VA Tech Shootings

[Andre]

I am not 100 % sure what the term "right" means as in we have our "rights", but, like a lot of people, I have a sense of what it means - some kind of fundamental value or condition that should be present regardless of whatever else changes in a society.

Freedom from discrimination on the basis of skin color is a right. Voting is a right. Driving a car is not a right, etc. The boundary between a right and a privelege seems to be hard to define, I admit

I do not think people in any society have a right to carry a gun. I think it is not a right precisely because its only real purpose is to deprive someone else of what we probably all agree is a right - the right to live. Please don't read any more into what I am saying - in this post, I am only saying that gun ownership should not be seen as a right. Perhaps gun ownership can be justified, but it shouldn't be justified by the specific claim that it is a right.

Here is the key distinction that I think needs to be made: I heartily agree that self-defence is a right. But it does not follow that gun ownership is a right.

 

[Melanie]

At least the gun is blameless.....rock on the Gun Lobby :BangHead:

 

[rbell]

I am not 100 % sure what the term "right" means as in we have our "rights", but, like a lot of people, I have a sense of what it means - some kind of fundamental value or condition that should be present regardless of whatever else changes in a society.

Freedom from discrimination on the basis of skin color is a right. Voting is a right. Driving a car is not a right, etc. The boundary between a right and a privelege seems to be hard to define, I admit

I do not think people in any society have a right to carry a gun. I think it is not a right precisely because its only real purpose is to deprive someone else of what we probably all agree is a right - the right to live. Please don't read any more into what I am saying - in this post, I am only saying that gun ownership should not be seen as a right. Perhaps gun ownership can be justified, but it shouldn't be justified by the specific claim that it is a right.

Here is the key distinction that I think needs to be made: I heartily agree that self-defence is a right. But it does not follow that gun ownership is a right.

Andre, first let me thank you for your tone and respectful manner in which you conduct yourself. Even in disagreement, it's been amicable. Good job.

Let me make these assertions:

• Our "rights" are not given by government. No, you didn't assert this...but it is a critical point. As our Declaration of Independence says, our rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are endowed to us by our Creator. In stating that, they showed that they value basic human rights on the highest plane.
• Self-defense is a right--it is tied up with "Life."
• Gun ownership is one way a person may choose to defend one's self. Should they misuse that means, they're in trouble. Should their instrument of defense, due to their carelessness, be misused by another, they're in trouble. But our courts, time and time again, have decided through the years that although there is potential for misuse with a gun (as there is with a knife, Taser, etc.), responsible ownership is still possible, and allowed in most areas. Now...if I had a live Tomahawk missle at my house and I said it was for "self-defense," the potential for misuse or harm is too great, and the army comes and gets it.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Clearly, the most dangerous thing about being a legal gun owner, if you are ever forced to use it, the liberals will try to destroy you. Blame the victim, first.

 

[Andre]

Andre, first let me thank you for your tone and respectful manner in which you conduct yourself. Even in disagreement, it's been amicable. Good job.

Well, you know what they say about we Canadians - "Born to be Mild" :laugh:

Our "rights" are not given by government. No, you didn't assert this...but it is a critical point. As our Declaration of Independence says, our rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are endowed to us by our Creator. In stating that, they showed that they value basic human rights on the highest plane.

I certainly agree that "rights" should be understood as grounded in an understanding of how our loving God wants us to live, if we can agree on how to figure that out. Even for an atheist, I would think that rights should be seen as a property of humanity as a whole.

Gun ownership is one way a person may choose to defend one's self. Should they misuse that means, they're in trouble. Should their instrument of defense, due to their carelessness, be misused by another, they're in trouble. But our courts, time and time again, have decided through the years that although there is potential for misuse with a gun (as there is with a knife, Taser, etc.), responsible ownership is still possible, and allowed in most areas. Now...if I had a live Tomahawk missle at my house and I said it was for "self-defense," the potential for misuse or harm is too great, and the army comes and gets it.

All I am saying is that I have serious doubts about whether citizens having guns is a really good solution to the self-defence issue (or even the "deter tyranny" issue). As you say, one could not push the "right to self-defence" argument to the point of having your own battery of missiles. I worry that even giving people just guns might be going too far.

I really am for whatever works - whatever system minimizes suffering and death (primarily for the "innocent" but also for the "guilty"). I have no emotional connection to either end of this debate. The nature of this issue is such that it is hard to provide solid evidence in support of a position since there are so many other variables to account for.

The one position that I would take serious objection to is the "I don't care if gun control has been proven to reduce suffering and death, a gun is a right, and I demand my rights!" position. I am not saying that anyone here holds this view and I am not saying that gun control has been proven to reduce suffering and death.

The important thing is to ensure that people are as free as possible from the threat of death or suffering inflicted by other human beings.

 

[annsni]

I'm going to interrupt this "discussion" for an important message from Dennis Rainey (I received this in my e-mail today and posted it on our church website):

April 18, 2007
FamilyLife President, Dennis Rainey
Windows Media Audio Listen to Dennis Rainey's Call to Prayer for Virginia Tech and the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion.

Just one step of faith, that's all it took. Just one step of faith.

Yesterday my cell phone rang in the middle of the day. It was my daughter Laura. Nothing unusual about that.

What was unusual about the call was that my normally upbeat, positive daughter (a senior, just a month away from graduating from college) was down, and in a "funk."

All because of the Virginia Tech massacre on Monday morning.

She wanted to do something.

As we talked, I read Laura a portion of the words from President Bush's address at the special service held at Virginia Tech on the day after the shootings. In his message the President quoted Romans 12:21:

"These sources of strength are also in the faith that sustains so many of us. Across the town of Blacksburg and in towns all across America, houses of worship from every faith have opened their doors and have lifted you up in prayer. People who have never met you are praying for you; they're praying for your friends who have fallen and who are injured. There's a power in these prayers, real power. In times like this, we can find comfort in the grace and guidance of a loving God. As the Scriptures tell us, ‘Don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.'"

In our conversation I encouraged Laura to turn her grief heavenward and pray for those who have been impacted by evil.

Then I re-read Romans 12:21 to her: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Laura replied, "But I'm just a college student, what could I do? I live off campus. I'm not in a dorm or sorority house on campus. What can I do?"

Reflecting on Laura's response, I think that most of us feel that way … I'm just a dad … or a mom … what can I do? The enemy of our souls loves it when we think this way. Doubt gives way to unbelief and ultimately results in paralysis. I'm reminded of British statesman Edmund Burke's warning, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

But a follower of Jesus Christ is more than "just" a college student, a dad, a mom. God made us to be children of the King who are empowered by Him to push back against the forces of evil that seek to destroy us and take away our hope.

The Scripture gives us resolute purpose: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

I then challenged Laura to take the lead with a few student leaders on campus to join with her and organize a campus-wide prayer meeting Thursday for the Virginia Tech students, faculty and families.

There was silence on the phone.

After a few moments, my adventuresome, "go for it" daughter, Laura, declared, "I got it! I'm on it! I'll do it!"

I had a few more words of encouragement and we said goodbye. I concluded by asking her to keep me posted on what was going on.

Ten minutes later I was in a meeting and my cell phone rang. It was Laura. She had contacted her friend Ben, a fired-up Christ follower, as well as student leaders of various campus ministries. They all were "on it!" The campus-wide prayer meeting was scheduled at an outdoor amphitheater on campus for Thursday at 7 p.m. I told her how excited I was for her and the other students.

I jumped back in to my meeting and another ten minutes later the phone rang again. This time Laura told me that she had just sent the following e-mail to 12 student leaders on campuses across the country who are participating in an internship with her at The Falls Church in Falls Church, Va., beginning this fall:

All across the country students are feeling sad about the loss of life at Virginia Tech, and also thinking that it could have been me. I know I have thought that a couple of times while on campus today. I know that all of us have been and are praying for the students and families of Virginia Tech. I have called several of my friends and we are getting together on Thursday night at 7:00 to have a time of prayer for the students, families, faculty, and everyone that has been affected because of this tragedy. I just wanted to throw this out there to see if you all would get together with your friends and fellow students, on your campus and pray together on Thursday. Our God is powerful and He can and will turn this evil into good!

I responded with a "Wow" and told Laura, "You go, girl!"

In the midst of all this, I thought of my friend and comrade, Mark Gauthier, the national director of the Campus Ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ. So I wrote him and shared with him what Laura and students were doing on her campus.

Mark was pumped! So pumped that last night he sent an e-mail out to four thousand full time staff and student leaders on more than a thousand campuses here in the U.S. and even more in over 100 countries of the world.

By 8 a.m. today, Mark's inbox had over 200 responses from campus leaders all over the world, saying they will be calling for a campus-wide Call to Prayer for Virginia Tech. In fact, I was just told that the e-mails are streaming in so fast they can't keep up. Spiritually and virally, this thing has taken off with responses from London, East Asia, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and even North Africa (where three Virginia Tech grads lead the ministry). Many more will join.

Another group of college students who use Facebook online have responded by establishing a Facebook group to pray for Virginia Tech. Somehow mother's groups and churches have received the e-mail and they are calling for prayer. And another e-mail was sent to the leaders of other national campus ministry groups (Navigators, Intervarsity, Impact, etc.) inviting them to lead and call their students to prayer tomorrow. Bill Pugh, national director of Athletes in Action, has written his leaders on several hundred campuses and many of those will be rallying students on their campus to pray.

I started forwarding e-mails to Laura this morning from all over the world and I just got off the phone with her. I told her how proud I was of her for taking one step of faith and saying "I'll do it!" I told her that her step of faith helped create something much bigger than anything we would have imagined. All she could say was "Wow! God is indeed powerful."

Wow, indeed.

As I write this, I am about to go into the studio to tell the story on our broadcast tomorrow and challenge several hundred thousand moms and dad, husbands and wives, and singles to join with us. I also decided to send this letter out to you, along with more than 165,000 stakeholders in FamilyLife all around the world, encouraging you and your family to join in the Call to Prayer. And take a step of faith and challenge at least one other person to do the same:

* Pray for the families and friends of students who were killed—that they would turn to God for His comfort and strength. Four of the students were involved with Campus Crusade at Virginia Tech.
* Pray for the survivors of the shootings who witnessed the horrors of that day. Pray for God's grace and comfort.
* Pray for wisdom for the Campus Crusade staff and other campus ministers and pastors as they seek to counsel and love the hurting students.

Find information about the tragedy and updates on how you can pray at Campus Crusade for Christ’s website dedicated to the tragedy at Virginia Tech. If you have any children in college, call and challenge them to organize a Call to Prayer for Virginia Tech tomorrow. Send them this page. They'll know how to get more information on Facebook.

And if you are unable to get a group together to pray, just pray where you are. Prayer is portable—you can join the movement tomorrow at lunch or at the dinner table with your family. But pray.

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Dennis

P.S. On my way to the office I was listening to the radio and just heard of the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion. I have to admit I became emotional and immediately broke out in a prayer of thanksgiving to God that He has given five Supreme Court justices the courage to protect unborn life. Wow! I invite you to lead your family in giving thanks to God for this historic decision (Psalm 118:8).

 

[Hope of Glory]

• Our "rights" are not given by government. No, you didn't assert this...but it is a critical point. As our Declaration of Independence says, our rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are endowed to us by our Creator. In stating that, they showed that they value basic human rights on the highest plane.

To add to this, our rights are to be protected by government.

Also, you're in Canada. The US Constitution specifically spells out particular rights, and the right to keep and bear arms is one of them.

Ironically, there were those who did not want to put in the Bill of Rights, because they were concerned that it could be interpreted as being our only rights. Yet, there are those who want to ignore even that list and ban guns.

Being a right, I don't have to have a "good reason" for wanting a gun. I do have good reasons, but even some don't accept those.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Thank you for sharing what you shared with us, ann.

 

[Andre]

To add to this, our rights are to be protected by government.

Also, you're in Canada. The US Constitution specifically spells out particular rights, and the right to keep and bear arms is one of them.

Ironically, there were those who did not want to put in the Bill of Rights, because they were concerned that it could be interpreted as being our only rights. Yet, there are those who want to ignore even that list and ban guns.

Being a right, I don't have to have a "good reason" for wanting a gun. I do have good reasons, but even some don't accept those.

I assume that you agree that the mere fact that a specific government enshrines a certain thing as a "right" does not elevate that thing to the status of some eternal truth. Obviously the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. However, the specific fact that something is "in the Constitution" has no bearing on its fundamental validity. If we are to subscribe to any document as being authoritative, it should be the Scriptures, not the US Constitution, or the Canadian equivalent etc.

I still see self-defence as a right, but not having a gun. I will repeat that my denying that access to guns should be a right is not a claim that people should not be allowed to have guns, just that it should be seen as a privelege, and not a right. I happen to believe that we should not have that privelege either, but I do not think the gun issue should be debated as a matter of "rights". We have the right to self-defence - it is a further question as to whether allowing guns is a wise decision.

 

[James_Newman]

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Should we have the right to own a sword? Jesus commanded His disciples to own one. You admit that we have the right to self-defence, but would deny us the privilege of owning the tools to exercise the right. How would we defend ourselves against someone with a gun? Throw a dictionary at them?

 

[Andre]

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Should we have the right to own a sword? Jesus commanded His disciples to own one. You admit that we have the right to self-defence, but would deny us the privilege of owning the tools to exercise the right. How would we defend ourselves against someone with a gun? Throw a dictionary at them?

It is entirely legitimate to believe that we have a right to self-defence without believing that this creates "spin-off" rights for particular means. To take a ridiculous extreme: one can defend oneself with a heat-seeking missile - there are indeed situations where such a missile can take out an attacker and leave others unharmed. But no reasonable person wants ordinary citizens to have the right to own heat-seeking missiles.

We all agree on the right to self-defence. We have no right to a particular means.

 

[James_Newman]

You still haven't explained how I can exercise my right to self defense against an attacker with a gun if I don't have any means to do so.

 

[corndogggy]

An interesting observation is that these shootings nearly always occur in gun-free zones. Guns were banned at Virginia Tech. Boy, that did alot of good. What about the Amish killings? Does anybody really think that it's just a coincidence that these people attack others in places where they know there is little to no chance of anybody fighting back?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

It is entirely legitimate to believe that we have a right to self-defence without believing that this creates "spin-off" rights for particular means. To take a ridiculous extreme: one can defend oneself with a heat-seeking missile - there are indeed situations where such a missile can take out an attacker and leave others unharmed. But no reasonable person wants ordinary citizens to have the right to own heat-seeking missiles.

We all agree on the right to self-defence. We have no right to a particular means.

We do have a right to own a gun. That would be a particular means.

 

[corndogggy]

And, to be frank, is America really any "greater" than any of dozens of countries in the world with gun control? America is indeed more powerful, of that there is little doubt. Again, the non-specific appeal to "freedom" seems a little on the soft side.

The reasons why our forefathers fled England are so easily forgotten nowadays. And, since then, that very nation has cracked down on guns and restricted them pretty heavily. Guess what? They have more crime than we do. Yeah that makes alot of sense.

 

[corndogggy]

As part of a concerted program, yes we could make guns VERY hard to acquire (and therefore expensive) within 10 years.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm


Even banning them totally didn't help England, they're worse than us. That was 10 years ago when they banned handguns. Look at the increases since then:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/high-cost-of-gun-control.html

 

[Hope of Glory]

I assume that you agree that the mere fact that a specific government enshrines a certain thing as a "right" does not elevate that thing to the status of some eternal truth. Obviously the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. However, the specific fact that something is "in the Constitution" has no bearing on its fundamental validity. If we are to subscribe to any document as being authoritative, it should be the Scriptures, not the US Constitution, or the Canadian equivalent etc.

How many things in politics can be classified as an "eternal truth"?

We're discussing the law in the US, of which the US Constitution is the basis, and God has put governments in charge of us.

Since that is, at least currently, the "fundamentally vaild" governing control, then yes, it is truth, in at least that respect.

A privilege is something that you earn. You can earn the privilege of driving a car, or you can earn the privilege of flying a plane.

A right is something that is inherent (in this case by being a US citizen), but a right can be lost. You have the right to vote, but that can be lost.

Or do you think that voting should be earned as well? A lot of people use that vote very dangerously, as is evidenced by all the people who are in support of socialism and ignoring the Constitution.

Speech can be very dangerous as well.

So can religion.

 

[corndogggy]

http://www.americandaily.com/article/1340

Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States.

Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's. In contrast, the United States took the opposite approach and made it easier for individuals to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check. Violent crime in the United States has fallen much faster than in Canada, and violent crime has fallen even faster inright-to-carry states than for the nation as a whole. The states with the fastest growth in gun ownership have also experienced the biggest drops in violent crime rates.

 

[Andre]

You still haven't explained how I can exercise my right to self defense against an attacker with a gun if I don't have any means to do so.

We are talking about different issues - it may turn out, as the result of the appropriate analysis, that the gun is indeed a reasonable means for self-defence. But the use of a gun is not a right. Of course, you have the right to some means, but if it turns out that the gun is one of the "acceptable" means, it will be as the result of some determination - not because a gun is a right.

 

[James_Newman]

We are talking about different issues - it may turn out, as the result of the appropriate analysis, that the gun is indeed a reasonable means for self-defence. But the use of a gun is not a right. Of course, you have the right to some means, but if it turns out that the gun is one of the "acceptable" means, it will be as the result of some determination - not because a gun is a right.

Whether you find guns acceptable or not, I don't know of any other means, unless you think I should carry a sword or an axe. I am asking you to provide an alternate means. And how effective would those means be in a situation where I face an intruder armed with a gun?