Facile

Thursday, December 10, 2015

A Well "REGULATED" Militia: We Need Gun Control.

Each time you read about mass shootings in the newspaper, people with guns convince themselves "it could never happen to me." After a mass shooting, what's the first two things we hear? If only people were armed, the people attacked might be alive today, the other side says, we have so many guns in this country that we're numb to the value of human life. We need tighter gun control. I happen to agree with the latter. We give guns out quicker than we allow women to have abortions. Killers sentenced to death have years of appeals, and women seeking abortions must wait 72 hours, see an ultrasound etc., Why should gun nuts have more rights than the rest of the American people? The truth (some and I stress some) is that gun manufacturers or gun owners don't give a damn about life, they care about one thing, money.

However, there are legitimate hunters and farmers who need guns for protection. America is awash in guns with over three hundred million guns floating around this country; the question arises, should people of faith also carry firearms? I mean,  let's face it, guns exist for one purpose, to kill.   Now, the Bible directs Christians not to kill, as a matter of fact, it's so important God lists it as one of the Ten Commandments. Conservatives point to the King James Bible as their ultimate authority for Biblical interpretation. So, let's see what the commandment says: "Thou shalt not kill." Other versions say 'You shall not murder.' However, there's a big difference between the two. So, isn't it hypocritical for conservatives to choose the King James Bible yet avoid the irony of their argument to own firearms? Murderings usually considered an intentional act of taking a life. Whereas killing is taking a life regardless of malice or disregard for human life, so the problem arises where the Biblical interpretations differ.

Because if words are to have any true meaning, and they do, then killing in and of itself is a sin regardless of the situation. Because the passage is not addressing self-defense but the action of taking a life. Period. As a matter of fact, when Peter drew his sword to defend not only His life but Christ's life; Christ did NOT tell Peter to continue fighting. Nope. Instead, Christ said something wich would otherwise be impulsive, which is to defend yourself physically with lethal force. "Then said Jesus unto him, put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 25:52).

Jesus, the author of life, understood that death would bring death and although Christ had the power to grant Peter the ability to slay all the soldiers present, He didn't. Now, right-wingers will suggest Jesus felt His fate in sight. But, he could

still surrendered after Peter destroyed those soldiers. Jesus's point was violence begets violence even though Peter was DEFENDING those around him. So, the argument that if more people around Christ drew swords, His objection would be less sincere is laughable.
Now, the problem isn't guns. It's the people who use the guns whose entire purpose is to murder and kill innocent people.

Would Christ tell them to arm themselves to shoot back? We have certain jobs for people trained to take protect lives.

Police, armed security guards and other positions that require firearms; these jobs aren't for killing or murdering innocent people, but protecting the life of people whose life isn't to take life or murder. You say that sounds contradictory, on one hand you're saying we shouldn't have guns, and on the other hand, people in positions of authority in possession of guns make sense. That is very true. That line of thinking would be rational. The problem is the lack of training security guards and police officers receive. And their trigger happy eagerness to use lethal force doesn't de-escalate the situation.

You say well, what about personal homes. If someone breaks into your home, shouldn't you have a gun? Look, knocking them out with an Easton baseball bat is just as effective as putting a bullet in their head save for the fact, they didn't die. Most often, people use guns for the wrong reasons. I will include charts and data. Suicide or accidental shootings are among the top of the list. Shooting out of passion is high on the list as well. Meaning, when you get into a heated argument with a friend or family member, with easy access to a gun, it's easy to settle the dispute with a gun.  And there's no, taking the bullet back, there's no undoing the damage done.

People often ask me, "so you do support the death penalty then, right?" No. And the reason is that they're gone, but I am here on this earth suffering from the pain and hurt of losing the person I loved. Knowing that I am here suffering when they're suffering on this earth is over is tormenting. To be honest, I would wish bad things happen to the person in prison, but I will see my loved one again provided they accepted the gift of salvation.


Interestingly enough states with the strictest gun laws have the least gun violence; this was confirmed in a study: "These findings are further supported by a case study examining the impact of a 2007 Missouri decision to repeal its permit-to-purchase handgun licensing law. The research concluded that the repeal was associated with a 16 percent increase in annual murder rates, indicating that state gun control laws have a significant impact on the homicide rate."(2).


Reference
1). Ellen Painter Dollar. (22 July 2012). For Christians, Gun Control Should Be a No-Brainer. Why Isn’t It? Patheos. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/ellenpainterdollar/2012/07/christians-and-gun-control-aurora/

Cite

2). Evan DeFilippos and Deven Hughs. (25 Jan. 2015).  The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun. The NRA is wrong: Owning a

gun is far more likely to harm you than protect you. Slate.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increas
e_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html






No comments:

Post a Comment