Christians and Guns

[intricatic]

Link

...or "Praise the Lord, and Pass The Ammunition!"

Church-goers are more likely to be packing heat in the pews after deadly shootings at an Arvada missionary training center and a Colorado Springs megachurch, reports Hector Gutierrez.

[under His wings]

I guess I find that hard to believe. We have one gun in the house, my son shoots trap in a league. I don't know what it would take for me to carry a gun around, I can't imagine it happening. Although, I have to admit, I don't mind having so many police officers in our congregation and knowing they are carrying their guns into church.

[intricatic]

I have no problem with citizens carrying weapons, provided they're trained to use them properly and understand the dangers that guns can constitute. I think a lot of the potential problems that guns can cause, which are often used as justification to legislate against them, are the products of poor education. That's why I'm slightly agnostic in terms of gun regulation - I think it's both a good and a bad thing. Requiring a gun owner be trained in the gun's use is a very good thing, but restrictions on guns are stupid and pointless. It's kind of a contradictory position.

Those potential problems: In my English class last quarter, I had a discussion with one girl (more a debate over civil liberties that focused on this one issue towards the close) about why guns should be restricted. It was stated, and supported by data, that people, when in an argument, would be more prone to reach for their guns as a way to solve the dispute, if those guns were readily available to them (I.E. left in a glove-compartment of their car, or somewhere else in easy reach). That line of reasoning makes sense if a person isn't already fully aware of the danger and finality such an action would cause. Most people, amazingly, are desensitized to gun violence from the media and don't really make the connection with the reality of shooting another human being, which is much different than it's portrayed in the media, and so guns take on a sort of romantic appeal that people translate into practical reality. If you train a person on the use of a gun, the reality quickly solidifies and that romantic appeal might linger, but only in a peripheral sort of way.

[under His wings]

True, but hotheads will be hotheads. In my son's trap league the education is required before beginning, then it is ongoing. However, if someone comes in with a bad attitude (fight with family, poor work day or school day, etc) they are sent home. If they come in with a bad attitude twice, they are off the team. They cannot afford bad attitudes in conjuction with guns.

When Omaha had the mall shooting last year a reporter called our coach to see if the kid had ever been on the team. They were obviously looking for a connection to guns and wanted to blame a legite sport. He had no connection bc he wouldn't have been allowed anyway.

[intricatic]

That's good - but attitude doesn't necessarily mean a person will use a gun in an irresponsible way. If they understand how final that decision would be, they would understand, also, what an idiotic thing it would be to do. My biggest problem with that line of reasoning is assuming that a gun is somehow different from a knife, or a sledge-hammer, in terms of it's potential for abuse. It's hard to aim a gun, it's not that hard to aim a knife or a sledge-hammer. Yet, most people don't use knives or sledge-hammers to hurt people they're in an argument with.

[under His wings]

True, but obviously with those things they have to be closer to their victim. As for attitude, even cops with bad attitudes scare other cops. We have a friend on the sheriff's dept who has made that comment. I think more than likely, if you have a bad attitude your mind might be on your problem rather than on carefullly using your best judgement. It is best to have a clear mind when carrying a sidearm, even one who understands finality might get caught up in the moment.

[intricatic]

That's a risk with everything, from words to swords to firearms. I can definitely agree there.

[under His wings]

Ah!! Very valid point, I totally agree! Tried to rep you but will have to wait until that is back.

[silentpoet]

I carry a good percentage of the time. I don't think most gun laws are strictly constitutional. I think words hurt more people than anything else and yet speech is loosely regulated.

[cory]

Originally Posted by under His wings

True, but obviously with those things they have to be closer to their victim.

actually at the range people are ussually shot at in a DV type situation a cutting weopon is far more effective. thus the police train not to allow someone with a knife within 18 to 21 feet depending on the dept. a bullet often is non leathal especially when you look at the high rate of misses. Even trained shooters have a high miss rate when shooting at people.a knife on the otherhand produces horrible wounds with a greater chance of bleeding out before help comes. At one time in the sixties the most common homicide weapon was a ball point pen. I doubt that is still true but it was when a coworker of mine was a homicide detective in san francisco.