Personal gun ownership has saved far more lives than killed. We’ll give you the facts about gun control and tell you…

Why You Should Own One of These

(Note: During the four years I served as editor of Cutting Edge Magazine this was our most controversial and popular issue. In a matter of days 25,000 copies flew off store shelves. The article resulted in a scathing attack by a former New Mexico State Senator and expressions of thanks from Federal Marshals based in Albuquerque. Though some of the information presented is outdated by more than 12 years, the principles espoused remain “on target.”

Yes…I said that on purpose.

I’ve done a bit of clean up from the original so it may read differently, but the content is virtually the same. Some of the research for this article was done when the Internet was still in its infancy. Before the “web” caught on there was the “gopher search." Remember that?

Is it wrong to own a gun? Is it wrong to own a certain type of gun? It is wrong to keep a loaded gun in your home? The questions boil down the controversy over gun control to its root issues. Partly because of media portrayal there seems to be a growing uneasiness about gun ownership. Proposals to get guns off the streets or out of the hands of kids are touted as the answer to curb gang and teen violence. Yet there is a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that gun control laws have actually contributed to America’s crime problems.

In this issue you will read, perhaps for the first time, a different perspective on gun control. Not simple opinion, not an apologetic for Second Amendment rights, but facts, statistics and comparisons of gun use and control from American and foreign histories. You will also read a unique biblical perspective on weapons use.

American Guns
Gun ownership has long been foundational to American freedoms. Since the colonial period Americans have owned guns for hunting, self-defense, and protection against foreign enemies. In 1993 Americans owned 200 million firearms. 65 million of those were handguns (1). The reason Americans own such weapons? One survey revealed: 51 percent cite “hunting,” 32 percent cite “protection,” and 28 percent cite “protection, target shooting and collecting.” Handgun owners responded that the primary reason for owning a handgun was “protection” – 58 percent (2).

With so many guns possessed by so many people it’s a wonder more people aren’t killed by them each year; so the thinking might go when seeing the nightly news. But the facts are quite different from the emotional reactions to the nightly newscasts. Less than 0.2 percent of all legally owned firearms, and less than 0.4 percent of all legally owned handguns are used criminally. Over 98.8 percent of all legally owned guns will never be used to commit a crime (3). Yet legislation that proposes to get guns off the streets never targets illegally owned firearms. Regulations always target the lawful user – including the recently enacted Brady Bill.

It’s Those Darn Kids
MTV has featured specials on youth-gun violence as has almost every major newsmagazine on television. When a McDonald’s or Luby’s or a shopping center is shot up by a disgruntled worker, patron, or dazed lover, reporters invariably turn to the type of weapon used and its firepower. The implication is always the same – gun ownership is at fault, and certain kinds of guns should not exist.

There is no doubt that gangs, comprised mainly of young people, are involved in a high number of violent deaths. But compared to the number of guns owned by Americans one thing becomes obvious – a small number of guns do a lot of the killing. Those are the guns with the problem, and the problem is always the possessor.

The biggest reason for firearm ownership – protection – has proven to be effective as a deterrent to violent crime. “A Department of Justice sponsored survey of felons found that 80 percent of handgun predators had encountered arm citizens. 53 percent did not commit as least one specific crime for the fear the victim was armed. 57 percent admitted to being scared or shot by an armed victim. (4). The study clearly revealed that guns can protect an individual or a family from becoming a victim. By the time police can respond to a call made from your home you could become a victim minus an effective means of defending yourself.

The Brady Bill
Pushed during both the Bush (Sr.) and Clinton years, the Brady Bill was finally passed last year (1993) by Congress and signed into law by the President. It contains some of the most sweeping restrictions on gun ownership to be enacted by the national legislature The Brady Bill was named after former White House press secretary James Brady who was critically wounded in a failed assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Brady requires a five-day waiting period for purchasing a handgun, creates a national computer databank of gun owners, and provides stiff penalties for violating purchase procedures. It even eliminates a citizen’s right to legal action if he or she is denied the purchase of a weapon wrongly or unlawfully (5).

Proponents of the Brady Bill have long said the legislation would not restrict Second Amendment rights since hunting guns are not mentioned. However, the U.S. Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting; its meaning is found in personal and civil defense:

“A well-regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Clearly references made to hunting guns are smoke and mirros used to hide the real purpose of such legislation – erosion of citizen’s rights to protect themselves with lethal force.

President Clinton was adamant in his support for the Brady Bill. During the signing ceremony he remarked that Brady would help reduce gun crime on our streets. Was he correct?

Not by a long shot.

With few exceptions the Brady Law simply codifies at the federal level what many states have already put into law. Some states and cities have even tougher laws regarding handguns than Brady. Yet no state can say, with evidence to support, that their gun restrictions have seriously crippled gun crime. “In the first place the U.S. have over 20,000 laws at federal, state, and local levels which restrict firearm ownership and use. The cities with the highest levels of violence and criminal use of firearms include New York City, Washington D.C., Detroit, and Chicago. Each of these cities has even stricter gun control than the U.K. 20 percent of murders take place in these cities which have only 6 percent of the population” (6).

Police chiefs in America agree that gun control laws do little to stop violent crime. “A 1990 survey of police command officers revealed a strong skepticism regarding the effectiveness of gun control.” Of those surveyed most said they “believe a waiting period will have no effect on the ability of criminals get firearms.” They also said that “banning private ownership of firearms will not result in fewer crimes from firearms” and they “do not believe than banning military style assault weapons will prevent criminals from obtaining them” (7).

These officers know what they are talking about. “With a virtual handgun ban, enforced with federal aid from 1976 to 1991, the murder rate in Washington D.C. has risen 200 percent, with a 300 percent rise in handgun related homicide. Since it became a felony in New York to evade New York City’s virtual handgun ban, the city’s homicide rate has risen three times faster than the rest of the country” (8).

Britain, notorious for strict control of firearms possession has had no luck curbing gun violence with such legislation. “in 1972 in the only academic study ever made of British firearms legislation and its effects, Greenwood showed that…all of it had been a complete failure in controlling the criminal use of firearms, which had increased – often dramatically – after every act of firearms control. The use of firearms in crime was so very much less when there were no controls of any sort” (9).

Other countries have tried different variations on gun control with little real effect on crime. “Japan has much stricter gun control than most parts of the U.S., yet Japanese-Americans who have much easier access to firearms have much lower violence rates than Japanese in Japan. Mexico has more restrictive gun control than the U.S., and also a much higher murder and armed crime rate. In Taiwan the death penalty can be imposed for illegal ownership of guns and gun control is stricter than in Japan Yet the murder rate is four times higher than that of Japan and 30 percent higher than in the U.S.A.” (10)

The question remains: If gun control laws work then why do American cities continue to see an increase in gun related crime?

It has been argued that in the days of regular military oppression by governments and our own country’s problems with Great Britain more than 200 years ago, that gun ownership was excusable, even necessary to maintain freedom. But has that situation changed? Our own country has demonstrated that nations aren’t very different from may of the despots of 200 years ago.

Adolph Hitler wrote: The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so” (11).

America’s founding fathers knew that an armed populace was the best defense against foreign invaders or a tyrannical domestic government. Even when ruled by English, Americans took up arms in revolution. Yet with little military training or experience they achieved freedom. That demonstration instilled in the founders the need to recognize and protect the right to bare arms. That right included the ability of the people to protect themselves against their own government and military.

While defending the Constitution Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 29:

”If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist” (12).

In Federalist 46, James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution reiterated the same principles:

”Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government: still it would not be far to far to say that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger.”

New Hampshire recognized in 1784 that citizens have a “Right of Revolution.” “The doctrine of nonresistance to arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind” (13). Pennsylvania’s constitution of 1838 recognized fun ownership as more than for state defense: “The rights o citizens to bare arms, in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned” (14).

Ironically, one proof of the founders intent to keep handguns in private ownership may be found n a national tragedy. When Vice President Aaron Burr lost his re-election bid to George Clinton (and later the New York governship), he blamed Alexander Hamilton, who had taken it upon himself to reveal the true nature of Burr’s character to the people of New York. Burr blamed Hamilton and in true 18th century fashion challenged him to a duel. Hamilton viewed the challenge more to the Federal Party than to himself. He reluctantly agreed to the duel but vowed not to fire his weapons at Burr, instead to stand and take the shot fired at him. The bullet from Burr’s pistol pierced Hamilton’s side and he died hours later. Had the founding fathers wished to handguns banned, or restricted from the federal government’s inception then this event might have never taken place. Yet the result of this event in legal circles was not to restrict handgun use or any kind – rather, duels were outlawed. Some state constitutions even forbade those who once participated in duels from ever holding elective office. So what is the point? The means of violence was not regulated, rather the behavior.

If handgun controls actually contribute to crime problems must assume that removing unnecessary restrictions will have the opposite effect. Assume we may, the facts also support that conclusion.

“Switzerland has the world’s highest level of private firearms ownership in the world. Firearms, including semi-automatic rifles, can be bought freely from gun shops on presentation of a purchase permit, which is issued without question to any adult (except those with certain criminal convictions or records of mental instability). Yet armed crime in negligible: firearms homicides have not increased since records began in 1931, and armed robberies are so few that they are not even recorded separately” (15).

“Denmark is second only to Switzerland in its level of firearms ownership. It has Home Guard of 72,500, the members of which store semi-automatic rifles and sub-machine guns at home and can be mobilized in an hour. In 25 years only 13 homicides have been attributed to the 60,000 of these Home Guard weapons. Norway and Sweden also have Home Guards, which store military weapons and ammunition at home. The misuse of these weapons is almost non-existent” (16).

One Oregon legislator, Lez Van Leeuwen, sponsored legislation in that state in 1993 requiring every Oregon home to have at least one firearm with ammunition. The bill exempted those who oppose gun possession and no penalties were written in for refusing to own a weapon. According to Susan Davis of Dais Guns in Dublin, ‘This law would keep law-abiding citizens on the same even footing as the criminals’” (17).

Biblical History and Morality
For the Christian asking about God’s perspective on weapon usage, the Bible is our first and last word. You won’t find a commandment such as, “Thou shalt not use guns, own guns, or keep loaded guns in thine house.” Nor can you find what might be an equivalent, “Thou shalt not use bows and arrows, own a bow and arrow, or keep a loaded bow in thine house.” But what you do find are examples that can be drawn from, both good and bad, of how weapons are to be possessed and use for personal as well as national defense. There are even examples of “militias” and despot governments trying to control weapons and subject nations.

Militias and Defense of the State
There is a unique example in the Old Testament of what happens hen ordinary people are disarmed and unable to defend themselves from attack. When Israel was brought up from Egypt to the land of Canaan and began to attack the indigenous people of the land, the Scripture makes reference to Israel putting them “to the edge of the sword” (18). However, between this period of Judges or “governors” and when Saul the first king of Israel came to power, Israel had become weaponless. “No blacksmith could be found in all the land of Israel for the Philistines said, ‘Lest the Hebrews make sword or spears…so it came about on the day of battle that neither sword or spear was found in the hands of any of the people.’” The result of oppression by their Philistine neighbors (19). There are also other examples during Israel’s early history, specifically about the strength of Israel’s enemies because of better weaponry: “…but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots” (20). And again, “…the sons of Israel cried out to the Lord; for [Sisera] had nine hundred chariots, and he oppressed the sons of Israel for twenty years” (21).

During Israel’s reconstructive period Nehemiah saw the practicality of average people being armed for self-defense. When the citizens of Jerusalem began rebuilding the wall around the city, swords an mortar were kept by their sides: “…and I stationed men in the lowest parts of the space behind the wall, the exposed places, and I stationed the people in families with their words, spears, and bows…those who were rebuilding the wall and those who carried burdens took their load with one hand doing the work and the other holding a weapon. As for the builders, each wore his word girded to his side as he built” (22).

There are also times mentioned n the Old Testament when Israel had little in the way of weapons, yet they defeated their enemies quite easily after taking a period to seek God and implore His mercy on behalf of the nation. During those battles, God provided a special strategy or knowledge needed to win their cause – proving the point of Psalm 44:6-7, “I do not trust in my bow, my sword does not bring me victory; but You have given us victory over our enemies.”

Criminal Punishment
While the Ten Commandments and other passages make it clear that murder is morally wrong, God provides for an exception in cases of war. Each of the war examples already cited make such exceptions clear. Nor is capital punishment to be viewed as murder, but as a means of punishing a criminal worthy of death and preserving society.

In modern democracies it is believed that when capital punishment is exercised it is done so through the authority of the people. However, the Bible makes it clear that God bestows such authority upon government: “It is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for t does not bare the sword for nothing: for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (23).

What About Self-Defense?
Is there an exception in the Bible that allows a person to kill someone in self-defense? The Bible provides a clear answer in the Old Testament.

When defining who is liable for a life taken in Exodus 21 and 22, reference is made to a burglary. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed” (24). Two things make this passage of interest:

1. The motive of the one “breaking in” and,
2. When it takes place

In this case the motive of the criminal is theft – nor murder, rape, or some other biblically defined capital offense. Biblically speaking, to kill someone in self-defense when they have broken into your home is only conditionally excusable. Presumably it is because you don’t know what the thief may decide to do once in your home, and you must make a quick decision on how to protect yourself and your family. However, the second point is equally important. The defender, the Bible says, is guilty of bloodshed if the incident takes place after sunrise – i.e., during the day.

Through the Bible “light” (in this case, “sunrise”) is symbolic for spiritual or other knowledge. The passage can therefore be reasonably interpreted to mean that if while defending your home you have the means not to kill the attacker and remain entirely safe, you are morally obligated to take that course. Understandably, it can be difficult to picture such a situation; but the point is that it is not always necessary to use lethal force in self-defense.

In using this passage we should note that though the Bible says the person is “struck so that he dies” it does not say what he is struck with (club, sword, fist, etc). The means of defense is not as important as long as you defend. If God intended to prohibit self-defense by certain means (though shalt not use a torch) then He would have said so. And just as many lethal weapons are used with lethal consequences, not every person who is shot by a gun dies. In fact it is a minority. Nor does owning a weapon in such a case prove that the intent of the defender is to kill the aggressor. If this were true then every gun owner would be suspect of murderous intentions. Such an assumption violates rationality.

Conclusion
If history, social trends and political actions demonstrate anything about weapons control it is that it does not work. Responsible people, exercising their liberties in a responsible manner, maintain freedom.

In Times Square a tote board rolls of the number of gun deaths that occur every hour for the year. It presents a shocking picture of how violent our society has become. However, the tote board itself it misleading. That someone is killed with a gun does not make the death anymore tragic or wrong. It might have more impact on our reform-conscious society to change the Times tote board from gun deaths to “People killed by bad people.” At least this signifies the genuine problem that causes most of our other national difficulties – bad values. What we believe determines our values. Our values determine how we live. In desperate times we may simply find it necessary to get id of the bad people.

In Judges 17 through 21 Israel faced the exact same cultural, religious, and political degradation that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah over 400 years prior. The nation came to a decision: change their values immediately and get rid of the bad people, or face the judgment of God. In doing so they saved their nation, though in the process endured great pain and anguish that entering into such a necessity caused. Sin has terrible consequences.

As a society we need to train ourselves in the morality that stems from the Bible and a personal relationship with a loving God who requires that we view life realistically. David declared his faith in God before he slew the giant Goliath, but he also loaded his sack with rocks. That kind of common sense along with his dedication to righteousness propelled him to the kingship.

The day for turning our swords into plowshares won’t come until Jesus Christ returns and establishes His peace. Until then some of us will have to stay armed in an effort to offset the lack of values some people have. It’s a matter or protection; and f there’s a good reason to own a gun that’s probably the best one.