Newtown Massacre and Gun Control

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” I don’t buy it!

You might expect a conservative Christian to be in favor of an American’s right to own a semiautomatic machine gun. Sorry. I am a traitor to the right. I don’t own a gun and I never will. I trust in Jesus, not guns.

When America’s founding fathers provided for “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” it was in regard to the keeping of “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Soon after, military security was taken over by the federal government, instead of being relegated to the states. When the right to bear arms was given, it took about a full minute to load a musket. An individual could do more damage with a knife. Now it takes a couple seconds to load a clip of 30 bullets. The founding fathers would be horrified by how we are presently exercising our rights.

The problem with our right to own a semiautomatic machine gun is that we are all sinners. A sinner with a musket is one thing. A sinner with a machine gun is quite another. However, the shooter was more than just an ordinary sinner. He purposely sought out children who could not defend themselves. He shot them multiple times (up to 11), until they stopped moving. Such evil is not the result of evolution gone bad or mutated genes. Such evil is of a spiritual nature and comes from the author of evil himself. As the nation becomes more secular and less Christian, the kinds of massacres that happened at Newton’s Sandy Hook Elementary will be happening more often.

Increasing security at our schools isn’t really an option. Sandy Hook Elementary had more security than any of the six schools my three children attended. The shooter broke through the security, using his rifle. Making it more difficult to obtain a gun didn’t work, since the shooter borrowed his mother’s guns. How can you deny a gun to a harmless mother?

The ultimate solution to the problem is to make all personal gun ownership illegal. You don’t need to hunt game to provide food for your family. Go to the store. You don’t need a gun to protect your family. That is why we pay the police. “If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.” There is a way to solve that one, too. The use of a gun in the commission of any crime adds an automatic life sentence (remember, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Eliminate the people using guns).

Jesus always had a special place for children in His ministry. His heart is broken that we value our “right” to own a semiautomatic machine gun over the lives of His children. Shame on us, the Church, for not speaking up before. Forgive me, Jesus.

Comments

comments

110 thoughts on “Newtown Massacre and Gun Control

  1. Todd

    I respect your views and stance as a pacifist. If everyone took your stance though, our country and our personal freedoms would cease to exist because they would be destroyed either from without or within. As a student of the Bible you know the many stories of those warriors who had to bear arms to protect their land and their people. Thank God for those who are willing to fight to preserve the freedoms of those who are unable or unwilling to fight. Unfortunately guns and other types of weaponry aren’t going away. I am very uncomfortable about letting the US government or any other ruling body i.e. the UN, being in control of the worlds arms. The book of Revelation and other last days prophecies are very clear about the extent of destruction that will take place due to man made weapons. These guns and other WMD’s aren’t going away. Once again I respect you and your position, I just don’t think gun control is the answer. In your statement you said “as the nation becomes more secular” is the problem, not the guns. God help us.

    Reply
  2. David Freed

    The right to bear arms was intended to protect the free people from governments usurping their liberities. Do I need a fully automatic weapon to hunt with – NO! But, it sure might come in handy when the government attempts to take away our last constitutional rights to freedom.

    Reply
    1. Doug

      Your fully automatic weapons won’t mean a thing to the feds. They will just bomb ya. gas etc.

      But I do feel you should be able to have guns for hunting. Just no guns that can tear a person to shreds with in a few seconds or be able to conceal on your person.

      Reply
        1. Anonymous

          One does not NEED a gun that shoots 60 bullets within a few seconds. There is also NO NEED for an AK-47 when hunting, so that’s no excuse. The only reasons people want these big guns is for fun and having the bragging rights of owning one. I do agree with having a small handgun UPON having a PERMIT to have one for safety/defense reasons ONLY. If you used an AK-47 on a bear, the bear would be mutilated and have no use. I know people who hunt. The only people in true need of these types of guns are the people in the military.

          Reply
          1. JLVaughn

            During the Rodney King riots, the merchants in Korea town needed AR-15s and AK-47s to defend themselves and their property from the rioters, looters, and arsonists. There were no police and there was the potential for thousands of criminals to suddenly swarm their neighborhood.

            You do not know what the future holds. Who are you to decide what someone else needs?

            As for using an AK-47 on a bear. No, I wouldn’t. The cartridge is suitable for nothing larger than a deer. Ballistics are very similar to those of the old lever-action .30-30. The bullets themselves are barely up to the challenge of hunting deer. Against a bear, you would have to both make a good shot and have luck on your side. Bears are dangerous game and reason suggests something considerably bigger than am AK-47 round would be far more suitable.

          2. Rich Shaefer

            Very well said, Anonymous. To JL, caliber and ballistics are not the only factors to consider when measuring the killing power of a rifle. Assault munitions are specifically manufactured with beveled designs which cause them to tear around erratically inside the body, thus inflicting maximum damage. There have been cases where a man shot in the shoulder from a front-on position had the bullet exit through his groin, and other such wounds. That, coupled with the extreme velocity of the weapons, is amazingly destructive. As a soldier, I fired hundreds if not thousands of rounds of ammunition at targets with various characteristics. It was immense fun, but a little scary, too.

          3. JLVaughn

            Rich Schaefer,

            Sorry. There are no magic bullets.

            The .223 Remington/5.56×45 NATO is a standard coyote cartridge used by tens of thousands of hunters every year. I use military ammo because it is cheap. The damage military ammo does is little different, but tends to be less than that done by premium hunting ammo.

            The nose on premium hunting ammo flattens/collapses and makes a bigger diameter hole over the first 3 or 4 inches. Beyond that, both the premium hunting ammo and the military ammo tumbles. The premium hunting ammo is also more likely to stay in one piece, creating a (relatively) big gaping hole as the bullet turns sideways. The cheap military ammo, tends to tear into two separate pieces, creating two small wound channels.

            The .223 is considered underpowered and and can not be legally used in most states to hunt deer, which are typically smaller than a grown man.

            I have several rifles in this caliber, have fired thousands and hand-loaded hundreds of rounds. I’ve killed a few coyotes and rabbits.

            I am an NRA/BSA Certified Rifle Instructor and an NRA Distinguished Expert rated target shooter.

          4. Rich Shaefer

            JLVaughn,

            You made my point: Both the premium hunting ammo and the military ammo tumbles. Or as we were taught in Special Weapons, the .223 round is designed to bounce around inside the body once it makes contact with bone (instead of shattering it), therefore causing maximum soft-tissue damage. More importantly, I have read many reports of actual human body wounds caused by this ammunition, and was disturbed by them. You may be more into sport-shooting than I am, and even more current, as it has been a while since I served, but my assessment of the deadliness stands, and is supported by several different sources I checked for corroboration. Nor is the AR-15 the most efficient home-defense weapon, since deadly force mostly only comes into play inside of a dwelling, where the long barrel becomes a hindrance for several reasons. The one thing it DOES have going for it is that, compared to pistols, very few shootings are committed by rifles each year.

          5. JLVaughn

            Rich Schafer,

            So you haven’t seen a wound made be a .308 or .30/06 and compared them? Easily twice the damage. Like I said, the .223 isn’t legal for hunting deer in many states because it doesn’t do enough damage. It’s a good all-around varmint (coyote, bobcat, fox, badger, rabbit, etc. cartridge).

            Trigger happy police with shot up a Torrance neighborhood the other day because they panicked when a newspaper delivery woman tossed a newspaper onto a drive way.

            The goto gun for those cops was the AR-15 with standard capacity 30 round magazines. If the police need AR-15s with 30 round magazines to shoot at us when we are not a danger and are merely going about our business, how much more so do we private individuals need AR-15s with 30 round magazines when multiple assailants invade our homes?

            And who are you to tell free men what they need to protect themselves from the evil people in this world? And do you share the sentiment of the author of the OP, that those of us who take the issue of protecting our family personally and seriously, are somehow less Christian and need forgiveness from that sin?

  3. Bob

    Illegalizing guns wont stop the criminals from getting guns. There are many black market in each states where you can easily obtain a gun with ammo. Gun laws wont stop people like that sadly. What gun laws do is hinder legit buyers who owns guns the right way.

    Reply
    1. Rebecca

      If criminals cannot buy weapons, they will manufacture them. What if the principal or teachers were allowed to have guns. That massacre could have been nipped in the office instead of allowed to proceed down the halls.

      Reply
  4. Anthony

    re: “There is a way to solve that one, too. The use of a gun in the commission of any crime adds an automatic life sentence (remember, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Eliminate the people using guns).”
    The problem here is that the crazed lunatics are going into this knowing that they will commit suicide so a life sentence isn’t much of a deterrent. These guys are no different than a suicide bomber.

    P.S. Thanks for the site. It is fantastic !

    Reply
  5. Keith

    When the right to bear arms was recognized as an inherent right to self defense it did take about half a minute to load one shot in a musket. When the right to free speech was recognized it took longer than that to produce a handbill on a screw press. The founding fathers would be horrified by how pornography spews from the internet like an open sewer.

    We cannot remove guns from our society any more than we can remove heroin or methamphetamine. Guns are small and easy to import compared to the tons of illicit drugs that flood across our borders. In some areas local and state governments have given up the fight against marijuana because the ban has failed. At one time we attempted to ban alcohol consumption in our country. That was an absolute failure. Banning guns will fail as well and leave unarmed citizens at the mercy of armed criminals.

    The right to keep and bear arms for self defense is a fundamental right that is upheld, not given by our Constitution. If we give up that fundamental right we are facing a slippery slope for other fundamental rights.

    Reply
      1. Dan

        Todd, it is this type of ignorant remark that causes us to be labeled as “Nuts”, instead of patriots. I suggest trying to debate the issue with biblical principle or at least intelligent solutions to this horrific problem.
        I have read and read and read all articles, blogs, news papers and radio conversations. I still don’t have the answer, but let’s pray for God’s healing, not Washington dealings. We don’t need more laws, we need more fear of God, and love of Jesus.

        Reply
  6. kevin

    First I would say you should get your facts right, the Newtown shooter did not use a machine gun at all. Yes he had and .223 cal rifle in the car NOT a machine gun, but did all the shooting with 2 pistols. Remember cowards and terrorist don’t go after those who can defend them self. They go after the defenseless that’s why they flew planes into the towers and these cowards of late that shoot up theaters, malls and schools. They don’t have the @#$#@ to go after someone that has the ability or chance to fight back. But all you here now is take away the guns. But if check to today’s paper you’ll see that some guy in China took out 20 people with a knive are we going to ban them to ??! Or how about cars more people are killed every year by drunk drivers and we made that illegal so do we ban cars, or alcohol. We tried a ban on alcohol how did that work out. Add to all that there is no way you’ll ever get rid of all the guns, as long as police and military have them, someone else will get them.

    A better solution would be to stop the media from using the shooters name don’t let them get the moment of fame. Or how about enforcing our existing laws.

    Reply
      1. Teddy

        Well done being a critical thinkers Kevin and Rebecca.

        To the author of this article:
        The answer is not less guns, it is more. Those poor children should have been better protected. What saddens me about articles like this one is that you make the mistake of calling a magazine a clip and you think you are versed enough in firearms to have an informed opinion and publish it on a website with as much influence as this. For all of the great logic I’ve read on this website, I am shocked at the lack of it here.

        Calling an AR-15 a “machine gun” is ignorant just as calling it an “assault weapon”. People actually do hunt with AR-15’s and AR-10’s because of their accuracy and semi-automatic operation. What makes one rifle more evil than another? Is it the pistol grip, the removable magazines, the semi-automatic firing? Why can’t you see an AR-15 as a hunting rifle and treat it the same? I know countless owners of AR-15’s and not one of those rifles has ever loaded itself, pointed it’s muzzle at an innocent human and discharged a round.

        In Texas there are commercials educating citizens on firearm safety and it is a “shall-issue” State for concealed carry permits. Is there blood flowing in the streets? No, there is less violent gun crime there than in Liberal Gun-Ban California.

        Most gun-related massacres happen in “gun free” zones. What’s that tell you? Those gun bans have failed, and the solution is to put into effect more gun bans? “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” –George Santayana

        “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” –Robert A. Heinlein

        The only instance I’ve read of measuring the value of a child’s life to the value of a rifle is yours. That’s disgusting.

        God forbid you ever have to defend your loved ones and you have disarmed yourself because you bought into the lies. Gun control cannot (and has not) stop a massacre. The gun ban went into effect in the UK and their knife crime surged. The proof is endless. Educate yourself.

        I forgive you.
        God bless you.

        Reply
  7. Sam

    First, thank you for your “God and Science” web site…I reference it often and appreciate your genuine love for and teachings of Jesus Christ. While saddened by the shooting sprees recently in the news, I disagree with disarming every private human on the planet…I’ll wait until Jesus does that. You say that you “Trust in Jesus, not guns”, and I can respect that. However, trusting in Jesus is no guarantee of extended life in this world. A quick search of “Protect”, “Defend” and “Kill” on the Biblos Online Bible provide many examples where we as humans are obligated to arm ourselves and protect our loved ones. You choose to fight with words and by setting an example, others chose to fight with fists and weapons. The best of us use both techniques. The Lord delights in a man who is righteous, humble, and who fears him, not one who fails to defend or protect the innocent when he has the capacity to do so. Jesus talks about a “Strong man protecting his house and possessions”, and when that man is relatively weak compared to his attacker, he will lose. Your proposal to impose a life sentence is essentially a “One free mass killing spree” pass, and as others have pointed out those people usually terminate the event with their suicide. Part of the information we humans must learn from the “Tree of Knowledge” includes the expanse of God’s emotional range…In this case agonizing grief. It reminds me of what Jerusalem went through after Jesus was born and Herod killed those two and under. Thank you again for your insight and dedication.

    Reply
  8. JimWilton

    I have to confess that I don’t understand the connection expressed by some commentators here between Christianity and gun ownership. As if you could ask what type of semi-automatic weapon Jesus would choose! It is this type of toxic Christianity — out of sync with everything the Bible stands for — that is a greater threat to peace than any secular trends in society.

    Gun ownership and gun culture is precisely the problem here. The mother of the Newtown killer was a gun nut. And the result of her obsession and the lax laws that permitted it is her own death and the deaths of 20 children and six beautiful, caring women.

    The comparison with the recent China incident is a good one to make. There, a knife was used, and no children died.

    No one, even now, is arguing against responsible gun ownership. But is it unreasonable to say that US citizens should not own grenade launchers, assault rifles, 30 shot ammunition clips for semi-automatic guns, and hollow point bullets? My God! What kind of a society do we live in! Who are you people?!?!!

    Reply
        1. JLVaughn

          Rich, Could it be that Peter was showing off? Take some sword lessons. You’ll learn that a tyro can’t accidentally cut off someone’s ear. Peter’s action was essentially an insult, “You are beneath me. You aren’t worth killing.”

          Reply
        2. Josh

          He rebuked Peter because He had a plan for Salvation that required his disciples not getting everyone killed that night. I don’t think there’s anything more to it than that.

          Reply
      1. rs

        The reason the Lord instructed his disciples to take up swords at that particular moment was because, until the cross was over, he was not in a position to protect them.
        Ecc_9:18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.
        Here in the U.K almost nobody possesses firearms except for hnting. Our murder rate is miniscule compared to America. That’s just an observation though – our cultures are very different

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          In the UK your violent crime rate per 100,000 far exceeds that of the United States. Your population is much smaller giving the illusion that crime is lower, it is not. Statistics show this to be true.

          Reply
        2. JLVaughn

          And while gun ownership has increased steadily over the last 100 years, the US murder rate has dropped (in half in just the last 10 years). It is precisely those jurisdictions with the strictest gun control that have the highest murder rates.

          While the UK has clamped down harder and harder on gun ownership over the last 100 years and their murder rate has dramatically increased.

          Reply
          1. JLVaughn

            Rich,

            My statements are true. Your statements do not address what I wrote and do not contradict my statements.

            Of course guns kill people. So do cars, knives, swimming pools, cancer, heart disease, boots, and fists.

            What part of outlawing guns will not save lives don’t you get?

            What part of outlawing guns will make it difficult or impossible for people to defend themselves don’t you get?

            What part of guns are already outlawed in Chicago, yet are implicated in hundreds of murders every day don’t you get?

    1. Dan

      Jim, I fully appreciate your sentiment. Jesus did not need weapons, and not all humans do either. We need pacifists, protectors, prayers and people. If you live in a town where gun ownership is a right, not a rule, you have the security of knowing that your children will be protected by your neighbor, which means you don’t have to own a gun if you choose not to. Personally, I will choose to live in a community where I know there are responsible God fearing gun owners, rather than a “gun free zone”. Again, gun ownership is a choice, not a rule. We will defend your right not to own, don’t try to take away our right to self defense. P.S. I do not advocate 30 round semi-automatic weapons, you can blame those on your government. Every time they try to write laws to take them out of circulation they have to write more rhetoric in to the bill which get’s shot down do to the rhetoric.

      Reply
      1. JLVaughn

        Dan,

        In case of riot, you will want those thirty-round magazines to protect your neighborhood.

        While you are asking Jim not to sell you out, please don’t sell me out just because I like an “ugly” black plastic gun.

        Reply
    2. Anonymous

      There is already an assault weapons ban in Connecticut. Get your facts straight. We have a God given right to self defense. If you tell me I can not defend my family, home, property, and life from criminals,(most of which reside in Washington), then you will start a war. This country was founded on the idea we had the right to live as we choose without interference from nosy neighbors who think they know better than we do, how to live our lives. This country would not exist without people like us who would not give up our only medium of self defense from tyrannical government, which has a history of destroying God and his word as an fyi you need, and you would not be capable of expressing your right of free speech. Over 2 million people protect themselves every year with firearms of all kinds, over 90 percent without having to fire a shot. You tell the people in California they should not have the right to own semi auto rifles, while they used them to defend themselves from the riots. While Godless hordes of criminals destroyed towns and stores and homes. Hurting people, killing them, destroying their property. The question is not who are we, it is who are you? Who are you to say what we should own, who are you to say how and when we should defend ourselves, who are you to usurp scriptural mandate given to each of us to prepare for war, to be ready for defense, to guide my life with your self righteousness, who are you? God will not magically save those who are willingly defenseless. God will not always save the willfully ignorant. His rule in the Old Testament would shock anyone dedicated enough to read His whole scripture. He is a never changing God. He does not negate his expectations, laws, ect, based on a humanistic approach called pacifism. There is no pacifism in scripture for anyone who seeks truth. Turn the other cheek was not an abhorrence to war, it was to not be easily offended. To not get bent over someones ignorant insult, much like your assertions. God charged his people with providing a righteous government. One that punishes the wicked and rewards the just. When that government abandons Gods word, his laws, and his influence we are to throw off that rule and replace it with another Godly rule. When he says the governments are ordained by him, he also states it is under the premise of a contract. Once that contract is broken by the rulers, it is no longer ordained and is to be removed, by force if necessary. Which it most often is. Gun Control is not about guns, it is about control. The control of the Evil one and his plan to rule the believers. It is about his attempts to dilute scripture with new age movements, spiritualism, cults, and pacifism. It is about his willingness to use earthly rulers to persecute and oppress Gods elect. To call for disarmament is to call for Satan’s rule. Ignorantly call, but call none the less. Pax Christi.

      Reply
  9. JimWilton

    By the way, “Kevin” — you should get your facts straight.

    “In the school shooting, Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver said all 26 victims were hit multiple times, suffering “devastating” wounds, all apparently traced to the rifle. Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance said Sunday that the shooter used “multiple” 30 round rifle magazines in the attack.”

    Reply
  10. Sid

    I wish the world were made of angles, but as Rich says, we are all sinners and are all susceptible to the forces of evil. Since so many people are becoming the tools of Satan, I will not abdicate my responsibility to defend my family from criminals, both in and out of government. I have zero evidence that Christ demands that we do not defend ourselves from evil and the evil acts of others. I spent 30 years in the Federal government, in my experience the people that are in charge of the Federal government do not make decisions based on Biblical principle, nor even on the basis of the Constitution, but rather on what is best for themselves and their organizations. They willingly create laws that do not honor the constitution and every new law is an attempt to reduce the God given liberty that is verified in our Founding Documents. Unfortunately, we do not have angles in charge, and we need our weapons to defend our liberty from our bureaucratic masters. The fight for power to rule is not much different than when our Founders told us to be vigilant against our own leaders. Trust me, if we can not defend ourselves, they will outlaw the practice of Christianity as we know it. We will become like China. We need to attack the media that promotes violence 24/7 in Hollywood, TV, Music, and video games and every person we have in the Nation gets at least 5 hours of this mind numbing violence every day. Add to that the killing of a million innocent babies every year, it is no wonder that we are creating people who decide to accept the path of evil. God help us to fix our culture and defend our individual liberties.

    Reply
  11. Tom Maddux

    Rich,

    A few comments on your post:
    1. In two recent Supreme Court decisions the right to keep and bear arms was reaffirmed as an individual right pertaining to the people. The militia argument is dead.
    2. There is no such thing as a “semi-automatic machine gun”. There are tens of millions of semi-automatic firearms in this country. The private ownership of machine guns was banned in the 1930’s.
    3. I once belonged to a church that taught total pacifism. One day a man disrupted the service, so they called the police. My question was, “if we should not EVER resist evil, why is it ok to hire men with guns (police) to resist it?
    4. In answer to the argument “you don’t need a semi-automatic weapon” I would reply that my freedom is not determined by some media persons idea of what I “need”.
    5. I am 71 years old, and have never not had a gun in my home. I have also never pointed one at another human being. I keep them safely locked up where no one can get to them w/o my permission. How would restricting my rights make other people safer?
    6. I have also trusted Jesus since 1961. How owning a gun conflicts with this is beyond me.
    Tom

    4.

    Reply
  12. Rich Shaefer

    The earliest Christians made a name for themselves (and thus spread Christ’s good word) because of their personal sacrifice and moral tenacity. They weren’t known for being warriors or gladiators. They were known for being that crazy group of people who stayed behind to treat the victims of plague when the victims’ own families were afraid or unwilling to do so. They were known for being tenacious in their beliefs. Even after centuries of trying to eliminate them, the Christians were more numerous than ever. And so emperor Constantine, hoping to save the Roman Empire, embraced the God and the beliefs of the Christians in the hope that their ‘powerful’ God would somehow protect Rome itself. In the end, it is because of their love and faith that there are three billion people around the world today who call themselves Christians, not because people found them intimidating.

    Reply
    1. Keith

      Owning guns doesn’t make us intimidating. It makes us equal. I suppose you think we should completely do away with out military and police forces as well? Please tell me your not one of those that DON’T support our military?? And by the way how does owning guns cancel out our ability to preach, spread and grow through faith, love and good actions?

      Reply
      1. Rich Shaefer

        Actually, I am a military veteran myself. I served two years overseas while on active-duty. But we were trained on how to use military-style weapons, and make no mistake…they are not simply a cooler version of civilian weapons. A 5.56 bullet like the ones used in the attack are designed for one thing: to kill humans. On impact, they are designed to tumble erratically throughout the body instead of passing cleanly through it, thus wreaking maximum damage before exiting. The weapon itself is effective out to several hundred meters, depending on the user’s proficiency. I am not against gun ownership, but I do promote proper training and regulation of the numbers and types of guns allowed on the streets.

        Reply
        1. Keith

          All the better to protect my family with. A nice little pee shooter will combat a criminals illegally obtained semi auto just great! Psh.

          Reply
          1. Rich Shaefer

            Do you reject all forms of compromise, or only on this subject? There are many weapons that fall in a category between “assault” weapon and pea-shooter. In fact, assault weapons are not as effective as many other guns when used indoors. They are much more likely to cause an innocent death than to protect your family. And when it comes to being out in public, where they might actually be more effective, surely you’re not advocating that everyone walk around with an assault rifle in their hands in public venues? I love to shoot these weapons on the target range. There is something about it that is much more satisfying than firing a .22, or even larger caliber hunting rifles. But they are not the right weapons for home defense, and to say so is intellectually dishonest. I was in a Special Weapons unit, so I do know a little bit about this.

      1. Keith

        I’m sad you chose to put words into ppls mouths. The right to own guns is about giving the people the power to protect themselves not only from disturbed individuals. But also from overrule of the government itself. You may have a rich mind for religion, however I urge you to keep this website to just that. Before your lack of research in politics makes ppl like myself second guess anything else you write.

        Reply
        1. Jim

          God bless the police, but to quote your article, Rich : “You don’t need a gun to protect your family. That is why we pay the police.” If a crazed excuse for a human being was breaking into your house, intent on doing you and your family the worst possible harm, do you want to wait for police response (which in the best case scenario will be excrutiatingly long minutes), or would you rather have a firearm in your hands? Please don’t imply that because I’m a gun owner willing to protect my family at all costs, that I’m less of a Christian than you. Please, everyone, stop politicizing this issue. This is a horrific, inexplicable tragedy that requires prayer and sympathy, not finger-pointing.

          Reply
          1. JLVaughn

            Yes Rich, I do keep a loaded gun “on the nightstand.” I’ve used it three times in the dead of night. Once, my wife needed it during the day. And once against a pit bull that was terrorizing the neighborhood.

            Calling the police impressed neither those thugs nor the dog. The presence of a gun did.

          2. Keith

            Rich do you have any actual valid points. Rather than just nit picking this subject with pointless questions? I’m
            Very disappointed in your close mindedness with this.

          3. Keith

            And Rich. Do you have children? If so are you willing to admit that if someone broke into your home Witt their mind made up to kill your family and you had the means to stop it with a gun that you would not? Simply because “Jesus doesn’t use guns.”

        2. Rich Shaefer

          I believe that you are wrong in making this statement, at least in general terms. I don’t judge anyone. Earlier you asked me why it is that those who ask for compromise offer nothing in return. I ask for compromise because I honestly believe it is good for the majority as a whole, and what I give up lies in the fact that despite my love of firearms (having served in a ‘special weapons’ group in the military) I do not own a single one, although now that my children are grown I am considering the purchase of an ‘appropriate’ weapon for my personal use. Yes, there are cases where owning powerful weapons have saved lives. But there are more cases where they took them, and I think that counts.

          Reply
          1. JLVaughn

            Rich Schaefer, I was responding to Rich Deem, the owner of this site and the author of this blog. He certainly did judge his Christian brothers.

          2. JLVaughn

            Rich Schaefer,

            When someone compromises, he expects to get something he wants in return for giving up something he wants.

            You think we should compromise and give up our guns. Okay, I still want to know. What is it we get in return?

            Remember, you used the word compromise. I don’t think you really have any sort of legitimate compromise in mind.

          3. Rich Shaefer

            So you are suggesting that people should be materially rewarded in order to get them to consent to laws which benefit the majority? Or that they should be compensated for the loss of their property due to a change in the law? I would support the second, but the first sounds like bribery.

          4. JLVaughn

            Rich Schaefer,

            Earlier you asked, “Do you reject all forms of compromise, or only on this subject?”

            I answered. Apparently you do not understand. No one is offering a compromise. I am being called a sinner and told I need to repent. Why? I’ve killed no one. I’m not a threat to anyone except those that might wish to harm my family. Because I own objects that someone else thinks I shouldn’t have. Those objects are judged by this person as being inherently evil.

            Yet paradoxically, this person thinks agents of the government should run around protecting me with these same instruments of evil. Why is it evil for me, to have weapons, yet not evil for the government to have weapons?

            Historically, the greatest evil mankind dispenses has always been done at the hand of government. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Our first president supposedly said that. Our 2nd Amendment recognizes that reality. We are the militia. If the best tool available for troops is the M-16, then those of us who wish and are able, should be able to buy, train with, keep and carry an M-16. (Not allowed to buy. We should be restricted from buying.) We don’t need police to protect us. This is not a police state (yet). We need to protect ourselves.

            I will not compromise my God given duty to provide protection for my family. “He who provides not for his own, especially for those of his own household, is worse than an infidel.”

  13. David Freed

    Doesn’t anyone remember – Iran Contra – or Fast and Furriours – Ruby Ridge – Waco???? All the guns used to kill were all supplied by the US Government! So, it is OK for our government to arm known gansters and criminals, but you better watch out for my neighbor and I because we both own a gun.

    Reply
    1. Tom Maddux

      David,

      I remember Waco. Instead of picking up David Koresh in town, where he was frequently seen, the FBI showed up with a busload of SWAT type agents and started a shootout that killed several people. Then they surrounded a ramshackle compound full of women and children, and after several days of psychological warfare techniques, ie, blaring speakers, 24 hour searchlights and so on, they assaulted the compound with a tank! The apocalyptic cult members set the place on fire and dozens of men, women, and children were killed. I guess the FBI never heard of Jonestown or Masada.

      At Ruby Ridge the FBI sniper, Ron Horiuchi, shot a woman’s jaw off as she stood in the door of her house holding a toddler. She died of course. They had previously killed her 14 year old son and shot her husband. He had been served with a warrent to appear in court that had the wrong date on it. Eventually the Feds paid him several million dollars in damages, but that did not bring back his wife and son.
      These things happened because the secularized people in the Clinton administration had no understanding of religious people at all. They acted out of ignorance and fear after spinning wild imaginations that these folks were highly dangerous.

      Sad.

      Tom

      Reply
  14. Robert A.

    Rich, I’m sure all sane people share your sense of loss and outrage at the Newtown massacre, not to mention all the others, but arbitrarily rendering everyone suddenly defenseless isn’t the answer.
    “I am sad that Christians choose guns over children.” — This fallacious statement is unworthy of you, Rich; you aren’t normally given to such knee-jerk reactive statements, but I’m sure all of us are struggling through emotions that have us reeling off-kilter right now. To say that one who chooses to ensure that they can *defend* their children are placing their defensive tools over and above their children’s welfare is turning the argument on its head. No sane person does so. The point is that we are dealing with people who clearly *aren’t* sane, at least at the time, and banning guns isn’t going to change that – in fact, you know as well as the rest of us that, until Jesus returns, it is in fact going to get WORSE, so we better be bracing for it. My suggestion is that every school should have at least two armed police officers guarding and patrolling it at all times. Expensive, yes; but what price Newtown, etc.? If you really feel strongly about your position, then why not move to Canada? It’s about as close as you’ll get to what you’re asking for, because here it is almost impossible to legally own guns – can be done, but the red tape is virtually impenetrable, and you are at the mercy of the police who, if they even have a trace of an inkling that you might be harbouring unregistered weapons, can legally storm & ravage your home without a warrant! What do we get for all this “protection”? Well, you’ll note that shootings happen here, too; not by legal gun owners, but by criminals, and we the people are left utterly defenseless and dependent on the ‘authorities’ – and, as ever, where are the cops when you need one? Out handing out speeding tickets or getting shot while responding to domestic-violence incidents, where nobody else is able to intervene to help. BTW, even if you did manage to navigate the byzantine regulations and were actually able to have a handgun in your possession, by the time you got it out of the mandatory locked safe, unlocked, loaded and ready to use (with the mandatory maximum 9-round clip) the whole event would be over with yourself and your family probably dead anyway; so what it comes back to is, “when gun ownership is criminal, only criminals will own guns”, and the rest of us just hope to never be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Face it Rich, we live on earth, not in Heaven. I don’t like it any more than you do, but be grateful for the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, and DEFEND THEM!

    Reply
  15. JLVaughn

    I saw this on another site:

    Reply 1—Posted by: Shadow722, 12/18/2012 11:51:54 PM

    We protect our mayors with men with guns; we protect our governors with men with guns; we protect the House and the Senate and the President, with men with guns; we protect our courts, our banks, our jewelry stores, our sports arenas, and our pawn shops, all with men with guns.

    However, our most precious possessions, our children, we protect with a piece of paper and a sign (the Gun Free Zone law).

    Now, in response to the slaughter of 20 innocents, we propose to punish those (gun owners) who are innocent, and protect our most cherished possession, our children, with a another piece of paper (a new gun law).

    Reply
  16. Robert

    Well proof is in the pudding – “let people talk long enough and they will reveal their stupidity”. He says, ” I will trust in Jesus not guns”

    So when a rapist breaks down your door and rapes your wife or molest your children your reaction is “I will trust Jesus”.

    I think Jesus will realize what a stupid person you are.

    Reply
  17. Robert

    One more thing – it is people like you who profess to be Christians that turn most people off and influnce them to want nothig to do with Christanity.

    It is evident that you have no common sense so why should I read any more of your web site or thoughts. “forgitaboutit”. I am outta here. I am sure there are some common sense Christians around.

    Since you claim to be a Christian and trust Jesus I suggest you pray and ask for some wisdom.

    Don’t want to waste my time here anymore.

    Reply
  18. Keith

    Rich we were willing to listen to your words of wisdom over the years and we thank you for them. Now maybe it is time for you to listen to some other people’s words of wisdom. It is evident that your only thinking with emotion and not with your wisdom. One can only grow in wisdom if they from time to time question what the believe. I urge you please to at least take a step back and analyze the historicle facts of guns and murders themselves. I can tell by your comments that you have no put much serious thought into this subject. Your shirt answers and petty responses only shows your anger of this subject. Anger will not lead to the facts my friend.

    Reply
  19. Anonymous

    There shouldn’t be rights taken away from people to own a gun. Guns don’t kill people, people DO kill people. Its the fact of the matter that these people that kill people are NOT in their right mind and I think instead of taking away gun rights, people should have a mental testing done every year in their yearly physicals at the doctor. It should be REQUIRED. If someone is mental, like this guy was, they should be medicated or if lethal enough, put in the mental hospital. BUT ALAS, our lovely government decided that the mental hospitals costed too much and let these crazy people out onto our “safe streets”. What do crazy people do? CRAZY THINGS. It should start there..

    -THANKS .

    Reply
    1. Martins

      And how many crazy people do you thing are out there? 2 or 3 or you think they’re just few compared to the normal ones? No, I don’t think so. Any one can decide to get crazy anytime it just depends on his ability to control the craziness. That you’re free to have a gun means you’re free to do anything with it. When you go “psycho” the temptation to use the gun is high. That was exactly what went wrong with this guy. The gun is there for him to use when he can’t control himself anymore, he just had to yield to the temptation. But if he had had no right to own a gun, would it have been easy for him to get one to use? Would he even think of doing the evil he did? Don’t think so. If the gun is not in hand temption to use.it wouldn’t rise.

      Reply
    2. sadforusa

      It is a tragedy to me that you feel it is a more inherent right to own a weapon, that kills 36 people a day in your country, over the privacy of someone’s medical health. While there is a valid argument that those who endure the pain of mental illness need more supports, creating a greater stigma for them is not the answer.
      Perhaps the wording “gun control” is the issue for people, it is about shifting the mentality of a society that sees violence, and the weaponry that goes with it, as a part of a healthy functioning part of their “rights” as a citizen. We have the right as humans to feel safe. To feel that the average person walking down the road is not going to open their jacket pocket and pull out a weapon that has the power to kill someone 100 yards away. Knifes, bats, and words can not do this. YES people kill, not the guns themselves, but if they did not have them, there would not be the death toll you currently have in the US. IF you look at accidental deaths by a fire arm those numbers are statistically higher in your great country than others as well. WHY because if you build them, they will be used. That is logic. People who are sad, depressed, anxious, road raged. They don’t often run out and kill or harm people, but in most places they don’t have access to impulse weapons when they have a low moment. Stop thinking in terms of control and think in terms of humanity and how to create it.

      Reply
  20. Martins

    I kinda disagree, Todd. The right to have a gun is a sign of insecurity on the path of God. Lemme ask, as a christian, are you willing to get to heaven or not, knowing all the goodness that will follow in the House of God?
    Sometimes, we don’t seem to think about why we live on earth. Gun rights should never be thought of as a child of God who knows his destination. Except you want to live forever in this damned world. Gun control should is the best answer to this issue.
    Everything man has created has caused one dilemma or the other, guns, bombs, missiles, even the x-rays that were discovered has put the mark of danger on every living being. That you have the right to have a gun literally means you have the right to kill so that you won’t be killed, therefore, not ready to enter into rest.
    Its our business to try an preserve the earth, even though we all know that it would still get more corrupt beyond control. But we shouldn’t just live it just the way it is without commenting or rebuking and denouncing the evil behind “gun rights”.

    Reply
  21. Paul Rupple

    Rich, I generally enjoy your writing, however, I found this post to be filled with inaccuracies and logical fallacies that generally are not found in your work.

    You begin by reciting the common saying, ““Guns don’t kill people. People kill people,” saying that you don’t buy it. A gun without an agent to use it is useless. The guns used by this person in CT never killed anyone before this event, though the mother owned some of them for quite some time. No, it was not until this person picked them up, loaded them, and pulled the trigger that they were involved in this tragedy. The person killed using the guns, but other events have occurred with other weapons, such as knives, so should we ban them too?

    You say that you trust Jesus, not guns, but isn’t that a false dichotomy? Why not advocate that for law enforcement or our military as well? We don’t do that because we can both trust Jesus and use guns.

    Regarding your argument regarding the constitution allowing guns to provide for a well armed militia, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia et. al. v Heller that the individual has the right to bear arms irrespective of service in a militia.

    You also make a factual error when you discuss “problem with our right to own a semiautomatic machine gun.” There is no such thing as a semi-automatic machine gun. Machine guns are fully automatic, while semi-automatic guns require the trigger to be pulled for each round. These types of weapons are used by police officers, hunters, skeet shooters, and by many others for legitimate purposes.

    You also claim that “increasing security at our schools isn’t really an option” and I would ask, why not? A school in TX allows concealed carry and I will guarantee you that any wacko will think real hard about pulling off one of these crimes at that school.

    Recently a mall in OR was attacked and although it was a gun free zone, fortunately a citizen either missed or ignored the sign and pulled out his legal fire arm when a crazy shot two people in the mall. When he saw the man’s gun, he didn’t attempt to shoot any other innocent people, but instead took his own life, which he was probably planning to do anyway. The fact is that the citizen with the gun didn’t have to fire off a round (and purposefully didn’t so as not to endanger anyone in the line of site of his gun), but was able to thwart any further killing before police could even make it to the scene.

    I live near Chicago where gun ownership has been illegal for many years. The result of banning guns in the city is that the criminals have been killing more people than ever and citizens have been afraid to walk the streets. Banning guns only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and leaves them in the hands of criminals. Criminals don’t obey laws, including gun laws, just as they don’t obey laws for marijuana (which, until recently, was banned in all 50 states), heroin (which is still banned in all 50 states), murder, and a host of other crimes

    Finally, you say, “you don’t need a gun to protect your family,” which seems to be a blanket statement divorced from real life situations. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which some people do need a gun to protect their families and have used them effectively to do so. Overall, your post is filled with these types of blanket generalizations and inaccuracies that don’t meet the quality of the rest of your work.

    We have been through a very emotional week that shows the depths of depravity to which the human heart can sink. It is always dangerous to develop laws based upon tragic events, especially laws as draconian as the confiscation of guns. We have to remember that government is also made up of sinners and the Constitution was written with built in safeguards to protect the citizenry from the overreach of government. One of those safeguards was the right to bear arms.

    To quickly change a constitutional provision because of an abuse of that right is no better than overturning free speech because a person or group of people began to abuse that privileged. We’ve seen that proposed as well in regard to talk radio. We have worked and fought too hard for these freedoms to give them up because of a tragedy. I would ask you to rethink this knee-jerk reaction and to think of the consequences of relinquishing one of the core freedoms and protections that we enjoy as handed down from our Founding Fathers.

    Reply
  22. jamesahl52@hotmail.com

    I have a lot of respect for Rich Deem. He is a good man that has done a lot of good with his time and talents. This was an unfortunate post. I do not own a gun and have no interest in owning one, but this post mirrors those I often find in other forums (by atheists, theists, and agnostics alike). This type of post almost always comes from someone who has spent their whole life in an urban environment. I have many friends and relatives that eat whatever they kill and it is the only meat they consume. People too proud to take government or church assistance and who are suffering in the current economy. A shell is not much of an investment for the amount of food it can provide versus a trip to the store. As I said, an unfortunate post on a cultural level as well as several other levels (the reach of the government, what the numbers regarding gun control show, etc.) I say that with all respect. As I said, I do not own a gun, but I think it is perhaps wise to remember that one of the greatest compliments Jesus ever gave was to a centurion.

    Reply
  23. RickD

    Rich wrote:
    “Jesus always had a special place for children in His ministry. His heart is broken that we value our “right” to own a semiautomatic machine gun over the lives of His children. Shame on us, the Church, for not speaking up before. Forgive me, Jesus.”
    and “The ultimate solution to the problem is to make all personal gun ownership illegal.”

    Using this same logic, maybe we should outlaw all personal physicians. Because physicians are the ones who kill the unborn.

    Reply
  24. Smithfriend

    I have enjoyed Rich’s thoughtful, articulate articles for the last few years, but I have to simply disagree with him on this one.

    If the statement “guns don’t kill, people do” is incorrect, then perhaps there is hope for all of the obesity-related deaths in our country – all we have to do is ban eating utensils. It would then be more difficult for people to eat large quantities of food. Poor logic, of course.

    Of course, you could say that utensils serve a necessary purpose and guns do not, but you would be ignoring the many instances in which semiautomatic rifles were used to defend peoples’ lives. Korean merchants during the L.A. riots defended their life and property with semiautomatic rifles while others died or were looted. And there have been other instances in which multiple armed assailants committed home invasions but were turned away because the homeowner had an assault rifle and could defend himself against multiple attackers.

    It is sad that when someone perpetrates one of theses senseless acts of violence, the government always wants to punish the people who didn’t do it.

    The real reason that these people commit these acts is because the medical establishment has now declared every emotion to be some kind of mental illness and pumped our children full of drugs. Many of these antidepressants and psychotropic medications list violent or suicidal behavior as a side effect, and most of the mass shootings in recent history has featured young killers who were under (or had been under) the influence of these medications. How many mass killings did we have decades ago when antidepressants were not so widely prescribed? A lot fewer.

    But you will not hear about this phenomenon in the mainstream media, because the pharmaceutical companies are big advertisers for Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. Big news companies don’t expose the pharmaceutical companies because they are some of the industry’s biggest cash cows.

    Let’s wake up, Christian America. Lets turn off the TVs and start using our heads. Our country is dying before our eyes while politicians and corporations get wealthier and more powerful by deceiving us into falling for their B.S.

    Reply
  25. Anthony Calderone

    Rich, you wrote a good article. It was sincere, but sincerely wrong. If we have Jesus, and not guns, why did Jesus talk to the disciples about selling their coats and get a sword for a journey? Luke 22:36.

    But one the ground I can stand with you on is giving guns and upholding our 2nd Amendment, will not solve the violence issues we face because their are issues of the heart. Men must turn to God. The 2nd Amendment is to defend our land, women, children and to defeat tyrants.

    Reply
  26. JLVaughn

    Rich,

    More than 100 million firearms have have been sold in the past decade http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics and more than 2.7 million in the past month http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/20130102_1998_2012_state_monthly_totals.pdf .

    How many of those guns do you think will be turned in if your dream comes true? Who will reimburse the owners who likely spent about $100 billion for those firearms? Or do you imagine SWAT teams going house to house with real machine guns and various types of grenades to collect all those guns?

    Reply
      1. JLVaughn

        Those gun turn-ins are a convenient way to get rid of murder weapons and broken guns. And you get $200 to for your trouble. Good deal. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/19/turn-in-firearms-with-the-citys-anonymous-gun-buyback-program/

        They also con unsuspecting widows of millions of dollars worth of firearms each year, money these women could put to good use.

        Honestly, do you really think very many people would turn in a $600 to $10,000 gun for $200?

        Reply
  27. HSG

    Coming from Northern Ireland where there is more gun control, I just don’t understand the American right to bear arms especially why automatic weapons are included in that. Any thing that is useful with guns doesn’t require an automatic.

    On the statistics referenced earlier at
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

    it was stated that America “but it isn’t that many times worse than European nations”. I beg to differ Germany has 0.4672 per 100,000 and the United States has 3.6 per 100,000. That means you are 7.7 times more likely to be killed in the US with a gun than in Germany. The figures already take account of population!

    So going by the stats, gun control does appears to work. Does it stop things completely: No. Does it make it less common: Yes. Going by the statistics not by feeling or by emotion.

    It’s a bit like a study done about suicide rates amound police officers here. Basically it was higher and the conclusion reached was “they had easy access to a gun”. Making it harder to get access to weapons gives the person more time to think and come to their sences.

    Would it work in the US, I don’t know there are a lot of cultural issues around guns that will probably mean it will never happen.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      We are not allowed auto firearms, grenade launchers, rockets, or any other type of Hollywood type weapons. We have semi auto firearms. Since the mid 80’s this has been so. As has been federal back ground checks at gun shows and gun stores. The places where gun control is highest we have the highest crime. Where gun ownership is highest, we have lowest crime. People in this nation are twice as likely to die from a fist or foot than assault weapons, and three times more likely to die from household objects or tools than an assault weapon. Your statistics are off by the way.

      Reply
    2. JLVaughn

      HSG,

      Switzerland, where essentially every household maintains a full-auto weapon is conspicuously missing from that list.

      As for the US, I’m not aware of a single death, by a legally owned automatic weapon since the 1930’s. Can you find one? Or are you jumping to conclusions that don’t follow from the evidence?

      Reply
  28. sam roy

    “As the nation becomes more secular
    and less Christian, the kinds of
    massacres that happened at Newton’s
    Sandy Hook Elementary will be happening more often.”- could you please explain me this part?

    Reply
    1. Rich Post author

      These kinds of massacres never happened in the United States when I was growing up in the 1960’s. However, they are now happening every few months. If you don’t believe in God, human life has no particular value (e.g., a human is no different from any other animal).

      Reply
  29. Gladden Delk

    I have been an occasional reader of this website for several years. As someone interested in Apologetics I have found the articles contained on this site to be very well researched and thoughtfully written. However it grieved me to see this website come down on the side of gun control. As a Christian and a gun owner, I hold few rights more dear than the right to bear arms. The previous posts have overwhelmingly supported the logic of a pro gun position, both from a Christian and a secular viewpoint. I suspect the author of this post has little personal experience with guns, has not lived in areas where he ever felt he and his family may experience danger, naturally is horrified over what just happened and is emotionally looking for a solution without applying the type of due diligence he normally does to the other articles he writes on this website that are more in line with his knowledge base and experiences. The title of this website is God and Science and I suspect most people who surf here are looking for information on those subjects. If I were the author I would stick to what I know since that is what people are coming to him for.

    Reply
  30. Adrienne Hirsch

    I live in Australia & Thank God that our previous Prime Minister, John Howard introduced very stringent gun laws throughout Australia after the shooting massacre in Tasmania, many years ago. This legislation has worked. Yes, there are occasions of shootings, but in general our police force, & government support & maintain this very rigid use of guns with great success. In general only farmers & professional shooters are permitted (if my memory serves me right), to use firearms. I hope your American Government will do the same & follow this example.

    Reply
  31. Adrienne Hirsch

    Just an addition to my previous commentary, one of the commandments of God is: “Thou shalt not kill.”

    Reply
  32. Philip

    So sad to see such illogic posted on a website that is dedicated to utilizing logical arguments (for Christianity, of course).

    “The ultimate solution to the problem is to make all personal gun ownership illegal.” What a scary thing to advocate. What, are you going to take all the hunting rifles and shotguns? How clueless do you have to be to not understand that the only people who would comply with turning over their weapons will be those that are law-abiding? Some cities, like Philadelphia, don’t even have the police manpower to respond to many crimes. Everyone doesn’t live next to a police station, many live in rural areas – are such people seriously going to be made totally dependent upon THE POLICE to protect them? Armed bad guys with be vastly encouraged to commit crimes if they realize people aren’t armed. That’s criminal 101!

    Look at the whole assault rifle thing – banning them will NOT stop some nut determined to kill scores of people quickly – they’ll just bring multiple clips with them – or multiple guns. It’s not that we need to have assault rifles, but the great danger is that if you ban one type of gun, our courts of the slippery slope will soon be able to ban most, if not all, guns.

    Why do you think that Jesus instructed, “… if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one …” ? Because He knew it would be prudent for people to defend themselves against thugs and murderers. If God didn’t want His people to defend themselves, then why did He desire that Israel have an army?

    No, our faith is not to be in things, money, armies or guns. But we are instructed throughout Scripture to protect the weak from those evil, and we are instructed to take appropriate steps to do so. Guns are merely a tool of protection. There are so many guns already out there, no criminal will ever have a problem buying one. So how are we supposedly safer if only criminals can buy and obtain guns? This is terribly flawed and highly emotional “logic!”

    Reply
  33. charlie

    With all due respect sir, you are way off on this one. “If you or your family needs protection, call the police”. Really?? The police are going to tell you there is nothing they can do if no crime has been commited. The police cannot protect you and can only respond after something has happened. They can’t be our personal body guards. I am a former police officer and officers will tell you this and advise you to get a gun. We have a responsibility to protect ourselves and our families as best we can. Trusting in Jesus is great but we also have to do our part. There is no gun law or banning of any weapon going to affect anything or anybody except the law abiding citizen.

    Also, you say we don’t need to hunt we should go to the store. What arrogance and ignorance. Who are you to tell me or anybody else that I have no business participating in a sport that I have been involved in all my life and am passionate about just because you don’t understand it and/or think it is wrong. Do you have any idea what would happen to our wild life if there was no hunting, which is a huge part of our conservation efforts. I know you have a right to your opinion and views but you are dead wrong on these particular issues.

    Reply
    1. Rich

      You are absolutely wrong about the police department. When our children were in their early teens, one of them heard a sound that he thought was a breaking window. We had gone out for an hour to dinner, so our eldest herded the others into our bedroom, locked the door and called 911. When we came home a few minutes later, there was a police helicopter circling our house, along with 5 police cars out front. Yes, it was a little on the overkill side, but it shows that the police do respond to prowlers. In another incident, a tagger (graffiti artist) had wondered into our backyard to escape the police. They arrive with guns drawn and escorted him to jail. Maybe you need a better police department!

      Reply
  34. Rickd

    Rich Deem wrote:
    “Yes, there is spiritual evil from high places. My take on the Newtown massacre. It appears from the blog comments that most people prefer guns over children.”

    Rich, isn’t this a false dichotomy? People who prefer guns can also prefer children too.

    This is the same kind of comment that Ken Ham and others use against you. Because you believe in an old earth, you prefer science over scripture. You know that’s not true, yet you claim those who prefer guns, choose guns over children.

    Reply
  35. Daniel Johnson

    Indeed, gun ownership and gun control are really very controversial topics. If the gun uses by a decent person then there is a no chance of threat to anybody except bad people.

    Reply
Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>