Summations Only

But you're shifting the goal posts here. You keep making excuses for why Switzerland should be exempt and adding provisos for why their rates of homicide by gun is low, even though the argument continues to be that access to guns will increase the rate that they are used. Switzerland doesn't get a pass because it's wealthy or a functioning society. If the argument is that availability to guns increase gun deaths, then that should be the only metric. These distractors about how they're issued guns or wealthy isn't relevant. If they are relevant, then you obviously have to concede on some level that guns aren't the problem and that the cause of violence is entirely a sociological issue. The only thing that could be said is that in instances where that is the case, adding guns in to the equation exacerbates the problem since it increases the ease of lethality. I won't argue that point because it is self-evident. See my response above for the bulk of the argument. I would, however, like to pose a hypothetical question. Let's say, for argument's sake, that you had the opportunity to work in Mexico for 6 months through your company. Your company offers a lot of money for this venture because they understand that some inherent risks are involved and because they think that you can really help increase US/Mexico trade relations.The government approves you a permit to carry a weapon. Given the violence in Mexico, wouldn't you take them up on the officer, especially knowing how cartels and gangs kidnap Americans for ransom in tandem with the fact that the police are often corrupt and inept? There's no way I would go down there ever again without being armed.And this is the ever-present crux of the situation. We all understand that adding guns to the problem in the long-term has deleterious effects. However, in terms of pure survivability, I find it cruel to impose measures that stacks the deck against ordinary citizens just trying to survive. In the simplest terms possible, that is the thrust of my argument. Because short of uninventing the gun, the reality is that they are here now.

That may be his overall position, but that's not currently what we are discussing. We are currently discussing the notion that the availability of guns increases gun deaths. My argument is that in simple terms I agree, however, contributing factors are neglected and that it is not as simple as just having guns.

I am not shifting the goalposts but explaining something that shouldn't have to be explained, that comparing Switzerland to Mexico is not an apples to apples comparison, and that if you don't adjust for the differences you do not obtain a valid comparison. When you compared Switzerland to Mexico without making any adjustments you made an invalid comparison. Same when you compared Canada to Brazil. I don't know how you received the impression that there was an argument that Switzerland should "get a pass." You can compare Switzerland to Mexico if you like, but you have to adjust for the large differences between the two countries. It shouldn't need to be said that adding guns to countries with significant drug gang and cartel problems and large ghettos will increase gun violence more than adding guns to countries with no significant drug problems or ghettos. I hope what you're saying is that what researchers always do, whether it's weather or marriage or guns, is correct for various other factors in order to ferret out the relationship of interest. In the real world there's almost never a single independent metric for anything. You're in effect saying that if there are other factors besides gun prevalence that can impact levels of gun injury and death, then the problem must be an "entirely sociological issue." This is self-evidently false. It would be as if you had said about cars, "These distractors about driver competence and DWI aren't relevent. If they are relevant, then you obviously have to concede on some level that cars aren't the problem and that the cause of vehicular injury and death is entirely a sociological problem." See how this analogous claim makes no sense? Well, yes, of course, this has been the point all along. And just as adding gasoline to a fire is far more dangerous than adding gasoline to a gas can, adding guns to ghettos and drug gangs is far more dangerous than adding guns to Switzerland.About bringing a gun on a mission to Mexico, the answer is no. I've misinterpreted too many situations to trust my judgement with a deadly weapon, and the odds of me coming out on top seem very low against gun-wielding gang members while I'm paying attention to my job and they're planning how and when best to attack. I probably wouldn't go unless the company convinced me they were providing sufficient professional 24-hour security provided by an American company to avoid any chance of corruption. Europe did not have to uninvent guns after WWI and WWII to achieve low levels of gun ownership.Perpetuating the myth that guns make one safer places people in greater danger. After an incident or an Obama speech the gun advocates say, "Better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it," but that's a false message because it ignores that the gun is a constant danger every second of every day. The right message is, "Better to not have it, because the odds of needing it and successfully using it are lower than it hurting or killing you or those near you."--Percy

Well, I don't see it at all. It reads to me like He changed the subject from the prophecy of Peter's betrayal to the changed circumstances they would soon be facing with His death. When He then goes on to talk about how "now" things would be different He's clearly saying things were no longer going to be the way they were when He sent them out without purse or scrip. Otherwise, if He's responding to a bunch of complainers, the "now" would be sarcastic and it doesn't read that way to me at all, not to mention that there's no hint that they had been complaining, except the argument about who would be greatest in the kingdom. I see no cherry picking, I see no quote mining.However, I want to end this by saying that I'd be very happy if He was clearly saying Christians are not to have weapons. I wish it were clear. Trusting the Providence of God is a real test of faith and we should be up to it. On the other hand that degree of faith gets close to things like assuming He will heal all diseases when clearly He doesn't and people die of diseases. If we were willing to die at the hands of enemies and that our families die when we have no physical means of protecting them, then it would be a fair expression of faith, and could be a powerful witness. (abe: A reasonable context for this might be the early days of the settling of America when settlers faced the possibility of attacks by hostile Indians. A real threat in other words. If they were willing to be unarmed in those circumstances, even though many would have died they might have won more Indian tribes to Christ).But the passage is NOT clear that He was teaching that. The commentators who insist He wasn't advocating real swords infer it from His teachings about the sword of the Spirit and so on because there is nothing in the passage itself that makes it read that way. Sell your cloak and buy a sword can only refer to a real sword, or at least nobody has shown clearly how it could refer to anything else.But again, I'd be very happy if it was clear that He was denying us earthly means of self-defense. For this passage I'm just going to conclude that it's too ambiguous to decide the question.abe' For reference, Luke 22: Luke 22 (KJV) - Now the feast of unleavened
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi, Hyroglyphx.I've been trying to figure out how best to respond to this, but I'm still not sure. But, I've neglected you long enough, so here I go! I suppose one valid perspective is that it takes a society that is already non-violent to actually enact laws aimed at reducing violent. So, we could argue that the strength of the calls for gun control is one indicator (but not an actual driver) of a society's trend toward non-violence.

Hardly a reasonable comparison. Aside from hobbyists guns are bought with the intent of killing or maiming, which isn't done unless the buyer and/or others is prepared to use it for that purpose. When this is the norm, as it seems to be for many in the US, it inevitably creates a more violent mindset within the whole society. Look at the number of police shootings you have. It so often seems to be shoot first and ask questions later even amongst those who are bound to uphold the law.Football (soccer) is intended for fun and entertainment and even as an outlet for violent behaviour.

Fair enough Faith, but can I suggest then that the ambiguity can be removed when taken in the broader context of the entire message of Christ including blessed are the meek and the peacemakers. I would also add the context of the non-violent method that the first followers of Jesus used in their ministry. Paul outlines the weapons that Jesus said that should be used.

quote:

---

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armour of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armour of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

---

Yes, but all that flies in the face of how Luke 22 is actually written. You do violence to the text by making it mean something other than it actually says. As I read it, as I keep saying. It read to me like He's talking about real swords here, despite all the spiritual swords and armor elsewhere. I can't get around that myself.ABE: Are you prepared to say that settlers facing hostile Indian attacks should not respond with arms? Are you prepared to say you'd be willing to die and leave your family unprotected in that case? Do you think that is what Jesus is advocating?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I agree He is talking about real swords but I contend He is saying that they don't need them. I agree that it can be understood either way in that we don't have the benefit of hearing the inflection He has in his voice. For example I contend that He is saying "but now" and with the inflection in His voice there is the unspoken phrase of "in spite of that" this is what you are doing.So once again as we don't have the benefit of hearing the inflection, (or for that matter the original Aramaic), we have to go with the context of the entire message of Christ. I think you picked a rather terrible example to make your point considering our European ancestors occupied their homeland and brought their guns with them.However, as Jesus says later in Luke 22 that He didn't come to lead an armed rebellion. This is in spite of the fact that this is what the Jews expected a messiah to do, and in spite of the fact that His people were living in their homeland occupied and taxed by a brutal Roman regime.Our actions are to be based on having hearts that find their joy in love, peace and justice and in living that out there is ambiguity.

How does one defend the indefensible? Just follow the example of St. Joseph's hospital in Houston. After Alan Penn sought emergency room medical treatment for a psychiatric condition and was shot by hospital security guards, St. Joseph chief executive Mark Bernard called the guard's actions "justified." Mr. Penn was charged with felony assault. Read the details in this New York Times article: When the Hospital Fires the BulletWe often hear it said that when you only have a hammer every problem becomes a nail. When the only tools available to security guards and police officers are Tasers and guns then every problem becomes a serious threat. The tool needed in this case was training in deescalation and dealing with mentally ill patients.--Percy

OK, you don't like the example of the Indians. Instead of arguing it, which I believe could be done, I just want to emphasize the point of it, which is that it's all well and good to argue against guns -- or swords or any kind of weapon -- if there is no real threat, -- and that is often the argument here -- we don't NEED them, do we REALLY think the government is going to threaten us etc. etc. etc. So the question is whether you think Jesus advocated facing real threats completely unarmed, including facing threats against your family? Clearly Christians face such real threats, starting with the lions in the arena. Right now Christians in other parts of the world are suffering persecution and martyrdom. Are we always to be martyrs then? Is that our calling in your opinion?

Faith wrtites: actually, i dug that notion that the Indian may have accepted white man with less carnage.thumps up.

Okay.

Exactly, and while there may not be enough trained policemen to go around, the idea that the particular policemen working at the a place of treatment for the mentally ill were so poorly prepared is horrifying [1]. I bet that the regular staff at the hospital could have handled this guy, but look what happens when you call the police first.[1] Or inexcusable, unforgivable, inexplicable, etc.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I like that idea too, though the idea was accepting Christ, not just the white man. If Christians really are forbidden self-defense there are lots of implications that aren't getting discussed here. You go into any dangerous situation unarmed except for prayer and the gospel, fully aware that you may die but that your purpose is that others be saved.Denying that there is a real danger is an obstacle to the necessary mindset. You may very well die. Talk about the Christian message being about loving others is meaningless unless it includes that possibility. If we extend the idea to, say, ISIS, missionaries would go to the Islamic militants armed only with the gospel and prayer, fully expecting to die, loving the people who would kill them, celebrating Christ while you are literally losing your head. This IS in keeping with the general message of the gospel.As Christ laid down His life for us we are to lay down our lives for others. "Dying to self" can be obeyed in many nonlethal ways, but surely literal death must be included when the unsaved people are determined to kill you.I've touched on this at my blog from time to time but never fully worked it through, the idea being that people are saved when you are willing to die for them.I'm not saying I think Luke 22 teaches this because I still think it's ambiguous, and I think there is grace for people of small faith, but the general message of self-sacrifice is certainly scriptural.The question of danger from governments, which is a major argument for the Second Amendment, may not be quite the same thing, I need to think that through better.