"Horrific mass shootings aren’t the only sign that the world is pining under the effects of sin and darkness."

It's getting tiresome to repeat, but I'm not seeing it in the media yet: what if just one teacher had been armed?

Then five and six year old kids could have seen their teacher shoot someone to death. 

While I'm pro gun, I don't believe that armed teachers is the answer.

Then five and six year old kids could have seen their teacher shoot someone to death. 

Which is somehow worse than watching a gunman shoot their classmates and teachers to death?

I think nobody being shot would be the 'most' preferable. 

you will die by the sword.

Can we just agree that guns have replaced swords? 

If a nation allows it's people to live by the sword/gun then that nation is under wrath and its consequences. 

In Wales we have strict gun control and I can't remember the last time I heard of someone being shot, yes it's that rare.

Do our gun control laws have an effect upon the lack of gun crime? 

Here's an article by John Fund that is worth reading: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings...

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

SNIP

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Huw:  As Atlantic Magazine pointed out in its December 2012 issue (which came out just days or weeks before the Newtown shooting), any idea of banning guns in the US is a waste of time because it ignores the fact that there are already something like 300 million guns in private hands.  You can debate all you want about what's the best policy before millions of people have guns, but it may be that the only realistic solution once millions do have guns is to let them protect themselves with them.  Here's the link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/

The subtitle of the article:  "How do we reduce gun crime and Aurora-style mass shootings when Americans already own nearly 300 million firearms? Maybe by allowing more people to carry them."

My response to your question is no.  My comment would only be advocating that evil be fought with evil if guns themselves are evil, which they are not.  Nor is gun ownership.  A country that has 300 million guns in private hands is not more evil than a country that has no guns in private hands.  

But if that's your only response to my comment, and based on your responses to other comments, it appears that there's not much point in continuing the discussion.  You apparently equate guns with evil, and as long as that's your premise, there's nowhere constructive the conversation can go.  

For what it's worth, I'm not a gun nut trying to justify myself -- don't own one and never have.  But I'm seriously considering becoming a trained owner and obtaining a concealed carry permit.  I pray that doing so would turn out to be a waste of time, but I'm beginning to think that waste of time would be preferable to the (remote) possibility of being in the Newtown school principal's shoes, or the shoes of an Aurora theater patron, and not be able to attempt to prevent my own or some others' deaths. 

There were several school shootings this last year- California, Texas, Ohio, Washington... the death toll was much lower in each incident, so they only received a couple of days of coverage. 

As soon as some starlet wears a new dress or a celebrity couple gets a divorce, the CT story will also pass into media oblivion. The news media has the attention span of a gnat.

Children die from illness, neglect, and violence every day. It seems that it takes a massacre for folks to notice that our world is sin-sick and lost without a Savior.  I don't understand why we think these deaths in particular are somehow more tragic, more grievous, than a single child shot in a drug-related drive-by, or one who lost their battle with RETTs, or those killed by drunk drivers every day. Those parents have lost just as much, but who will notice their sorrow and minister to them? 

It is time to pray, and time to grieve, but let's not forget to grieve with and comfort those to whom we can minister in our own communities.

Susan,

While your point about tragedy occurring every day is legitimate, it seems that there is something different about this episode.

This was not just a massacre. It was an intentional targeting of the innocent (I am using the term in a social sense, not a theological one), not singly, but en masse. These little children had wronged no one, but they were deliberately destroyed.

We are heartsick over a single child who falls. When a child is taken, whether by disease or mishap or predation, we know that something is wrong. This event, however, is beyond the usual expression of depravity. It is not just sinful, but horribly unnatural.

In most other school shootings, the perpetrators have been students , usually expressing some element of rage against classmates who were perceived as persecutors. Bad as the reasons were, they at least made some measure of perverse sense. Furthermore, the victims have rarely been children--not in the proper sense of the term. They and the shooters have been in adolescence, which our civilization tends to reckon as the last stage of irresponsible childhood (could that be part of our problem?), but which other cultures reckon as the first stage of adulthood.

Here, you have an adult, not connected with the school, invading the precincts with the express purpose of doing as much harm to as many of the utterly defenseless as possible. The closest thing to this was the episode at the Amish school in 2006. These two events may well stand together as the nadir of our culture.

The targeting of noncombatant populations is acknowledged to be immoral by all civilized peoples. What must we say about one who aims to slay a population of les enfants innocents? The mind balks at the hideous deed.

Dr. Bauder,

When would you suggest is the appropriate time?

My pastor's text yesterday was John 1:5:

The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. 

Embers of hope as we mourn these dark days. 

The targeting of children is hideous- I agree. But why do we think it is more tragic for one lone gunman to kill 20 kids than 20 mothers abandoning, abusing, and murdering their own children? I think the murder of children by their own mother is as 'horrible and unnatural' as strangers killing strangers.

In this case, even though the perpetrator was 20 yo, he also seemed rather infantile, and the possibility of mental illness is being explored. He himself was a 'child' of sorts. This was not, from what I've read so far, the act of a fully functioning independent adult.  

Seriously? You really think that would have prevented it?  What if? what if? ....Then, he could take his high school chemistry kit to make a bomb to blow up a classroom with 20+ kids in it. 

I envision this kind of debate regarding gun rights shortly after a tragedy as a gun rights guy sort of like a reasonable man in the midst of a lynch mob. The scene is that someone's been killed, and the crowd is being whipped into a frenzy by a minority of agitators. Emotions are running high, and ropes are being thrown over a tree limb to string up a fellow that isn't guilty, and may have been prevented from helping the victim. There is a time for some reasonable people to say, "now hold on a minute. Let's think this through." The lynch mob is the anti-gun lobby. Emotions are on their side, but reason may not be. Those who say this isn't time to talk about it miss the context. Gun rights groups aren't going around bringing this up. They are responding to emotional reactions that could have real and lasting effects as of the first month of this year. 

Now is exactly the time to be defending gun rights, in a wise and winsome way. Gun rights advocates shouldn't do it in a "if thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died" tone. It shouldn't be cold and full of mere data. But I do think a defense of the basic right to meet force with force is a good thing. A timely thing. One good way to defend the fatherless and the widow when I can't be every place at once, is to at least give them the means to defend themselves. 

I do think allowing the arming (if not teachers always, then staff), AND training, staff that wish to meet force with force. 

The passage referred to is Luke 22: 35-37 AV 1611.

.35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

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

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

my bold and italics.

Oh and Ron, I love and respect you as my pastor, but let's have some proportionality. Let's say a teacher shot the perp after three kids were killed. We now have 23 fewer funerals with some kids confused about how their teacher acted. Many of the kids who might be rightly confused are at least not dead. I can see good reasons for teachers not to always be armed, including access to weapons by kids, but them seeing a teacher shoot an intruder isn't one of them given the alternative. Access difficulties could be solved with proper thinking and equipment. 

‘’So be it. If an innocent child was about to be shot in front of me because a maniac thought it was fun, and I had the chance to do something, I should procure my sword Jesus told us to get, and center of cardiovascular triangle, squeeze don't pull, focus on front sight shooting the perp at least twice.’’

It’s silly fantasies like this that are the root cause of gun misuse. You fancy yourself as judge, jury and executioner. That should exclude you from ever owning a gun.

There was a post on SI about wearing a weapon, but I can’t seem to find it. What struck me most was the need to boast about wearing a weapon and the delight in telling others the type of weapon. It reminded me of my childhood when my thoughts were nothing but evil.

Self-defense doesn't have to mean armed with a gun. Tasers are fairly effective as well. Other measures to protect kids in schools would be bulletproof doors, and panic buttons near the teacher's desk that activate secure locks on classroom doors. 

This school had every reasonable safety measure in place, and the perpetrator, unable to get into the school in the normal way, broke a window. Which serves to bolster the point that I often make about laws- the only thing a locked door does is keep honest men honest. The only thing gun control laws will do is paint targets on the foreheads of law abiding citizens and provide more weapons and opportunity to criminals. I can't go for that. 

The 'effect of sin and darkness' means that we will sometimes have to do things that we find repugnant for a greater good. I would not delight in the death of another person, but when someone decides that they have the right to steal someone's life, liberty, or property, we are morally obligated to come to their defense with whatever means is at our disposal. Best case scenario is that they are apprehended by law enforcement and made to face justice in court.

But sometimes we have no recourse, and must act to save the lives of the innocent, in this case, innocent children. 

Some folks are more proactive and prudent, taking self-defense classes and arming themselves with pepper spray (which isn't all that effective, btw), handguns, or tasers. Good for them. That's who I want to be standing next to in an emergency. It is simply the nature of the sin-cursed world that we live in.

A few months ago I saw a man vandalizing my car. It was 10:30pm and he is a known drug user. I immediately went out to confront him and when he saw me he suggested that I wanted a fight. I replied that I didn’t, but that I wanted him out of the way so that I could see what he’d been up to. He then insisted I wanted a fight and went for me. I proceeded to punch him until he cried he’d had enough.

My response was in proportion to the danger to myself and my property.  After the first punch I found myself with my hand behind his head as I punched him, because I didn't want him to fall and hurt himself. 

I then called the police and he was arrested. 

The just shall live by morals? 

This is what the Pharacies wanted and indeed loved, but Messiah turned that out. They hated him for it, because the moral obligations under law caused in them a self-justness that confirmed the death in which they existed. 

I think you've stepped into a very old debate.  Going back to our days as English\British colonies, American (for want of a better descriptive) Baptists (for the most part) have not been pacifists.  The small minority of Baptist pacifists are usually folks whose "denominational" background is based on the Continental Baptists\Anabaptists.

''If you can't see the moral goodness of jumping in and stopping a child from getting murdered, then who is sick?'' 

There was no girl being murdered except in your mind. Lets stay within the realm of reality and not wander off into 'what if'.

You also said:

''they now have procured the means of lethal force at the command of Jesus''. 

When Peter tried use force he was told to put his sword back into its place.

I was speaking in metaphor. Please re-read, and let me know if you still can't understand the point. The urgency of the situation is that on January 3rd legislation will be introduced and it could move very quickly on emotion alone, and it will be broad, sweeping, and not get to the heart of the problem of violence. 

''several have pointed out there is a difference between Peter trying to usher in the kingdom and a random citizen protecting his or another's life''.

What on earth are you talking about? 

The problem here is not a matter of hermeneutics, it's a matter of gun control. You don't like it and you don't want it. You would prefer to twist the scriptures to suit your own agenda rather than agree the public ownership of weapons be restricted or even banned. I notice you have a family. It is my sincere hope you never come to regret the stand you are making.

I would certainly ban the carrying of any lethal weapon in public without a valid reason. I carry a small knife when hiking long distance, but that knife is part of a survival kit and perfectly valid. 

I suppose you'll challenge me on sharp sticks next. It never ceases to amaze me how a society will not gather to repentance while their collective sin is condemning them. Every time someone is shot the collective sin of approval grows. If a person approves of the ownership and use of weapons they are as guilty, through approval, as if they pulled the trigger themselves. 

The ownership of weapons is idolatry. The obsession that goes with the ownership is idolatry. The amount of time spend practicing to kill, if the intended target is a human, then murder has been committed. As per adultery of the mind. 

Those that stand in the pulpit preaching peace, peace while wearing a concealed weapon are hypocrites who know no peace, no trust and live their lives in fear of death. 

Harsh words maybe? If harsh words will bring one soul to repentance then we shall ''shout it aloud and not hold back''.

. . . . on the danger of a given culture or subculture reading its socio-political norms into Scripture.  It ought be a caution to us all. 

Your first paragraph is the only bit of sense you have been making this whole time.

I agree with you that weapons are neither moral or immoral. It is their use that can be up for moral debate. 

And I believe that most of us here are making an argument for the lawful use of firearms(or any other weapon). 

The laws of this land have given us the right to own and to use firearms in a manner that is lawful. (e.g. hunting, target shooting, self-defense, forming militias, etc.)

No where in the Scriptures do I see any text that supports your view that we should not own a weapon. I believe that you are trying to impose your choice not to own a gun on the rest of us.  Perhaps it is a matter of conscience. However, you should not condemn a man, whose conscience allows him to carry a gun. 

. . . which illustrates that you don't understand the doctrine of weaker brothers either. 

I have a question, what church and denomination do you belong to over there in Wales?

So what if your brother thinks that owning a hunting knife is wrong, would you get rid of your knives?

And also, the weaker brother is not supposed to remain a weak brother. As he grows in his knowledge of the Scriptures and in his faith, so also should he grow in his views of what is and what is not moral. 

Yes, Huw. I would love to shoot you. As you seem to know, we Americans like to shoot people for no good reason other than  it just feels good. 

This is entirely uncalled for.

Huw - I don't normally post here, I'm much more of a lurker, but I have to respond to your post.  When I was in 8th grade, I was assaulted by someone carrying a pen knife.  Fortunately, someone came along and scared the guy enough that he ran off. But, it was a knife and a pen knife yet and needless to say, I was scared for my life. 

A weapon is a weapon is a weapon in the wrong hands. It does not matter what it is. 

From what I can gather from his posts, Huw is Welsh and lives in Wales.  He seems to follow the Continental Baptist\Anabaptist practice of pacifism.  Here in the States, this position is usually represented by the Mennonites and the Quakers.  Also, living in Wales he is used to British gun control laws.  These laws are strict enough that questions arose about the British Olympic shooting teams ability to practice on British soil.

It's 2 am in Wales.  So, we must needs wait.

I belong to the ecclesia and as far as I am concerned there is only one. See last verse in the second chapter of the Acts.

I am nondenominational and if you check your history the path I take was taken by the founders of the US. There is a village in North Wales called Bala and in the mountains is a brass plaque that explains that those men who worshipped on the mountain were persecuted by the church and had to leave for the new lands of America. 

I know a man who had just finished praying. He had just experienced the taste of heavenly glory and didn’t want the moment to end. His mind was given a thought. If someone had walked into the room at that moment with a weapon and was about to kill him he would thank the person.

‘’For me to live is Messiah, and to die is gain’’.
 

It took some time to get back on this. The reasons being I had business that needed my attention. And I was waiting for an answer to prayer.

Pen knife has pride of place inside a sealed waterproof bag, inside a sealed bag at the bottom of my rucksack. They are sealed as they contain various items that need to be kept dry. If I decided to use it as a defensive weapon I'd have to meet a very patient attacker. 

Taking a life, even lawfully, has an effect. 

For someone to talk of killing or boast of what he would do if threatened is akin to a virgin discussing sex. Take the emotional impact of the bereavement of the closest person to you and then multiply it by a figure that is directly influenced by your conscience. Multiply that by the sleepless nights and the sudden horrors by day and you will still not know the true effects. I sincerely hope you never find out.

Do you trust in the complete foreknowledge and sovereignty of the operation of the Eternal Almighty in all that  comes to pass? 

p. A17, David Kopel, Guns, Mental Illness, and Newtown

...So when armed citizens are on the scene, many lives are saved.  The media rarely mentions the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others.

At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw a shopper,who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him.  The murderer's next shot was to kill himself.

I can't understand why you post anything that is irrelevant, your words not mine. 

Huh? I don't think I have posted anything that is irrelevant, and I'm not sure what "your words not mine" refer to.

In answer to your last question I don't indulge in the time wasting heroics of ''what if''. It was one of the changes that occurred after my salvation. I received life and began to live it rather than fantasize about things.

That seems like a dodge. Are you uncomfortable answering because of what it does to your position? I can answer that question easily: I want a gun, because that's how you stop bad people with guns.

So if you keep a gun for protection while it and you are not prepared then your priorities are either mixed up or you are simply confused as to why you have it.

I am not sure where you got this from since I don't keep a gun for protection. That's why they are in the closet, the ammo is the garage, and neither has been fired in 20 years.

Do you trust in the complete foreknowledge and sovereignty of the Eternal in all that comes to pass?  

Yes, but not sure how that applies here. God's sovereignty does not preclude the idea that we do not live wisely in the world. Nor does it remove our duty to protect the innocents around us.

Huw, 

Do you have a job that provides income? Why? Don't you trust the sovereign God to supply all your need? Of course we know that having a job is the very means that God wishes to supply our needs. In the same manner, arming with guns in America is or could be one way that God could be sovereignly using our preparation, training, and forethought to protect us. God uses means to work his will and he most often uses ourselves to be the very means to help us. If a serial killer was making his way through my house and I cried out "Lord help!" he might have been trying to help when we were at the gun store with a wad of cash, and we made the illogical conclusion that God would just help us with lightening bolts from thin air.

Some say God helps those who help themselves. I would say the consistently biblical teaching on the sovereignty of God would put a slight twist on that, and say "those who are actively trying to prepare and meet their own needs are most ready and able to use the Lord's help when it is needed and does come."

Also, I'm glad you're part of the "ecclesia as you see it," above. But I'm wondering what local body of believers you associate with and put yourself under the authority and direction of those elders. I got the sense in my spirit that you don't. This is what we in America call "getting the big E on the eye chart" correct. Do that, then lecture the Americans.

I know you think that, but questioning Chip's belief in the sovereignty of God is incoherent and inapplicable to whether he should have a gun or not. There are all kinds of things we both trust God for, and prepare for the worst. 

Do you think it is a lawful for a professing Christian, to be employed as a police officer, if it means he has to carry a firearm?