I'm thinking of buying a gun?

[lazarus]

I have seriously thought of buying a gun to keep at home to protect my family. Would that be wrong?

[cricket]

Do you already have a home security system in place?

[Paul Beach]

Margaret Gray responds:

Did you wake up this morning with a blue moon in your eye?

[Bravus]

Not sure about morally wrong, but perhaps logically wrong: lots of research to show that more people are killed by the guns that were in the home to 'protect' them than by guns criminals bring into homes. It's like "I'll protect my family by adding one extra highly lethal thing to their environment".

[Dr. Shane]

Private ownership of guns for personal protection is a great idea but not without the education to accompany it. Most gun accidents that have occured have been stupid, "Homer Simpson" type mistiakes.

While gun safty classes are not required for adults in the states I am familiar with, it is still a good decision for adults to take such classes. Also, find a firing range and take lessons on how to use the gun.

If you live in an area where intruders may be armed with guns themselves, you may want to purchase a large handgun like a .357 or .45 that will kill with just one shot. If you live in a relatively safe neighborhood, you may want to purchase a small handgun like a .22 or even a .380 (not the same as a .38)

[]http://www.ballistics-experts.com/images/Law%20enforcement/Ammo_Comp_1.jpg[/]

Left to right are: 22, 25, 32, 380, 9mm, 357 SIG, 38, 357, 40, 45, & 223 rifle ammo for comparison

Another option is a small shotgun. You can make your own shells for a shotgun. Many farmers have used rocksalt in their shorgun shells instead of BBs to fire at intruders. Rocksalt penetrating the skin isn't likely to kill anyone but will stop most anyone with the exception of one seriously under the infulence of drugs. This is the choice my family and I have choosen. We have a double barrel shotgun with shells filled with salt.

A good security system can often prevent any need to use guns. A security system will alert the police. I tend to dislike silent alarms. I like the intruder to know he has set off an alarm and all the neighbors to know an alarm has been set off too. In many cases an intruder will fleee when an alarm sounds.

I cannot emphasize the need for gun safety classes enough - especially if yo have children in the house. Such classes will not only teach you how to safely use a gun and indentify intruders but also how to store guns and ammunition so courious or rebillious children cannot get a hold of them and/or use them.

[Dr. Shane]

Here is a link to, what I belive, is a well balanced perspective of the debate.

>>> Gun Control & Home Defense <<<

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

At a drop of a hat, both sides will pull up seriously "spin-doctored" and "juggled" statistics to prove their points. Bottom line is however, both sides are equally neurotic and insulted by the "wrong-headed" opinions of the other. The feud has become so ingrained that it is part of the culture for both parties.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[jasd]

QR window

Umm, even the sacrament of communion, having too many qualifiers, ie, ‘open’, ‘closed’, etc, and not forgetting the Biblical “unworthily”, cannot be said by its “Do this in remembrance of me” to be an absolute imperative. The non-absolute imperative excludes those to whom it is not applicable. On the other hand,

Lu 22:36 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.

doesn’t allow for ifs, ands, or buts -- no qualifiers. It is an even more obligatory imperative than that regarding the sacrament [of] communion. (Well, assuming that none were in attendance without garment)

That said, let’s not forget that many in those days owned only one garment, which same, Jesus said to sell if need be, --leaving the individual quite in the raw, a capital offense by Biblical OT. Beatific principles such as ‘a flower in the barrel of every gun’, etc, aside -- how seriously

must Jesus have taken the matter of being armed? of one professing the faith vis-à-vis the infidel -- where provision for his/her family is concerned?

The following is rhetorical, sorta. RE: “Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus” (Rev 14:12).

Is not Jesus Christ Gd? is not His imperative a jussive peremptory? a commandment? Indeed, it is.

So, why do certain .Orgs cling to a fashioned idea/tradition that is not sustainable by Writ? Methinks,

there are those .Orgs that might oughta wanna rethink their censure of other’s ‘traditions’.

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Christine Wall said:

Do you already have a home security system in place?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

And, a smart mind can easily disable a hi-tech system. Believe me, I know! Spent 14-plus hours with a gun to my head held by an intruder who disabled my home security system.

Nothing is going to protect you if the person wants in badly enough.

Naomi

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Bravus said:

Not sure about morally wrong, but perhaps logically wrong: lots of research to show that more people are killed by the guns that were in the home to 'protect' them than by guns criminals bring into homes. It's like "I'll protect my family by adding one extra highly lethal thing to their environment".

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Bravus, you are correct to an extent. I grew up with all kinds of guns. We had high-powered hunting guns, large hand guns (for several years my father headed up a law enforcement division). We had "loaders" to make our own animation; had our own shooting range, practiced with targets and competed at trap-shoots. Uncles, cousins, everyone in the family got together to exhibit their knowledge, handling skills and marksmanship (sp?)

Two things I know: 1) If you have a gun in the house for protection be sure you can & will pull the trigger. He/she who hesitates looses!!

2) Have a large enough gun that you can take down a large person. A little "pea shooter" can hurt a large person and make them very angry especially if they have some form of mind-altering drugs in their system.

If you are gonna do it ... be prepared to do it. You have no way of knowing the size, intention, mental condition, etc of the "enemy"

I haven't researched the issue of gun licensing. I do know of six states which all require permits to carry a gun and to receive the permit you have to go through a training course ... and return for retraining to keep your license active.

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/129933-offtopic2.gif" alt="" /> You can never keep guns off the street. You can educate yourself and make the best possible decision for yourself and your family ... You and you along know what is your best decision.

Naomi

[Gregory Matthews]

I understand that you plan to move, with your famly, to Texas, and want the gun to protect them from mosquitoes. You will need one. But, if you ever move to Alaska you will probably need a much larger bore weapon. A .22 Cal. should do in in Texax, but a 357 will likely be needed in Alaska.

[Dr. Shane]

A smart intruder can disable an alarm system. Of course, that is true. However a lot of intruders are not that smart. A lot of thieves look for easy targets so they skip homes with alarms or dogs. I don't know what percentages they are but I suspect that only a minority of thieves will target a home they know has a dog and alarm system.

[Naomi]

Gregory,

ROFLOL Good advice.

Naomi

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane said:

A smart intruder can disable an alarm system. Of course, that is true. However a lot of intruders are not that smart. A lot of thieves look for easy targets so they skip homes with alarms or dogs. I don't know what percentages they are but I suspect that only a minority of thieves will target a home they know has a dog and alarm system.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Shane, Water always takes the path of least resistence. Same with petty small-time thiefs. We agree.

However, a piece of meat soaked in antifreeze or some other fast acting posion will put any dog out of commission FAST.

The higher the stakes, the more sophisticated the methods of entry.

There is no one-size-fits-all

Naomi

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Not sure about morally wrong

---

I agree with your point, Bravus, except what you stated above.

According to the Bible Christ never owned a weapon. He never returned evil for evil...or practiced an eye for an eye. He is our example.

But then again we know that all of us are failing to live as Christ lived. For that reason Christ had to deliver us from "under the law"...the same law that states you shall not murder...and spiritually speaking, the same law that said, "love your enemies"!

Lazarus...I use to have Nunchakus. I use to do kick boxing for the same reason - protection. But I gave it up....That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight back, but technically it is wrong.

Now are you confused?

Rob

[Robert]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

On the other hand, Lu 22:36 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.... It is an even more obligatory imperative than that regarding the sacrament [of] communion.

---

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

According to the Bible Christ never owned a weapon.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Peter did. Why didn't Christ tell him to get rid of it?

[Gregory Matthews]

Re:"According to the Bible Christ never owned a weapon."

Oh! Interesting thought.

Was Christ a carpenter? Did Christ own a knife the He might have use in carpentry? Could that knife have been a weapon?

A challenging question Robert. I had never thought of it before.

Maybe I should look for the verse that says: "During the 30 years of his life, our Lord did not own a weapon."

Folks, I am more serious than you may think. The statement above has stimulated me. I could say that the Biblical record never shows Christ defending himself with a weapon (But, there was that whip with which he drove people out of the Temple. If that whip, which seemed to scare people, was owned by Christ, then Christ may have owned a weapon, and used it! Astounding. I am adding these thoughts as I post.) . . ."

Folks, I am calling it quits, for now. I have just disrupted my own train of thought. I am not now certain what I wanted to say. . . .?

[cricket]

Well, when our's is disabled, it sends a message directly to the police. They arrive here in less than 3 minutes. It's happened to us 3 times already!

[jasd]

Hyperbole -- to finer draw the point

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Quote:

---

According to the Bible Christ never owned a weapon.

---

Peter did. Why didn't Christ tell him to get rid of it?

---

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. John 18:10

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Matt 26:52

I would like to add all who take up the gun will die by the gun.

[Bravus]

Rob - yeah, I wasn't saying that it *wasn't* morally wrong to own a weapon (pardon the double negative!), I was just saying that I don't really know, and didn't want to address that issue right then: my comment was simply in relation to the practicalities.

Yeah, I was gonna say - we know how well Peter owning a sword worked out...

Mind you, the text jasd quoted about 'sell your clothes and buy a sword' got me thinking. I went looking for the 'beat swords into plowshares' text and found something very interesting. That text is in Isaiah, but in Joel it encourages people to beat their plowshares into swords! Clearly it's not a simple issue from a Biblical perspective.

I appreciate Shane's comment about the rather hysterical and often spun use of stats by both sides in this debate. I'd still argue that a pretty dispassionate look at the research shows that having a gun in the house makes you less safe rather than more safe.

Interesting issue, and I'm delighted that the discussion has stayed reasoned and fairly civil so far - let's try to keep that going.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Biblical record never shows Christ defending himself with a weapon (But, there was that whip with which he drove people out of the Temple. If that whip, which seemed to scare people, was owned by Christ, then Christ may have owned a weapon, and used it! Astounding. I am adding these thoughts as I post.) . . ."

---

Jesus made a whip, but we have no record that He used it on anyone; indeed, He likely used it to herd the cattle and sheep, and the humans merely swept out with the flow.

Jesus didn't kill anyone; He didn't touch anyone, so far as the record states. He is our example....

Some food for thought:

• Whoever seeks to keep his life shall lose it, and whoever loses his life shall preserve it.

  And they [the remnant] overcame him [satan] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

  I [Paul] only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.

Here's true protection:

They [the Jews - Christ's enemies] were seeking therefore to seize Him; but no man laid his hand on Him, [why?] because His hour had not yet come.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

I went looking for the 'beat swords into plowshares' text and found something very interesting. That text is in Isaiah, but in Joel it encourages people to beat their plowshares into swords! Clearly it's not a simple issue from a Biblical perspective.

---

Where did Israel first obtain weapons? God had not so equipped them, according to the record. If they chose to be a military nation in spite of God's wish to protect them in His own way, would He not then have rejected them? Do we have a Biblical example showing what God might do under such circumstances?

It takes little thought to find such an example in the later history of the nation. Although God never intended Israel to have a visible king, He did not reject them when they claimed one. And their motive for this perfidy? [:"red"]"That we may be like all the nations" (1 Samuel 8:19).[/] God warned them of the results of their choice, but He did not reject them for it. Did they, early on, desire to wage war "like" the Egyptians?

But in the case of their choosing a king, God expressed His disapproval. Do we have a Biblical example where humans defied God's ideal will without His expressing disapproval and also without His rejecting them for it? Yes. In their practice of slavery and polygamy, which most Christians now agree were not in God's original plan.]

Polygamy was so common among God's people in the Old Testament, examples need not be cited. Again, they thought to be "like" the surrounding nations, even though they knew God's perfect will for monogamous marriage had been beautifully expressed in the beginning (Genesis 2:20-24). But they chose to focus on their visible neighbors rather than on the invisible God, and beholding changed them into the same image (2 Corinthians 3:18).

[aldona]

Just tagging on here...

...have come straight from the Quaker forum so this whole discussion looks really surreal...

...especially seeing the signature line from Mother Teresa ("You know my God. My God is love.") right after a discussion on how to be sure you can pull the trigger and shoot to kill...

(not picking on Naomi, it was just the placement of the two subjects side-by-side that made my brain explode).

I think I've gotta go drink some stronger coffee. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/sad25.gif" alt="" />

aldona

[Amelia]

NKJV

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

John 2:15

When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

NIV

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

John 2:15

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

NLT

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

John 2:15

Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and oxen, scattered the money changers' coins over the floor, and turned over their tables.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Seems Jesus used the whip not only on the animals but the people too.