They sure didn't save the three people who died in that church.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Guns in church
- Thread starter Jeremiah Ames
- Start date
That all depends. Defending onesself with force that's disproportionate to the threat very well can be murder.
... except for all the verses that do.
Shad
Veteran Member
No someone legally killed an attacker thus is not murder.
It was a good thing as it stopped someone trying to kill people in a church.
Nope as one can use a weapon to defend other people as per this case.
Stating the obvious.
You are making grand claims regarding who is evil
It was murder as it was completely a legal action to stop the attacker.
Non-sequitur.
Head fiction.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
Guns in church? That's so tame. Here's a church with a nuclear bomb in it.
This is our future.
Is it the same future where monkeys also ride horses and throw nets over people?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
True. Yet a number of people seem to ignore the former and dwell on the latter.
It saved the casulity count from getting higher then 3.
Without any guns in that church, the casualty count would have been zero.
That's a tautology.
The survivors are the ones saved.
Because the church doesn't have security to ensure that malefactors
won't enter with guns, then responsibility for defense falls upon those
parishioners willing & able to defend.
Your post reminds me of those who argue that if there were no weapons
or militaries, we'd have no wars. They conclude that we should disarm
in pursuit of peace. There's a problem....unilateral disarmament leaves
weapons in the hands of others.
Guns exist in our society. We cannot assume that individuals improve
the situation by voluntarily disarming. The bad guys won't.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I doubt it.
3 people shot and you don't think guns were a factor?
No, he's right.
If you assume a magic wand has waved the 2nd Amendment
away, & all privately owned guns have been confiscated, then
there's a good chance that no one would've died. Of course,
this also assumes that people wouldn't substitute other weapons.
But back in the real world, it's about gun control measures which
are possible, eg, to what extent should law abiding people be able
to use them in self defense against perps bent on carnage.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Guns were used. Sure.
The only factor I see however, are the people themselves.
Dosent it strike you as strange that throughout our entire history with guns, that it's this particular generation of people of late that has these particular issues ?
It's unfortunate, but not unexpected. There's quite the correlation beginning in the 70s and continuing today through the Heller decision: as gun laws relax, gun crimes get worse.
Have any evidence for the claim?