Your basic premise, that "gun control" is fine and dandy, is a total crock. Do you understand that an assault weapon is basically a totally made-up category of weapon? Do you also understand that the Nazis scum of the Democrat party and their troops at the ATF will have the ability to make your life a living hell if you sell a gun to a relative and but don't manage to hang on to the paperwork till your on your deathbed? Of course not. How about seven bullets for your clip? I bet you love that idea. You can call me a chauvinist. Whatever. I don't give a you know what, but the problem with women is that they love liberal activism and they just can't seem to figure out that government and especially a government run by Left-wing Radical, Fascist Democrats, is everyone's worst nightmare. Once they are done bankrupting the country maybe you'll finally have it figured out.

David Griswold, Sharon's article is just another misguided attempt to assign blame to the wrong target and offer an already failed solution to the problem of violence. What I find troubling is that so many Christians fail to grasp that, and waste their time tilting at windmills. As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a former West Point Psychology Professor and expert on human aggression and the roots of violence explained so very well, the problem isn't guns – and more gun-control won't solve the problem. Listen to his interview on the Glenn Beck program (The Blaze TV) and perhaps you'll come to understand the root cause of the recent massacres: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/glenn-beck-and-west-point-psyc hology-professor-discuss-social-impact-of-violent-video-games/

Sharon Hodde Miller's article is a thoughtful and necessary contribution to the Christian conversation about assault weapons regulation, and the hostile response of some who automatically equate enhanced regulation of firearms with a threat to constitutionally-bestowed "freedoms" is deeply troubling. This subject deserves more prominent coverage in the magazine. What about our divinely-bestowed freedoms and responsibilities to allow God's kingdom to flourish on earth?

robert puhric, there are between 80 million and 129 million American citizens who own guns. Compare that with only about 3 million active and reserve soldiers in our military. If the military went door-to-door confiscating weapons and each gun owner killed just one attacker, the military would run out of soldiers very quickly. Add to that the fact that many soldiers really do respect their oath to obey and defend the U.S. Constitution and would fight on the people's side if such an illegal and UnConstitutional order were ever given. You also forget that during the Revolutionary War, we were fighting the then most powerful military force in the world. We could have lost, but our militia and soldiers thought that freedom was worth fighting for, and if necessary worth dying for. I agree. And you're wrong about guns – they DO defend freedom. “Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense.”

I fail to see how civilian weapons defend freedom. This is not 1787. Weapons technology has destroyed the relevance of the 2nd amendment. No armed citizenry can defeat a modern, well trained and well equipped army. And how many citizens have to die each year before we realize guns COST freedom, they don't DEFEND it.

Thank you, Sharon, for a truly Christian perspective on gun control. I'm grateful.

Rob Turk, Amen! I loved your pro-freedom post. It's quite true that “It is unarmed people who are brutalized by repressive governments and criminals and psychopaths.” Our Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights to protect us from being brutalized by a despotic future government, which ours is quickly becoming.

Jon Trott, you need to better educate yourself because you really don't have a clue. You stated that semi-automatic rifles are “weapons of mass destruction” and that's TOTALLY wrong! Here's the dictionary definition of WMD: World English Dictionary Weapons of mass destruction: “nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons that can cause indiscriminate death or injury on a large scale” And you are dead wrong to think that the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed, because it was put in the Constitution so that we could defend ourselves from an out-of-control, despotic government, which ours is quickly becoming. Our Founding Fathers certainly intended that as weapons improved, the American people would be able to own them, including semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. The Second Amendment is “Freedom's Teeth,” because it protects all our other freedoms.

I guess I must not be a Christian by your definition, because I believe in the rights of people to protect themselves from evil and harm. I will gladly lay down my arms when someone can prove to me that every other person on earth is similarly disarmed and unable to hurt me or my family. I stand for freedom, morality, ethics, and justice - all of which are the result of good people making sacrifices and fighting for those things with guns. The 2nd Amendment is the one which guarantees all the others, and all of our rights. It is unarmed people who are brutalized by repressive governments and criminals and psychopaths. If I have to endure the stigma of having some blogger think I'm not a Christian so that I can retain my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so be it. How dare you suggest that all Christians should do anything or feel a certain way about a political matter?

American history does not trump either Scripture or common sense. While I profoundly admire and am glad for the vast majority of laws and ideals conceptualized by our founding fathers, I do not think the Second Amendment has aged well. I've seen (and at one time owned) a black powder pistol (built by a close relative and fantastic woodsman). The colonists used flintlocks! To think our forefathers' ideas of "a well-armed militia" coincide neatly with a no-holds-barred ownership of weapons of mass destruction such as semi-automatic rifles and massive clips of armor-piercing bullets is ludicrous. The white male Evangelical must ask himself just why he over and over again supports repressive and violent aspects of amoral corporations... over and against the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ. I live in the inner city, where young men and those around them are in deep trouble due in part to NRA-driven policies. Thank you, CT, for publishing this article and offering a voice of sanity

Alex, I am familiar with some of Mr. Gossman's work, and although I agree with some of his thinking, we come to drastically different action steps. I don't believe I'll have time to formulate a coherent post this week due to work constraints, but if you are interested in continuing this conversation later, feel free to email me at lydia17019@msn.com.

Dear Mr. Goldman- I sighted a truism - any fascist, communist, or dictatorship always disarms its citizens- regardless of how many guns they have (not sure what your point was there). Again- Americans choose liberty- regardless of whether it applies to guns, freedom of education, religion- or anything else! Btw, your country isn't exactly the standard we aspire to. 100 years ago, Britian was a great nation that had the will and means to spread the gospel, promote a Godly culture, protect the innocent, provide for the poor (through meaningful work), and defend/spread freedom in the world! Your people abrogated this responsibility, threw out your greatest modern-day leader (Churchill), ignored your great Christian leaders (CS Lewis), and succumbed to an entitlement, self-pleasure culture where Christianity is all but dead. I've spent time in your country and the dependency on liquor that I saw was astounding! So Mr. Goldman, if Americans are crazy, then crazy it shall be!!!

William Goldman - another Brit that doesn't get it. As I wrote to John Castle previously, individual gun ownership helped us defeat you Brits in the Revolutionary War, and Amen to that! But an equally good example of the need for civilian gun ownership is the fact that you Brits had, in your ignorance, disarmed your population prior to WW2. This led to your desperate outcry for help in defending your nation, which was met by us Americans through shipments of arms, with the NRA sending you over 7,000 rifles. “Winston Churchill wrote in Their Finest Hour: "When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all ports to receive their cargoes. The Home Guard in every county, in every village, sat up through the night to receive them. ... By the end of July we were an armed nation ... ."” You Brits disarmed yourselves before WW2, and now you've done it to yourselves again. Sadly, you've failed to learn the lessons of history.

>>>>> The roots of the problem with violence go much deeper - to our society's preoccupation with violence in movies and video games. We're actually training our kids to enjoy killing without conscience by desensitizing them to it. So the solution is not an easy one at all, but would require serious family and social changes in our nation. I think it would be helpful for you to watch a Glenn Beck interview with Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a former Army Ranger, West Point Psychology Professor, and expert on human aggression and the roots of violence: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/glenn-beck-and-west-point-psyc hology-professor-discuss-social-impact-of-violent-video-games/ Let me know what you think.

Road Emmaus, I understand your desire to reduce violence, but I don't see a realistic way to do that using gun control. You're unfairly comparing necessary self-defense with immature kids using bravado. Can't do that. The necessity for potentially violent self defense is very real, and is by far most effective with a gun, although in most cases (90%) simply showing the attacker that you have a gun is enough to scare him off. So merely having a gun drastically reduces actual violent attacks, which is what you want. Here's a statistic: “Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker.” So guns are great at reducing violence. This makes perfect sense, since the cities with the harshest gun control laws - and therefore the fewest guns - have the most violence. >>>>> continued >>>>>

Thanks, Sharon, for sane, succinct, intelligent article. Other than that, I just want to say, as a Brit living in England, that I concur wholeheartedly with John Castle. This is one issue on which there seems to be more or less unanimous agreement in this country that North Americans are crazy. I just noticed that Jeffrey Hendershot (no pun intended I hope) wheels out this ridiculous "argument" that "every tyrannical leader/government 9Hitler, Stalin, etc) first disarmed their citizens before eventually killing many of them." So, Jeffrey, you are claiming that prior to Hitler's/Stalin's coming to power, the citizens of their respective countries mostly owned guns?

Ah Alex, now is when I begin to grow wearing of having the same conversations over and over again. I completely agree with you that the world is evil. I don't really care if people keep their guns or not as long as the violence goes down. I made an anonymous post that now comes up as Doreen Ashley (I think all of the anonymous comments were given that name because not all posts under that name are mine) in which I mentioned that I enjoy shooting for fun. It's really our view towards guns that is the most worrisome -the idea that I must be able at all time to kill someone if they threaten me. Ironically, the some principle contributes to inner city violence. Some kid who thinks he's tough carries a gun, he feels threatened by someone else, so he shoots them. After that come the retaliation killings. How do we break that cycle? Unfortunately, that conversation, the most important conversation, is drowned out amid the squabbling over guns.

JEFFREY M HENDERSHOT, thank you - thank you - thank you! I was becoming sick of all the confused, gun-control supporting people - many of the Christians - posting here. You're a breath of fresh air! I used to think that Christians would have a better understanding of important issues than worldly people, but I was sadly wrong. They can be amazingly deceived. This both confuses and bothers me, but it's reality and I have to deal with it.------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John castle, individual gun ownership helped us defeat you Brits in the Revolutionary War. Amen to that! And because you had, in ignorance, disarmed yourselves prior to WW2, we Americans - including the NRA - had to send you rifles to defend yourselves. Apparently, you people never learn the lessons of history.

William Paul Hartsock, concerning your second question: 2) “whether it is realistic with the advancements in military weaponry that a citizen army could be affective in a Red Dawn type scenario. We could ask as Christians whether or not we are driven by fear when we think this way.” Ok, in a Red Dawn type scenario we'd have the U.S. Military fighting the enemy as well as armed citizens helping. There are about 80 million armed citizens in America. If only 1 million armed citizens each killed one enemy soldier, that's 1 million dead enemy soldiers. Could that turn the tide in a war? Sure could. As to your question about Christians being driven by fear, preparing for dire circumstances isn't fearful or wrong. In the Book of Esther, the Jews would have been exterminated if they hadn't been armed. And Joseph prepared well for the famine in Egypt. Of course we shouldn't live in fear, but preparation is wise and good.

William Paul Hartsock, you're right that the article was totally one-sided. It appears to have been written by a gun-hating zealot, and I was very disappointed by the level of ignorance expressed in the article. Now to your two questions: 1) Public safety vs firearms. We've had semi-automatic weapons readily available to citizens over 50 years ago, but we didn't have the high level of violence back then. So guns aren't the problem – we need to deal with the root causes of the violence. Please watch an interview on The Blaze (Glenn Beck TV show) with Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a former Army Ranger, West Point Psychology Professor, and expert on human aggression and the roots of violence. He explains the social causes of this serious threat to our safety: ---------------------------------------- http://www.theblaze.com/stories/g lenn-beck-and-west-point-psychology-professor-discuss-social-impact-of-viol ent-video-games/

Philip Rowley, nobody's claiming that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited. It certainly doesn't allow people to have Stinger Missiles, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in their homes. But it does allow citizens to have the same firearms which the military is using, as I just wrote to another poster, Bruce Robinson. Read that. And your need to attack the NRA is just silly. They simply support the 2nd Amendment, which is the supreme law of the land here in America. They're not the bad guys here – the bad guys are the ones trying to disarm the American people, starting with banning so-called assault weapons and limiting magazine capacity. That certainly violates the intent of the Constitution. But your belief that owning guns somehow violates God's word is just wrong. The Bible doesn't require us to be pacifists or to allow criminals to rape and kill us as we meekly comply. We are allowed to forcefully defend ourselves.

BRUCE ROBINSON, you thoroughly misunderstand the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It's purpose was to insure that the people of the United States would have the firepower to oppose their government if that ever became necessary. The Revolutionary War began when the British attempted to confiscate the colonists' weapons. At the time, the military weapons used by the government were muskets, which were then state-of-the-art. Therefore, the people were allowed to own muskets as well. If the military arms of the time had been M-16s, then the 2nd Amendment would have allowed citizens to have M-16s. The guns may change over time, but the Constitutional intent never does, and so it continues to be our right to own whatever firearms the military is using today. Even strict constructionists understand this.

Emmaus Road wrote: “However, if the only way we can conceive of protecting ourselves and our families is to have the ability to kill another, then something seems terribly amiss.” Indeed, something is amiss. It's called evil, and the world is full of it. Nations and people have been killing echother almost since the world began, and no solution I know of will stop it, other than Jesus returning and bringing peace to the world. Until then, the best way I know of to defend my family is with a gun. Do you know a better way?------------------------------------------------------------- LAUR A C STEEL wrote: “Insisting on one's rights is hard to reconcile with imitating Jesus.” Sorry Laura, but I don't agree. The Bible doesn't teach pacifism, it allows us to use force to protect ourselves and our families.

Emmaus Road, you seem to have misread my post. My point was that Chicago's gun-control laws were USELESS. They don't stop crime. That's why I'm totally opposed to gun-control - it only hurts the victims of crime. Now, your statement: “Honestly, I have seen baseball bats come out more than guns.” supports my contention that eliminating guns, even if we could (we can't), would just cause people to use other types of weapons. A baseball bat to the head can kill in one blow. So banning weapons is useless – instead we must deal with the root causes of crime. BTW, I love it when people can mediate disputes without a gun being pulled. Amen to that. But sadly, sometimes the only way to stop an attack is to use deadly force, and statistics prove that a gun is the best, most effective and safest way to protect yourself.

I wonder if you Americans would like to hear how this discussion sounds in a different context? Here in the UK we have much stricter laws on who can own a gun. We don't assume that everyone has a right to own one, and very few people have any interest in owning a gun. Every time we see another gun massacre in the US we scratch our heads and wonder how it is that you folks seem so blind to the obvious connection between high gun ownership and deaths from firearms! Jesus' words that 'those who live by the sword shall die by the sword' seem uncannily relevant! John, Berkshire UK

Just a couple points.... First, the author is taking scripture and applying it to where it does not speak- government policy (in other words- out of context). Jesus had plenty of opportunities- as did Paul and the other writers of the Bible- to speak out against the Roman government's policies. Peter grabbed his sword and cut off the ear of the man...even the Romans allowed the people to be armed.. My second point is that each side can point to statistics supporting their position. The fact is- the second amendment was crafted so that the nation's people could be armed to defend themselves agains a government that might turn to tyranny. The British were on their way to disarm the Americans when Paul Revere took his famous ride to alert the citizens. Thus began our freedom. Lets not forget that every tyrannical leader/government (Hitler, Stalin, etc) first disarmed their citizens before eventually killing many of them. The issue is about liberty and freedom- and these are Biblical!

Very disappointed. Article was one-sided. As a gun owner, Christian and concerned citizen I was hoping for an objective look at this debate. The accusations against the NRA lacked any supporting evidence. The effectiveness or lack thereof of gun control laws were not addressed. The two questions I have been asking myself in light of recent events is: Should my freedom or right to target shoot or hunt supercede the rights of the publics safety. If the availability of certain firearms puts the public at undue risk and those firearms are used for pleasure then as Christians we should ask whether we are being our brothers keeper or are we driven by percute of selfish pleasure. The second question, concerning a "well regulated militia" is whether it is realistic with the advancements in military weaponry that a citizen army could be affective in a Red Dawn type scenario. We could ask as Christians whether or not we are driven by fear when we think this way. I expected better.

Great article. Every right in the Bill of Rights has limits. We can do gun control without violating the Constitution. For instance, the right of free speech is limited. Screaming fire in a crowded theater is not protected by free speech nor is advocating treason. The right of religion is limited. If you kill in God's name you will still be charged with murder even if you insist God told you to do it. The right to bear arms is not unlimited. Why should that be the only right that is unlimited? Christians should not put NRA dogma ahead of God's Word.

The second amendment talks about "...right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, what does the word "arms" mean? About half of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court interpret the Constitution literally in terms of what the words mean at the time they were first written down. Their political philosophy is called "strict constructionists" or "literalists" etc. What did "arms" mean back in the late 18th century" A muzzle loader, capable of firing one shot per minute or so, during which time the gunman is exposed and vulnerable. If those four or so Justices were consistent, this is how they would interpret the second amendment. I have no objection of people being able to own muzzle loaders. But I'd like to see six shooters, semi-automatic assault rifles, etc. highly restricted.

Alex, I think you might be confusing laws about gun control and actual gun control. Chicago has plenty of gun control laws, but very little gun control. The laws are a joke. If they were truly enforced, then they might have an affect on crime. I know multiple people people on my block who are law abiding, and yet openly profess to illegally possessing guns. If someone who is typically law abiding has no trouble obtaining a gun, then how much more so one who is not? It is true that getting rid of guns won't solve the issues of violence in the city. Honestly, I have seen baseball bats come out more than guns. But I've also seen people be able to mediate those disputes in a way that can't be done with a gun being pulled. The main argument of the "right" to have guns is for protection. However, if the only way we can conceive of protecting ourselves and our families is to have the ability to kill another, then something seems terribly amiss.

Insisting on one's rights is hard to reconcile with imitating Jesus.

As someone who lives north of the 49th parallel and I, like most of the rest of the world, am mystified by Americans' love affair with guns. I don't think the problem has so much to do with the weapon per se, but gun culture. I have recently lived in a part of Canada where almost every other household owns at least 2 guns for hunting, and I have only seen 2 gun related injuries in 10 years - both were ruled accidental. As a surgeon who cares for trauma victims, this is significant. You, my beloved neighbours, idolize your right to bear arms and I honestly think it is a form of idolatry for you. The clue is the statement "but it is My Right to ...." which is asserted with such fanaticism by so many. (End that statement any way you want and I would say in 80% of cases it is a clue to what that person idolizes.) Far too many questions for you are answered by firearms. Not surprisingly, those who live by the gun are dying by the gun. Repent of your idolatry and perhaps you will liv

As for gun-control stopping crime, the author wrote: “Given that the number of homicides in Chicago outpaced the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan, gun violence cannot be reduced to mental illness; it is also about guns.” So what does this tell us? Simple – GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and they're about as effective as screen windows on a submarine. Why are gun-haters so blind? And if you could take away the guns – which you can't – they'd just kill each other in other ways, such as knives, bats, chains, hands and feet, etc. So this problem is not about guns – it goes deeper and involves social degeneracy. The violence in black communities might even be tied to welfare and broken families, because so many black families are fatherless. But that's a complicated issue, so the ignorant naturally gravitate toward banning guns, which won't work and wouldn't solve the problem anyway.

Another thing that bothers me about this article is that it pretends that gun-control is something which Christians should embrace, and tries to present the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, as being un-Christian. Balderdash on both counts! First, Gun control is something which Christians should OPPOSE, because it doesn't stop crime and it punishes good citizens who want to protect their families and nation, and hog-ties members of the unorganized militia. Most men in our nation are members of the unorganized militia, as per USC TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > §311. That means we need military type rifles with high capacity magazines to perform out duty to defend America, should that ever become necessary. Disgustingly, the author of this article wants to take such rifles and magazines away from the people, seriously decreasing the effectiveness of the unorganized militia and endangering our nation.

But as usual, people who want simple solutions always blame the guns. What nonsense. I just heard an amazing interview on the Glenn Beck program, where he spoke with Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a former Army Ranger, West Point Psychology Professor, and expert on human aggression and the roots of violence. He is the author of two books: “On Killing” and “On Combat,” which are on the USMC's required reading list, and that of many police academies, including the FBI and the DEA. He's the USA's #1 trainer of military and law enforcement personnel. He says gun control laws won't stop these massacres. Quote: “The only thing that will stop these massacres is good people shooting back.” Listen to the Beck interview and learn for yourself: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/glenn-beck-and-west-point-psyc hology-professor-discuss-social-impact-of-violent-video-games/

For example, the Sandy Hook murderer, Adam Lanza, was an intensely solitary man who played violent, murderous video games in his basement all the time. His only real friends were online gamers who played with him. After the massacre, someone who knew him, when asked why Adam committed this evil, said that Adam felt dead inside, and he just wanted to “feel something.” Believe it or not, these same violent video games which our children “play” every day are used by gangs, drug cartels and Arab terrorists to desensitize their members to killing, and enable them to commit mass murders. Think about that. Such games often blur the distinction between good and evil, leaving their players morally confused. Violent video games such as Manhunt 2, make people more able and willing to kill, as do many violent movies, such as Django. Even Senator Mark Udall, a Democrat, understood this when he wrote: “We need comprehensive solutions that examine our culture's glorification of violence...”

In one word: Nonsense. I found this article to be extremely distasteful and untrue, making false claims and wrongly placing blame on guns and gun owners, as well as creating a false division between Christianity and the U.S. Constitution. The author has obviously fallen for the seemingly simple but false solution to the problem of school massacres - gun control. Why is it that fifty years ago we had more guns per capita, yet fewer murders and no school massacres? Was it because semi-automatic rifles (so-called assault rifles) weren't available? No. They were readily available, along with semi automatic pistols. So what changed? Why have things gotten so bad since the late 70's, when the first school massacre occurred? This issue goes far deeper than gun control, which is a chimera used by people with an anti-gun agenda and those of us ignorant enough to believe them. Instead, this problem involves changes in our society which have allowed our kids to become desensitized to violence...

This article is rife with logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and poor characterizations. I can't decide where to begin! It borders on violating the 9th commandment! The 6th commandment, stated negatively, also implies with just as much biblical weight that you shall preserve life. It has been said, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I'm done.

WOULD JESUS BAN ALCOHOL? Like guns, -alcohol has no "harmless" purpose -alcohol is a factor 1/3 to 1/2 of all murders (one study found 54%) -it's a factor in many rapes, violent crimes, domestic violence and suicides -it causes 10,000 annual traffic fatalities (vs 9,000 annual gun murders) -it's responsible for many youth hospitalizations, -it's used more by the poor and minorities -it directly kills 75,000 people a year A few more thoughts: *the flu kills more people than firearms - if the constitution is irrelevant when lives are at stake, should flu shots be mandatory? *firearm homicide is not a major cause of death; there are about 6,700 deaths a day in the USA, 25 gun murders. *right now, almost daily, people, including kids, are being executed by fighters in Syria. It can happen because they're unarmed. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - GANDHI (look it up)

@casey The nice thing about Snopes, though, is that they provide complete references (links) to where they got their information. In this case, they have 4 links to information published by the AU government, and two to depts of the AU government. While it's theoretically possible they are cherry-picking results that fit their ideal, it's unlikely - especially given the breakdown in the description.

Anonymous said: "For those worried about being able to defend oneself in case of a corrupt government, is it really reasonable to think that your weapon is going to do anything against the US military?" Yes, despite the awesome technological power of an outnumbered U.S. military, millions of responsible citizens owning guns helps prevent the rise of a corrupt and evil government. It is also a deterrent to aggressive nations that might entertain the notion of some day owning our patch of land on the planet. Besides, I see no Christian imperative that citizens of a nation not possess arms for the protection of others, especially the innocent. I can be expected to turn the other cheek if only my life is endangered, but I don't see where Scripture expects me to allow the weak and vulnerable to be wiped off the planet. Quite the opposite: there are plenty of Scriptures that urge us to protect the weak and vulnerable . . . and it is not just the military and police with the imperative to do so. The core problem here is out cultural drift away from the basic belief that there is a moral God who cares how we live. All this other stuff are mostly symptoms and outcomes of the desease. That said, one thing that we should be ashamed of is the low priority we place on helping the mentally ill.

Anytime someone quotes snopes as a resource, I automatically junk it. It is a highly biased liberal site, and it is in no way as good source of information, just like Wikipedia is not the best of sources, only snopes is much worse. If you want to quote some statistics about crime, let's see them from somewhere much more reputable. It is a fact that crime has greatly increased in Australia, and if you want to dispute this, please use a source other than snopes!

In the commonwealth of Virginia, where I live in order to legally drive a vehicle, I have to: -be 16 years old. -take a driver's education class which includes "on the road" practice and tests -spend months practicing with legal drivers. -abide by the laws of the road -stand before a county judge and swear to be a responsible driver -wear a seat belt -have my vehicle inspected for mechanical safety annually -insure my vehicle in case of accident There are many others I could list... I believe these are reasonable burdens for me to bear in order to protect myself, the others I carry in my car, and others on the road. Our country likes fast cars. I don't go to races. But, there are safety limits in that arena as well. Fireproof suits, harnesses, etc. Guns like cars have value -- for protection, recreation, and provision. They are also dangerous to others. Please, be a hyper-responsible gun owner. Take safety classes. Get your kids in the classes as well. Lock up your guns - use fingerprint access safes. There are many more I could list.... What are reasonable legal requirements for gun owners? Do more than the govt would require of you.

Everywhere guns have been banned crime has gone up without fail. If you want more crime, ban guns. Everywhere gun laws are relaxed crime has gone down. It may not be in line with the average knee jerk reaction but those are the facts. A closer look and adjustment to mental health policies would be a better approach. IMO

For the record we should get our definitions straight, An "assault weapon" is a rifle capable of automatic fire(I.E. of shooting like a submachine gun when a switch is turned). I have however read articles stating that many pieces have been called assault weapons simply because they have a cosmetic resemblance to military hardware even though having no automatic capability.

Not to take any side here, but just to correct some of what I see as mistaken impressions. 1. II Chronicles 7:14 was addressed to the Jewish people only. We as Americans are NOT "My people." God's people are scattered throughout the nations. There is no Scriptural guarantee that if people repent, the land (in this case, the USA) will be healed. The Church has no national or land-based promises. On the other hand, repenting and praying are always good to do, and may have some residual effects on the nations in which Christians live. 2. When Jesus went into the Temple to clear out the money-changers, He used the whips on the animals, not the people (as far as we can tell). In any event, He did not use lethal violence. 3. The passage in which Jesus tells His followers to buy swords is somewhat enigmatic, particular when one disciple shows Jesus a sword and He says, "It is enough." Why would one sword be enough? I am not sure what this passage means, but I don't think that it has any bearing on the matter of owning weapons. In any event, Jesus gave other commands to His followers which were meant for that time or place (shaking off the dust of one's feet, for one), not for us today. 4. When Jesus returns at the end of time as conquering King, that will inaugurate a new order. We can't use that as an argument one way or another for the use of violence in the present dispensation. As I said, I'm not taking one side or the other in this debate, but simply want to caution others to use Scripture appropriately and contextually to make arguments.

I enjoy shooting. I used to shoot skeet for fun in state gamelands with a semi auto shotgun. I've shot handguns, and I don't remember a time growing up when my family did not have a BB gun. I fully support a ban on assault weapons. For those worried about being able to defend oneself in case of a corrupt government, is it really reasonable to think that your weapon is going to do anything against the US military? However, what I see as even more imperative than an assault weapon ban is enforcing the laws that we already have to prevent people from illegally obtaining guns and stopping the loopholes that allow people to legally obtain guns without background checks. Should I allow my rights (what are "rights" anyway?) be trampled in hope that others may be protected from violence? As an Amercian I may say no, but as a Christian I am compelled to say yes. I'm a social worker in Chicago. A teenager I used to have on my caseload was shot to death just a few days ago. I've ducked to the floor in my apartment when there's been gunshots on the corner. Sure, guns aren't the only things that kill people. I volunteered for a guy who was stabbed to death with a screwdriver, and I work with another family in which the wife was stabbed to death by the husband with a knife. There's death here all around. The sad thing is that when we begin to talk about possible solutions, one of them being gun control, everyone forgets the deaths and instead jump to arguing about rights and politics. Show me a way to stop the violence without gun control, and I will support it. Until then I pray that God will be merciful in his patience, towards the children killing children on the streets, and to us who have done nothing to save them.

FBI crime reports table shows a steady decrease in violent crime in the US while the AIC shows steady increase in Australia Here is a statement directly from the Australian Institute of Criminology website Assaults continue to represent the majority of recorded violent crimes. The overall trend since 1996 has been upward, with an increase of 55 percent between 1996 and 2007. The trend in sexual assault has also followed a general increase. The highest numbers of victims of sexual assault and of assault were recorded in 2007.. Continuing the trend since 2004, robbery offences increased again in 2007, to 17,988. The number of recorded kidnappings fluctuates from year to year. From 1996 to 2004, kidnappings registered a general increase, but the number of victims of kidnapping has remained relatively steady following a decline in 2005. I cannot speak for Jesus but if swords were never to be used by followers then why would they have them at all to begin with. Luke 22:38 and they said look Lord here are two swords. And He said "it is enough"

FBI crime reports table shows a steady decrease in violent crime in the US while the AIC shows steady increase in Australia Here is a statement directly from the Australian Institute of Criminology website Assaults continue to represent the majority of recorded violent crimes. The overall trend since 1996 has been upward, with an increase of 55 percent between 1996 and 2007. The trend in sexual assault has also followed a general increase. The highest numbers of victims of sexual assault and of assault were recorded in 2007.. Continuing the trend since 2004, robbery offences increased again in 2007, to 17,988. The number of recorded kidnappings fluctuates from year to year. From 1996 to 2004, kidnappings registered a general increase, but the number of victims of kidnapping has remained relatively steady following a decline in 2005. I cannot speak for Jesus but if swords were never to be used by followers then why would they have them at all to begin with. Luke 22:38 and they said look Lord here are two swords. And He said "it is enough"

Why I continue to frustrate myself with visits to these sites is beyond me and maybe it shows some pathology in my own makeup but...... What my vists do is to reinforce my decision to leave the American Christian church behind. The "church" is now nothing more than an extension of the political process - both the right and left. Were not we called to come out from such. Does it really matter what type of weapons are legal/good/bad/etc. or whether my Constitutional "rights" are taken from me when Christians are called to "turn the other check", repay evil with good, forgive no matter what, submit to our secular leaders - the New Testament list goes on and on. Yes, I will acquiecse that you could make a Biblical Old Testament case for war, violence, genocide, and "eye for an eye" but did Christ not come to "renew our minds" and show us a better way? How can the words that flowed from the Son of God not be the authoritive and final say on the behavior of His followers? If my "Christian" response to violence is to be violence, I see no reason for a new birth. My "natural" man is well poised to respond in kind. It doesn't need the Holy Spirit to move me in that direction.

Basil, If Christianity Today was ever a magazine about Christianity, that ended long ago. It has become another propaganda organ of the right wing of the Republican party. That is its only function.

It is appalling to me that the thinking of Christians has become so secular that we can bury the teachings of Christ beneath the conventional rhetoric of the world.

I have to understand that this is America. The distinctions that make us Americans and those that make us Christians are frequently blurred and often confused. One ideal often trumps the other.

Jeff - re rape statistics, the UN is the only body which I am aware of that keeps central records of rape statistics for all countries. Being a massively under-reported crime, it's hard to know how relevant any statistics on this crime are going to be. However, it's not difficult to find these stats online. The UN lists the rate of rape per 100,000 in Australia for 2012 as being 8.1. For the 5 years recorded, Australia's rate doesn't break single digits. The US, on the other hand, shows a rate of 27.3. Given that this is a slight drop from the 32.3 rate recorded in 2004, one could, perhaps, claim some improvement. Given that it's 3 and a half times the rate recorded in Australia, this might be a stretch. As for the apostles carrying swords, this is a spurious argument, but let's go thee briefly. One could argue that the one recitation of the use of a sword by a disciple that falls into the category of 'violent assault' in the Bible did not have Jesus' approval. Surely this was a case of defense? Yet Jesus healed the ear, told Peter to put away his sword, and then affirmed that what came to him came from God's hand and nobody else's. Something in that for all of us, really.

jeff - most of the stats you posted are covered by Snopes in the article titled 'Australian Guns'. you need to get your stats from the AIC - the Government run Institute of Criminology who are the official statisticians on crime in Australia. here's a quote from that body's website tracking deaths related to firearms over an 11 year period spanning the firearm buy-back in 1997: In total there were 5083 registered deaths attributable to firearms in Australia between 1991 and 2001. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for the majority of these deaths (77%), followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). Over the 11 year period the number and rate of firearm related deaths has decreased (Figure 1 and Table 1). In comparison, there has been little change in the trend for deaths caused by sharp instruments. In 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period. as you can see, a huge drop in firearm deaths over that time. just to clarify - in neither Australia nor anywhere else does sexual assault equal rape. sexual assault includes all forms of sexual assault - rape or otherwise. it also includes crimes against children and all forms of pedophilia.

Hi Sharon, I must take issue with paragraph 7. You imply that white people are wreaking havoc on black people. But every study shows that the vast majority of racial gun crimes occur by members of their own race, surely you already knew that and simply forgot. I'm not disagreeing with your entire article, mind you. But that one sentence accidentally distorts a fact. Thank you for letting me share! john

K. Pratt here are the stats for Australia since the gun ban. As a christian I would not want impose this on anyone. I could not find the stats but i am sure the affect on the poor was disproportional. In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent. During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women

Some of the apostles were known to carry the most lethal weapons on earth at the time, the sword. Not to oppress or for hunting but for protection. If its good enough for them it's good enough for me.

Casey - violence has not gone up in Australia since gun control measures came into effect. The literature on this is expansive and easy to find. Violent crime in Australia has been going down systematically since the early 90's - even prior to gun control measures - but has continued to decrease since then.

I am not from the USA, nor have I ever been there so my only knowledge of gun laws are those that I see on threads like this, from talking to friends from the USA and what I see on different media. I agree that your situation re' gun control is very complex and there is no easy answer. As a hunter and gun owner in Australia the regulations are far more strict. To be a licensed gun owner you firstly have to pass a test with an accredited trainer, this is on top of having no record of domestic violence, mental illness or any other criminal record. May not stop you getting a license, but will very much extend the process and will be more "hoops to jump through". You cannot own an automatic or semi automatic weapon in Australia, nor may you own a pump action shotgun and if you want to own a handgun the restrictions are such that I would not bother. If you want to buy a weapon, you first need to get a "permit to aquire" from the government authority and every weapon you own must be registered and kept in an approved safe which can be inspected at any time. You cannot buy as much as a BB gun without a license, nor the ammunition for it. Does this stop criminals from getting prohibited weapons - no. But even taking into account the fact that the population of the USA is 10 times that of Australia, we do not have nearly the deaths by shooting that your country does. I hope you find a good solution.

I am not from the USA, nor have I ever been there so my only knowledge of gun laws are those that I see on threads like this, from talking to friends from the USA and what I see on different media. I agree that your situation re' gun control is very complex and there is no easy answer. As a hunter and gun owner in Australia the regulations are far more strict. To be a licensed gun owner you firstly have to pass a test with an accredited trainer, this is on top of having no record of domestic violence, mental illness or any other criminal record. May not stop you getting a license, but will very much extend the process and will be more "hoops to jump through". You cannot own an automatic or semi automatic weapon in Australia, nor may you own a pump action shotgun and if you want to own a handgun the restrictions are such that I would not bother. If you want to buy a weapon, you first need to get a "permit to aquire" from the government authority and every weapon you own must be registered and kept in an approved safe which can be inspected at any time. You cannot buy as much as a BB gun without a license, nor the ammunition for it. Does this stop criminals from getting prohibited weapons - no. But even taking into account the fact that the population of the USA is 10 times that of Australia, we do not have nearly the deaths by shooting that your country does. I hope you find a good solution.

Thank you or a common-sense article. Sharon's point about allegiance to Christ trumping allegiance to allegiance to country is very important. Is "Do not kill" in the Ten Commandments more importnat than gun rights, or is the right to shoot one's fellow citizens more importan than the Bible? From the other side of the Atlantic, the US gun sitution is tragic - 10,000 deaths a year from shootings is scandalous in a so-called civilized society.

Icouldwrite for a long time about the 2nd amendment and gun rights but I believe the authors original premise to found her arguement is without "My allegiance to Christ trumps my allegiance to this country and its founding documents." The Biblical context refers to issues pertaining to government interfering with our religious freedoms I. E. the First amendment to the constitution if the author wishes to see Christians come together against religious persecution she ought to rally against Obamacare or maybe she should rally for support of an anti abortion law since that is clearly something the Bible clearly states is against is Sovereign law. You can't legislate morality but you can legislate punishment for those who are immoral. So no, there is no legal solution to mans depravity but there is a spritual one. So we should challenge( in a loving way) each other as Christians to share that love anywhere and everywhere. Now there's legislation we all can vote for!

Thanks Mr Beck for your comments. How right you are. I am a Christian and I do not believe in gun control. God has given us the right to defend ourselves against those who would seek to harm us and our families. If we good citizens turn in our guns and abide by all the gun laws where does that leave us in the ability to protect life and limb. Criminals will never follow the laws and will always have guns. Why can't people see that. Guns are not the problem! A culture of death brought on by what is taught in school concerning the worth of life, government support and promotion of abortion, and other such life ending schemes are the problem. Our nation no longer looks to God for guidance but instead looks to man who is sinful from birth. Man will never be able to solve the problem of murder even if every gun is destroyed; man will find another way to take someone's life, even if it is a rock. We have more than enough laws on the books to control weapons. It is the criminal who will forever break every law to accomplish his evil intentions. Don't leave us defenseless.

Why do American Christians love guns so much? Christians in other advanced, Western countries don't.

"As a citizen of this country, the Constitution is indeed an authoritative document in my life, but its authority is not ultimate. I am first beholden to God. So when the laws of the land are perpetuating violence and destruction, as I believe they are in this case, the Christian’s position cannot be neutral. We are called to object, to resist, and to protect 'the least of these.'" This article is so unhelpful in so, so many different ways. The author creates the false dichotomy of serving Christ versus supporting the Constitution. She offers no evidence that "closing the 'gun show' loopholes" would have any impact on levels of gun violence. (Anyone who has ever been to a gun show -- and I seriously doubt that the author has-- knows that the vast majority of attendees are law abiding citizens and not the gang-bangers or psychopaths like the Adam Lanzas of the world. A significant portion of attendees are often in law enforcement, which helps to deter the presence of thugs.) How many of the high-profile shootings of late have used weapons purchased at gun shows? Answer: None, at least none for which there is any evidence of such a connection. The author then throws around the term "assault weapon" as if it is a specific term of art -- it is not, any more than the term "gun." Sloppy language reflects sloppy thinking which results in sloppy public policy. In sum, the, the author just really, really, REALLY wants SOMEONE to DO SOMETHING. NOW. Never mind the specifics. These emotional outbursts help no one, except perhaps providing catharsis for the author. I understand her frustration. However, what other rights shall we discard "for the children"? The First Amendment, because of the nastiness of Westboro Baptists? The Fourth Amendment, because invalid searches result in inadmissible evidence? If she wishes to advocate for specific gun control measures, then she should do so, but these mealy-mouthed and vague pleas to do something -- anything -- without any specifics sow nothing but confusion. The opening image is particularly objectionable, inflammatory, and propagandistic. How many of those "2000 people killed by arms everyday" were killed by persons with lawfully issued carry permits? (Statistics would show very, very few.) How many were killed by persons who were already illegally bearing weapons (e.g., were already felons and prohibited by state and federal law from possessing weapons)? I submit to you that the vast, vast, vast majority fall into the latter category. More laws on the books will not cure the problem any more than more drug laws on the books will help us more successfully prosecute our national "War on Drugs." I have read Christianity Today online every weekday for years and enjoy it very much. This is the first time I have ever posted a comment. This article, with its false choice between following Christ and supporting the Constitution, is undoubtedly the worst and most outrageouss I have ever read on this site. I have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as well as a vow to follow Christ. The positions espoused in this article are insulting to both.

Thank you for your personal story Casey. But your statistics about Australia are wrong (commonly believed, but wrong.) http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp I would give more citations but more than one tends to not get through the spam filter.

I don't see where a case has been made that a ban on 'assault' weapons or closing loopholes would have made a difference in Sandy Hook - those were shooting practice guns owned by his mother, legally obtained in one of the most regulated gun states. What has been lost in the fog about this is the ever increasing glorification of violence that is so pervasive in the media - music, TV, films, video games are also part of the problem, but there have been zero calls in this round to curb them. You said "So when the laws of the land are perpetuating violence and destruction, as I believe they are in this case, the Christian’s position cannot be neutral." but you have not made the case that this is true or factual. Yes, our culture is violent and growing more violent as our society moves more secular. Access to guns may be part of the problem, as is poor access to mental health (though that was not the case in Sandy Hook either), and our ever growing love of violence in media, but the truth is that our culture, like most every culture, is lost in sin and no law can change that, only the blood of Christ.

Here’s my solution: We all live like the Robertson clan on Duck Dynasty. Problem solved!

I am one of the people whose life was saved because another person had a gun nearby when a robber approached. I am a pharmacist, and the other pharmacist I was working with was a WW2 veteran, who was well-acquainted with guns and also unfortunately, well-acquainted with being robbed for drugs several times in the 1970's and 1980's. We worked in his small, independently owned pharmacy, where we knew most of our customers. As the man walked in, Ron immediately noticed the man's nervous walk, and he walked right past the cash register and back to the pharmacy counter, with a note in his hand, demanding certain drugs. The robber didn't notice that Ron had a gun in his other hand, and he immediately shot the robber. The robber managed to get out the door and to his car, but could only drive a few feet. He had a gun on him, and he turned out to have a long criminal record, with the crimes increasing in risk to others. I am certain that my life was saved that day. If you look at the crime rate of other countries where guns have been taken away from citizens, such as Australia, the crime rate has gone up significantly. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the criminals and those with bad intentions will never turn their guns in, leaving the rest of us helpless when they come to harm us. Just the other day, a mother with two children shot an intruder in her home, and saved the life of her family. If you want to give up your guns, fine, but most of us will not be.

I wish most of all that we could have practical discussions about how to reduce gun violence. Even the phrase "gun control" is perhaps too inflammatory. I don't own guns, but have many friends and family members who do, either for hunting or personal defense. I don't think they're wrong to do so. I think an assault weapons ban is nonsensical and symbolic (most massacres since 1980 have used Glocks, not to mention day to day violence, in which again handguns are used, not assault rifles). On the other hand, it's not true that massacres only happen in gun free zones (armed security guard at Columbine, anyone? Fort Hood, anyone?). Guns everywhere doesn't strike me as the best solution. Not to mention the fact that most schools would never be able to afford having extra trained personnel (many can't even afford books, desks, buildings that aren't falling apart...) I do think stricter laws about registration, background checks, having and renewing gun licenses, perhaps insurance as with cars, could all produce some real results. I don't agree that such measures are automatically somehow pointless. Many crimes are caused now with illegal guns because illegal guns are VERY easy to obtain. They are easy to obtain because any regulation is automatically associated with the idea that guns will be banned or taken away. This is quite as much the fault of extreme liberal rhetoric as it is of NRA-style paranoia. Finland has very high rates of gun ownership and low gun violence, partly because of background checks, licenses, etc.; and because military service is mandatory and so everyone is trained (I actually wish the same were true here, but THAT won't ever happen). From a Christian perspective, I think a case could be made for radical nonviolence even to the point of death, but who could humanly make such a case when their children are involved (home protection is a big motivator for many)? We are human and bound by love for and desire to protect those that are close to us- not just ourselves. I don't think Christian gun owners are any less Christian because they wish to defend their families. But I do think we are all called to talk in PRACTICAL terms about how we can reduce violence, together. And this means thinking in bigger terms than personal defense. Finally, using guns to defend yourself against the government is nonsense. Even as a supporter of gun rights, I have zero patience with such arguments. The force the US government can muster is vastly larger than any arsenal you can muster. You might take some people with you, but you would not "win." Probably not even if you could gather enough allies to make it a true civil war. And I don't know what concrete examples people are thinking of when they say that totalitarian governments are associated with gun control....the Nazis, for one, loosened gun restrictions considerably. Except, of course, for Jews; but existing Jewish ownership of guns did not prevent the Nazis from taking over to begin with. Regardless, gun ownership won't ever prevent totalitarian takeovers because such takeovers, when they happen, are as much about ideology and mind control as about who has the force.

I guess the solution is to regulate and perhaps ban guns in the African American community since "In fact, gun violence is the leading cause of death among African American men ages 1 to 44, and 54 percent of all homicide victims are African American."

In resonse to Chris, I go to the doctor for an annual checkup. This is not the same thing at all about owning a gun. I know I can never convince you, but I still do not think owning a gun makes me any safer than not owning one. It is apples and oranges. I do lock my doors. There is no sense being foolish. A gun would not make me feel safe or protect me. If I am walking with the Lord, he will give me wisdom to know not to put myself unneccessarily in harms way. No matter how many guns one has, there is always the unexpected, maybe the mental health case, that can negate all the protection you might think you have.

Karen, Thank you for pointing out the differences in attitude based on rural or urban living. Even with the prevalence of guns in Montana - more guns than people - I am by far more likely to die of a disease or a motor vehicle accident. Accidental shootings are rare, and intentional gun violence even rarer. It goes back to the attitude Karen points out. Further, with the prevalence of hunting, there is a greater understanding of death from a young age. Guns are treated with care and respect, and the ability to kill a living thing with a gun is understood. Guns have a place in our society; regulations need not to impede where guns are used for beneficial purposes.

I've studied the 2nd Amendment this past week, and here's what I found. Our Founding Fathers basically listed three reasons for giving Americans the right to bear arms: 1. The right to self defense. This reasoning is explicitly stated in many state constitutions (for example, Pennsylvania's state constitution, which was written in 1776). 2. Giving the American people a last-resort means to resist an oppressive government. This is precisely what the Minutemen did--they used their arms to resist the then-oppressive government of Great Britain. 3. Giving the American people the means to assist the national army to repel invasion by foreign powers. For me, the whole issue of gun control turns on the question of "how do you resist oppression?" Different Christians will have different responses to these questions, but the Founding Fathers did feel it was important to give Americans many different means of resisting oppression: impeachment, petition for redress of grievances, freedom of speech, and, yes, the right to bear arms.

Sharon, I find your article very persuasive. I feel as a Christian I need to stand up for issues that will help and heal the people that need Christ. I believe seeking common sense mental health and gun control solutions will lead in that direction . It would be a great witness if our words and actions all worked for the common good .

Adam, I do agree with reasonable regulation - although people will disagree with what that means. However, before we add regulations to the books, we ought to better enforce the ones we already have. I don't believe the people who have made Chicago into a shooting gallery obtained their guns legally. Up until this past year, it was illegal for any ordinary citizen to posses a gun in the city and yet there are neighborhoods where gunfire is ubiquitous.

There have been reduction of deaths by automobiles and the reason is increased regulation and safety rules. In 1939 there were almost no regulations about how cars were made and how they were driven. In 1939 just under 3 out of every 10,000 people died in a car accident. In 2011 it was 1.01 out of every 10,000 people died in a car accident. The difference is requirements for seatbelts, increase safey features like turn signals, brake lights, etc. There is not a constitutional freedom to drive a car, but reasonable regulations and reasonable safety features can be enacted. Homicides by gun were at a high of 14,000 in 1993, but dropped to just over 8000 by 2004. They continue to drop in most areas because crime has been dropping. The reality is the gun deaths, while regrettable are dropping primarily because crime is dropping not gun regulations. However, it does seem like some reasonable regulation is appropriate.

Every School massacre and the one in the theater in Colorado, Kileen Texas and more happened in GUN FREEE ZONES. End of discussion

You say 70 children were murdered by guns this past year in Chicago (one of the toughest cities on gun control). Planned Parenthood is BOASTING about murdering one Child every 94 seconds in this Country by abortions and getting paid for it by our tax dollars. Now THERE is the real crime, yet it is acceptable in this once great Country. What ever you do to these little ones, you do to me says Jesus.

You say 70 children were murdered by guns this past year in Chicago (one of the toughest cities on gun control). Planned Parenthood is BOASTING about murdering one Child every 94 seconds in this Country by abortions and getting paid for it by our tax dollars. Now THERE is the real crime, yet it is acceptable in this once great Country. What ever you do to these little ones, you do to me says Jesus.

I recall playing "cowboys and Indians" when I was young (1930s). We also dug holes in the vacant lots in our community and had wars using the compacted mud on the end of a handfull of grass pulled from the ground as weapons against our "enemies" who were really our neighborhood pals. I know of not one kid in our community who ever ended up actually killing anybody or even seriously injuring another person in a mindless violent attack. Assault weapons: I see this term used often without any real serious definition (guns, sticks, stones, fists, feet, knives, forks, automobiles,???). I see 22 caliber rifles rated as "one of the most effective self defense weapons." The list of assault weapons defies real definition. I don't see any big rally for "tighter controls" on automobiles used by drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol who kill more people every year than guns. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers have crusaded for more effective control of people who drive drunk with only modest success. Efforts to contol the amount of alcohol a person drinks are not very effective and are unpopular. Fists have recently been quoted as causing more deaths each year than guns. How do you suggest controling the use of fists? Would arresting anyone who in any circumstance manifested a clenched fist solve that problem? Anybody who really wants a gun can find a way of making one if he can't get one any other way. Don't forget the flury of zip gun violence among gangs in the big cities 60 years ago. Home made guns that were as dangerous to the user as to the victim were used in many killings. To say that the people in our poor and racially segregated communities in our big cities cry out for gun control is an exhibit of human nature to blame someone else for our problems. They need to tackle the problem of family breakdown in those communities. Indeed, our whole society is breaking down and the future is stark. The only solution is a redemption of the people. We would not be worrying about regulating guns in such a society. But our nation prohibits efforts that would bring about such a solution. Our present legal system, in an effort to be "neutral" on religion, discourages the Christmas exhibits in our communities. While I have not shot any firearm in several years, I am opposed to any more regulation that would probit me from buying a Colt 45 and carrying it (open or concealed). I had one when I was in the US Army Air Force and enjoyed using it in a sporting way so that I could be ready to use it in some emergency. I also enjoyed shooting skeet when I was in the Air Force which helped my in my use of a shot gun to deaal with varminst and other prey that molested my fruit orchard. I have since enjoyed the sporting use of a .22 rifle as well as other fire arms.

Excellent article. To those comments questioning if more laws makes any sense or not I would say that it is not a question of more laws but better laws. To those comments asking for more demographic data I would say that there is more than enough available, and without a doubt it all points to an excess of guns leading to an excess of gun homicides. I would also add that allowing the proliferation of guns into a society with so many social issues; racial, criminal, drug addiction, mental health, libertarianism, egotists et al is an unconscionable act of government. I vote for more gun control!

In response to Janni's question about what should be done about gun control, I think we should first redefine the issue as one of "arms" control. After all, the second amendment speaks about "arms," a much broader category than just guns. Back in the 1790s when the 2nd Amendment was enacted, I find it impossible to believe that the drafters of our Constitution could in any way imagine what "arms" would be today. This is one reason why we need laws to limit the individual ownership of "arms." We already have arms control. For example, individuals cannot go out and buy an F16 fighter jet or an ICBM. Once we agree that that we already have arms control laws, then the issue becomes one of "moving the line" on which arms are legal to own and which are not. In my opinion, the line should be moved so that weapons of mass destruction, including assault weapons, should be illegal to own. How that is accomplished would be up to our government to figure out. Finally, we as Christians should be discussing how the ownership of arms is consistent with our faith. I have a terrible time reconciling Jesus' teachings and the desire to be able to kill people. I do not advocate complete disarmament, I am simply stating that, as Sharon has suggested, we should be looking at this issue with Christians eyes first and as Americans second.

There is no convincing of people whose minds are made up that they need guns for their protection and their 2nd Amendment rights. I am a Christian who lives in Oakland, CA, raised two children in Oakland, and teach in a Christian college in an area of the city replete with crime and guns. I do not now nor will I ever own a gun. Even if someone in my family was to suffer from gun violence, I would not go out and buy a gun. I am afraid the only way guns can be limited in the USA is by individuals becomeing convinced that the answer to the problem of gun violcence is not more guns. Arming all of our schools? Really? I know people, including other Christians, will strongly disagree with me, but when my time has come it will come, be it gun, disease, accident, or whatever. I do not take unneccessary risks, but I do not and will not be packing.

Most everyone including Rachel,Margaret, Chris, and especially DB have made wonderful points that I do not need to waste space repeating but I wanted to point out one thing that I saw as confused in the original article and that is in regards to domestic violence... That law is already in place, at least in Iowa. Someone who has been convicted of domestic violence can never legally own a gun again, which I see as unfair. I think that there needs to be more thought put into that as well. I will give you an an example...my husband has been convicted of domestic violence because of a fight that we had. We have been together for over 13 years and he has never laid a hand on me, he is not a violent person towards women, he is not a woman beater, but because one time we got into an argument that went a little to far on both ends he now is a convicted woman beater and can never own a gun even for hunting purposes ever again. I don't agree with this law and I think that each case should be looked at through a microscope but sadly that is not how our justice system works. I bring this up because it seemed (and I could be wrong) that Sharon is confused that people who have been convicted of DV are still able to legally obtain firearms.

You and the ideology driven media have utterly failed to investigate the use and addiction and abuse of prescription psychotropic drugs so freely dispensed by the psychiatric profession. Every gun massacre of at least the last 3 decades have involved a murderer on these drugs. The genuine Christian loves and seeks the truth. The premise of this writer fails on that account.

He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: "And he was numbered with the transgressors." For what is written about me has its fulfillment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." (Luke 22:36-38 ESV) Jesus said to buy (own) a sword. Given that a sword is not a gun, the parallel applies. We live in an evil world, and Christians are entitled to the same protections from their government as any other citizen, governments are instituted of God for the protection of citizens (Romans 12). We are responsible for our actions. Guns do not act independent of people. Elemination of guns does not eleminate violence. The FBI recently released a study of homicides, most homocides are NOT committed with a gun, but a blunt instrument such as hammers, in fact hammers are the weapon of choice. Let's eleminate hammers, or at least limit their ownership to carpenters; let's have background checks for hammer owners, and waiting periods!

Sharon, the subtitle of your article implies that it is not possible to be loyal to Christ while also being loyal to the principles of limited government and individual liberty. I find that view disturbing. I also find it disturbing that you would call into quesiton the witness of law-abiding Christians who seek to arm themselves and their families against criminals or tyrants seeking to exterminate them. As someone whose father escaped the Holocaust in Nazi Germany (he had Jewish ancestry), I urge you to think about the millions of innocent men, women, and children who were murdered by their own governments under the Nazi, Khmer Rouge, and various communist regimes during the 20th century because of gun control. It is well documented that Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and other ruthless dictators used gun control laws to disarm and murder their victims. Also, keep in mind that throughout the Old Testament, God's chosen people were permitted (and even commanded) to use deadly force against those who were determined to wipe them off the face of earth (See the book of Esther for an inspiring account of how being armed against their enemies saved the Israelites from extinction). And if you are implying that Jesus would never condone the use force against evil people seeking to prey upon the innocent, you are grossly mistaken. There is another side to Him besides the image that many have of Him as being completely meek and mild. During His earthly ministry, Jesus used physical force against the money changers in the temple when He fashioned his belt into a whip and drove them out. And in the book of Revelation, Jesus is pictured as a warrior riding on a white horse. "Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations... He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God almighty" (Rev. 19). To assume that being a Christian necessitates being opposed to the use of force against evil people intent on murder illustrates a frightening misunderstanding of the Scriptures.

I appreciate your attempt to tackle this complex issue. 1) We live in a broken sinful fallen world 2) The less Christ is a society and the more narcissistic a society becomes the more violent it becomes. 3) 2 Chronicles "If my people humble themselves and pray" is a better solution than taking rights away from those who follow the laws anyway. 4) Gun control only affects those who follow the laws. Those who disobey don't care (see #2 above). 5) Gun control is a well-intentioned but unrealistic attempt to make a Christless, self-absorbed society less violent. It doesn't work. It can't because it's dealing with externals and not with heart (kardia, in the Biblical sense). Blessings, Randy

OK, so you say you support the Second Amendment, yet you also tell us that the Bible and the Constitution are in conflict and that Christians cannot remain "neutral." You support the Amendment, yet you also support limiting the right protected by the Amendment. Would you mind providing a bit more biblical justification for limiting gun rights? "Protecting children" may pass for a valid argument on Oprah or CNN, but biblically-minded Christians should demand much more.

I am disturbed by this article. There is so much false hood it is unbelieveble. This article sounds like it came from the Brady people or Mayors Against Illegal Guns which in truth is Mayors Against Guns. Adam, I live in WI we do not have lax gunlaws. To buy a gun here a person has to go through the hoops as anyone in the rest of the country does. Except maybe Ill. and California and we see how that is working. And to the writer of the article why do you demonize the NRA and the gun makers. I am a Christian and member of the NRA and I own many firearms. I am friends with many others like me. The dark secret in all of this is not the NRA, gunowners or gunmakers. (gun manufacturing is done by small businesses and they are not the main income providers to the NRA, member dues and donations fund the NRA first and foremost) the dark secret no one wants to talk about is the evil people like Lanza and Holmes and some of these other people really are. Mental health care would not have changed anything. Tighter restrictions on guns would not do anything but disarm the lawabiding. Remember McVay used fertilizer that I can buy without any permit and he killed all of those innocent people. And until we deal with evil as it is evil, nothing will stop the Newtowns. And it would really help if the news media would quit making these people famous by the constant droning on about these people. Mention that it happened and leave it. People will see what evil people these guys really are.

Response to Ken, I have to respectfully disagree with your comments. Do you go to the doctor? If so, are you not turning your back on the Great Physician? I strongly believe that God will protect me, but I do have my house alarmed and my husband is a registered gun owner. That is no more a contradiction then stating that I believe God is the great healer, yet my family goes to the doctor, we take recommended meds, etc. Faith in God does not preclude the use of doctors, home protection, etc.

It's not surprising that you're receiving some heat for this post, Sharon. You are braver than I, and you wrote exactly what I wish I'd been courageous and articulate enough to say. Thank you for presenting such an important side to the gun control debate. I wish more believers who hold long standing cultural traditions might be willing to consider a change of heart.

Why do we claim to worship the prince of peace and then demand that we have access to the most powerful of hand held killing tools in our homes and society? Why do we claim to trust God to protect us and them say we need to have these killing tools in our homes to protect ourselves? Why do we say that we believe that what Jesus taught about loving one another and that that Jesus loves everyone but we are wiling to allow and even use killing tools to take the life of another person that Jesus loves and has commanded us to love as much as we love our self? Why do we say we follow Jesus when he says to forgive others 70 times 7 and to turn the other cheek but demand to have these most efficient and impersonal killing tools in our society? Maybe we don’t really believe what we claim and I often wonder how that will set on judgment day. BTW – I have been a gun owner for over 40 years – they are unloaded and put away until I want to go hunting again (and I don’t need 10 to 30 rounds in a clip to hunt).

Why are we talking about guns killing children when EVERY SINGLE DAY thousands of unborn children are aborted without a second thought? Where's your righteous indignation about that? Abortion is modern-day human sacrifice, to the god of Me. The problem here is the loss of the sanctity of human life. More gun laws are not going to stop the violence. Look at Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City and Washington DC, just to name a few. California has the strictest gun laws in the nation, and in Los Angeles it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm of any kind within the city limits unless you're in law enforcement. Doesn't seem to cut down on the number of shootings one bit. In Chicago, handguns are, for all practical purposes, ILLEGAL. Yet in November, 2012, there were nearly 200 shootings involving handguns. Gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. NOT out of the hands of people like the Newtown shooter and the countless others who came before him. He tried to legally buy firearms to carry out his plan and was denied. So he stole someone else's. It doesn't matter that they belonged to his mother. He still stole them, after killing her. In CT there's a background check and 14-day waiting period to buy a rifle. To buy a handgun it's those two things plus a mandatory gun safety course lasting a minimum of two weeks. That's the sort of thing soft gun control people advocate. Didn't stop him, and it won't stop others like him. 70 children may have been killed in Chicago by guns. And every single one of those murderers was doing it with an illegally obtained gun, since owning handguns in Chicago and Cook County is illegal. The problem is we, as a culture, no longer have respect for human life in all its forms. Until we fix that, no law man can dream up will change the situation. We are so focused on the symptoms we can't see the roots of the problem. We as Christians should NOT be jumping on political bandwagons and screaming for one thing or the other. We should be on our knees praying 2 Chronicles 7:14 over our nation. Only when we return to God will the epidemic of violence, in all its forms, be put to rest. And in the meantime, I will continue enjoy living in one of the safest states in the country, with the loosest gun laws in the country.

Sorry, but I adamantly disagree. I count myself as a faithful Christian, and as a patriot. I had several ancestors who fought and died to make America a free country...and every one of them supported the Second Amendment. Take a close look at the FBI stats: 97% of crime using a firearm was NOT committed by a law-abiding citizen who legally possessed firearms. Given those numbers, it should be apparent that no amount of legislation is going to stop criminals from getting guns and using them. The safest places to live in America are hose where the laresat percentage of the citizens own guns andknow how to use them. No where in the Bible are we taught to enable others to commit crime.

Most gun control discussions don't take into account the fact that guns are used differently in different areas of the country. I live in Montana and we own several guns, which we use for hunting, We rely on hunting for a large portion of our food throughout the year and when we have a poor hunting season (like this year) we definitely see the difference in what we eat. We use guns to kill predators (fox, coyote, skunk, raccoon, etc.) that prey on my chickens or on the neighbors' sheep or cattle. We carry guns for protection (from animals) in the woods, when we're picking huckleberries or gathering firewood or pine cones or whatever. We have even used guns to kill chickens and ducks we raise for eating. And sometimes we even go out target shooting just for fun. Our kids took and passed a hunter's safety course and know how to load and unload and safely handle their guns. The guns are kept unloaded and locked up in the house. All of this is just to say there is no one-size-fits-all answer to gun control. Someone living in Chicago likely owns, carries and uses guns for different reasons than I do in Montana. Consider different viewpoints and work together to find solutions that help keep everyone safe, whether they own or use guns or not. And definitely include discussion of improved services for the mentally ill. I don't know of anywhere in the country that has sufficient access to services by those suffering from mental illness.

Most gun control discussions don't take into account the fact that guns are used differently in different areas of the country. I live in Montana and we own several guns, which we use for hunting, We rely on hunting for a large portion of our food throughout the year and when we have a poor hunting season (like this year) we definitely see the difference in what we eat. We use guns to kill predators (fox, coyote, skunk, raccoon, etc.) that prey on my chickens or on the neighbors' sheep or cattle. We carry guns for protection (from animals) in the woods, when we're picking huckleberries or gathering firewood or pine cones or whatever. We have even used guns to kill chickens and ducks we raise for eating. And sometimes we even go out target shooting just for fun. Our kids took and passed a hunter's safety course and know how to load and unload and safely handle their guns. The guns are kept unloaded and locked up in the house. All of this is just to say there is no one-size-fits-all answer to gun control. Someone living in Chicago likely owns, carries and uses guns for different reasons than I do in Montana. Consider different viewpoints and work together to find solutions that help keep everyone safe, whether they own or use guns or not. And definitely include discussion of improved services for the mentally ill. I don't know of anywhere in the country that has sufficient access to services by those suffering from mental illness.

I suggest you look up a new word: democide. 200 million died by the hands of their own government in the 20th century. Almost all of them were disarmed first. You might also check and see how many of the these crimes occurred in gun-free zones and how many people are shot at gun ranges (0). I don't hope to convince anyone by the facts but it would be nice if someone considered them and actually gave it a little thought.

While you indicate that you would like to see meaningful action: closing loopholes in background checks and re-instituting the assault weapons ban. Don't get me wrong, I think there needs to be a discussion on how to eliminate senseless shootings. But let's look at some facts: In Connecticut, they had an assault weapons ban. It just didn't include the type of weapon that was used in New Town. I don't believe that even closing loopholes with the background check would "catch" the mental illness of a spouse, sibling or child when the one requesting the gun, has no mental illness. Emotions run deep on the killing of the innocent, but adding laws for the sake of laws doesn't necessarily make us safer. As is noted in that Chicago had one of the most strick gun policies and their shootings are way up.

By the way in 2012, 70 kids 18 and under were killed in Chicago by guns. Only 5 others were killed by all other methods, including child abuse.

Any solution to the problem with guns needs to take into account the approximately 300 million guns already owned. That is politically the hardest to deal with but the source of most problems. Yes the vast majority of gun owners will not use them for a crime. But also most crimes are not committed by direct purchase of guns through stores. Guns that are in crimes are mostly the result of either illegal sales, or extralegal sales (sales outside of the purview of current gun regulations.) it does no good to make guns illegal in Chicago, but have very few regulations on guns just a few miles away in IN or WI or the Chicago suburbs. I have no good answers, but without dealing with currently existing guns, any regulations will have virtually no effect.

"Since they are most affected by gun violence, it is not surprising that African Americans support gun control by a margin of 68 percent to 24 percent. In contrast, white males are the demographic most likely to support gun rights. This statistical discrepancy suggests that the ideology of one group is wreaking havoc on another." Since statistics reflect that African American males are not only far away the most likely victims of gun violence but also the most common perpetrators, this seems like angling motivated by suffocating white guilt. It might also be simply weak-minded and poorly thought out. "Given that the number of homicides in Chicago outpaced the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan, gun violence cannot be reduced to mental illness; it is also about guns." An ironic way to support your point, is it not? Seeing that there are far more guns in American hands in Afghanistan, and that the overall deaths due to firearms in that country far exceed our own, and that most American deaths there were caused not by gunfire, but via means which would not be affected by gun control legislation. Thousands of Americans in combat theaters (and outside of them) carry guns to work every day and yet succeed in not murdering people. Of course not all gun violence can be reduced to mental illness, but nor can it be blamed on inanimate objects as if they had some demonic property that slowly turned people into homicidal maniacs like some Tolkien-esque ring of power. (You would have better evidentiary grounds, based on just what you have provided alone, to make the case that gun violence is primarily the fault of African American males--but of course we all know this is ridiculous). In every gun-related homicide there is one commonality--an individual who has broken the law. Tackle the culture of lawlessness, tackle the gun violence, just like Giuliani did when he became mayor of NYC. By purposefully addressing small crime, he defacto had an enormous impact on violent crime. And he didn't need to pass a single new law to do it, he just upheld the ones that were there already! "Sinful people kill people, but guns sure do make it a lot easier." In fighting mantra with mantra, you do your argument the ultimate disservice (especially since the axiom you stated isn't simply a truism, but a point of fact). I encourage you to read Grossman's "On Killing." Those in the killing business know that killing, or the ability to kill--at least within intimate range (ie, one can see his victim)--is a purely psychological feat. "Chicago mothers are wailing for relief from the violence that is stealing away their children, and, to our shame, it took a massacre in a white suburban elementary school for the nation to hear them. Now that we do, how will we respond to their cries?" Let us look past the inherent race baiting here, not because it's not worth judgment in itself but simply to arrive more quickly at the heart of the matter. What causes the wailing of these typified "Chicago mothers"? Is it the loss of their children? Who killed these children? Is it not sons and daughters of Chicago mothers (and, verily, fathers)? You cruelly cast these people as powerless automatons, when the voice of the gospel says that they can change and be changed. The voice of Christ says, "Go and sin no more!" His is the voice which speaks, "Neither, then, do I condemn you" but you would indeed condemn these people by confirming their belief that they cannot be anything other than that which they are. Instead of tackling the sin, instead of offering grace, you simply hope to keep them from accessing it. There is no gospel there, only law in its lowest sense, and pharisaism.

Sharon, you make some very good points for better gun control, but Janni’s question is also very good. The problem American’s face is complex, and without asking more questions, we can’t know how gun control should look. You cited the number of deaths and injuries among different people groups, but do you know how many of those weapons were legally obtained? Gun control laws will only affect those who chose to purchase weapons legally. How many deaths/injuries were secondary to another crime? Addressing the guns that were used as tools in another crime won’t help unless you also address the primary cause of the gun violence. What are the causes of the deaths/injury where the gun itself was primary – no other crime was connected? Are they mainly accidental, such as a child finding a loaded weapon? How many deaths/injuries are connected to known domestic violence, either by or against the abuser? What are the statistics on assault weapons in the cited deaths/injuries – how many are used, and of those, how many were legally obtained? How many gun deaths/injuries are committed by someone who legally purchased a weapon when they had something in their background that would have prevented them from purchasing a weapon if they had to undergo a background check? Without answers to these and similar questions, we cannot develop legitimate gun control. We can require gun safety education before purchasing a weapon (similar to driver testing before giving a driver’s license), but what affect will that have if 80% of deaths are committed with illegally obtained weapons? Gun control is a good idea, but for it to be a good program, it must be carefully constructed to address the true issues, not provide a band aid to make people merely feel safer.

Great job laying out issues for us to consider, Sharon. On the point of making guns more accessible, I like how you put it here: "'Meaningful action' does not, however, mean arming citizens with more guns. Not only is the efficacy of this solution entirely disputable, the motives driving it are dubious at best." When coupled with your later statement "In Luke 4:18, Jesus proclaims that he has come to preach good news to the poor. As Christians, we must consider what his example means for communities ravaged by gun violence", I think you've hit the nail on the head. I doubt that Jesus would be passing out firearms as part of the solution. It's certainly not the course I'm pursuing as I seek to glorify him. Tim

There is so much mis-information in this article that to correct it would take too much time and space for this fourm ... I'm more interested in the assertion that there is one appropriate "Christian" point of view - "the Christian's position cannot be neutral" - on this subject. And, coincidentaly, it's the same point of view as held by the author. This is what Paul describes in Galatians as a fruit of the flesh - "the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group" This is how discussion and debate are stifled, not encouraged. And as Christians, we are instructed to test all things, not accept a person's idea of an official "Christian position."

The following is a response to Janni's question. Sharon mentioned two things she would like to see happen: "[Meaningful action] also means closing the loopholes in gun purchase background checks, and reinstituting the ban on assault weapons."

So, Sharon, what is it that you would like to see happen in reference to gun control?