Gun control questions - by an outsider...

Restless Soul

I just have a few things I'd like to ask about the US gun control debate. It may seem misinformed etc to some of you but then again I don't live in the states so don't know everything about the issue. This is just my perspective as an outsider. You can shout and scream at me and call me ignorant all you like after! :P

1) Law enforcement is missing a trick: The US is well known for its stringent emphasis on law enforcement. The country spends billions of tax dollars on police forces, law enforcement and the justice system as a whole to tackle and reduce crime. This includes tackling and reducing crimes involving drugs, knives, gangs, fraud etc etc. But it seems to me that the whole thing is missing a point if they don't include gun control into the mix. The US has the highest rate of gun murders in the developed world. (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... d-country/ so to me it makes no sense. Does it to you?

2) Does it have to be a gun? The US is one of the most technologically innovative countries on earth and the NRA are one of the most richest organisations. Surely they could put their money into developing alternative methods of self defence, eg guns that can stun or disarm and opponent but doesn't kill. In the UK the police use tasers which stun but can be dangerous to people with heart conditions, so I'm not advocating that, but surely some of the best brains in the US could come up with a bunch of alternatives that could help make people feel safer and defend themselves in their homes, but will still be safe to have around the house with children in it. (Face it people only need guns because other people have them, so they end up fearing each other and it becomes a vicious circle of fear and anger). Is the pro-gun lobby not willing to consider investing in finding alternatives, or does it have to be a gun only? (I mean, is there an app for this? )

3) Constitution vs Bible: It seems to me that most of the pro-gun lobby group are staunch christians as well but they would defend their right to self defence via the constitution. How do they reconcile this with the bible's "do not kill" policy? Does the constitution come above the bible to them? The constitution is man-made, (not saying whether the bible is or isn't) so why can't it be changed or updated?

Anyway, just wondering!

goingtoverona

don't have time to address the whole post, but did want to point out that your statement of people only need guns because other people have them and it's all about fear and anger is wrong. that may be true for some but not everyone. I love shooting guns, target shooting not hunting, it's a blast(pun intended). I have never bought a gun thinking oh man I hope this can kill a bad guy or I hope my gun is better than a bad guys gun. so just a heads up, we aren't all living in fear. and we aren't all angry.

Restless Soul

quimby20 wrote:

All good questions, but first realize that almost all crimes committed are either by stolen or illegally owned guns. Case in point, Chicago has the highest rate of gun violence in the US but has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Take the guns away from the law abiding citizens and the criminal will be the only ones with guns.

Thanks for your reply. IMO, wherever there are humans with laws, there will be crime! Crime is always going to happen, whatever the law, even in the safest countries (eg Japan, netherlands etc where gun crime deaths are statistically low) there are still gun crimes happening, albeit at a low level. But why is it at a low level? Because of gun control! Criminals will always find a way to get weapons, legally or illegally, but in the US it's so easy for anyone to get hold of that criminals don't even have to work hard to get them. Just because some people might use them wrongly doesn't mean there should be a free-for-all for everyone with no controls whatsoever.

There's an article posted in another thread about Ed's comment that 90% of people want stronger gun laws and the poll actually says that they want more criminal background checks on gun buyers. I find it terrifying that there AREN'T these checks already! And if Chicago can do it, then why not make it a national thing, not a state-level thing? I might be wrong but from what I understand, tackling crime is a national issue right, not just a state one, so if they really wanted to reduce crime rates, especially gun murders, surely it needs to be taken seriously straight at the top.

With that said, I have a CCW permit and I do carry. I am in Detroit 2-3 days a week and will protect myself. If I ever (and I hope I don't), I will kill the person who threatens my family or my life. If you have a weapon that doesn't kill or even a gun that happens to disable the attacker, you can almost guaranteed to be sued. The US is full of scumbag lawyers who represent the guilty. For the Bible, you pull a gun on me, you die. Bible states eye for an eye.

Slam away, and I'll even get it started:

:nono: :nono: :corn: :corn: :corn: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp:

The issue of getting sued is one I hadn't considered, as we don't have such a strong compensation culture in the UK (though it does exist). It should be simple enough to add a law to state that if someone is an intruder they are exempt from suing as they are the perpetrator of a crime. But then I guess it would be an issue if the homeowner lost the case... Nothing is ever really that simple in the states though is it? :P

Restless Soul

goingtoverona wrote:

don't have time to address the whole post, but did want to point out that your statement of people only need guns because other people have them and it's all about fear and anger is wrong. that may be true for some but not everyone.

I'm basing my statement on what I've read in comments here and elsewhere. Wherever you have gun control debates online the pro-gun people nearly always talk about how they want to defend their homes from others with guns, so it stands to reason that everyone has guns because they are afraid of others with guns. But the more guns there are easily available then the more gun crime there will be (imo).

I love shooting guns, target shooting not hunting, it's a blast(pun intended). I have never bought a gun thinking oh man I hope this can kill a bad guy or I hope my gun is better than a bad guys gun. so just a heads up, we aren't all living in fear. and we aren't all angry.

I guess if you are buying it for sport then it's not related to gun crime per se. Do you need to hold a licence for your gun? Does it specify what you are allowed to do with it? eg self-defence; target practice/sport etc? Just curious as not sure how gun ownership actually works over there.

Godfather.

I guess unless you are an American you might not understand, if we look back in history this country was settled by....rebles I guess you could say,people that wanted to escape english rule and taxes and gun's and God where here from the start but I suppose some on here will argue that, but in the end American's love God and their guns and that's something that has not changed for the last few hundred years.
as far as new forms of weapons stun guns etc. look it up we have them mostly used by the police dept and the military but nothing says "if you hurt me or my loved ones I'll pull the trigger" like a gun also technology advances thru our military just keep getting better.

there are laws in other countries that are hundreds of years old I would guess but there is no changing them, there are many things that predate modern technology that are preserved for different reasons,people around the world are funny that way.

quote-"The US is one of the most technologically innovative countries on earth and the NRA are one of the most richest organisations"...because we have the freedom to stand up for our rights and create organsations like the NRA to help protect our right to keep and bare arms from morons that infect our government with thier panzi ass crap....preserving our rights along with new technology does not mean Americans will give up guns by any means.


Godfather.

Pingfah

Restless Soul wrote:

2) Does it have to be a gun? The US is one of the most technologically innovative countries on earth and the NRA are one of the most richest organisations. Surely they could put their money into developing alternative methods of self defence, eg guns that can stun or disarm and opponent but doesn't kill.

Well, the NRA is basically a lobbyist group for the firearms industry, they sell themselves to the public as a defender of their rights, who are stupid enough to lap it up, but really they are there to protect the firearms industry's profits which they do by bribing politicians to legislate in their favour. They do not give one shit about the American public, or saving lives. When a classroom full of kids gets shot up, to them that's just an opportunity to whip up a bit more fear, fear that you need a gun to defend yourself, and fear that the government is coming for your guns. They love that shit.

They have no interest in rocking the boat with respect to firearms sales. You'd need a complete reversal of the attitudes of global firearms manufacturers for that to happen.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona wrote:

don't have time to address the whole post, but did want to point out that your statement of people only need guns because other people have them and it's all about fear and anger is wrong. that may be true for some but not everyone. I love shooting guns, target shooting not hunting, it's a blast(pun intended). I have never bought a gun thinking oh man I hope this can kill a bad guy or I hope my gun is better than a bad guys gun. so just a heads up, we aren't all living in fear. and we aren't all angry.

You might be a responsible gun enthusiast, but the problem isn't you. Part of the problem is the many other enthusiasts that are careless with their weapons.

I'm sorry, but to me... your right to having a fancy gun doesn't trump the rights of everyone for safety. I wouldn't want to take away a hunting rifle or shotgun from you, but I don't see an assault rifle as 'necessary'- I see it as a risk that needs to be managed. I'm okay with airport screening in light of what has happened in the past just as I am alright with taking similar measures to avoid another Sandy Hook.

When do you think your next national tragedy will strike? You realize it is inevitable don't you?

Dirtie_Frank

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

don't have time to address the whole post, but did want to point out that your statement of people only need guns because other people have them and it's all about fear and anger is wrong. that may be true for some but not everyone. I love shooting guns, target shooting not hunting, it's a blast(pun intended). I have never bought a gun thinking oh man I hope this can kill a bad guy or I hope my gun is better than a bad guys gun. so just a heads up, we aren't all living in fear. and we aren't all angry.

You might be a responsible gun enthusiast, but the problem isn't you. Part of the problem is the many other enthusiasts that are careless with their weapons.

I'm sorry, but to me... your right to having a fancy gun doesn't trump the rights of everyone for safety. I wouldn't want to take away a hunting rifle or shotgun from you, but I don't see an assault rifle as 'necessary'- I see it as a risk that needs to be managed. I'm okay with airport screening in light of what has happened in the past just as I am alright with taking similar measures to avoid another Sandy Hook.

When do you think your next national tragedy will strike? You realize it is inevitable don't you?

I have seen this posted before, but I have read not to lump all of muslims into the extremist/terrorist groups, but people have no problem doing it with gun owners. Why is that?

JimmyV

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

don't have time to address the whole post, but did want to point out that your statement of people only need guns because other people have them and it's all about fear and anger is wrong. that may be true for some but not everyone. I love shooting guns, target shooting not hunting, it's a blast(pun intended). I have never bought a gun thinking oh man I hope this can kill a bad guy or I hope my gun is better than a bad guys gun. so just a heads up, we aren't all living in fear. and we aren't all angry.

You might be a responsible gun enthusiast, but the problem isn't you. Part of the problem is the many other enthusiasts that are careless with their weapons.

I'm sorry, but to me... your right to having a fancy gun doesn't trump the rights of everyone for safety. I wouldn't want to take away a hunting rifle or shotgun from you, but I don't see an assault rifle as 'necessary'- I see it as a risk that needs to be managed. I'm okay with airport screening in light of what has happened in the past just as I am alright with taking similar measures to avoid another Sandy Hook.

When do you think your next national tragedy will strike? You realize it is inevitable don't you?

I have seen this posted before, but I have read not to lump all of muslims into the extremist/terrorist groups, but people have no problem doing it with gun owners. Why is that?

Because not all Muslims are dangerous. All guns are.

Pingfah

Actually he made a point of saying that as a responsible gun enthusiast he isn't part of the problem, kind of the opposite of what he is being accused of...

Dirtie_Frank

So we get rid of guns in the states, then what? Do we outlaw crossbows and bow and arrows? swords, knives? When does it end? Do we get rid of alcohol after all that, and possibly cars because since everything else is gone they can be used to kill people too?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

So we get rid of guns in the states, then what? Do we outlaw crossbows and bow and arrows? swords, knives? When does it end? Do we get rid of alcohol after all that, and possibly cars because since everything else is gone they can be used to kill people too?

So do weiners if we don't chew them well enough and we choke. What a silly argument to make. But I understand you are grasping and this type of argument is really the only type one can make in the face of such an overwhelming case against their position.

If you actually needed a response... crossbows and knives do not have the potential to create mass havoc as an assault rifle possesses. Considering assault rifles are a tool for soldiers, but a toy for citizens, leave that type of weapon to the soldiers doing their job.

Your neighbours do not need that type of gun for anything other than to shoot beer cans or targets of humans. Find another way to enjoy yourself and take the element of risk that those elementary kids and movie goers stared down not too long ago. It seems a small sacrifice when you consider the upside.

Even if one mass shooting doesn't occur as a result of restricting assault rifles to the general public... wouldn't this be worth it? In the meantime... what is the over/under for your next national tragedy orchestrated by an armed madman?

Dirtie_Frank

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

So we get rid of guns in the states, then what? Do we outlaw crossbows and bow and arrows? swords, knives? When does it end? Do we get rid of alcohol after all that, and possibly cars because since everything else is gone they can be used to kill people too?

So do weiners if we don't chew them well enough and we choke. What a silly argument to make. But I understand you are grasping and this type of argument is really the only type one can make in the face of such an overwhelming case against their position.

If you actually needed a response... crossbows and knives do not have the potential to create mass havoc as an assault rifle possesses. Considering assault rifles are a tool for soldiers, but a toy for citizens, leave that type of weapon to the soldiers doing their job.

Your neighbours do not need that type of gun for anything other than to shoot beer cans or targets of humans. Find another way to enjoy yourself and take the element of risk that those elementary kids and movie goers stared down not too long ago. It seems a small sacrifice when you consider the upside.

Even if one mass shooting doesn't occur as a result of restricting assault rifles to the general public... wouldn't this be worth it? In the meantime... what is the over/under for your next national tragedy orchestrated by an armed madman?

I am talking all guns, since that is what I have read.

Dirtie_Frank

Where does the line get drawn in definition of a assault gun?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

So we get rid of guns in the states, then what? Do we outlaw crossbows and bow and arrows? swords, knives? When does it end? Do we get rid of alcohol after all that, and possibly cars because since everything else is gone they can be used to kill people too?

So do weiners if we don't chew them well enough and we choke. What a silly argument to make. But I understand you are grasping and this type of argument is really the only type one can make in the face of such an overwhelming case against their position.

If you actually needed a response... crossbows and knives do not have the potential to create mass havoc as an assault rifle possesses. Considering assault rifles are a tool for soldiers, but a toy for citizens, leave that type of weapon to the soldiers doing their job.

Your neighbours do not need that type of gun for anything other than to shoot beer cans or targets of humans. Find another way to enjoy yourself and take the element of risk that those elementary kids and movie goers stared down not too long ago. It seems a small sacrifice when you consider the upside.

Even if one mass shooting doesn't occur as a result of restricting assault rifles to the general public... wouldn't this be worth it? In the meantime... what is the over/under for your next national tragedy orchestrated by an armed madman?

I am talking all guns, since that is what I have read.

I'm not sure where you have got this? I hope not from anything I have written. I have been very supportive of an individual's right to go out in the bush and hunt for their food. To do this... a rifle or shotgun is necessary. In some remote areas... a sidearm (handgun) is necessary.

Do not ever mistake me for someone who wishes for an all-out ban of guns.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Where does the line get drawn in definition of a assault gun?

An item for debate, but it should be debated.

Definitely nothing automatic or semi-automatic. I'm thinking- off the top of my head- magazines with a maximum capacity of 6 bullets. This should be enough to get the job done hunting for a moose- if not... get to the range .

Dirtie_Frank

I apologize I did not mean to direct that at you.

I wish they had a cheers smily.

pro

The bottom line is… A gun is a weapon that is designed to… well you know. Knives, pitchforks, axes are tools but also used as weapons as well. This is one long debate over gun control and I am not going to take sides in it.

Pingfah

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

So we get rid of guns in the states, then what? Do we outlaw crossbows and bow and arrows? swords, knives? When does it end? Do we get rid of alcohol after all that, and possibly cars because since everything else is gone they can be used to kill people too?

Nah, we should legalise private ownership of plutonium, ground to air missiles and chemical weapons.

See, idiotic hyperbolic arguments work both ways!

Dirtie_Frank

Pingfah wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

So we get rid of guns in the states, then what? Do we outlaw crossbows and bow and arrows? swords, knives? When does it end? Do we get rid of alcohol after all that, and possibly cars because since everything else is gone they can be used to kill people too?

Nah, we should legalise private ownership of plutonium, ground to air missiles and chemical weapons.

See, idiotic hyperbolic arguments work both ways!

Do you ever contribute anything or do you just like talking down to others?

unsung

Gun control is not about guns.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

I apologize I did not mean to direct that at you.

I wish they had a cheers smily.

DF...

It's all good.

If I remember correctly... you are a soldier (or were). You would be one person that might have a strong attachment to the 'type' of weapon that comes up for debate. I get it, but I think if you objectively look at the upside/downside to the ownership of such a weapon... you have to agree that the downside outweighs the upside by a landslide. Am I wrong here?

Let's put the issue of 'Rights' aside because the Constitution was written when the founding fathers could not anticipate the evolution of such weaponry. The Constituion is antiquated and needs revisions. It will need revisionary work again when laser guns are developed.

Let's put the 'home defence' argument aside as well because... seriously... home defence can be handled very effectively with a shotgun.

That would leave us with: the upside (fun) versus the downside (mass shootings). To me... it's not close.

Dirtie_Frank

Funny thing is that I don't even own a gun. I have been thinking about it, to target shoot and for protection. I'm not one of those dooms day preppers but living near dc I always figure if shit is going to go down. That would be the place and a gun could get me an my family to safety.

callen

Godfather. wrote:

I guess unless you are an American you might not understand,.

Hell I live here and don't understand.

Godfather. wrote:

American's love God and their guns and that's something that has not changed for the last few hundred years.

This got me to thinking....fear of God and fear of the boogy man driving Americans to want guns?

Life in Houston, lots of violent crime...my county executes more people than any other yet I have absolutely no want to have a gun to "protect" myself. I don't beleive in God. Related?

Dirtie_Frank

BTW I am for stricter laws and I am for some sort of check on mental health prior to buying I'm not sure how but with reasonable debate I'm sure it could be figures out. Thanks for remembering me too. I don't post often and it sometime feels ver cliques-ish here.

chadwick

we used guns for target practice, hunting & they would have been used for protection, good thing that last part never happened. dad shot guns regularly at his job & was expected to shoot year round to keep his shooting skills sharp.

what us boys never had were toy guns. i haven't owned a gun in probably 12 years or some shit & i haven't been hunting in like 20+ years. i did own a single shot shotgun though when i was 10 years old. that was something alright.

from his job dad got death threats almost daily from the 70's up into the 90's; some were very serious players & others not so much. as far as i can remember at least one guy tried killing all of us, burning our house down, blah blah, blah. tasers, rubber bullets, & tear gas isn't an option for these animals. once caught, he never was shot, he was beat down though.

Godfather.

callen wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

I guess unless you are an American you might not understand,.

Hell I live here and don't understand.

Godfather. wrote:

American's love God and their guns and that's something that has not changed for the last few hundred years.

This got me to thinking....fear of God and fear of the boogy man driving Americans to want guns?

Life in Houston, lots of violent crime...my county executes more people than any other yet I have absolutely no want to have a gun to "protect" myself. I don't beleive in God. Related?

what a shame.....


Godfather.

Godfather.

I read the OP's post and thought here come the anti gun posts....this place is so predictable I'm glad the rest of the world knows better.


Godfather.

MotoDC

Restless Soul wrote:

I just have a few things I'd like to ask about the US gun control debate. It may seem misinformed etc to some of you but then again I don't live in the states so don't know everything about the issue. This is just my perspective as an outsider. You can shout and scream at me and call me ignorant all you like after! :P

1) Law enforcement is missing a trick: The US is well known for its stringent emphasis on law enforcement. The country spends billions of tax dollars on police forces, law enforcement and the justice system as a whole to tackle and reduce crime. This includes tackling and reducing crimes involving drugs, knives, gangs, fraud etc etc. But it seems to me that the whole thing is missing a point if they don't include gun control into the mix. The US has the highest rate of gun murders in the developed world. (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... d-country/ so to me it makes no sense. Does it to you?

2) Does it have to be a gun? The US is one of the most technologically innovative countries on earth and the NRA are one of the most richest organisations. Surely they could put their money into developing alternative methods of self defence, eg guns that can stun or disarm and opponent but doesn't kill. In the UK the police use tasers which stun but can be dangerous to people with heart conditions, so I'm not advocating that, but surely some of the best brains in the US could come up with a bunch of alternatives that could help make people feel safer and defend themselves in their homes, but will still be safe to have around the house with children in it. (Face it people only need guns because other people have them, so they end up fearing each other and it becomes a vicious circle of fear and anger). Is the pro-gun lobby not willing to consider investing in finding alternatives, or does it have to be a gun only? (I mean, is there an app for this? )

3) Constitution vs Bible: It seems to me that most of the pro-gun lobby group are staunch christians as well but they would defend their right to self defence via the constitution. How do they reconcile this with the bible's "do not kill" policy? Does the constitution come above the bible to them? The constitution is man-made, (not saying whether the bible is or isn't) so why can't it be changed or updated?

Anyway, just wondering!

1) We have gun control, though it is largely determined state-by-state. The argument is whether we need MORE (or fewer) gun control laws. Some folks want to ban assault rifles, some folks want to ban anything not specifically for hunting, some folks want to ban all guns. Most folks want to have robust pre-purchase measures to weed out the obvious crazies before they can buy a gun.

2) Bottom line, yeah, it "has to be guns". The 2nd amendment was written by people whose primary focus was preventing the rule of tyranny over a citizenry. I.e., the "arms" mentioned in the Constitution are to allow the people to protect themselves from their own gov't. Anti-gun people love to say that an AR-15 isn't going to be much good against an Apache attack chopper, but a Tazer is going to be a fair bit worse. Side note here regarding self-defense as opposed to reducing the likelihood of tyranny -- (one of) the problem(s) with non-lethal self-defense measures is that you run the risk of them being used too casually.

3) Bible says not to murder. Using a gun to protect your life or your family's life is not murder. On the other hand, Jesus said to love thine enemies and to "turn the other cheek", so that's a bit harder to reconcile with the self-defense rationale. Regardless, as I'm sure there are plenty of non-Christian gun owners, it's not a valid argument for banning guns even if it is accurate that Christians shouldn't want to use deadly force as a means of self-defense.

chadwick

motodc, nice post

Godfather.

MotoDC wrote:

Restless Soul wrote:

I just have a few things I'd like to ask about the US gun control debate. It may seem misinformed etc to some of you but then again I don't live in the states so don't know everything about the issue. This is just my perspective as an outsider. You can shout and scream at me and call me ignorant all you like after! :P

1) Law enforcement is missing a trick: The US is well known for its stringent emphasis on law enforcement. The country spends billions of tax dollars on police forces, law enforcement and the justice system as a whole to tackle and reduce crime. This includes tackling and reducing crimes involving drugs, knives, gangs, fraud etc etc. But it seems to me that the whole thing is missing a point if they don't include gun control into the mix. The US has the highest rate of gun murders in the developed world. (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... d-country/ so to me it makes no sense. Does it to you?

2) Does it have to be a gun? The US is one of the most technologically innovative countries on earth and the NRA are one of the most richest organisations. Surely they could put their money into developing alternative methods of self defence, eg guns that can stun or disarm and opponent but doesn't kill. In the UK the police use tasers which stun but can be dangerous to people with heart conditions, so I'm not advocating that, but surely some of the best brains in the US could come up with a bunch of alternatives that could help make people feel safer and defend themselves in their homes, but will still be safe to have around the house with children in it. (Face it people only need guns because other people have them, so they end up fearing each other and it becomes a vicious circle of fear and anger). Is the pro-gun lobby not willing to consider investing in finding alternatives, or does it have to be a gun only? (I mean, is there an app for this? )

3) Constitution vs Bible: It seems to me that most of the pro-gun lobby group are staunch christians as well but they would defend their right to self defence via the constitution. How do they reconcile this with the bible's "do not kill" policy? Does the constitution come above the bible to them? The constitution is man-made, (not saying whether the bible is or isn't) so why can't it be changed or updated?

Anyway, just wondering!

1) We have gun control, though it is largely determined state-by-state. The argument is whether we need MORE (or fewer) gun control laws. Some folks want to ban assault rifles, some folks want to ban anything not specifically for hunting, some folks want to ban all guns. Most folks want to have robust pre-purchase measures to weed out the obvious crazies before they can buy a gun.

2) Bottom line, yeah, it "has to be guns". The 2nd amendment was written by people whose primary focus was preventing the rule of tyranny over a citizenry. I.e., the "arms" mentioned in the Constitution are to allow the people to protect themselves from their own gov't. Anti-gun people love to say that an AR-15 isn't going to be much good against an Apache attack chopper, but a Tazer is going to be a fair bit worse. Side note here regarding self-defense as opposed to reducing the likelihood of tyranny -- (one of) the problem(s) with non-lethal self-defense measures is that you run the risk of them being used too casually.

3) Bible says not to murder. Using a gun to protect your life or your family's life is not murder. On the other hand, Jesus said to love thine enemies and to "turn the other cheek", so that's a bit harder to reconcile with the self-defense rationale. Regardless, as I'm sure there are plenty of non-Christian gun owners, it's not a valid argument for banning guns even if it is accurate that Christians shouldn't want to use deadly force as a means of self-defense.

well said !


Godfather.