Hello KFC,

Very thoughtful article. I am not sure taking guns away or adding more guns makes things worse or better. Several large studies on both sides of this issue suggest corrolations either way are essentially meaningless. OK, so then what?

My personal sense is that we should look to ourselves. Is it moral, ethical, or spiritually sound to own or carry a weapon? It may be moral, the Hebrew scripture suggests we have a right to kill a nighttime intruder. Is it ethical? Not certain here. Is it good spiritual practice? I do not think so. If we ask ourselves, would Buddha carry or own a firearm, I think we could safely conclude not. I think the same would be true of Jesus of Nazareth or Moses or even Mohammed, the Prophet. Spiritual people are not, in my opinion, weapons owners or carriers; violence is an anathema to their practice or so it would seem.

I used to own firearms. I sold them all. The feeling of holding a handgun was too aggressive. I used to teach karate; I gave that up as well. Again, the feeling in the practice was too aggressive. My practice is to reduce aggressiveness and violence. Insofar as a handgun or weapon of any sort is a tool of violence, it is also a block between us and our God.

I believe we as a society and a society of nations must work together toward reducing our willingness to harm others, even when we are threatened ourselves. Last resort, perhaps, but too often we skip everything in between if we own a weapon.


Be well.


Link



Arbitrary Comparisons Between Countries

The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

Incidentally in 13th century Europe, several studies have estimated homicide rates in major cities to be around 60 per 100,000. (Even back then, the equivalent of coroners, kept records.)

There are many, many factors, some much more prominent than gun availability that influence homicide rates and crime in general. (See this excerpt from 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report and GunCite's "Is Gun Ownership Correlated with Violent Deaths?")

Due to the many confounding factors that arise when attempting international comparisons, this approach would appear to hold little promise for determining the influence of gun levels (or handgun availability) on violence rates.

Isn't rushing out to buy a gun just as reactive as plotting stricter gun control measures?

I have a hard time understanding how Christians can be so pro-gun. WGWJB? What Gun Would Jesus Buy, eh?

I think you were told wrong. There were two separate buyback programs, neither of which involved anyone going house to house to confiscate guns. Rather the government outlawed certain guns (firstly high powered semi automatics in 1996, then handguns in 2003), after allowing for an amnesty during which people could surrender their guns for compensation.

The crime rate did not go up 80%, relevant statistics covering the period can be found here: WWW Link

You can also read here the outcomes of the first buyback: WWW Link

For what's its worth I believe the first buyback was successful: "The most important impact of the buyback was that there had been no mass shootings.

"He said 112 people had been killed in 11 mass shootings in the 10 years up to Port Arthur, and removing the semi-automatic weapons used in those shootings was a principal aim of the policy."

1) Yes, it is.

2) For many it's not a matterof being pro-gun as much as pro-second amendment. I am very much pro second amendment, and do not own a gun, and probably will not anytime soon. I hold my philosophical position because I understand the historical basis for the second amendment's inclusion among the Bill of Rights, and I understand that the Bill of Rights are an important part of our country's ideological position, and therefore eliminating any one of them puts all in jeopardy.

Sodaiho,

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on the issue of Mohammed. Even the most sincere Muslim apologist must concede that Mohammed was almost certainly armed in his attacks on opponents. Whether those attacks were initiated by Mohammed's followers or his adversaries is a matter of opinion into which we shall not dwell at the moment, for I have seen compelling evidence on both sides of the issue.

But even if Mohammed acted entirely in self defense, he was certainly armed. And it is entirely illogical that one who was armed with the most potent contemporary weapons in his day would NOT be similarly equipped today.

As for Jesus, while scripture never records Him personally carrying a sword, it DOES record Him instructing His disciples to be so equipped. Now, in the context, this was abviously with the intent of teaching certain object lessons, but weapons weren't absent among Jesus' followers anymore than they were among Mohammed's.

But do you think that's more a Christian thing or more a Gideon thing? I know a few pro-gun Christians...not pro-second amendment, but truly pro-gun.

I know a few pro-gun Christians, but more pro-second amendment Christians.

But, as has been noted, there are loonies in every group.

I know a few pro-gun Christians...not pro-second amendment, but truly pro-gun.

Most Christians seem to be pro-gun but I'm sure as Gideon noted it's more a right's issue than anything. We don't want yet another right taken away from us. Have you ever asked them why they were so pro-gun?

I am a Christian and I do not own a gun but I would fight for those who wish to do so. Even in our own home, we've discussed the benefits of having a weapon mostly in case of wild animals. We live in an area that's not unusual to see bear, foxes or coy dogs.

I was talking to another Christian the other day about this. His young family and he were sleeping one night when his wife woke him up. She heard a noise downstairs. So he went down to find a young man standing in his LR. It turned out to be a kid that lived in the neighborhood but was drunk out of his mind. He said he got confused and walked into the wrong house. Had it been a criminal bent on some sort of criminal activity my friend was ready. He had a gun. Thankfully he didn't have to use it.

This is not a topic that is going away anytime soon. In a perfect world it would be nice that we all throw away all weapons, but we don't live in a perfect world.

You obviously are better informed than I and I bow to your knowledge. I was hesitant to include the Prophet in the short list, and in retrospect, should not have without knowing more.

As to a Jesus with a sword, I would think this would have been far from what I understand his teaching was all about.

I still ask, is gun possession and ownership a hindrance to spiritual development and practice? Because of the very nature and function of a
weapon, I cannot see how it could be otherwise. By this is my own bias.



This is an interesting parse. You demostrate that it is possible to support something without doing the thing itself. I could certainly support that. However, I wonder if the founding fathers could have imagined Glocks and Uzis, .357s, and other large bore killing devices being sold in the millions of units whether this amendment might not have been framed somewhat differently. The intent of the amendent is the security of the state, not the individual. How many guns does it take to secure the freedom of a state?

The amendment reads:

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.


Be well.




Be well.

They felt that it was necessary to secure the state from both domestic and foreign enemies. The founding fathers had fought a war to liberate a country where it was illegal even to own a forge without the oversight of the Crown, lest they make weapons on those forges.

Did they envision Glocks and Uzis? Likely not. But they did envision the need to protect against a tyrannical government, something that sadly may not be as far in our future as we'd like.

Truthfully, I don't own guns because I really don't like them. I don't like their potential, and I am committed to a philosophy of nonaggression. I am not a true "pacifist" because I will readily defend an imminent threat to myself or my family or close loved ones. I teach my children the ONLY acceptable reasons to kill ANYTHING are for food or self defense.

do i see the seeds of a an armed rebillion in this interpretation? then we wonder why someone who thinks that the government (or the society in general) is tyrannical starts shooting everybody in sight because, in their opinion, those people are part of that government and that society?

I dont think this is what they intended. protection against foreign enemies is what they meant and that is the militia's responsibility.

Armed citizens cant protect against tyranny, informed and courageous citizens do. and courage is not enhanced by owning a gun, it is a heart and mind thing not a hand and gun thing.

Guns are meant to protect against a real and probable danger, shouldn't we make certain that the probability of a real danger exists before we let anyone have a gun? imagined or hypothetical dangers are not real or probable. That is what Gun-Control supposed to do. why would anyone oppose that, i will never understand.

I think the best solution is to uninvent gun powder, thus rendering guns useless. We should immediately kill anyone and everyone who has the slightest inkling of how gunpowder works thus ridding the world of this dangerous invention.

The world would be a much safer place if everyone were killed with a sword or a rock.

That's funny...their writings contradict your interpretation.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants from time to time"

Oh yeah. They were talking about the militia there!

These people had just fought a revolution against a tyrrannical government. They were well aware of the dangers that a government posed to its people if the people did not have the tools to resist. This is a primary reason they GAVE us these tools.

One of the key concepts to understand in the United States, is that power was not meant to emanate from DC down to the people. Power was meant to emanate from the people to the government. This is why the Constitution does not ASSIGN of rights, but restricts the government's right to RESTRICT our rights.

Do you see the seeds of an armed rebellion? See what you want to see, ThinkAloud. It is not treason to speak of resistance against a government that has become a tyranny (although, I must note, I do not see evidence of tyranny in our present government even as I disagree with many of the policies they have put in place). If and when the government becomes an enemy of the people, I would proudly take my place among patriots in defending against tyranny.

Heh, I have a katana at home and if anyone breaks in and I'm around they're getting something cut off. Personally, I don't like guns...I prefer a good throwdown or a handy blade if necessary.

~Zoo