Bring guns to church?

[ephesians4]

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I agree with all that: but I just believe that it is NOT Church teaching that we have a GOD given right to own a gun.

That right is given by the state.

We have a God given right to defend ourselves, even IF it means disobeying the state ESPECIALLY when the state is acting illegitimately.

I thought a fairly central part of the idea behind the right to bear arms was that it, and also (therefore) other rights, and also (therefore) sovereignty/power, are not given by the state, but belong to individuals. That guns in the hands of the populace, in part, are a protection of that concept.

I guess it also depends (partially) on what you mean by “the state”.

 

[Brendan]

If people have a natural right to adequate food that does not translate as a natural right to eat chocolate.

No, but it means that you should have access to the food you need to stay alive. And if a government banned access to such food?

Adequate food implies the minimal to stay healthy and beyond that anything else is a privilege. The governments god given job is to make sure that that right is equally granted every person in the community. If the government has gone rogue you are essentially living in war conditions and all bets are off. I would have thought that was obvious.

What if it simply means that a government does not guarantee that you will have access to food whenever you are in serious hunger.

They DO promise to investigate the situatation after you have starved to death, but make no guarantees that food would be provided in an emergency situation.

That is how police systems work in regards to threats to life from violent attackers. They will do a great job investigating the incident AFTERWARD, but that does not help the person being attacked, now does it?

 

[Brendan]

First you answer the question I asked.

Are you saying that all those many, many, many countries that ban the TRADE in self defense weaponry… are flouting a god given right of human beings?

Define self defense weaponry. Your Australian sells arms abroad. Thales Australia just sold a couple dozen armored cars to the Netherlands. Do you consider that to be banning self defense weaponry?

Now do I believe that the Dutch have a God given right to Aussie armored cars, no

Do I believe that the Dutch, or anyone else, have a right to be able to defend themselves when being shot at, yes I do.

Now you can answer my question. Where did the Jews get the right to use arms in their defense? Did it come from the government, or from somewhere else?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I thought a fairly central part of the idea behind the right to bear arms was that it, and also (therefore) other rights, and also (therefore) sovereignty/power, are not given by the state, but belong to individuals. That guns in the hands of the populace, in part, are a protection of that concept.
QUOTE]

I would imagine people going out with the intent to use a gun, are often the ones who fire the first shots, and they only fire; when they think the odds are in their favour.

So statistically how successfully are guns used in self defence in America?

 

[Brendan]

.

So statistically how successfully are guns used in self defence in America?

It depends on the study and how they classify ‘self defense’. The more common studies put the number of self defenses using a firearm at between 1.2 million and 300,000 per year.

The differences come in based on how the study defines gun use. The lower numbers only reference times where the gun is actually pointed at the defender. A case there would be a handgun is drawn and pointed at the attacker and the attacker either flees, or is held at bay until police arrive

The larger numbers come in if one includes simply showing the gun, or indicating to an attacker that one is armed.

An example there would be an intruder breaks into a house, and hears a shotgun being racked (shell loaded) and flees without the intruder actually even seeing the firearm.

 

[ephesians4]

ephesians4;13120334:

I thought a fairly central part of the idea behind the right to bear arms was that it, and also (therefore) other rights, and also (therefore) sovereignty/power, are not given by the state, but belong to individuals. That guns in the hands of the populace, in part, are a protection of that concept.
QUOTE]

I would imagine people going out with the intent to use a gun, are often the ones who fire the first shots, and they only fire; when they think the odds are in their favour.

So statistically how successfully are guns used in self defence in America?

Sorry, I failed to frame my question as such clearly enough - I would not be the person to ask about that.

As someone who has had unwelcome, violent intruders in my home, I have to say I can see why someone would feel/be a lot better off with a weapon available and the legal right to use it, whatever the statistics are. Even if I am not the sort of person to want weapons in the family home.

 

[Jeannie52]

I can’t tell you how absurd all this sounds. Unbelievable.

And my husband and I are NOT going to be afraid to go to Church. When our Church doors are open my husband and I are there giving our worship and adoration to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ praying to Him and Our Blessed Mother. Our lives are in God’s hands,

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I can’t tell you how absurd all this sounds. Unbelievable.

And my husband and I are NOT going to be afraid to go to Church. When our Church doors are open my husband and I are there giving our worship and adoration to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ praying to Him and Our Blessed Mother. Our lives are in God’s hands,

 

[Eric_Hyom]

It depends on the study and how they classify ‘self defense’. The more common studies put the number of self defenses using a firearm at between 1.2 million and 300,000 per year.

When people live in fear and own guns, for self defence, horrible things happen…

•A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

•Every day on average, 55 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 46 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun

bradycampaign.org/about-gun-violence?gclid=CI3v-9He2cYCFTQatAodbKgKSg

 

[Brendan]

When people live in fear and own guns, for self defence, horrible things happen…

•A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

Actually, that statistic that you quoted defined ‘self defense’ as actually FIRING the gun at the attacker. Federal Crime data shows that such defense accounts for less than 2 percent of self defenses using a firearm. The VAST majority do not involve the gun being fired at all, rather, the gun is used to either hold the attacker at bay, or the attacker flees

Go review the Journal that Brady sites for that statistic. They look at deaths exclusively. so really that statistic you quote does not even include times where the gun wounds the attacker and he survives.

Seriously, you are honestly attempting to use THAT type of data as ‘proof’. If so, yes I will agree that a gun is more likely to KILL someone in the home rather than to KILL an attacker.

But that was not the point you were trying to make, now was it.

•Every day on average, 55 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 46 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun

bradycampaign.org/about-gun-violence?gclid=CI3v-9He2cYCFTQatAodbKgKSg

Even the most conservative estimates put self defense with guns at 83,000 per year. That is 227 per day. (based on time where the gun was pointed directly at the attacker, and the attacker either fled, or was held at bay. that stat does not include times where the gun was merely shown to the attacker, and the attacker fled)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

And BTW, owning a gun for self defense is no more ‘living in fear’ than owning a fire extinguisher means that one is living in fear of fire.

 

[TimothyH]

Christ was human and had the right to life, the right to defend himself.

but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. (Phillipians 2:7-8)

Y’all are free to choose your own way. I choose the way of Christ. That’s my choice.

-Tim-

 

[Brendan]

Christ was human and had the right to life, the right to defend himself.

but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. (Phillipians 2:7-8)

Y’all are free to choose your own way. I choose the way of Christ. That’s my choice.

-Tim-

And the Church certainly allows for that, under particular circumstances. Christ died to save others, and the Church does hold that as being noble,

But to sacrifice oneself outside of such a context has no spiritual benefit, and in the case of parents, and those who have charge over the lives of others, just the opposite is demanded by the Church. They have a Duty of defense.

Evangelicum Vitae ( The Gospel of Life)

This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason

That is why the Church considers parents, police or military who give their lives in active defense of others to gain spiritual benefit (even if that involves the use of firearms). But that does not apply to parents, police or military who simply give up their arms, offer no defense of their charges and die in the process. Those that they have been given charge over are thus needlessly imperiled. And the Church will never condone placing the innocent in needless peril.

 

[The_Wizard]

To counter your bias source I would like to submit my bias source in the hope that you will read it with an open mind. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott, Jr.

When people live in fear and own guns, for self defence, horrible things happen…

•A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

•Every day on average, 55 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 46 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun

bradycampaign.org/about-gun-violence?gclid=CI3v-9He2cYCFTQatAodbKgKSg

 

[triumphguy]

And the Church certainly allows for that, under particular circumstances. Christ died to save others, and the Church does hold that as being noble,

But to sacrifice oneself outside of such a context has no spiritual benefit, and in the case of parents, and those who have charge over the lives of others, just the opposite is demanded by the Church. They have a Duty of defense.

Evangelicum Vitae ( The Gospel of Life)

That is why the Church considers parents, police or military who give their lives in active defense of others to gain spiritual benefit (even if that involves the use of firearms). But that does not apply to parents, police or military who simply give up their arms, offer no defense of their charges and die in the process. Those that they have been given charge over are thus needlessly imperiled. And the Church will never condone placing the innocent in needless peril.

I would put going to mass unarmed as very much in the spiritual context!

Now, if we lived in Somalia, or parts of Nigeria and Boko Haram were close by, and our children were at a school mass I would absolutely say a strong “yes” to having guns present at that mass.

If I am a Canadian Snow Bird in a US state that allows concealed carry (by “Snow Birds” - I’m not sure they do), and I get my CC licence and think it’s cool to carry then I would say, sure, but not in Church because that’s just an affectation and has more to do with my ego.

BTW do you think the people who attend Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston now carry?

 

[Brendan]

I would put going to mass unarmed as very much in the spiritual context!

Perhaps, but the duty to defend one’s family remains, perhaps even in the journey to\from Church

Now, if we lived in Somalia, or parts of Nigeria and Boko Haram were close by, and our children were at a school mass I would absolutely say a strong “yes” to having guns present at that mass.

I agree, perhaps it is best to allow each person to evaluate their own circumstances.

BTW do you think the people who attend Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston now carry?

Haven’t a clue one way or another. That would be an individual choice by each person, also respecting the wishes of their pastor\church board, both in a spiritual context, and as the legal owner of the property.

 

[Inisfallen]

I’ve read through this thread. I’m not going to get into a debate about the Second Amendment, or local laws, but I will say that it saddens me deeply to read about people (and even priests!) carrying guns in church.

One would think that if there’s one place where people shouldn’t be carrying deadly weapons, it’s the church.

Very sad.

 

[otjm]

When people live in fear and own guns, for self defence, horrible things happen…

•A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

•Every day on average, 55 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 46 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun

bradycampaign.org/about-gun-violence?gclid=CI3v-9He2cYCFTQatAodbKgKSg

Given the Brady Campaign has some notoriety concerning the truth, you might want to verify what you state.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is indeed a sad situation, and I don’t pretend to have the answer. But I would put it this way. If I were one of the victims in that church and had it to do over again would I be armed?

Oh yeah.

 

[Inisfallen]

It is indeed a sad situation, and I don’t pretend to have the answer. But I would put it this way. If I were one of the victims in that church and had it to do over again would I be armed?

Oh yeah.

 

[Inisfallen]

Inisfallen:
I wouldn’t. That’s all I have to say. Like I said before, I’m not trying to start a Second Amendment debate.