered to bring us to a tipping point of willingness to do it. I don't accept the argument that guns in the hands of private individuals that are military in nature are needed to defend us against our government. We are our government. The guns and concerns of the 18th century in America developed in the aftermath of a monarchial colonial power are not the same things as the guns and government we have in the 21st century and making that appeal is to me an argument of convenience and not rooted in the reality of our day.

There's much to learn I believe in looking at this and other situations both in terms of mental health issues in this nation, the types of guns available to the populace, the nature of the availability of guns outside of any structures that we put in place for obtaining them through legal channels and the way our media has made this type of violence a obvious invitation to unstable people who want to generate attention for themselves.

Complex problems that cannot be completely solved can still be addressed and reduced in terms of their frequency and severity.

It saddens me in general that so many professing Christians (and I've been one so please include myself in this assessment from my own past) prefer to live in fear and believe that their hope and security lies in firearms and the ability to deter violence with the threat of equal or greater violence.

That said, reasonable people can disagree on the approaches, but what I read in Rich's post and what I resonate with, is that the status quo is not desirable and should not continue and for me that means many different things have to be looked at, including what levels of gun control can be introduced or existing ones better enforced.