Oh boy!

[NeoThermic]

Of course, that could be interpreted as more about aggression than weaponry - like all passages in the Bible you can interpret and/or ignore it as you see fit

But even then, if Feud keeps these weapons within reach to use against an intruder, the passage still holds that he will die by the same weapon that he chooses to use.

NeoThermic

[Feud]

Please allow me to use your Holy Bible in my proof.

Matthew 26:52, "'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'"

Now, as I see it, this passage indicates that those who use a weapon will die by the same weapon. Thus by buying guns, you're condemning yourself to dying at the hand of one. If that sits aright with you, then continue.

Well shoot, if you all insist on making a religious debate out of this (it should be noted that my faith acknowledges that there are errors in the Bible)...

The scripture must be taken in the context of the chapter. The verses before and after the scripture you quoted make it clear that the instruction being given is relevant to the moment, He is telling Peter (as well as the other Apostles) not to resist the mob since: A) it would result in the Apostles being killed (the verse you quoted), B) the Savior could defend himself anyway but had no intention to do so since His death was necessary (vs. 53,54).

Now, in order to show that the above scripture was taken out of context, let us look to other another scripture. In Luke 22:36 (KJV) it says, "and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Here we have specific instruction to purchase a weapon, so unless they were ordered to do die by the sword the only other explanation is that your interpretation is flawed.

It should be further noted that Peter already had used the weapon, and as far as information suggests he did not die by a sword. A glance at history shows that not all who have used a gun, either in combat or otherwise, have died by a gun. With that in mind, if we are going to assume the scriptures to be correct than we must assume that your interpretation of them to be incorrect.

For future note, you also ignored that my faith believes in modern revelation, that the Lord gives guidance specific to the times and situations that His people are in. Just as there were Prophets called before Christ to deliver specific instruction (Jeremiah's message that the Babylonians were coming wouldn't have done much good in Moses' time), and after His death in the New Testament to reveal his will, they are still called today. Since I believe in such, trying to prove that my faith teaches something while ignoring what I consider to be modern scripture on the matter won't get you very far.

In other news, at the suggestion of an Uncle who was quite pleased with a recent purchase a new candidate has taken the field.

[wwarnick]

Besides, the religion/gun debate has come and gone. There's no reason to bring it back.

EDIT: If NeoThermic's interpretation of the Bible is correct, then it would be wise to carry a sword. After all, if we're going to choose a death, we may as well choose the least likely.

What he probably meant was that if Peter were to attack them, he would be killed. At the time, the sword was the weapon of choice. Today, you might say that a man that wields a gun dies by a gun. If one man with a gun went up against ten others, he'd probably die...by a gun.

[NeoThermic]

It should be further noted that Peter already had used the weapon, and as far as information suggests he did not die by a sword.

Jesus was warning Peter that if he were to continue, he would be stuck down with a sword. Jesus also justified it by saying that he could call down "twelve legions of angels" if he wanted, but that was against what is going to happen.

To me this still implies that if you wish to use a weapon to kill, you will eventually succumb to a death by that very weapon type.

Taking this further, if someone broke into your house, would you use the gun on them? Noting, of course, that the law in most states about self-defence in the home indicates that you must shoot to kill in these instances. Would you be able to kill, knowing that is against one of the 10 commandments? That you would have committed one of the most major sins in the eyes of the Lord?

Most religious people try to avoid things that can lead them into temptation, yet you're running with your arms wide open to an item which is designed and sold as a primary means to kill.

NeoThermic

[wwarnick]

I think you're taking the ten commandments out of context. There are many instances were killing is necessary, such as war, which is prevalent in the Bible. Killing in self-defense also, I think, would not be considered a sin if it was absolutely necessary. Ideally, however, you would be able to disable the person instead of killing them. I personally would sooner carry pepper spray or a taser gun than a pistol.

EDIT:

Most religious people try to avoid things that can lead them into temptation, yet you're running with your arms wide open to an item which is designed and sold as a primary means to kill.

I personally agree. But I would extend the idea to violence in video games. Nevertheless, if the world were more violent and I thought a gun were necessary, I would buy one. But at the moment, in mormon-town, I feel safe.

[Feud]

Taking this further, if someone broke into your house, would you use the gun on them? Noting, of course, that the law in most states about self-defence in the home indicates that you must shoot to kill in these instances. Would you be able to kill, knowing that is against one of the 10 commandments? That you would have committed one of the most major sins in the eyes of the Lord?

Saying that the commandment of "thou shalt not kill" is the final word on the matter is to ignore everything else that was taught on the matter. There are numerous instances in the Book of Joshua where there are told specifically to kill, David slaying Goliath seems to have been justified, and the Law of Moses itself says that certain people are to be killed for certain crimes (if the executioner of the law a sinner then what good is it?).

Isolating a single verse and holding to it alone to the exclusion of all else may be convenient to an argument, but that is not how either truth or wisdom is gained.

Throughout the Bible, as well as the other books of scripture my Church uses, the defense of one's family is held to be a time when violence is justified. As for any law that says you must shoot to kill, I have never heard of any such law much less that most states use them, and I would be greatly appreciative if you could direct me to where I can learn more about them (frankly, I'm a little skeptical that they exist).

[wwarnick]

I'm confused about the self-defense shoot to kill thing. Stewsburntmonkey, are you saying that you must shoot to kill in order for it to be considered self-defense, and therefore accidentally killing would not? I am confused. I personally would first try to disable the intruder, and I would think the government would prefer that as well. Let the police deal with him after that. Give him a fair trial and so forth.

[NeoThermic]

As for any law that says you must shoot to kill, I have never heard of any such law much less that most states use them, and I would be greatly appreciative if you could direct me to where I can learn more about them (frankly, I'm a little skeptical that they exist).

The law is entitled Castle Doctrine (also known as "Stand your ground" sometimes). Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have adopted similar laws, and IIRC Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wyoming are also considering such laws.

If you shoot someone, you normally go for the biggest target, the torso. This contains quite a number of vital organs, at which you'll generally end up killing them if they are not seen to medically rather quick. On top of this, if you do not kill them, it could be argued that you intended to torture them (this has been used as a prosecution stance before).

NeoThermic

[Feud]

The law is entitled Castle Doctrine (also known as "Stand your ground" sometimes). Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have adopted similar laws, and IIRC Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wyoming are also considering such laws.

If you shoot someone, you normally go for the biggest target, the torso. This contains quite a number of vital organs, at which you'll generally end up killing them if they are not seen to medically rather quick. On top of this, if you do not kill them, it could be argued that you intended to torture them (this has been used as a prosecution stance before).

NeoThermic

The Castle Doctrine only says that you do not have to retreat from your home or in your home, and that you have a legal right to defend it, it's rightful occupants, and yourself. It says nothing of any legal requirement to "shoot to kill". Whether or not prosecutors have argued intention to torture (much less whether it actually worked) is case specific and says nothing of the actual Castle Doctrine laws.

I again ask that you tell me where I can find these laws saying that a person must shoot to kill. I've looked, I can't find them, and I remain unconvinced that they exist at all (much less in a majority of the States).

[wwarnick]

(this has been used as a prosecution stance before)

And thus lawyer jokes are born.

[Rkiver]

My comment Feud was merely saying that spending money on a device meant to cause harm and/or kill (I have yet to see a gun plough a field or cook a meal) rather then perhaps donating your tax rebate to a good cause does seem somewhat in contradiction of your beliefs. You already have a gun if required for self defense, so getting another one (redundancy perhaps) is somewhat wasteful, and the money could be donated to those in need.

The whole religion/gun debate...well when it comes to the US and those two things, religious nuts is the only way to really describe it, as the very contradictory nature of religions in and of themselves is hysterical to say the least. You take some things as gospel truth (pun intended) and then say you can ignore others. You cannot have it both ways, it's one or the other.

Regardless it is your money to spend as you see fit, but if you air your views on a public forum such as this you can expect people like me to disagree with you, and if you don't like it your are free to either ignore our posts, or stop posting yourself.

[Feud]

Regardless it is your money to spend as you see fit, but if you air your views on a public forum such as this you can expect people like me to disagree with you, and if you don't like it your are free to either ignore our posts, or stop posting yourself.

I completely agree.

[BrianBlessed]

A glance at history shows that not all who have used a gun, either in combat or otherwise, have died by a gun. With that in mind, if we are going to assume the scriptures to be correct than we must assume that your interpretation of them to be incorrect.

The bible doesn't exactly have a great reputation for accurately predicting....well anything, true interpretation or not.

If you're going to pick an arbitrary and antiquated text to follow by the letter, at least do it properly, don't pick and choose.

[coolsi]

Another reason why US gun law is completely insane.

[Mas Tnega]

*cough*Canada*cough*