While this post is not going to discuss the ethics of Christians using violence to defend themselves and others, I am going to focus on discussing one point of interest in the debate that is currently swirling about gun control.
First, let me respond to the emotional reaction to Holmes using an "assault weapon". As any gun enthusiast can tell you, "assault weapons" are a made-up category, designed to bring to mind "assault rifles" which are the military grade weapons. The only thing that makes an AR-15 any different from my "harmless" Ruger 10/22 is that it fires slightly larger bullets (which are still significantly smaller than many other rifle bullets), and it looks scarier. Both are semi-automatic, both can fire quickly, both have box magazines, both are deadly, only one is considered an "assault weapon".
Second, as a standard rule, it is never good to act upon emotions. Nearly thirty people a day die from drunk drivers, but there are few mainstream media calls for Prohibition to be brought back. If we do not let those thirty people a day to emotionally impact us, then we should be careful about letting our emotions get carried away by twelve deaths.
Now, most argue that if the laws were different, Holmes would not have been able to acquire the weapons which he used. This may or may not be true. What I am more interested in is this: they (such as this post) claim that even if there had been a CHL holder in the audience, he would have been unable to harm Holmes, since Holmes was wearing body armor. But they don't think about the last part of that phrase. Why not ban the vest? Contrary to popular opinion, CHL holders are not wild-eyed vigilantes, who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Rather, they are trained (both by the required course, as well as additional individual training, typically), responsible citizens. Now, would it have been difficult for a CHL to stop Holmes? Certainly. In fact, in a pistol vs. rifle match, it is almost certain that the CHL would be killed. But having someone shoot back would at least have shaken up Holmes, and maybe distracted him long enough for someone else to tackle him. But you know what would really have evened the odds? If Holmes had not been able to purchase a ballistic vest.
People will acquire illegal items. Neither outlawing the gun, nor the ballistic vest, will prevent something like Aurora from happening. But people want to feel like they are doing something to prevent this type of thing from happening again. But if you want to ban something, instead of starting the slippery slope which would eventually disarm those who would protect themselves (and firearms were banned at the theater, even though CO allows CHLs, which just disarmed those who wound up being victims), why not ban the thing which protected Holmes from citizens defending themselves? And why not give the citizens a fair chance of defending themselves?
SIDE NOTE: In April, a massacre in Aurora (same town) was prevented when the gunman was shot by a church-goer, who happened to be an off-duty police officer.
First, let me respond to the emotional reaction to Holmes using an "assault weapon". As any gun enthusiast can tell you, "assault weapons" are a made-up category, designed to bring to mind "assault rifles" which are the military grade weapons. The only thing that makes an AR-15 any different from my "harmless" Ruger 10/22 is that it fires slightly larger bullets (which are still significantly smaller than many other rifle bullets), and it looks scarier. Both are semi-automatic, both can fire quickly, both have box magazines, both are deadly, only one is considered an "assault weapon".
Second, as a standard rule, it is never good to act upon emotions. Nearly thirty people a day die from drunk drivers, but there are few mainstream media calls for Prohibition to be brought back. If we do not let those thirty people a day to emotionally impact us, then we should be careful about letting our emotions get carried away by twelve deaths.
Now, most argue that if the laws were different, Holmes would not have been able to acquire the weapons which he used. This may or may not be true. What I am more interested in is this: they (such as this post) claim that even if there had been a CHL holder in the audience, he would have been unable to harm Holmes, since Holmes was wearing body armor. But they don't think about the last part of that phrase. Why not ban the vest? Contrary to popular opinion, CHL holders are not wild-eyed vigilantes, who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Rather, they are trained (both by the required course, as well as additional individual training, typically), responsible citizens. Now, would it have been difficult for a CHL to stop Holmes? Certainly. In fact, in a pistol vs. rifle match, it is almost certain that the CHL would be killed. But having someone shoot back would at least have shaken up Holmes, and maybe distracted him long enough for someone else to tackle him. But you know what would really have evened the odds? If Holmes had not been able to purchase a ballistic vest.
People will acquire illegal items. Neither outlawing the gun, nor the ballistic vest, will prevent something like Aurora from happening. But people want to feel like they are doing something to prevent this type of thing from happening again. But if you want to ban something, instead of starting the slippery slope which would eventually disarm those who would protect themselves (and firearms were banned at the theater, even though CO allows CHLs, which just disarmed those who wound up being victims), why not ban the thing which protected Holmes from citizens defending themselves? And why not give the citizens a fair chance of defending themselves?
SIDE NOTE: In April, a massacre in Aurora (same town) was prevented when the gunman was shot by a church-goer, who happened to be an off-duty police officer.
