What does the bible say about guns and other weapons?

[George_Stegmeir]

Yes, people kill. But how many were killed with the assistance of a gun as opposed, say, a box cutter?

I am very tired if anti-gun people such as Robertt Sock quoting statistics citing how many people get killed with firearms, but never cite what the statistics for death from other weapons.
Believe it or not, more people are killed by baseball bats in the US than from firearms!(This is from FBI Crime Statistics)
And, the automobile, when operated by someone under the influence of alcohol or drugs is the most lethal weapon of all!
How come there is no talk of banning baseball bats Mr Sock?
Another fact never cited is that more serious crimes are prevented by civilians with firearms every year than deaths from firearms.
There is no arguing with true believers!

 

[aicirt]

Yes, people kill. But how many were killed with the assistance of a gun as opposed, say, a box cutter?

Almost 3,000 were killed on 9/11 not counting those who have since died.

Result of that, you are restricted from carrying any sharp instruments. For instance, butter knife no but knitting needles okay. Swiss army knife for nails no but pointed metal file, okay. Steel guitar with metal strings? Of course. Pilot to have gun in cockpit? No, no.

 

[po18guy]

OK, BUT

Swords like guns don’t Kill; people do.

IMO having removed God from our schools and OUR government buildings has a GREAT bit of responsibility in what has “shocked” us.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

Amen! After Columbine, someone asked “where was God while all this was going on?” The answer given was that God is not allowed in public schools.

As to all sin, including murder, its origin is the human heart:

Matthew 15:19

“For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.”

The only thing left unlocked in Connecticut was the murderous human heart.

 

[JerryZ]

While attending college in the early 80’s in the UK a piece of news that socked and really stuck with me where an elderly couple that lived in Liverpool had been bluedgeoned to death with a piece of steel water pipe.
And my thought at the time was “Oh great now they will forbid people from buying that too”.
There had been previous to this occurence a prohibition on baseball bats sales because they had been used as weapons.

The criminal element is unfortunately a part of the human species. No distintion on race, sex, national origin or sexual orientation.
Legislation has little effect on them because obviously these individuals have little regard for the law.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am very tired if anti-gun people such as Robertt Sock quoting statistics citing how many people get killed with firearms, but never cite what the statistics for death from other weapons.
Believe it or not, more people are killed by baseball bats in the US than from firearms!(This is from FBI Crime Statistics)
And, the automobile, when operated by someone under the influence of alcohol or drugs is the most lethal weapon of all!
How come there is no talk of banning baseball bats Mr Sock?
Another fact never cited is that more serious crimes are prevented by civilians with firearms every year than deaths from firearms.
There is no arguing with true believers!

Good point; however, shouldn’t we be seeking to limit the statistics in anyway possible?

Some of the implements you mention, vehicles, has controls in place, and they change all the time, to try and limit those occasions. Why would guns be different?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Almost 3,000 were killed on 9/11 not counting those who have since died.

Result of that, you are restricted from carrying any sharp instruments. For instance, butter knife no but knitting needles okay. Swiss army knife for nails no but pointed metal file, okay. Steel guitar with metal strings? Of course. Pilot to have gun in cockpit? No, no.

What controls have been placed on air travel since 9/11? Controls are placed to limit repeat instances of travesties.

 

[bilop]

It seems you overlooked the explanation of your purpose of posting the scriptures. It appeared to be a refutation of what the other poster posted.

Has anyone stated that we have no duty to protect the innocent?

We can protect others in many ways, one of which is to limit the implements of death, as well as actually defend them physically. To say we all need to arm ourselves and be on the ready, seems to be living by the ‘sword’, or gun in this case. Conversion of hearts works on the necessity of having to live by the ‘sword’.

Just as we cannot cherry pick lines of scriptures, we shouldn’t be cherry picking teachings from the Church. Scriptures and the Church are supportive of each other and not independent, putting one at odds with the other.

I am saying you have a personal responsibility to protect your wife and children, and any other innocent people in your home. If an armed man attacked my wife or family, and I was not equipped to try and stop him, I would view that as a personal moral failing.

Quite simply, I see no reason NOT to own a gun. I hope to never use it against a person, but I have it if I need it. I would carry one too, if the laws of my state were more reasonable. I wish every law abiding citizen was armed.

God Bless

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

“…for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Matt 26:52

“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Luke 22:36

Most translations have your verse as “he who lives by the sword” or something of that nature. Simply bearing a sword for self defense does not bind you to death by the sword, however if you live by the sword (ie. are a murderer or belligerent in some way) you will die by some sort of a confrontation. There are also several verses where you have to look beyond the literal to get the point of it. The point of my verse is self defense, not that “thou shalt own a sword”. I’m sure that swords worked great for the Christians 2000 years ago for self defense but now that’s unrealistic, therefore we defend ourselves by bearing a firearm. Of course your verse, while also being very true in the literal, means that those who are belligerent will die in confrontation, regardless of how they are belligerent (ie argumentive, homicidal, ect.)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am saying you have a personal responsibility to protect your wife and children, and any other innocent people in your home. If an armed man attacked my wife or family, and I was not equipped to try and stop him, I would view that as a personal moral failing.

Quite simply, I see no reason NOT to own a gun. I hope to never use it against a person, but I have it if I need it. I would carry one too, if the laws of my state were more reasonable. I wish every law abiding citizen was armed.

God Bless

Again, where have I said defense should not be carried enacted?

As Christians, who know we shouldn’t live by the ‘sword’, we should have no problems with controls that might aid us in defense in advance. Again, most are not suggesting a ban, but controls.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Luke 22:36

Most translations have your verse as “he who lives by the sword” or something of that nature. Simply bearing a sword for self defense does not bind you to death by the sword, however if you live by the sword (ie. are a murderer or belligerent in some way) you will die by some sort of a confrontation. There are also several verses where you have to look beyond the literal to get the point of it. The point of my verse is self defense, not that “thou shalt own a sword”. I’m sure that swords worked great for the Christians 2000 years ago for self defense but now that’s unrealistic, therefore we defend ourselves by bearing a firearm. Of course you’re verse, while also being very true in the literal, means that those who are belligerent will die in confrontation, regardless of how they are belligerent (ie argumentive, homicidal, ect.)

I have provided Catholic Bible commentaries, and excerpts from the early Church fathers, via the St. Aquinas Catena Aurea, that provide the historical Church interpretation of that passage.

 

[superamazingman]

Quite simply, I see no reason NOT to own a gun. I hope to never use it against a person, but I have it if I need it. I would carry one too, if the laws of my state were more reasonable. I wish every law abiding citizen was armed.

God Bless

If most/all citizens were armed, crime would simply bottom out. That’s what people don’t seem to get.

 

[po18guy]

Good point; however, shouldn’t we be seeking to limit the statistics in anyway possible?

Some of the implements you mention, vehicles, has controls in place, and they change all the time, to try and limit those occasions. Why would guns be different?

As I understand it, the only unlocked thing in Connecticut was the murderous human heart.

 

[bilop]

If most/all citizens were armed, crime would simply bottom out. That’s what people don’t seem to get.

Exactly. Who would go into a liquor store to rob it knowing every customer was armed?

You might still get suicidal shooters like in CT, but how long is one shooter going to last if there were 50 armed adults in the school.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Again, where have I said defense should not be carried enacted?

As Christians, who know we shouldn’t live by the ‘sword’, we should have no problems with controls that might aid us in defense in advance. Again, most are not suggesting a ban, but controls.

And neither I (nor the NRA) have any problems with reasonable controls, e.g. instant background check, finger printing to get a concealed carry permit, bans on the mentally ill or criminal owning guns, etc.

God Bless

 

[superamazingman]

Again, where have I said defense should not be carried enacted?

As Christians, who know we shouldn’t live by the ‘sword’, we should have no problems with controls that might aid us in defense in advance. Again, most are not suggesting a ban, but controls.

here’s the problem: enacting anti-gun laws only does one thing: disarming the good guys. The bad guys, by definition, are the ones that already break laws.

 

[Nigel7]

Yes, people kill. But how many were killed with the assistance of a gun as opposed, say, a box cutter?

The most horrendous single event in US history was perpetrated with box cutters.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If most/all citizens were armed, crime would simply bottom out. That’s what people don’t seem to get.

That is a solution, but it seems to say we should live by the ‘sword.’ Are there any solutions that would show us living by other means?

 

[po18guy]

“…for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Matt 26:52

From the Haydock commentary:

“Ver. 52. Shall perish by the sword. This was not to condemn the use of the sword, when employed on a just cause, or by lawful authority. Euthymius looks upon it as a prophecy that the Jews should perish by the sword of the Romans. (Witham) — Our divine Saviour would not permit this apostle to continue in his pious zeal for the safety of his Master. He says to him: put up thy sword. For he could not be unwilling to die for the redemption of man, who chose to be born for that end alone. Now, therefore, he gives power to his implacable enemies to treat him in the most cruel manner, not willing that the triumph of the cross should be in the least deferred; the dominion of the devil and man’s captivity in the least prolonged. (St. Leo)”

We err when we seek a physical solution for a spiritual problem. Contraception, abortion and euthanasia are examples of such misguided thinking.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As I understand it, the only unlocked thing in Connecticut was the murderous human heart.

What if those weapons were secured more? Yes the human erred, but could there have been controls to prevent him from securing the means to commit such a heinous crime?

Why is it so important for law abiding citizens to ‘inconvenience’ themselves to prevent others from becoming notorious criminals?

Why can’t we have stricter gun registrations, similar to car titles, with paperwork that must be recorded showing exact ownership of a weapon?

Why can’t we require insurance on specific type weapons?

Why can’t we require more secure means of keeping certain weapons, with responsibility remaining with the owner, to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands?

Why can’t we limit ammo for certain type weapons, with more availability for ‘target practice’?

Why can’t we require mental status certification to own certain type weapons?

Wouldn’t any, or all of these ideas, be worth it if they saved just one life?

 

[superamazingman]

That is a solution, but it seems to say we should live by the ‘sword.’ Are there any solutions that would show us living by other means?

If we all carried guns, that would really not be living ‘by the sword,’ because there’d be very little need to use them. In reality, they are there for self defense.