Are guns legal in Germany?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=7054391

I’m not a gun owner and I’ve never hunted. I also see the devastation that guns cause. However, I’m in favor of handgun ownership. Why? Simply this: a world “without access to handguns” is an impossibility. It is not an option on the table. Guns will be made, guns will be sold, people that want to use guns will get them and use them. Furthermore, murders occurred well before guns and would occur after guns. Guns may make it easier, but it doesn’t stop the hateful heart.
What do we do? I’m not smart enough to know so I’m not helpful there.
I’m pretty sure there will be no guns in the new heavens and new earth (except for skeet shooting or something!), but this is our world today.

Change the constitution?
The phrase “Guns don’t cause murder” is true in the strictest sense.
But 2cars don’t cause road accidents” applies equally. That’s never stopped us from liscencing, controlling them, registering and testing the proficeincy of their owners etc.

RJS,
Germany has sports shooters at the olympics (winter and summer), so there muist be rifle clubs etc. there too. So the private citizen’s ownership of firearms cannot be toally outlawed there. I’d expect them to have tighter controls on ownership that say the USA, but not a total ban on their use/ownership.

Phil #3-
Driving/having a car is not a right found in the Constitution.

Hmm…banning handguns hasn’t worked anywhere. Found this in an article from 2005 about a British bobby who wants to have a sidearm. Public policy has to have real solutions and not idyllic ones. Though a gun owner, I sympathize with gun control advocates. It would be ideal. But it won’t work. Meanwhile, if the home invaders have guns, so will I (I do believe in self-defense and defending my family though I realize some would say it is not Christ-like):
>
Derek Leman

Rick, sorry perhaps I was unlear. I realise that car ownership was not written into the consitution.
I’m suggesting (albeit pithily);
1. Alter the constitution so that owning a ‘firearm’ (or whatever stipulation in the consitution does allow their free carriage as of right) is no longer a right; THEN,
2. place controls on the onwership and use of firearms in the same way we do cars.
However, I realise this is a quick fix that won’t yield perfect results. As is evidenced by the shootings in Germany today.

Scot says: “Without access to handguns, these senseless murders don’t happen.”
NRA folks say: “Actually, criminals would get guns illegally anyways. Then, only law enforcement and the bad guys would have guns and none of the good guys.”
Anti-gun folks say: “Yep, Scot, you’re right. But the real question is: who is actually a member of a ‘well-regulated militia’? For those are the only persons the Second Amendment allows to have guns in the first place.”

In all sincerity, Scot, I don’t think making guns illegal is going to be helpful. I wish it would. Waiting periods are great. Other safety procedures and background checks are great. Maybe we can think of more. But there are too many guns already out there in circulation and too much sympathy and infrastructure for an efficient black market to do any type of wholesale, long-term banning. Simultaneously, gangs are–right now–funded substantially (essentially?) by the black market for drugs. Do we want to give them a monopoly on guns? Illegal just means black market, which means more and wealthier gangs, not to mention a further deterioration of civil rights as we pursue enforcement. There are some things government can do well but there are significant unintended consequences when we attempt to overachieve with it.
I’m sure there are statistics for how many deaths or injuries or wasted lives are “caused” by alcohol, which I imagine puts guns to shame. What do we do about that? Legally, we put smart, but limited restrictions on the purchase. But ultimately, both of these issues strike me as areas where the church is far better suited to deal with the real Problem–broken human beings–than the state, who can best only implement limited restrictions and red tape on what broken people can access and when.

Scot,
Allow a Canadian into the mix. We have three classes of firearms: non-restricted (long-guns for hunting), restricted (hand guns), and prohibited (automatic weapons).
You can write tests and apply for non-restricted and even restricted for use at a gun range. Even so, prominent people like the mayor of Toronto are calling on a full ban on hand guns.
I agree with the call to ban the civilian use of hand guns: the only purpose of a hand gun is to kill other humans. Why would I want one?

Stephen #10
“I agree with the call to ban the civilian use of hand guns: the only purpose of a hand gun is to kill other humans. Why would I want one?”
To protect one’s family.

A very difficult issue for sure. The only answer to Scot’s question, in the US at least, is change the constitution – which we certainly can do.
I have a different questions though. Because I think that the conversation above is still to theoretical.
We seem to say that we must have guns to protect ourselves against people with guns.
- How often, in the US, have law abiding people actually successfully defended themselves using guns?
- Do we really live in a place were we there is a serious possibility of needing to use guns to defend our self or our families.
- Is the possibility of that people may be carrying guns really a deterrent to criminals?
- Assuming that we did determine that the possibility that people owned guns was a deterrent, does it follow that we need every kind of gun for this deterrent to work. Could we not have a deterrent and still have significant gun restrictions?
- What if we outlawed hand guns and assault rifles in the US? Would the fact that we may be only armed with shotguns and rifles seriously impede our ability to deter these theoretical home invaders?

Ed #12
- How often, in the US, have law abiding people actually successfully defended themselves using guns?
Probably more than you think.
- Do we really live in a place were we there is a serious possibility of needing to use guns to defend our self or our families.
Yes.
- Is the possibility of that people may be carrying guns really a deterrent to criminals?
It probably at least makes them think twice.
- Assuming that we did determine that the possibility that people owned guns was a deterrent, does it follow that we need every kind of gun for this deterrent to work. Could we not have a deterrent and still have significant gun restrictions?
Maybe.
- What if we outlawed hand guns and assault rifles in the US? Would the fact that we may be only armed with shotguns and rifles seriously impede our ability to deter these theoretical home invaders?
Is it just home invaders?

How often, in the US, have law abiding people actually successfully defended themselves using guns?
According to University of Florida criminologist Gary Kleck, up to a million times a year. Note that a successful defense doesn’t necessarily entail anybody getting shot or even the discharge of a firearm.
Do we really live in a place were we there is a serious possibility of needing to use guns to defend our self or our families.
There are no safe places. Also keep in mind that the ultimate reason for the Second Amendment is to preserve the possibility of revolution, it is not primarily about either duck hunting or defense from criminals.
What if we outlawed hand guns and assault rifles in the US? Would the fact that we may be only armed with shotguns and rifles seriously impede our ability to deter these theoretical home invaders?
Shotguns are difficult to carry around, the right to self defense doesn’t end at your doorway. The Constitution guarantees to the people the right to keep and bear arms. BTW, “assault rifles” are already illegal in the US, for all practical purposes.

Ed Gentry -
“The only answer to Scot’s question, in the US at least, is change the constitution – which we certainly can do.”
California recently changed its constitution; we see how that’s going.
“Is the possibility of that people may be carrying guns really a deterrent to criminals?”
Absolutely. http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=482
Suburbs, urban neighborhoods and rural areas of the country are affected differently by this issue.
Another bumper sticker: If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?

How many times has that gun kept at home ended up being used (by someone) to kill someone else in the home?
Assault rifles are illegal “for all practical purposes,” you mean like the M-16 used in Alabama yesterday?

I recently read a cnn.com story about a knife murder at a school in the UK, and the growing trend of knife related violence there among teens. If people are going to be violent, they will find a tool with which to be violent. Another bumper sticker I’ve seen reads: “Blaming Guns for Violence is Like Blaming Spoons for Rosie O’Donnel Being Fat.”
At the same time, I’m in favor of regulating firearms – probably more regulation than we currently have in the US. The 2nd Amendment can’t be ignored, but even the most ardent 2nd amendmment supporters usually would concede that there are at least SOME weapons that shouldn’t be available to the general public or even to a local militia (nuclear warhead? Other, large “conventional” bombs?) Once you allow regulation of some weaponry, the question becomes how much regulation, what, how and to what end, not whether to regulate or not.

Rick (#11, 13),
I thought someone might suggest this. The problem is with anecdotal evidence. Here’s some stats from 2000:
The US reported 5.5 homicides per 100,000 people, with 2/3 of them involving a firearm.
Canada reported 1.8 homicides per 100,000 people, with 1/3 of them involving a firearm.
I know there’s other mitigating factors like increased levels of urbanization in your Country. And please don’t think I’m just some cocky Canuck: I lived close to our border and spent a lot of time visiting over the past decade. I just feel strongly about what the statistics show: gun control prevents human death.
Source: (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm)

There seems to be some confusion about cars/driving on public highways and gun ownership. The former is a PRIVELIDGE and the states can regulate their usage, ie: you can’t drive while intoxicated etc. The latter is a RIGHT Protected by the Bill of Rights, (Second Ammendment)which clearly states that “The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. The first part of that ammendment states that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE state,”. I know that there have been many arguments about this part of the Second ammendment. Bear in mind the mindset of our Founding Fathers when this was written. We were tired of living under a tyrannical and oppressive Govt, (England) we were tired of taxation without representation and so on. The Second ammendment is the lynchpin upon which all the other Rights are protected. Many states have a militia today, even Maryland which is typically very Liberal in it’s political viewpoints and the state in which I live. Few people are aware of this anomally. It is our duty as Americans to protect the Second ammendent as well as all the others, such as the freedom of religion, freedom of free speech, however going into a theater and yelling “FIRE” is a no no. Now before you all get worked up about my comments keep in mind I do NOT condone going into a church, or anywhere else and blatanly killing innocent people! This is what we call murder, there are laws to deal with that. And according to police statistics, most murders are committed with “blunt objects” Shall we ban or regulate the possesion of baseball bats or iron pipes? That’s an extreme scenario which would not, in my humble opinion set well with most Americans.Please, I beg all Americans to protect your rights. Don’t give the govt. any more power over us. They (Republicans as well as Democrats) have already messed up things enough! Speak softly and carry a big stick! God Bless us all, we need His help NOW!

Assault rifles are illegal “for all practical purposes,” you mean like the M-16 used in Alabama yesterday?
That wasn’t an M-16. According to CNN: “McLendon, armed with a semiautomatic weapon, allegedly also fatally shot a man who lived in a mobile home in his family members’ yard, Motley said.”. An M-16 is a selective fire (full auto, semi-auto) weapon and is, with rare exceptions, illegal for civilians to own or possess. The Alabama shooter was probably armed with an AR-15 or some other civilian, semi-automatic only, version. True “assault rifles” are selective fire, what you are calling an “assault rifle” is just an ugly deer rifle.

Banning hand guns will be a replay of Prohibition. The Constitution was changed and then that change was repealed. It DIDN’T work. No matter what side of this issue you’re on, don’t mess with the Constitution.

Correction, reading further in the CNN story I see “The gunman ended up at the Reliable Metal Products plant in Geneva, where police rammed his vehicle, forcing him to get out. He fired a 30-round burst with what appeared to be an M16 rifle, grazing Police Chief Frankie Lindsey with a bullet”. It would appear that the rifle was, indeed, an M-16, if the report is accurate (and that’s always a big if when dealing with the press) in what it describes as a “burst”. In which case the gun was illegal for the shooter to posses from the start and why do people think more laws will help things?

Stephen #18-
“I just feel strongly about what the statistics show: gun control prevents human death.”
The questions are: How much control? Are you restricting one’s right to protect him/herself and family?
As Larry #14 pointed out, there is another side to the issue.

John #21-
“…don’t mess with the Constitution.”
Amen. You would open a can of worms.

Access to firearms does not cause crime. The cause of crime is self evident. Crime is bad behavior and is controlled by the moral values and convictions of the individual. If your moral values will not permit you to do something, you won’t do it. But if your moral values permit you to kill whether it be with a gun, knife, bomb, car, club, missle, chemical, your own hands, etc. no law will restrain you especially if you believe you can get away with it or you think it’s okay to do it.
The problem is not guns or access to them. It’s the corruption of the human heart.

As a twentyseven year law enforcement officer I read your comments and opinions and realize alot of you have led quite a sheltered life, and many of you believe we live in an ideal world. We don’t. In all my twentyseven years of law enforcement, I never shot anyone, but I did have my weapon at the ready on many occassions, and several times I heard bullets whizzing over my head. On one occasion, my partner and I wrestled with a drug smuggler at about 2 AM in the brush about a quarter mile from the Rio Grande River. He was in possession of a 357 magnum with hollowpoints. I have been retired five years now. I do have a deer rifle, a varmit rifle, and an automatic sidearm. The only time I touch these weapons is to clean and oil them. I hope I never have to use them against another human being, and probably won’t. In the mean time, I pray to our Lord and God for my protection, and protection for my family. May out Lord protect you all and keep you safe.

I suppose as long as we have the second amendment in place then we should honor it, but there are so many questions around it – both in terms of intent and in terms of meaning. On the other hand, the second amendment, along with the entire constitution, is not sacred and should always be examined, discussed, debated, and fully understood – and then changed when needed. More importantly, Christians, who ironically have been some of the biggest defenders of the second amendment, are called to be followers of Jesus. What does this really mean? What does this really look like?
It seems to me that this is a good time for the church (I know that’s an unwieldy category) to have a referendum on living without violence, even when it comes to those “quandry ethics” situations. It’s true that guns don’t kill people all by themselves, but we live in a society that worships the gun and sees it as an all too handy “tool” for solving problems.
As a Christ follower I want to be the kind of person who does everything I can to find the non-violent solution – including situations of self/family defense and for non-violent revolution (if it comes to that). Mostly, I want to trust in God not in the gun.
Given all that, I am not opposed to people owning guns per se, but I am also not opposed to their regulation. And I don’t think there is (pardon the expression) a magic bullet solution either.

Here in Belgium is seems quite odd that the NRA is so much linked with Christian defense arguments. We are much surprised that you hold the desire so dearly to possess guns.
I can understand it though in light of the strong ‘don’t mess with my freedom’-history of the US. But the question is whether this justifies these laws. It’s been noted several times by non-Western theologians that our goggles for reading Scripture are very individualistic and that we tend to forget the more communal aspect. The gun regulation in the US seems to me an example of the individualistic approach.
Kind regards,
Job Thomas
Evangelical Theological Faculty (Leuven, Belgium)

My problem with citing Canada’s murder rates and then arguing from that that we should make similar legal restrictions here comes down to two things. The first is cultural differences which take the form of greater economic demand. If we change the law without first changing economic demand (a deep cultural reality in the US) then we create or add to black markets. Even a fair number of US commenters to a blog named “Jesus Creed” want to have and keep handguns for personal protection (though I am not one of them). (I don’t know but I bet even the Church in the US is more pro-gun rights than not.) But given that reality, we are a long, long way away from passing a constitutional amendment and even further away from passing one that won’t create another prohibition era debacle.
The second is this: As the Church, let’s not try to use the power of the state to legally force people who feel safer with a gun to give it up. Let’s spend our energy telling such folks why the resurrection in Christ is a trustworthy reality which makes it unnecessary to fear those who can only kill the body. And lets give more energy to bringing those new and old criminals who have become so violent into the Way.

When I was growing up I lived near some lake cottages that were popular vacation spots. One day, a three year old neighbor of mine showed up down by the lake all by himself wielding a sawed off shot gun, fully loaded. By the grace of God, the gun was taken from his hands before it was discharged, which happened as soon as it left his hands. Nobody was injured. His father heard the shot, walked down the lake, grabbed the gun and tossed it in the water. No evidence was found so the police could do nothing.
Now, I own a gun. My family has lived off of the fruits of hunting. But, surely, this sort of thing can be prevented with some minute legal measures, or at least heavily discouraged. What if, by law, all gun owners had to keep a trigger lock on their guns when being stored? How does that infringe on a constitutional right? Reckless use of firearms, with no regulation, is just plain foolish and has probably caused a lot more accidental deaths than anybody in the NRA would be willing to admit.

Criminal behavior can be dealt with in a variety of ways. I want to know what we can do about the sociopathic behavior that is leading to these mass shootings.

I’m confused. Why are some of the Christians here treating the Bill of Rights as if it’s some kind of divinely inspired, inerrant document that should stand untouched and be obeyed authoritatively for all time? Why treat the Bill of Rights as if it’s on the same level as scripture?

T #29-
“As the Church, let’s not try to use the power of the state to legally force people who feel safer with a gun to give it up. Let’s spend our energy telling such folks why the resurrection in Christ is a trustworthy reality which makes it unnecessary to fear those who can only kill the body. And lets give more energy to bringing those new and old criminals who have become so violent into the Way.”
I totally agree.
Mike #32-
“Why are some of the Christians here treating the Bill of Rights as if it’s some kind of divinely inspired, inerrant document that should stand untouched and be obeyed authoritatively for all time? Why treat the Bill of Rights as if it’s on the same level as scripture?”
I have not seen anyone here do that.

I appreciate T’s reminder in #29.
“The second is this: As the Church, let’s not try to use the power of the state to legally force people who feel safer with a gun to give it up. Let’s spend our energy telling such folks why the resurrection in Christ is a trustworthy reality which makes it unnecessary to fear those who can only kill the body. And lets give more energy to bringing those new and old criminals who have become so violent into the Way.”
My family and I (wife, 3 girls under have moved into and planted a church community in a socio-economically challenging neighborhood where the crime rate is highy and issues of addiction and abuse are high. Yet the thought of owning a gun has yet to ever enter our minds. We are convinced that being an alternative to ways in which the world operate (me first, protect myself and my stuff first, violence leads to sustainable justice…) flows much more consistently with Jesus’ teachings and what the Kingdom is suppose to inaugurate.
I wonder if the Church in China had guns, would it grow and expand like it has? It seems to me that when we exist as a persecuted people, a people willing to lose our lives for the sake of the kingdom, the gospel flourishes and the church advances. I wonder if the american dream to possess land and guns has coopted the kingdom vision to love God and neighbors. When we exist to defend ourselves and protect what we accumulate, are we not placing our trust in ourselves, rather than the apostolic life of potential martyrdom, yet truly articulatig the vision.
I can understand why christians in other parts of the world wonder about the American church’s close connection to the almighty Gun.

Guns should be allowed only to those whose jobs require it. These of course should be policeman, soldiers, or those defending the country. Why would ordinary citizens need them. For people that like hunting, then they should be provided with that gun by those promoting the sport.

The most intersting part of this debate from my point of view, are the views that US citizens seem have of their constitution.
Fortunately I don’t live in the US, and don’t have to deal with this kind of legal system.

you’re right to point out, and I’ve talked about this before, that just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s just. The church should be finding different ways to think about justice outside the laws and imagination of the State.

Phil #38-
“The most intersting part of this debate from my point of view, are the views that US citizens seem have of their constitution.
Fortunately I don’t live in the US, and don’t have to deal with this kind of legal system.”
Yes, the listing of freedoms and the limiting of government can really be annoying ;^)

SNC #36:
How did the recent home invader slaying of a family about 1 mile from my synagogue glorify Christ?
If I let my three year old get killed by a person seeking to steal my valuables, will I look back and wish I had fought for her life? Or should I rejoice that my redeemed child died instead of an unredeemed home invader?
Jesus used supernatural means to save his life on several occasions (e.g., Luke 4). When he died, it was for a deliberate purpose and not merely from unwillingness to defend himself or save his own life.
Derek Leman

A couple people above suggested that there is no individual right to guns in the Constitution (i.e., the right is only tied to militias). Although *I* would tend to agree with that legal argument, the *Supreme Court* rejected it last year in the Heller case. (Just thought that should be clarified).
In any event, I agree that many Americans take their Second Amendment too seriously. But as a practical matter its not going to get amended any time soon.
The best bet is to regulate as much as possible, along the lines suggested by some folks above (I like the suggestion of requiring a trigger lock, as well as many others above). Having lived in both urban and rural areas in my life, its interesting how attitudes differ between them. Those in urban areas, where a lot of the violence actually happens, are much more in favor of regulation. I think that should tell us something.
I’ve never understood the “guns don’t kill people; people kill people argument.” Of course the statement is true, but it misses the point, which is that (1) guns allow people to kill larger numbers much more easily, and (2) they often also result in accidental deaths. You can allow guns (with whatever benefits people outline above — e.g., deterrence of crime), but also regulate them more extensively and cut down on these problems.

last time I checked we weren’t without a military and in need of being able to defend ourselves from the British in the night.
context. everything is best understood in context. Even the constitution of the USA.

Those in urban areas, where a lot of the violence actually happens, are much more in favor of regulation. I think that should tell us something.
It maybe tells us something about those who live in cities. Firearm ownership is, per capita, much more common in the country. If guns are the cause or contribute to crime it is the rural areas that should be awash in violence, not the cities. Maybe we should ban or regulate cities?

In Texas, it is now legal to shoot if you “feel Threatened”. The person you shoot can be leaving your yard with back turned- even before you know if they have committed a crime. A case last year showed a caucasian man set free when he shot/killed a young man leaving his neighbor’s house after robbing it (an impoverished mexican illegal human immigrant). You maybe also shoot if someone approaches your car and you “feel threatened”. Even if they don’t have a gun. The law is actually based on what you “feel” in an instant*.
Ironic, as old testament laws such as an eye for an eye would actually be a restriction once again–in Texas.
I find it odd that we as Jesus followers ever justify the theft of something as reason to take a life. If someone is stealing from you (or worse), you are the victim. If you stop that person by shooting them, well, you have just become the assailant. You have. And a dead man in the front yard over a tv? Really? Surely as we follow the author of justice and administrator of mercy and peace, we can find better ways to engage in the assaults against us without becoming our assailants.
A close family member of mine has never been so excited as to receive his concealed weapon license. I can’t stop thinking about all the ways he could lose everything with this new found “freedom” of his. It makes me so sad. So sad.

Scot asked: “What can we do?”
Reasonable restrictions on guns.
Promote peaceful solutions.
Provide help to those who struggle with violence.
Be counter-cultural in the glorification of violence.
And, of course, point towards Christ.

#32
Hey Mike,
I see what you are saying. However, I don’t think they elevate the Bill of Rights to the Word of God level. The Bill of Rights is the law of the land. I think you pick up the intensity of some for that fact.

John Frye mentioned the failure of prohibition. My first thought when I read this post this morning was about drugs being illegal. We have “drug control” and movies like “Traffic” are said to reveal the war on drugs to be a failure. There is already an active black market for guns, running them from smaller towns into larger cities and from the US into Mexico. If the war on drugs is a failure, I think the “war on guns” would be a worse failure. (In retrospect, I think I am largely agreeing with T, #9)

Robyn,
I sympathize and I also absolutely hate the thought of shooting anyone over a TV. But, food for thought – It is also a Christian value to defend the powerless. We chide those who say they care about the poor yet fail to act. To extend the analogy, if you were being attacked, I would see it as similar to what James said about failing to act on behalf of the poor if a bystander were to walk away while saying “be safe and comforted, I’ll pray for you”; I would hope they would act to defend you.

Oh brother, comment 46 is supposed to be by MatthewS. Loose nut behind the keyboard…

“Without access to handguns, these senseless murders don’t happen.”
I’m almost certain murder was invented a few years before the firearm. I think mass murder may have been invented before guns, too.
But since we all know that passing laws is the solution, I propose that we outlaw murder.

I go back to T?s comment in #9. Public policy has to be oriented toward the realities of the culture we?re dealing with. What would happen if we plopped down several cases of handguns and ammo in the middle of an Amish community? What would happen if we plopped down several cases of handguns and ammo in the middle of a crime and drug ridden neighborhood? I think you would have very different outcomes that would be rooted in the values of the people of these communities.
Christians of left and right seem to have their lists of vices to which external force should be applied, as opposed to achieving transformation through individuals who have internalized virtue. I?m not saying there isn?t a need for external forces but I get the sense that all too often things like ?guns bans? are largely short-cuts for avoiding the hard work of transforming values. As T points out, Prohibition is just one example of how dependence on externalized control can make matters much worse.
Personally, I think we should eliminate the right to bear arms. How else will bears walk, eat, and defend themselves if we take their arms? It?s a simple matter of justice.

I suggest we look at the manufacturers of fire arms. For more than 30 years, the US has been by far the top exporter/seller of small arms to foreign nations, both in direct government sales and private sales. We can look to Congo, Columbia etc. to see those fire arms at work.
I heard a very interesting story the other day on NPR. It discussed how the Mexican drug cartels have people make “dummy buys” of large numbers of guns in the US, which then are smuggled to Mexico where they produce the very violence that we are worried is crossing the border back into the US.
Of course we hear daily of the efforts of Customs, DEA, FBI to deal with that violence.
Peace,
Randy Gabrielse

Households with a gun are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide, and 3 times more likely to experience a homicide, than gun free homes (NEJM). So much for “protecting my family.”
If you want to protect your family from violent death, make sure to get rid of your guns.

“Households with a gun are … 3 times more likely to experience a homicide”
Do guns cause this increase, or are guns found in areas with high homicide rates? Correlation often looks like causation, especially when it aligns with your prejudices — and you’ll note that this is hardly “medical” research, making politically based preconceived notions seem even more likely in this study.

Mike Clawson (#32)
Only someone who takes the Constitution and Bill of Rights for granted would make a comment like yours. I have very good friends in Ukraine–a former Soviet bloc nation–who would love to live under our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Where did anyone in the comments before yours equate the Constitution and Bill of Rights with Scripture.
If you mess with something in the Constitution that you think needs changing, then someone will mess with something in it you wished would never change.

Yes, it makes it right.
John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President, in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The Constitution was never meant to be a restriction on the populace. It was, and is, a way to bind the government, which our Founding Fathers feared more than their fellow countrymen.
The reason why people abuse handguns is because the “glue” that holds society together — namely, the self-governing principles of the Bible — has dissolved thanks, in part, to the tireless energies of the ACLU and other left-wing radicals. Removing God from the public square and, simultaneously filling the void with Hollywood, TV, and a public that’s insatiable in its pursuit of lasciviousness, has created a people incapable of governing themselves. So, as our Founders feared, government has become ever more restrictive, invasive, pervasive, and tyrannical.
The answer is not to replace the Constitution. The answer is to restore biblical morality.

Where did anyone in the comments before yours equate the Constitution and Bill of Rights with Scripture.
If you mess with something in the Constitution that you think needs changing, then someone will mess with something in it you wished would never change.

Ahh, irony.
Correct, me if I’m wrong John, but the second part of your comment above seems to imply that no part of the Constitution should ever change. To me that seems to be putting the Constitution on the same level as divinely inspired scripture. Human documents are always imperfect and fallible, thus necessitating adaptation and change over time. Only something divinely inspired would be beyond these limitations. Is that what you’re implying?

Also, speaking of irony, I’m chuckling at the fact that by its very nature as a set of “amendments”, the Bill of Rights (ratified in 1791) was itself a “change” to the Constitution (ratified in 1787).

As an interloper from Sydney, Australia, I hope I can be forgiven for intruding into this debate.
“Guns don’t cause murder, people do.”
While of course there’s explicit logic to this statement, it’s really just obfuscating the overwhelming evidence that where guns are prevalent, murders are *much* more likely.
We could also say – “cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer, or vascular disease, smoking them does”. (And of course there are still those that argue that association doesn’t prove causation, which while true in isolation, simply defies the overwhelming evidence that smoking cigarettes doesn’t do lots of really nasty things.)
Anyhow, from my perusal of how most have responded to this thread, there’s evidently a pervasive acceptance of guns within American society, even to the point that any restriction of gun ownership would be seen as a denial of a ‘freedom’. Having said that, outside the US, most Westerners cherish sensible restrictions on gun ownership just as we (mostly) cherish other restrictions on personal ‘freedom’ (eg speed limits on public roads) that are necessary for the safety of the community.
In Australia, a little over 10 years ago following a gun-massacre tragedy, we as a nation embraced significant tightening of gun ownership regulations with a consequent reduction in gun related homicides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia). Unfortunately, it usually requires these sorts of tragedies before people are willing to accept sensible restrictions.
What is truly depressing is the influence that a few very wealthy and influential lobby groups (ie cigarette and gun manufacturers) have in shaping public opinion.

Many of us have probably seen this already, but this topic reminded me of John Stossel arguing against what he concluded were gun-control myths:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html

As a friend and co-worker at the seminary were Fred Winters was an adjunct prof, I can say that he supported our 2nd Ammendment rights, as do I. The web hurts many more people than guns…porn, web-addition, materialism, gaming. Should be ban the web? Come on, Scot, as a fellow professor, let’s not let our emotions or geographical cultural norms drive this debate.

I think we’d be better off with more restrictions on guns. If this is the best we can do, having the society we have, than we’re in bad shape.
But more important for us is just what we Christians should be doing, or not doing about all of this. Should we be known as among the staunchest advocates for self-defense with hand guns? Does this comport well with our mission? Are there risks in it that we must live with to fulfill it?

I do not believe in killing for the sake of self defence. Men invented guns to kill and then invented the ‘right’ to own them.
While the web isn’t that friendly, I haven’t heard of it killing people.

All one has to do to see what’s wrong with the United States is read some of these comments. I have a hard time believing people have such a profound lack of knowledge of our Constitution; its origin, its purpose, and its role in creating what became — in just three short centuries — the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth.
By and large, people have lost the ability to think objectively, logically, and clearly. They think viscerally, reacting to situations with their emotions. They are governed by situations, rather than principles, by events rather than facts.
The late Francis A. Schaeffer wrote something 20 years ago (in his ground-breaking book A Christian Manifesto) that continues to impact me to this day:
“The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.”
I see Dr. Schaeffer’s words played out every single day, in Christian forums like this.
Those who wrote our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were deeply learned and intelligent men, well read and profoundly moved by the Spirit to create a document that combines biblical principles with the experience of seeing first-hand that governments are prone to corruption. So they placed the power in the people, and shackled the government with the bounds of the Constitution.
Each time something happens that people react to viscerally (like another shooting in some school, church, or public square), they forget the reasons why we have the kind of society we do and they look to government to fix it — rather than to themselves.
In other words, people shirk responsibility and give away more of their freedoms to the government, which has bloated well beyond its constitutional restrictions to the point where it rules our lives, and not the other way around.
Until people diligently study, think, pray, and get off their lazy behinds to do what they’ve allowed government to do, we will not see an end to the problems we have today.

Bill,
Well, quite a rant. I’m not sure where the “visceral” comment is from but I have held to this view for decades and don’t think my response was visceral at all. Instead, it was opportunistic.
I respect our Constitution; I don’t equate it with the Bible; and I don’t think it is not in need of occasional refinements. The right to bear arms needs some serious reexamination.

I am a 66 year old Christian, and I received my first gun as a gift when I was 12 years old. It was a Winchester single shot .22. I grew up on a farm, and I had many hours of enjoyment with that gun. I put lots of holes in tin cans. That was the worst damage I did with it. Later on I came to enjoy hunting, especially with my son. There are those in today’s world who would ban every firearm. Draconian gun laws serve only to punish the law abiding gun owner. According to some statistics, there are over 100 million gun owners in this country. By far the vast majority are decent citizens and obey the law. Criminals are going to have guns if they have to smuggle them from a foreign country. According to some counts, there are 20,000 plus gun laws in the United States. These laws need to be enforced very strictly and consistently.
I do not have a problem with a waiting period and background checks. This must be done to keep them away from criminals and the mentally ill. There are many instances every day in which people have defended their lives and property. There is the famous old saying: “When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns.” I do believe in the Second Amendment. I have rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Only one of the pistols is used for the defense of my home and family.
Finally, there is such a debate on gun control, the public’s attention is diverted from something just as lethal. Drunk drivers kill in excess of 20,000 plus people each year in the United States. Why not hold the breweries and distilleries responsible?

Scot,
I’m not sure why you used the denigrating, ad hominem term “rant” to describe my well-thought and lucid response — which is based on a quarter century of study of the subject matter — to your question. Just because I hold a different opinion from you does not mean I’m engaged in an unhinged-from-truth rant.
Ironically, your reply appears to prove my point. Instead of matching my historic facts and studious opinions, you chose to react emotionally to what I wrote. That, my friend, is the very definition of visceral.
If you’ve never studied the origins of America, I suggest you do so. If you aren’t familiar with the works and worldview of Dr. Francis Schaeffer, I strongly encourage you to seek out his books.
Regarding your opinions about “occasional refinements” and “the right to bear arms needs some serious reexamination” I can only say this: I’m not sure we could muster a group of politicians today with fraction of the intelligence, grasp of history, reverence for the Bible, and distrust of government that gathered together 300 years ago to craft our Constitution. Once in a room, I’m afraid they’d propose all sorts of tinkering — “refinements,” to use your word — that would further limit our freedoms while concomitantly expanding the intrusion of government in our lives.
Rather than “refine” the Constitution by changing it, I propose actually ABIDING BY it, using its power to shackle government…while at the same time applying the biblical principles of self government to enable our freedom to exist without deteriorating into violence or perversion.
Bottom line: The answer is not to change propose changes from without, via government. The answer is invoke change from within. The former shirks responsibility. The latter assumes it and places it where it belongs — on each one of us.

Nicely put Bill. There really isn’t much else to say on the subject.

Bill,
I think there is a real danger in conflating the movement that Jesus began, Christianity, and the nation-state in which we live. Jesus, and then St. Paul carrying his message, were both firm about this. Christ was creating a world where “the law,” things like Constitutions, Charters, and Ancestry were not worshiped. Viewing the Constitution as something transcendent, something that is part of Christianity is sort of a form of idolatry. I know there’s a long tradition of nation worship in the country, but the founding fathers, as great philosophers they were, they weren’t Gods, and many of them actually had some pretty nasty things to say about Biblical monotheism. America is a great project and I do believe in it, but in Christ I must remember I am not Jew, Gentile, or American. That’s really important.
-T.J.

Bill,
You clearly have good knowledge of the subject, but it seems you make some sweeping claims. My big question is, do handguns fall into what the 2nd Amendment had anything to say about? The entire purpose, as you have stated, was so that the American People would always be able to raise up a militia in case it needed to revolt against a tyrannical government. So while much of what you say about the government restricting our freedoms is correct, we must ask, has the NRA and certain people/groups taken 2nd ammendment rights FAR beyond what they were intended for?
The answer to this is “yes” and that must be dealt with.
Also I find it funny that you would talk about the Constitution being written by men who prayed a lot and listened to the Spirit. Many of the Founding Fathers had little sense of a Biblical picture of christianity and followed a much more Enlightenment Deism which had little to do with the God of the Bible at all and is a huge reason for the Distant, Therepeutic concept of God which runs so rampant among today’s Adolescence and is much of the reason why Christianity is the way it is in America. To put “the Spirit” into ANY discussion of the writing of the Constitution is borderline Idolatry.
Also, I think it is fair to say that the government can restrict certain things, or act in certain ways, that do not necessarily restrict our rights or extend their power. Such as certain tax/use policies. It’s simply a matter of doing so in a correct fashion. Overall, I agree with your assessment of why the 2nd ammendment is there and why the constitution was written, but you step over some important issues in arriving at your conclusion.
Lastly, I don’t think that “a return to Biblical Morality” is a viable idea for a country that is not, and was never intended to be, a Christian nation. The fathers always envisaged a pluralist society. The answer is never that a country become Christian, but that Christians live like Christians. HUGE difference and it makes all the difference in the world. Our ideas of “biblical morality” for a country are just as silly and idyllic as the idea that banning guns will stop gun violence. Besides, why do we desire to build a country for Christ when HE has been building his own church all along, and will continue to do so, without our help, and without any country?
To All,
Sure, I think it’s possible that some restrictions might be due, who knows. The real problem is that the criminals will still be able to get guns, and they will still get them. Laws will not change this… as another comment has already said, why don’t we just ban murder? Lol, oh wait, we have. Making things illegal didn’t make them go away. So if we get rid of guns, only criminals will have them bc law abiding citizens won’t get them. That doesn’t seem like a safe alternative. Also, what happens when the Government does totally restrict guns, and then we don’t have guns? That also doesn’t sound like a great plan. All of our ideas about gun-control seem like GREAT ideals, but nothing else. They don’t play out well, no matter how much we want them to.
The real question we must ask is what do WE as Christians do? Should WE own guns? What tune should WE march to? If Jesus refused Peter’s attempt at using a sword, should WE use a gun? Should we be more willing to die than to kill? The answer to that should undoubtedly be yes (Hauerwas), but then even that answer gets difficult and hairy as Derek Leman has pointed out with his 3 year old daughter. We have a lot of tough questions to answer, but they are not “what should the government do,” but rather, “what should Christians do?”

The way I look at the issue is this: You have a right to own a gun. And I have a right to not let my kid play at your house if you do.

This article posted is so shallow, it seems like a spoof.
These guys were murdered. Why do guns exist?
It’s legal, but that don’t make it right.
Gee whiz, what’s legal? Is murder legal? No. Is shooting someone with a gun legal? No, unless it’s self-defense.
Which, the self-defense comment, brings me to the most important post possible. A gun is used in self-defense between 1 million – 2.5 million times a year in the U.S.
I guess it’s true indeed that guns save 65 lives for each one they take. Except that guns don’t take or save, guns merely provide an individual with the freedom to choose.
It’s all about choice.
Be smart, buy a gun.