Also posted on The Coalition of the Brave.

In my previous post on this subject, I asked the author of Theology Archaeology a few questions. Shall we see if he answered them in his reply, and whether his answers actually addressed the questions, or indeed anything I wrote? As before, where he has quoted me, I shall place that text in red. I’m also going to place in bold text questions and points of note for him to answer.

MM has responded again to our post and again he misses the point. He is a one-note objector, ignoring all the facts and pushing his solitary solution. The biggest question is he lives in Britain, why is he so concerned about what happens in America?

I have not pushed solutions. I have repeatedly pointed out that other countries of a similar social and economic level to the USA have enacted various forms of gun control, and these measures mean gun crime and gun murders are considerably less frequent on those countries. No two countries of the ones I originally spoke about (the UK, Germany, Japan, France etc) have the same gun control laws, though all have consistent laws at a national level. The question he asks is utterly pointless and typical of someone playing obtuse games. I can comment on anything I want to comment on. Whilst he may wish to silence me, he can’t.

The problem MM and his friend JD have are that they think their opposition to gun ownership is the only view that matters. That is typical of democrats, leftists, liberals, and progressives. They decide they do not like something thus they feel that everyone must obey their demands.

This is troubling, for it is evidence that the author of Theology Archaeology, who claims to hold a degree, who once taught English to students in the Far East, and who at one point was offering freelance writing services, struggles with comprehension. I challenge him to demonstrate exactly where I claim my view is the only one that matters. Meanwhile, perhaps he should re-examine his own, rather hypocritical position, for he, like many fundamentalists, has claimed on many occasions that only his positions and views should taken seriously – indeed, he treats his position as the ‘truth’, and expects everyone else to fall in line with his ‘truth’.

Meanwhile, the author completely ignored this query of mine:

I will return to a point I raised in my previous post. Would the author consider it unfair that laws exist to prevent people from drink-driving? Is that not a form of controlling what others can or cannot do?

I wonder if he will display any conviction and answer it this time…

They insult responsible gun owners, blame Christians for promoting it, and feel that they get to decide for everyone else. if no one agrees with them then it is not MM or JD who are wrong but those that disagree with them. That is not the right attitude to have.

We will point out that during the life of Jesus he only forced people to do what he wanted ONE TIME. That was when the money changers were desecrating the temple of his Father.

Every other time, Jesus left all issues up to free choice. Something that MM and JD do not do. They are free not to own guns and no one will think less of them. They need to extend the same courtesy to those who do own guns.

Insulting gun owners and accusing them of crimes they have not committed is not how you win friends or influence people. It is how you build opposition to your viewpoint.

Another set of character assassinations and misleading, dishonest claims. Again, where have I claimed my view is the only one that matters? Why is the author so outraged that Jill and myself point out statistical facts regarding gun violence? Why would he gladly impose arbitrary rules and laws based on Christianity upon others, yet feels laws to make things safer are unfair and demonstrate a lack of courtesy? By his logic, every law regarding safety is unfair, for it is a form of imposing rules upon others. This is a point I raised before and a point he overlooked. I wonder if he will address it this time?

Moreover, I have not accused gun owners of crimes. I have not accused Christians of promoting gun crimes. These baseless claims need to be either withdrawn or substantiated, for they are libellous, and in a legal setting, the author would find himself in deep trouble. He should count himself fortunate he is not in a legal setting.

Nor am I interested in what Jesus did. I am interested in the arguments and actions of the author and other fundamentalist Christians like him. They would love to strip away the rights of others in the name of their faith. Some have even gone as far as to campaign for government office to do exactly that. This is radically different to introducing laws that would protect people from danger, a distinction the author of Theology Archaeology can’t or won’t even try to understand.

It is a statistical fact that in the US, guns kill far more people than any other form of weapon.

So? It is the weapon of choice these days. Back in our youth, when bike gangs held rumbles, they did not bring guns. They brought baseball bats, chains, knives, and other similar weapons.

Using a gun was showing a lack of courage. Only a coward used a gun in a rumble. Yet we never heard that baseball bats, chains, and knives killed people. it was always the person wielding those weapons that were accused.

The same goes for guns. While MM trashes the argument that guns do not kill people, he continues to push the illogical concept that guns kill people.

Guns have no ability to think, they cannot decide to kill anyone. Nor can they manipulate anyone into picking them up and using them to kill someone they do not like. That is a human’s job and they do it under the influence of evil.

No matter what MM or JD says, gun violence is a spiritual problem and the only thing in this world that can have a spiritual problem are humans.

I’m not interested in his personal anecdotes. They’re irrelevant. I could have worded my statement better to read as ‘guns make it a lot easier to kill people’, but trust the author to latch on to a nit-pick and ignore all the evidence that demonstrates guns are used in more murders than any other form of weapon in the USA. Moreover, guns have consistently been used in more murders over a course of several years. Why does the author believe that to be the case? Does he believe there is absolutely no correlation between the ease of access to deadly weapons and the fact that these weapons are used in 75% of all US murders?

Montana saw an 84% increase in its homicide rate over the last couple of years. Montana has some of the weakest gun control laws in the US.

Gun laws or the lack thereof, do not motivate people to use guns in a commission of a crime.MM is beating a dead horse here as even robbers know that they get a lighter sentence if they do not use a gun when committing a theft.

Laws have nothing to do with gun violence. It is the people who make the decisions that have everything to do with gun violence. BUT MM and JD continue to target the wrong issues and source of the problem.

Firstly, note that the author quietly omits sharing the link and facts that demonstrate how the most dangerous US states in terms of murder also have some of the weakest gun control laws. To quote myself:

Missouri is another state with weak gun control laws and it is also the most dangerous state in terms of homicides. Louisiana is second on the list and also has very weak gun laws. The same is true of the third state on the list, Alabama.

So the author’s assertion that stricter laws make things worse isn’t backed up by reality, and the comparison of different nations would ruin his argument anyway.

Notice that the author has not responded to this point, which is boldened for him to respond to. Whilst he’s doing that, he can also address a few other points…

So the author’s assertion that stricter laws make things worse isn’t backed up by reality, and the comparison of different nations would ruin his argument anyway.

Actually, it is backed up by reality, it is just that MM won’t admit it. His continual appeal to other nations only further distorts the issues. Those nations do not have the same constitution, the same concept of freedom, or the same mentality that Americans have.

His arguments are distorting the issue and only make guns the offender. That is wrong. You will not solve the gun violence issue by distorting the situation or forcing those who disagree with you to follow your ways.

I challenge the author to demonstrate precisely how I am distorting the issue and how his argument is backed up by the facts, given all the statistics and evidence provided thus far.

Anti-gun advocates are not God and their will is not to be obeyed. They need to learn that they are not in charge and that freedom applies in all directions.

As Christians, we need to bring the truth to the issue and call out those who are more like dictators than human beings living in a republic or a democracy. MM & JD as well as other anti-gun enthusiasts are just wrong in their attitude and campaigns.

They are not Christians and they do not bring any Christian argument to their point of view. It is all personal preference and nothing else. They are committing a greater sin as they falsely accuse honest gun owners of committing crimes they had not even thought of doing.

The Bible tells us that we are to do to others as we would like to be treated. A verse we use quite often as it applies to almost every aspect of life. In MM’s and JD’s treatment of gun owners, we are concluding that they desire to be forced to go to church and convert to Christianity.

After all, they are forcing others to follow their demands and point of view. Those two and others who are anti-gun do not have the solution to gun violence. Only Christ does and Christ can get to the heart of the source and remove it.

Nicki Cruz is one prime example. MM and JD only want to force their views on others and that does not solve the source of why people kill others or use guns to commit crimes.

They are deceived, blind people who cannot know the truth and they bring more problems to the world because they have no concept of what the solution entails.

They hate Christ so they ignore the only solution to the problem. But then they think they know more than God and that arrogance is their downfall.  As we said, we do not own guns but we do not try and stop others from owning guns.

They have a better purpose than killing humans. It is just easier to use a gun than say a knife, baseball bat, or chains. And more cowardly. People are free to make their own decisions and the first decision they need to make is- to obey God or not?

If you obey God, you can own a gun but you do not use it for committing sin, which is what crime is. Gun violence is a spiritual issue only.

A string of further character assassinations and lies, none of which go even one step towards addressing the facts and evidence. Let us bring all the questions and points of address to one place, so the author can address them:

I challenge him to demonstrate exactly where I claim my view is the only one that matters.

Would the author consider it unfair that laws exist to prevent people from drink-driving? Is that not a form of controlling what others can or cannot do?

Why does the author believe that to be the case? Does he believe there is absolutely no correlation between the ease of access to deadly weapons and the fact that these weapons are used in 75% of all US murders?

So the author’s assertion that stricter laws make things worse isn’t backed up by reality, and the comparison of different nations would ruin his argument anyway.

I challenge the author to demonstrate precisely how I am distorting the issue and how his argument is backed up by the facts, given all the statistics and evidence provided thus far.

Five points to address. Let’s see if he addresses them, or continues to be obtuse and misleading.

Please follow and like us:

2

0

20