Guns

[alexanderjames]

It seems that popular opinion from Europe (at least) views the US as needing gun control if not prohibition.

I would like to understand the perspective and arguments of my American friends on the PB with relation to guns, gun control and gun prohibition.

I get the ability to protect oneself and loved ones is crucial but I’m fairly ignorant apart from that.

*EDIT*
It might be helpful for me to clarify my position and intent of the thread -
I consider myself insufficently well informed on the subject. I don’t have a hidden agenda from what I have said.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

It seems that popular opinion from Europe (at least) views the US as needing gun control if not prohibition.

I would like to understand the perspective and arguments of my American friends on the PB with relation to guns, gun control and gun prohibition.

I get the ability to protect oneself and loved ones is crucial but I’m fairly ignorant apart from that.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights​

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

For a fuller explanation, this lecture is very helpful...

 

[Joshua]

I’m for ‘em (guns).

 

[Morgan]

For some background, I am an Elder in a Reformed Baptist Church, work full time and have held an FFL (Federal Firearms License) for the last 12 years. I have a little different perspective on firearms. One thing to make clear, in America we do not have laws based on needs. I often hear people state that there is no need for a firearm. There is also no need for 60 ounce soda's, cars and motorcycles that will exceed the legal speed limit three times over, 5000 square foot house for a husband and wife, personal jet airplanes etc. etc. In fact, there is no need for almost everything Americans can own, so need should be disregarded. In America we do not have to prove need to buy and own things.

Next, our constitution gives us the right to own firearms. I have owned them since I was a kid, even as early as in grade school I could walk a couple miles from the house and shoot my rifle and shotgun. There was a time when people had racks in the rear window of their trucks, guns were taken on school property yet were never used for crime like today. Something has obviously changed.

Currently (in Texas specifically but it is similar in most states although more restrictive in others on the east and west coast) to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer a background check through NICS (FBI run) is required. That can be bypassed in some states if you hold a current Texas License to Carry a Handgun (since background checks are done with that already). Buying from any licensed dealer requires a background check and the ATF 4473 certifying the buyer is not prohibited from owning a firearm (includes statements on mental health status and citizenship). Now, it is not illegal to buy from an individual in Texas with no background check and no ATF 4473 as long as the individual is not prohibited from owning a firearm. This is sometimes referred to as a "loophole" but nothing has really changed from going through a dealer. Neither a licensed dealer nor an individual can legally sell or provide a firearm to a person prohibited from owning one (whether a felon, mental issues or otherwise). The laws currently in place already prohibit criminals from owning firearms regardless if from a licensed dealer or individual so in reality there is no loophole, just criminals breaking the law.

So how do we stop the gun crimes? It would be almost impossible at this point to ban guns of any type to reduce that (see the Gun Control Act and how that was ineffective) due to the amount of firearms in America already. Even if every firearm here was destroyed (which I think is impossible), they still come illegally from Central America (there are people in Third World countries making firearms by hand and they are imported into the US) and elsewhere. A criminal intent on killing will find a way. My example, I spent 2-3 years in the prison ministry in both the county jails and state prisons in my area. Although weapons of every type are banned, somehow the inmates find ways to make weapons. In fact, alcohol, tattoos and paper money are all banned yet the inmates have them. Banning something will not prevent someone intent on killing to not kill. If we had no guns they would use knives, if there were no knives they could use vehicles, if no vehicles they could use poison etc.

Democrat run cities like Chicago have instituted strict gun control measures yet have very high crime rates by firearms. This is living proof that the gun control measures do not work.

I think many of the mass killings are due to mental illness, take the recent Uvalde school shooting, I think every cross dressing male has mental health issues and that shooter was a cross dresser. If there was a way to enact mental health checks that may do something, but red flag laws present problems with false claims and our government using red flag laws to falsely accuse. It is really a slippery slope.

Honestly armed citizens are what prevents crime. Here is one in a church: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50952443
I cannot think of much that would prevent a criminal intent on killing from doing it the first time. Life imprisonment would stop any additional occurrences but creates a whole new problem with prisons to hold criminals.

Those outside America get a biased view on firearms. I have been able to take citizens from other countries (like Germany and Columbia) shooting where they would not get the chance to do it in their home country. Usually after a trip to the range along with explaining our "fascination" with firearms changes their outlook. For the majority of Americans a firearm is only a means of entertainment or self defense - not a weapon for murder.

Outside of the redemption offered by Christ there is no fail safe way to stop murder.

 

[Romans922]

1) If we didn't have our own firearms, England (or any nation) could try to come and take us back again. There's a reason other nations refuse to attack the USA (partly for the reason that we have so many gun owners in our nation).
2) If we didn't have our own firearms, our own government could do whatever they wanted. But the govt. is to represent the people. There's a reason why Nazi's and many communist countries took the people's firearms away before they did what they did... They people feared for their lives, but they would not have if they had firearms.
3) Let's say someone breaks into my home, police are not going to be quick to my home, and there the thief is seeking to destroy me, rape my wife, etc. Now that I have a firearm, I can defend my family. And this serves as a deterrent for any would-be thieves (whatever sort of criminal) wants to come in my door.
4) By God's law (6th commandment) I have a duty to protect not only myself but the life of my neighbor. If my neighbor is in danger and fighting for their life, I can help protect them with a firearm.

 

[Edward]

@alexanderjames You people tried to grab our guns and ammo April 19, 1775. It didn't work then, it won't work now.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, or sport. It's about protecting the citizens from the government.

 

[DanSSwing]

The leaders of the American government placed this absolute restriction (preventing them from infringing the people's right to bear arms) on itself back when mostly godly men were in charge. If we wouldn't want government to take people's guns away back when we had godly leaders, how much more would we want to protect people from government when it is run by the crowd that is currently in charge!

 

[Taylor]

People will say over and over that this is about public safety, bringing up school shootings and children and such. And while for average folks this may be a sincere concern, and perhaps it comes from decent motivations, it’s still just pure emotional manipulation. The fact is, for the federal government, revoking the right to keep and bear arms is not about public safety, but about government supremacy. “Militia for me but not for thee.”

 

[alexanderjames]

1) If we didn't have our own firearms, England (or any nation) could try to come and take us back again. There's a reason other nations refuse to attack the USA (partly for the reason that we have so many gun owners in our nation).

Do you therefore believe other nations would want to take over the USA if there were no firearms owned by the people? (This isn’t something I’ve come across before from the English perspective.. England’s no longer in the business of advancing an empire.)

You people tried to grab our guns and ammo April 19, 1775. It didn't work then, it won't work now.

I’m not trying to take your guns my friend, but I think I get your point.

The fact is, for the federal government, revoking the right to keep and bear arms is not about public safety, but about government supremacy. “Militia for me but not for thee.”

Since this theme of governmental power has come up several times, do you think this is the primary reason American Christians support the second amendment?


I’m now wondering two things based on what’s been said so far:
1. what the consensus would be if there were *hypothetically* an option for zero guns (including for government authorities) and zero outside threat from other countries.
And,
2. how the right to bear firearms should be viewed in light of the apostle’s teaching Romans 13 about subjection to governmental authorities.

Thanks all.

 

[Romans922]

Do you therefore believe other nations would want to take over the USA if there were no firearms owned by the people? (This isn’t something I’ve come across before from the English perspective.. England’s no longer in the business of advancing an empire.)

Yes, I could think of a couple who would love to take over the USA: Russia, China, Iran, etc.

Since this theme of governmental power has come up several times, do you think this is the primary reason American Christians support the second amendment?

You didn't say this to me, but my response would be probably. However, that is not a Christian perspective from Scripture. The bearing of arms should be for the protection of life of you and your neighbor.

I’m now wondering two things based on what’s been said so far:
1. what the consensus would be if there were *hypothetically* an option for zero guns (including for government authorities) and zero outside threat from other countries.
And,
2. how the right to bear firearms should be viewed in light of the apostle’s teaching Romans 13 about subjection to governmental authorities.

Thanks all.

1. No, because we ought to protect the lives of those around us and ourselves too. When criminals have knives or guns, I want a gun to protect life.

2. I'm a covenanter, so I'll just bring confusion to everyone here if I start answering that.

 

[Morgan]

"I’m now wondering two things based on what’s been said so far:
1. what the consensus would be if there were *hypothetically* an option for zero guns (including for government authorities) and zero outside threat from other countries.
And,
2. how the right to bear firearms should be viewed in light of the apostle’s teaching Romans 13 about subjection to governmental authorities.

Thanks all."

1. It would not matter, guns are still used for recreational activities (I have dabbled in long range shooting at 1000 yards) as well as for food sources (many people hunt and utilize the game they harvested to supplement their family food) and wildlife protection (i.e. fishing in Alaska in areas where there are bear populations. A bear attack can be devastating.). People would still want guns.
2. Since our constitution gives us the right to bear arms we will never be in conflict with the Romans 13 reference.

 

[ZackF]

To address the OP, I will say in the US there is at least allowed debate. Is that possible in other nations? Can a person in Germany, UK or elsewhere even publicly suggest relaxing gun laws without finding himself unemployed and friendless? If such discussions are prohibited, that reveals a kind of moral superiority complex that causes gun owners/advocates not to take Europeans (or others) seriously. No country, culture or person for that matter likes lecturing or unfounded assertions being barked at them. How inappropriate, rude and ineffective would it be for US leaders to shame France into banning wine or Germany beer because of their overall alcohol intake. This would would do violence (no pun intended) to centuries long cultures in each nation though it would save hundreds of thousands of livers and lives. Another case in point were the panoply of ridiculous Tweets from leaders abroad condemning SCOTUS while having more restrictive laws, like first trimester only, on abortion than most US jurisdictions after the RvW reversal. When non-US leaders start allowing their citizens or subjects to speak non-univocally about the subject of guns and gun violence, I'll pay them more attention.

Also, we'd be served well by no-nonsense, rational methodologies proposed by folks like Ed Monk. His thesis and training answers the question by seeking to keep the body counts down, period. Tim Larkin, who's self protection material I recommend, recently had him on his show.

 

[Morgan]

Gun crime cannot be stopped by any measures that have been used thus far, evening countries with restrictive gun ownership laws. Case in point: https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives-liken-denmark-shooting-us-gun-violence-criticize-left-1721312

 

[ZackF]

Gun crime cannot be stopped by any measures that have been used thus far, evening countries with restrictive gun ownership laws. Case in point: https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives-liken-denmark-shooting-us-gun-violence-criticize-left-1721312

This a straw man. No law stops all crime. As my previous post above and elsewhere I don't have any problem with responsible gun use and ownership. That said, any one incident doesn't win any arguments for gun rights. I will gladly concede lower gun death rates in most of Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere. There is more to the issue though.

 

[ZackF]

Logan and others made some excellent points in this thread almost 10 years ago. Where does the time go?

https://puritanboard.com/threads/on-americas-obsession-with-guns.80821/

Though Matt has since rethought some of his original positions, this thread is valuable.

 

[Morgan]

This a straw man. No law stops all crime. As my previous post above and elsewhere I don't have any problem with responsible gun use and ownership. That said, any one incident doesn't win any arguments for gun rights. I will gladly concede lower gun death rates in most of Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere. There is more to the issue though.

I disagree and do not think this is a straw man, the OP specifically mentioned prohibition in his first post and that is what I addressed and I was not referring to anything you stated, I was addressing the questions raised by the OP. People tend to think prohibition works yet it has not anywhere yet that I am aware of.

 

[ZackF]

I disagree and do not think this is a straw man, the OP specifically mentioned prohibition in his first post and that is what I addressed and I was not referring to anything you stated, I was addressing the questions raised by the OP. People tend to think prohibition works yet it has not anywhere yet that I am aware of.

What does it mean for a law or prohibition to "work?" I would like to think that a prohibition against grand theft was at least somewhat effective? I say this as a victim of two auto thefts.

I still contend and seek to defend firearm ownership from multiple angles built upon biblical, natural law and human rights foundations. Secondarily history and cultural issues should be heard and respected. A Berliner is not going to accept that his laws "don't work" from a Houstonian.

 

[arapahoepark]

There is a significant correlation between mass shooters and their drug use (especially marijuana) in both America and Europe.

 

[moral necessity]

My perspective is one of tyranny vs. freedom...

 

[Morgan]

What does it mean for a law or prohibition to "work?" I would like to think that a prohibition against grand theft was at least somewhat effective? I say this as a victim of two auto thefts.

I still contend and seek to defend firearm ownership from multiple angles built upon biblical, natural law and human rights foundations. Secondarily history and cultural issues should be heard and respected. A Berliner is not going to accept that his laws "don't work" from a Houstonian.

I am taking some liberty at guessing what the OP is asking in my responses. For gun control to "work", I would think in the eyes of a non US citizen would be for gun crimes to be equal to or less than those of where they reside - at least from my conversations with non US citizens (or those that were born in other countries).

His assertion that we need "gun control" is incorrect to begin with, we already have plenty of gun control. I have spoken to enough people from other countries (Germany, England, Africa, South America) to understand how we are seen elsewhere. The majority of what I was told by those in other countries was pretty biased and they were uninformed on the issues.

As our laws stand right now there is no Biblical reason I can think that would prohibit gun ownership. That is why I go to cultural issues. Even gun control that has reduced crime in other countries would not work equally well here. There is a major difference in culture between the US and elsewhere.

 

[ryanpresnell]

It seems that popular opinion from Europe (at least) views the US as needing gun control if not prohibition.

In my estimation, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Do you trust the UK police to keep you safe? Those same individuals that allowed 1400 girls and women to be sexually assaulted, trafficked, etc. by Pakistani Muslims and silenced those who spoke out about it (they also claimed that it was simply girls wanting "Asian" boyfriends), after which not a single officer lost his job? Those individuals who regularly arrest Hatun Tash (and subsequently release her after they find out that she once again did nothing wrong), a Christian evangelist, at the so-called bastion of "free speech" known as Speaker's corner despite the fact that it is her who has been - on camera, at the hands of Muslim individuals - stabbed, physically assaulted, had her books stolen, and more? None of these incidents involved guns. What gives? The fact is, the UK police have a policy of appeasement towards Islam and cannot be trusted to impartially enforce the law, especially in situations where the gospel is being spread to Muslims.

Would more accessibility for firearms have stopped these events from happening in the UK? That's above my pay grade to answer. But what's the common denominator here? A society that refuses to bend the knee to Jesus Christ - whether it be parents, teachers, law enforcement, or all of the above. Guns are simply used as a scapegoat by those who are ignorant of this fact, and, if the power-mongers such as those of the current administration are successful in banning guns, something else will fill their place after banning them doesn't magically reform society according to their vision of a "liberal world order" until we have no semblance of freedom remaining. Many of us will recall Canada's Bill C-16 which made it possible to go to jail in Canada for not using a person's preferred pronouns. I have no interest in antagonizing people who refer to themselves by incorrect pronouns, but I shouldn't have to have a vested interest in doing so to oppose such a clear attempt to force people to accept (or at a minimum be complicit with) an unbiblical view of gender.

Something that is conveniently ignored by many of those who advocate for banning guns is that individuals who commit mass shootings often don't spontaneously decide to kill lots of people. Many of these were already known to be a problem, but a failure to properly implement "red flag" laws resulted in unfortunate deaths. The Buffalo shooter, for example, had apparently previously made threats against his school and "had reportedly undergone a psychiatric examination that could have triggered the state's red-flag law any time he tried to buy a weapon". Why not properly implement the laws we do have instead of hack away at the limited freedoms we still possess until there's nothing left?

We've got to think of the children, they say. If we truly cared about the children, we would surely want to ban guns. What about the children of the 622,757 - which is only the number of those reported by TROP - people to have been killed in Islamic jihad since 9/11? Should we not also ban Islam, according to this line of thought? Or would it transgress the boundaries which God has set for the civil magistrate to ban Islam? Whether or not this is the case for Islam in particular, this is the question that should first be addressed in this discussion before turning to whether gun crime would decrease in the event of a ban. For what it's worth, I can grant that there would be a decrease in the sheer quantity of guns if they were to be banned, but I don't think it follows that gun crime would decrease given the high quantity of guns, criminals, and illegal arms dealing. I think Mexico, which has strict gun laws to the extent that they are practically banned, could possibly be a better indicator of what would happen in the United States than Europe is, especially due to the relationship between Mexican organized crime and the United States. Despite having an eighth of the guns-per-100-people rate as the United States, it apparently has a higher firearm-related homicide rate than the US.

 

[Ed Walsh]

It seems that popular opinion from Europe (at least) views the US as needing gun control if not prohibition.

I would like to understand the perspective and arguments of my American friends on the PB with relation to guns, gun control and gun prohibition.

Most Americans, at least in the past, believed that the right to self-defense is a God-given right. The Amendment was written to guarantee that the State would never be allowed to disarm law-abiding citizens.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.—2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights

Self-defense was not the primary purpose of the Amendment. Instead, it was designed to protect citizens from government tyranny.
I.e., The Three Branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

Here are the opening paragraphs of a paper by Keith D. Stanglin is, an author and historian.

As James Madison observed in Federalist no. 46, tyrannical governments invariably "are afraid to trust the people with arms." This dictum is all the more disquieting given the conditions in which we now find ourselves: the U.S. government, although ostensibly anxious about rising extremism, seems more than willing to penalize non-criminal gun owners, while turning a blind eye to the actual gun violence that increased wherever local police departments were defunded.​

​

This characteristic of tyranny is nothing new. In the sixth century BC, the Persian king Cyrus the Great asked his new adviser—the defeated King Croesus of Lydia—how to stop the Lydian people from revolting. Cyrus wanted to know how to control a population, not an insignificant concern for a monarch. According to Herodotus, Croesus advised that the people should not be allowed to possess "weapons of war" and that they instead should "instruct their sons to play the lyre, sing, and sell things." Cyrus was persuaded, he ordered the confiscation of the people's arms, and, as Herodotus reports, "the Lydians altered their whole way of life." The plan was a success.​

​

For millennia, political authorities have well understood the greatest internal threat to their hold on power—the collective will of people able to defend themselves. Removing that ability is the only way to run an effective monarchy or dictatorship.​

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Self-defense was not the primary purpose of the Amendment.

I did not say it was. To your point, I quoted the amendment which states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

 

[Ed Walsh]

I did not say it was.

Did you misunderstand me? You're defending yourself over an imaginary criticism. I was pretty sure why you posted the actual words of the Amendment. The Amendment says nothing about self-defense. The Founders probably considered the right to self-defense so indisputable that it needed no mention in the Constitution.

 

[ZackF]

As our laws stand right now there is no Biblical reason I can think that would prohibit gun ownership. That is why I go to cultural issues. Even gun control that has reduced crime in other countries would not work equally well here. There is a major difference in culture between the US and elsewhere. [Bold mine]

I think were pretty close on this. Culture is a significant factor whether gun or no-gun.

 

[JimmyH]

For me 'gun control' is a matter of stance, grip, trigger control, breathing, and sight alignment.
The cliche, 'When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns' seems to be true of cities in the US like Chicago, where the weekly body count is usually as high, or higher than in a war zone like Iraq, or Afghanistan. As previous posts in this thread have noted, the Adamic nature is the problem, not civil laws or the lack thereof. I carry all of the time, (legally) when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

 

[Edward]

****TRIGGER WARNING FOR WOKESTERS - Do Not read, Do not follow link****

Unpleasant homicide statistics from the FBI here.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

ucr.fbi.gov

How unpleasant? Roughly 12.5 % of the population commit close to 50% of the murders in the US. (Per Wikipedia, it was over 55% in 2019).

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As Europe becomes more diverse, they are going to see a rise in homicide rates, whether they allow firearms or not.

 

[arapahoepark]

****TRIGGER WARNING FOR WOKESTERS - Do Not read, Do not follow link****

Unpleasant homicide statistics from the FBI here.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

ucr.fbi.gov

How unpleasant? Roughly 12.5 % of the population commit close to 50% of the murders in the US. (Per Wikipedia, it was over 55% in 2019).

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As Europe becomes more diverse, they are going to see a rise in homicide rates, whether they allow firearms or not.

Isn't closer to 3-6% when you factor in age and sex?
I just finished reading this and the incoherent and tautological mindset is astonishing. And it was written over 20 years ago yet its being codified.

 

[Taylor]

Since this theme of governmental power has come up several times, do you think this is the primary reason American Christians support the second amendment?

That’s the reason given in our Constitution, but I would add that the sixth commandment requires me to own a weapon capable of stopping the average potential threat to my household. In twenty-first century rural America, that is a gun.