abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by John Kistler

The January/February 1995 issue of The Christian Statesman included Andrew Schep's article, "Out of the Gun Control Closet." Citing traumatic personal experiences and alarmist statistics (from rather biased liberal sources), he concluded that the state "can protect thousands by restricting the availability of firearms." I wish to challenge Mr. Schep's purportedly "Christian" conclusions on this issue.

Since it is the biblical or Christian arguments which are of most import to us, I will save those for last. Let me touch first on the more practical/specific political thoughts which Andrew posited.

1. Mr. Schep wrote that he is angry because he hears "good people defending the right of every irresponsible jackass to bear arms." I have been part of some pretty conservative groups and discussions, and I have NEVER heard such a statement or desire aired. The National Rifle Association ("the OTHER NRA"), which opposes many gun-control laws, does not defend the right of criminals or irresponsibles to bear arms. In fact, that NRA promotes stiffer penalties on felonious gun use, and provides free training for gun-owners to improve safety. Mr. Schep is mutilating a straw man here.

2. Mr. Schep says that the state obviously has a right to restrict guns because it obviously has a right to restrict nuclear weapons. In other words, if I have the right to own a gun, I must also have the right to own a nuke, and since we don't want Mr. Jones to have a nuke next door, we also cannot want Mr. Jones to have a gun next door! I, however, believe that the state is right to ban nukes in neighborhoods, but not guns. Why? Because a nuclear weapon is not a device that can be used in protecting yourself or your family. In fact, the use of a nuclear device would instantly vaporize you, your family, your pets, and your possessions. Such is not a responsible form of self-defense, rather it is a form of self-murder and genocide. The government rightly regulates such items. The nuclear weapons argument is attacking a ridiculous position which no one believes ...another straw man.

3. At one point, Mr. Schep says that he only wants tougher screening and licensing of firearms, not a total ban on them. People in full possession of their mental, physical, and emotional faculties (he says) would still be able to purchase and possess a gun. However, in the next paragraphs he goes about trying to prove that it is "ordinary people" who lose their temper and start shooting, and "if guns were hard to get" perhaps lives would be saved. If Andrew is right, and it is the normal, ordinary people who are doing the killing with guns, then his tough screening idea would be a waste of time. Really, then, ordinary folk cannot be trusted with firearms, and thus only a ban-style of gun control would be useful.

4. Andrew writes, "A nation that is held hostage to terrorists in its own cities is not enjoying much in the way of freedom." Quite right! And how exactly is taking away a freedom (of ordinary citizens to bear arms for self-defense) going to counter these terrorists? Terrorists are generally well- armed criminals, and the reason they are dangerous is because most civilians are not well-armed. Andrew often cites statistics to say that gun- related deaths are more numerous than all deaths in 20^th century wars. So we are at war. If we are at war (with gun-toting felons), is disarmament a wise policy?

Now for the biblical arguments made by Mr. Schep.

The only "Christian"/"biblical" idea which Andrew used to defend his gun control desire was that of the role of government, "...[G]overnments do exist on this wicked planet to restrain sin and promote peace and safety for law-abiding folks." Also, "In the Bible we read that the state is entrusted by God with the power of the sword.... It follows that the state can and should control the sword, and protect its citizens from those who are not authorized to brandish it."

There are a number of assumptions in Andrew's interpretation of Romans 13:4 and the role of government with which I cannot agree. The most basic question is this: does the statement that rulers "bear not the sword in vain" really prove that no one but a ruler can own a sword? God has granted powers of law and order on governments. Individuals do give up their rights of vengeance and punishment of evildoers to the governmental system of justice. However, I contend that giving up the right of personal vengeance does not in any manner remove our responsibility to protect ourselves, our families, and our neighbors against evildoers.

I worked as a policeman for a couple of years. I carried a gun. It was my duty to protect and serve my community. But I was not omnipresent. I was rooted by gravity and physics to one location at a time. I could not protect everyone. Despite the generally local presence of police, people must continue to protect themselves to a great degree. I called the police just last month for a violent event, and waited 45 minutes before the first officer arrived! God has charged people to defend each other--especially family members, neighbors, and even animals of your households! Since criminals have guns (in many cases), responsible people may need similar force to protect those under his/her care. (Andrew decries guns over knives because guns can kill from a distance. Yes! That is what guns are for--to stop your attacker at a safe distance. It is the use made of the tool which is good or evil, not the existence of the tool itself.)

In short, I do not think that Andrew Schep built a solid case for gun control either biblically or practically. Actually, I think it is easier to build a case for mandatory gun-ownership than to build a case for banning guns! Can you obey God and keep your loved ones safe without a gun? Perhaps. Some areas of the nation are safer than others. Some people pool resources to hire extra security guards and install sophisticated alarm systems. The whole arguments boils down, on every level, to responsibility. We are responsible to protect ourselves and those under our charge. We must use any devices of self-protection with caution and responsibility. Fear should never motivate us to dodge our responsibilities. Paralyzing fear says "someone else must protect me." Wisdom says that our responsibility to protect cannot be wholly delegated to anyone outside ourselves. Justice may be delegated, but do not for a moment think that you can delegate all of your responsibilities over to the state. Such thoughts are best left in the closet.

John Kistler resides in Pittsburgh, PA, and is a member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.

back to top