Guns and Spirituality P4

In my previous post on this subject I raised five points/questions for the author of Theology Archaeology to answer. Let’s see how he responded.

My first point was ‘I challenge him to demonstrate exactly where I claim my view is the only one that matters.’

He did not address this at all. 0/1.

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?

On this he actually answered:

First off, he questions our English teaching career. Well, he shouldn’t as his question is badly worded. It is not ‘drink-driving’ but ‘drinking & driving’ or ‘drunk driving’.

Secondly, we have taken great pains to point out that there is no command banning gun ownership in the Bible. We have commands on how to conduct our gun ownership but none that bans that practice.

On the other hand, we have many commands and instructions to not be drunk, to drink, and so on. Here is a link to those verses. That makes the world of difference in these two issues.

Third, the laws governing gun ownership are unjust because they assume everyone is guilty, even the innocent. Punishing those innocent responsible and honest gun owners is wrong and uncalled for.

Fourth, laws against drunk driving are not punishing all drivers. They do not harm the innocent, responsible and honest driver. If they do not drink, they are not punished.

But we do not expect either MM or BG to grasp this difference. There is nothing wrong with creating laws preventing drunk driving because drunk drivers are a danger to everyone in the vicinity.

Most gun owners are not a threat or a danger to anyone.

He starts out with an irrelevant nit-pick. Not a great start. Secondly, he falls back on Biblical advice – which is also not relevant. Gun control laws did not assume everyone’s guilt – by that logic, any law that regulates anything remotely dangerous assumes everyone’s guilt. If a gun owner is responsible, they will not be punished by gun control laws.

We can expand this concept. In the US, Kinder Eggs were banned for many years as being potentially hazardous to children. Meanwhile, in many states, people can buy semi-automatic assault rifles. Why are there laws designed to protect children from a harmless snack, yet not from people armed to the teeth with the intent of shooting up schools?

Since he answered, I’ll give him a point. 1/2.

MM keeps trying to challenge us to point out where he distorts the issues. The next quote will provide the evidence for that fact:

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?

Both of his points are grand distortions. First, ease of access is a moot point. Most criminals do not get their guns through legal channels. Laws do not impact their ease of access to weapons.

They only impact the law-abiding citizen who has no intention of committing a crime. While it may be true that guns are used 75% of the time in murders, that does not mean that 75% of all gun owners commit murder.

But that is the reality MM hopes people will ignore. Then that figure does not mean that those guns used in those murders were bought legally. Those guns could have come from anywhere.

Once again I must question the author’s comprehension. He has not addressed my question at all. Ease of access to guns is not the same as discussing whether or not those guns were acquired legally, though I must point out that in a country that manufactures a lot of guns and sells a lot of guns, it is inevitable that some guns purchased legally will filter through to others with intent to do harm. The fact remains, guns are easy to get hold of.

Secondly, the author is indulging in being misleading. I did say anything about gun owners committing crimes. I merely pointed out that 75% of US murders involve guns. The author is invoking the Red Herring Fallacy to avoid addressing the obvious link between widespread access to guns and a high murder percentage involving guns.


MM is not proving his case but showing that he is a great distorter because he manipulates stats and facts to fit his narrative and his preferences. Again we will say that if he, JD & BG do not want to own guns, they do not have to buy one.

But they have no right to ban others from owning guns. As the popular verse says, do unto others as you would like to be treated (paraphrased) we conclude that BG, MM & JD want to be banned from owning things they like.

But that is the way it is with leftists, liberals, progressives, and democrats. They force you to follow their will instead of letting people enjoy the same freedoms they are enjoying.

The author is flat-out lying. As I have already explained, gun control does not have to equate to a ban! I point this out and… he repeats his rant about gun bans. Whilst it may be true that some of us might want to ban guns, it does not equate to forcing this desire upon people, unlike the religious right, which routinely demands conformity. Indeed, as I have mentioned to the author already, Jill has stated her position – whilst she might like to ban guns, she recognises this is not possible. I have lost track of the number of times I have pointed this out. Do I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is not lying, merely struggling to comprehend this instead?

By the way, at the start of his post, he said the following:

We do not like talking with atheists that much. Even though we use their words as teaching points, we found that having a discussion with them is useless and a waste of time.

They keep claiming ‘prove this’, ‘prove that’ or ‘prove it’ even though they have not proven the very elementary elements of their arguments. We also do not like to respond to their challenges. Those are traps we like to stay out of.

I’m not an atheist, something I have pointed out before. Additionally, he has a fear of evidence, as demonstrated by his unwillingness to prove any of his claims to any meaningful degree. The two points he failed to address were:

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.

So he’s 1/5 in terms addressing my questions/points.

Please follow and like us: