Some thoughts on guns in the USA ...

[MoreCoffee]

Listen to this ....

 

[psalms 91]

His reasoning is dangerous it could lead to guns being taken from the populace

 

[Alithis]

His reasoning is dangerous it could lead to guns being taken from the populace

disciples of the lord Jesus don't require guns, so that would not be a bad thing -disciples of other leaders and schools of thought may need them.. but not disciples of the lord Jesus
uttahere:

 

[psalms 91]

Depends on what God is telling you

 

[MoreCoffee]

His reasoning is dangerous it could lead to guns being taken from the populace

Yay

 

[MoreCoffee]

Depends on what God is telling you

God told me "put away that sword" and then he said "people who want to live by means of violence will die violently"

 

[Stravinsk]

When was that sermon on guns and the constitution published?

I have a fairly simple outlook on this. Here in Australia we had the Port Arthur massacre, which is given as the primary reason for the discontinuation of right to bear arms (guns specifically) except under strict rules and only for hunting/sporting reasons. Under the law, one cannot use one to protect one's person or family even if directly threatened by someone illegally using a firearm.

This is madness. It ignores a very important principle that relates to the initiation of aggression. It does matter who throws the first blow, by what degree, and how. Or who is continuing to initiate aggression.

So looking at Port Arthur, the initiator of aggression chose as his weapon a gun, and if the story is taken as true at face value, killed a bunch of people using this weapon. It's a tragedy, but the knee jerk reaction is even more tragic. For some of the following reasons:

1. Had anyone in the area also been carrying a firearm, they could have shot the perpetrator and killed or maimed him before he could kill any more people. Given the circumstance, this is the moral and responsible thing to do. If everyone is disarmed by law, however, then only the lawbreaker has the power, or the police which is given that powerby the people - but we all know the police cannot be counted on to be immediately available in all situations when it is needed.

2. Banning guns does not prevent violence, even violence like a massacre. With a few simple tools I could create any number of weapons that could be used to take down a number of people quickly, all available from nature or my local grocery store. The point is, if someone wants to do something like this, no law against guns is going to stop them, even if the laws meant that they could not obtain a gun - they could find another way to achieve the same end. Meanwhile, the average law abiding citizen is left without a primary method of protecting him or herself, even in their own home.

 

[psalms 91]

When was that sermon on guns and the constitution published?

I have a fairly simple outlook on this. Here in Australia we had the Port Arthur massacre, which is given as the primary reason for the discontinuation of right to bear arms (guns specifically) except under strict rules and only for hunting/sporting reasons. Under the law, one cannot use one to protect one's person or family even if directly threatened by someone illegally using a firearm.

This is madness. It ignores a very important principle that relates to the initiation of aggression. It does matter who throws the first blow, by what degree, and how. Or who is continuing to initiate aggression.

So looking at Port Arthur, the initiator of aggression chose as his weapon a gun, and if the story is taken as true at face value, killed a bunch of people using this weapon. It's a tragedy, but the knee jerk reaction is even more tragic. For some of the following reasons:

1. Had anyone in the area also been carrying a firearm, they could have shot the perpetrator and killed or maimed him before he could kill any more people. Given the circumstance, this is the moral and responsible thing to do. If everyone is disarmed by law, however, then only the lawbreaker has the power, or the police which is given that powerby the people - but we all know the police cannot be counted on to be immediately available in all situations when it is needed.

2. Banning guns does not prevent violence, even violence like a massacre. With a few simple tools I could create any number of weapons that could be used to take down a number of people quickly, all available from nature or my local grocery store. The point is, if someone wants to do something like this, no law against guns is going to stop them, even if the laws meant that they could not obtain a gun - they could find another way to achieve the same end. Meanwhile, the average law abiding citizen is left without a primary method of protecting him or herself, even in their own home.

This, absolutely spot on

 

[MoreCoffee]

I like Alistair Cooke's view. And he says it so well too.

 

[Tallguy88]

disciples of the lord Jesus don't require guns, so that would not be a bad thing -disciples of other leaders and schools of thought may need them.. but not disciples of the lord Jesus
uttahere:

Hunting usually requires guns. That's my main use of them. And shooting targets for fun. Haven't had to shoot a person yet, don't expect I will ever need to. I will if I have to defend my family, however.

 

[Josiah]

I think this Englishman has a simplistic and extremely narrow perspective. I REALLY wonder about some of the "stats" he "quotes" too...

I don't own a gun.... I've never even held a real gun in my life.... but I don't think that guns per se are a problem and this Englishman's laser focus on this thus entirely misses the point. People kill with knives, clubs, poison (the Roman favorite murder tool), etc. And even in countries where guns are more restricted than typically in the USA (Norway, Canada, etc.) also see violence with guns. Remember, too, that banning guns has no relevance to people not having guns. Guns can easily be assembled from gun parts easily accessible over the net and impossible to regulate. Guns are easily smuggled cross boarders and sent through the mail.

Ironically in the USA, the cities and states with the most restrictive laws tend to have the highest rates of gun violence (Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit).... and some of the places that have the least restrictions (Montana, Utah, etc.) actually have the lowest gun violence rates. That, in and of itself, would suggest that REGULATION, per se, is not the primary issue.

Here's the thing foreigners don't "get". America - more than most other nations - is highly diverse. It is a mixture of very, very different cultures. SADLY, some of these subcultures are very violent, were violence have simply became infused into the culture. Amercans don't like to talk about this because also key to (modern) American culture is TOLERANCE and political correctness and not "type-casting" etc. But it's not hard to identify: the ultra high publicity mass shootings aside (a problem with mental illness more than anything and a very, very tiny percentage of murders in the USA), if you study WHO did the shooting and WHO was shoot - a pattern becomes very evident. And even if you change weapons - THAT pattern tends to stay the same. The problem is cultural, something at "work" especially in those sub-cultures (not saying exclusively, obviously). And yes - IMO - it has a lot to do with the collapse of fatherhood, family and the church in those subcultures. IF it were as simple as regulation, Washington DC would have the lowest gun violence in the nation (it's the highest).... it ain't that simple.

Now.... as to his very English view that keeping guns out of the hands of citizens and only in the hands of the government somehow makes for peace..... take a look at North Korea or Cuba. I will admit the concept was more practical 250 years ago, but I think the American view that power belongs to the PEOPLE and not to a small ruling class is one that makes some sense. But it's probably a philosophical question that isn't going to be resolved. Again, look at the slaves North Korea has made of a powerless people. With that, I end THAT point.




Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

Gun control is a bad idea and always was

 

[MoreCoffee]

He was an Englishman in New York (and other places too). Lived there for 50 or more years. I think he died in the middle 200s or perhaps a little later or earlier.

 

[Alithis]

Hunting usually requires guns. That's my main use of them. And shooting targets for fun. Haven't had to shoot a person yet, don't expect I will ever need to. I will if I have to defend my family, however.

your first reason for having a gun makes perfect sense ..your second reason is just trusting in the arm of the flesh because God cant protect you ?

 

[psalms 91]

your first reason for having a gun makes perfect sense ..your second reason is just trusting in the arm of the flesh because God cant protect you ?

God also allows you to use what is available as well. It is like never looking for a job and believing God will supply. That works if you are doing Gods work but if you are lazy you will starve to death.

 

[Alithis]

Gun control is a bad idea and always was

yes .. fair enough .the reason is because you don't control guns you control people who have them and that is something that can't be done, any more than making people stop j-walking .they all know its against the law to J-walk but do it any way .. it is the nature of the lawlessness of the age we live in .

so for general safety ,the best way is to remove the guns from greater society and bring those who own them under a licencing system that licences the user not the object .
the very mindset of the "right to bear arms " displays that the nature behind the insistence of having them is aggressive toward humanity as a whole . bearing arms has everything to do with a offensive defense mindset in regard to the killing and defending of humanityy and NOTHING to do with hunting and sports .those who love hunting and sports should be licenced as hunters and sportsman .. but those who dress in fatigues and run around in the bush pretending they are soldeiers are just nutz.like those who run around the concrete jungle doing the same ..thier mindset for the right to bear arms is purely warring in nature and a mennace to society at all times

there is no perfect system. but allowing everyone to own one without specific stated reason ,..like hunting or specific sport.,. is just insanity -as the stats clearly show .

what is of interest is that when the lord Jesus rules upon the earth ..it take them 7 years to burn all the weapons of warfare ... one might say the lord Jesus is on the side of gun control by removing them from society globally .

 

[Tallguy88]

your first reason for having a gun makes perfect sense ..your second reason is just trusting in the arm of the flesh because God cant protect you ?

I trust God to protect me. I'm more protective of family than of myself, however. I never carry a pistol in public, even though I'm licensed to. Really isn't any need. But someone wants to hurt my nephew or my sister, I'm going to do everything in my power to kill them first. If not with a gun, then with a knife or a bat, or a rock.

 

[Alithis]

God also allows you to use what is available as well. It is like never looking for a job and believing God will supply. That works if you are doing Gods work but if you are lazy you will starve to death.

that raises a whole can of worms though does it not ?
a person doing the will of god is a person with whom the lord is ALWAYS .
so when i say a chrsitian does not ever need a gun im not referring to a church attendee who thinks they are being transformed into the imageof chrsit and learnung to become like him .they are barley a beleiver in alot of cases .. if they get sick they wil run to the dr FIRST ... and the club they attend on a sunday will advice them to do the same . so i can fuly seer .if they cannot trust god to do what he has COMMANDED us to do (not suggested0 then it is no wonder they cannot trust him to protect them .

everyone things the lord is with all Christians always .. but question that in line with the scriptures .. the promise "-and i will be with you until the end of the age is specifically given to those who are told to go and heal the sick ,preach the gospel,drive out demons raise the dead ,baptise in his name and make more deciples (not make church attendees) -it is THESE to whoim he says ..i will be with you -thus it is these who do not need a gun they have the most High GOD .. .

 

[Alithis]

I trust God to protect me. I'm more protective of family than of myself, however. I never carry a pistol in public, even though I'm licensed to. Really isn't any need. But someone wants to hurt my nephew or my sister, I'm going to do everything in my power to kill them first. If not with a gun, then with a knife or a bat, or a rock.

such reasoning sounds like an angry man who lives in expectation of evil .. be carful -what you have faith for .lest the fear that you fear comes upon you .

 

[psalms 91]

such reasoning sounds like an angry man who lives in expectation of evil .. be carful -what you have faith for .lest the fear that you fear comes upon you .

We live in a world where there is much evil, saying we will depend on God is fine but I think if we are killed by evil people God would probably ask us why we did not use what we had. Miraculous delivery is fine but I think God expects us to act as well