top of page
Writer's pictureBible Brian

A brief overview of why I think Christians should all be pro-gun



Warning: The following article discusses topics some readers may find distressing. This includes:

  • Rape

  • Suicide

  • Mass violence

Please read with caution, and seek professional help if you are affected by topics discussed. Thank you for your attention.


Before I begin this article, I first want to give a preamble. Initially, I was hesitant to write it, and the original draft, which was effectively deleted and re-written, sat in the Bible Brain drafts section for nearly two years. The reason for this hesitation is not a lack of confidence. I firmly believe regular civilians have the absolute right to keep and bear arms, and that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest pieces of weapon-related legislation mankind has ever drafted. I would love to see it not only renewed in the U.S., but applied almost everywhere on Earth, especially in my native country, the UK.


My hesitation to publish this article comes primarily from the fact that there is a difference between a Biblical truth (also called a "doctrine"), and any other category of truth. There are many extra-Biblical truths to which a Christian can, and arguably should hold. You can't make a doctrine out of the shape of the Earth, for example, because the Bible doesn't say what shape it is. Therefore, I can't run around telling my fellow Christians "the Bible says the Earth is round, so you should too!" Is the Earth round? Yes. Can I prove it? Absolutely. Do I believe God Himself is a round earther, and would prefer His children also be? Without a shadow of a doubt. But I cannot say, with any degree of confidence, that the round Earth is the Biblical position, and I certainly can't divide the Church over it. Nevertheless, I can say Christians should believe the Earth is round.


With certain political issues, I absolutely can say "this is the Christian position". I have, for example, written some rather lengthy articles discussing the morality of abortion and homosexuality. There are Biblical views on these topics, and anyone, even a genuine Christian, is opposing the Christian faith if they depart from them.


The gun issue is a primarily political issue, but the case for it is not primarily Biblical. I believe there is a Biblical foundation for it, I believe God Himself is pro-gun, and I have next to no respect for the anti-gun position (though of course I respect the people who hold it). I cannot, however, make a doctrine out of this, nor can I say those who oppose the right to keep and bear arms are in direct conflict with the Christian faith. I do believe they are horribly and embarrassingly wrong, but I cannot say my view is the one and only Biblical viewpoint. Thus, while I have no issue discussing the topic in a non-ministerial capacity, I do have to ask whether Bible Brain is the right place to be having these discussions?


As I shall go on to discuss, a greater problem with this discussion is the actual offence it may cause some people, in some cases even justifiably so. It is possible to be objectively wrong, yet still have good reason to be emotional. Yet, as Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 6:3, "We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed." This, ultimately, leads me to question the wisdom of writing a defence of the right to keep and bear arms on Bible Brain, specifically. From previous articles where the topic is addressed, I think it's abundantly clear that we are a pro-gun ministry in the background, but is bringing it to the foreground really worth the offence and possible division it may cause?


Initially, I brought this internal conflict to the Bible Brain Facebook page, and it seems there is at the very least some demand for an article of this kind. Furthermore, while I am adept at presenting the secular case, I actually can make a strong Biblical case for my position. I can certainly make a stronger case than the anti-gunners I have discussed this with, whom I believe abuse Scripture in their own cases. This abuse of Scripture certainly needs correction, especially as such attitudes are rarely limited to a single, tertiary issue. Thus, I have decided to trust that the Bible Brain audience are reasonable people, who will judge both the article, and the ministry, on their merits. Those who intentionally take offence, and especially who divide the body over a tertiary issue, will do so regardless, but it is my hope and prayer that in the end, I will have at the very least contributed to a fruitful discussion. Therefore, I will hold back no longer, and this article will be published.


Offence on both sides


One particular difficulty in discussing the gun issue is that there are "wounded parties" on both sides of the issue, each with justifiable reasons to be emotionally invested. Because of this, it is inevitable that whatever position you express, someone will be offended. So who do you offend, and how do we determine this Biblically?


As we've already seen in 2 Corinthians 6:3, ideally, the answer is no one. You don't want to offend someone, particularly if their feelings are valid, lest that reflect poorly on the faith. This, again, is why I was hesitant to write this article. But actually, offense is taken, not given. Thus, as long as you're not being intentionally offensive, you're not actually in violation of this principle. But offence is often inevitable, both because people may have reason to be offended, and because some people will be offended simply for sake of it. When offence is inevitable, I believe the only sensible option is to risk offending those who are objectively wrong.


To justify this belief, I am going to cite a particular Scripture, but I must ask that you not jump the gun (pun intended). I almost certainly do not mean what anti-gunners would immediately think I mean.


In Matthew 15:12-14, we read "Then His disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”"


Now, as I said, please do not misunderstand me. I am not comparing anti-gunners to Pharisees, and I am certainly not saying they are plants the Father will uproot. Not that there are no shady characters on the anti-gun side. You only need to look at Joe Biden to know not every anti-gunner has pure intentions. But I would suggest your average anti-gunner is a good person with pure motives.


However, what this verse shows us is that even when there is no "other" party who would be offended by the opposite stance, it is always ok to offend the errant. In this case, the opposite stance would have been a defence of Old Testament dietary laws - a position which absolutely would not have offended the Pharisees, nor anyone present. Yet, Jesus preached the truth, regardless of who He knew would be offended.


In the case of the right to keep and bear arms, whichever position you take, there are "other" parties who will be offended. If you defend guns, you'll upset anti-gunners. If you oppose guns, you'll offend pro-gunners. But offence need not mean the truth must keep silent. With this in mind, it is all the more acceptable to give offence to the errant.


But even the errant may have reason for their offence. See, while guns are not the devil devices they are so often framed as, it cannot be denied that they are designed, primarily, as weapons, and that weapons can be abused. Many people all over the world have been murdered, or wounded, by guns in the wrong hands. When that affects you, it is both natural and justifiable to be upset, and your emotions may well be misdirected against the guns.


Nowhere is this more prominent than the issue of mass shootings. Mass shootings, particularly those taking place in schools, are a common talking point in the gun debate, and are often the default argument anti-gunners will bring up. Suffice to say, the emotions behind this issue are justified. Regardless of whether you are personally affected by a mass shooting, every life lost is a tragedy. In fact, Scripture tells us God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11), which means actually, as hard as it is to stomach, even the shooter's lives are valuable.


But the thing about mass shootings is that those who experience them often come out on opposite sides of the gun debate. It makes a lot of sense to say "I wish the shooter didn't have a gun", but the flip side of that is "I wish the victims did".


One example of the latter is Eagles of Death Metal singer Jesse Hughes, who survived the infamous Paris attacks in 2015. These attacks claimed 130 lives (1), including Hughes' own merchandise manager, Nick Alexander (2), in spite of France's strict gun laws.


In an interview following the attack, the clearly (and justifiably) emotional singer, choking back tears, asked "Did your French gun control stop a single f**** person from dying at the Bataclan? And if anyone can answer yes, I’d like to hear it, because I don’t think so. I think the only thing that stopped it was some of the bravest men that I’ve ever seen in my life charging head-first into the face of death with their firearms." (3).


Hughes was actually at the Bataclan, where 89 of the Paris Attack victims were killed. Luckily for him, he was able to flee, but rather than becoming anti-gun because of his experience, Hughes concluded "until no one has guns, everyone should have them".


Suffice to say, mass shooting survivors like Jesse Hughes would be just as offended by the anti-gun position as anti-gunners would be by pro-gun arguments. Thus, I hope that even anti-gunners will understand that they do not have a monopoly on the emotional aspect. Both sides have reason to be offended. Thus, as should be the case with all issues, emotions should be removed, and facts should be the primary focus.


Beware Headline logic


Even as Christians, serving the God of truth, we need not assume we are immune to deception. We do, however, have a responsibility to actively resist it wherever possible. Scripture tells us to "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." (1 Peter 5:8). This, he will do in a number of ways, not merely attacking major truths, like the Gospel, but even gradually cutting us down with smaller lies. In fact, Jesus says the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44), and thus, when lies are present, and especially where they are prevalent, we may reasonably assume the devil is involved.


Knowing how powerful and dangerous an enemy the devil is, we should be as familiar with his tactics as possible. Scripture commands us to test all things and hold on to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and to take pleasure in understanding rather than expressing our own opinions (Proverbs 18:2). It also tells us that when we are ignorant of a given issue, there is the appearance of wisdom in silence (Proverbs 17:28).


The modern age does not lend itself well to this. It does, of course, have some advantages. Going back in time, we did not always have easy access to information. We didn't always have search engines, audible ebooks, or even easy access to educational institutions. But a major disadvantage of our time is that anyone can say anything, and no one seems to have the time for due diligence.


Sadly, this includes the very institutions that should be duly diligent. Objectively speaking, the job of the media is to provide the audience with sufficient information to draw their own conclusions. But far too often, the conclusion is pre-drawn, and that pre-drawn conclusion is presented as the unbiased truth.


To demonstrate this, I'm about to show you a biased headline. Remember at the outset, the headline is biased. Try not to let it affect your viewpoint. The headline is "How gun deaths became as common as traffic deaths". This is a real headline from a real article by The Washington Post (4). Now, from the headline alone, what is the impression the average reader will get? An inescapable conclusion is that gun and traffic deaths have converged in some way. But by saying "how gun deaths became...", the headline implies the most significant change in stats is in gun deaths.


You might not think it, but headlines alone are very important. Aside from the fact it's the thing the audience is most likely to read, and will likely use to determine if they even want to read the full article, we have known for a long time that first impressions really do matter.


In order to find out exactly how much they matter, one psychologist, Ullrich Ecker, performed a study in which he presented several test subjects with four articles, with the headline being the only shifting variable (5). The study shows that a headline actually alters both how people read an article, and what information they retain from it.


On top of this, headlines have been shown to permanently alter the perspective of the reader. In a subsequent study, Ecker and his colleagues presented the subjects with articles wherein the headline would, or would not, match the attached image. The subjects were then asked to rate the faces that they had seen based on attractiveness, trustworthiness, dominance, and aggression. The headlines constantly, and irreversibly, affected these ratings. Even when the truth was revealed, the headline alone had permanently altered how the subjects assess a human face.


You see, then, how a biased headline like "How gun deaths became as common as traffic deaths" will likely give readers the impression that guns are a growing threat in the U.S.A., and that this impression will be very difficult to fix. But as the article itself would go on to admit in the second paragraph, "The trend was driven largely by the sharp drop in the rate of traffic fatalities, a result of a series of laws and safety measures aimed at making driving safer. Gun homicide rates also have fallen in recent years, but have been offset by the rising prevalence of suicides. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths." (Emphasis added).


The result is the graph shown here, which was taken from the very same article. This is not the impression you would get from either the headline, nor the article's first paragraph. Yet, it is the truth. Motor vehicles have always been the more dangerous object - a fact anti-gunners struggle to wrestle with. But anti-gunners frame their arguments to make it appear guns are the bigger threat.


Now, for this particular section, this is where I want to leave the car/gun comparison, as that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that it is extremely easy to manipulate the general public, of which you are a part, with nothing more than a well-designed headline. Even if you are a Christian, do not assume you are immune to such deception, as though your mind works differently than any other human being's, or God will automatically protect you from being taken for a mug. It is up to you to "be sober, be vigilant", and do your due diligence. And I believe a major part of the problem is that anti-gunners, most often, do not.


Other forms of manipulation


Of course, it goes beyond mere headlines. Not to downplay the power of a headline, but suffice to say, anti-gunners don't just settle for a misleading headline and tell the truth the rest of the time. You may have noticed an example above. Note how the Washington Post article admits "Gun homicide rates also have fallen in recent years, but have been offset by the rising prevalence of suicides. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths."


Note how suicides are still included in the statistics. Suicides are certainly tragic, and we should prevent them where possible. But, it can't be denied they are an entirely different category of death. Suicide, by definition, is always a choice. It's one thing to be afraid you might get shot against your will, but it's quite irrational to be afraid your own intentions might inexplicably change if you gained access to weapons.


This is one of many things to consider when we hear the oh so terrifying statistics on how many gun deaths there are in the U.S. As the saying goes, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". The origins of that particular quote is unknown, but it certainly holds true. Aside from including suicides, these statistics are padded out in a number of ways.


In particular, it's important to note that the U.S.A., while it is a single nation, is made up of 50 individual states, each very different from one another. It is often said that each state may as well be its own country, which makes perfect sense, as the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, each state in the U.S. has almost as much sovereignty as any other country to make its own laws. The only exceptions are when the Constitution explicitly gives those powers to the federal government, or denies them to the states. Ironically, even in these cases, every state, and even the federal government itself, has violated the 2nd amendment to some degree.


The result of this is that when you talk about gun deaths in the U.S.A., you're including both Constitutional Carry states, like Ohio, and states where gun laws are significantly less than American, like Illinois. This means the U.S. cannot be reasonably judged as a whole. But when we judge it on a state-by-state standard, the statistics align more with a pro-gun stance. Ohio, for example, implemented Constitutional Carry (the right to carry a gun without a permit) in June 2022, resulting in a radical decrease in gun violence in 6 of its 8 major cities (6). By contrast, Illinois is notoriously anti-gun, yet Chicago alone accounts for a significant portion of America's gun violence (7).


We see, then, how lumping the entire U.S. together is very helpful to the anti-gun lobby, but it's actually quite unfair. By contrast, judging individual states on their own merits tends to look good for pro-gunners. As Proverbs 18:17 tells us, "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." As Christians, we are supposed to be the examiners, and we must be particularly wary of this: The best of the devil's lies contain elements of truth. Therefore, we must be permanently on guard against manipulation such as this.


Aside from dividing gun stats by state, we should also divide them in other ways. Suicide is not the only factor we need to consider. We must also consider what's called "justifiable homicide". I don't want to jump the gun here, I will be discussing whether or not homicide is ever justifiable later in the article, but I think we can all agree that there must be a distinction between, for example, an innocent victim who gets shot during an armed robbery, and a rapist who gets shot in an attempt to commit rape. If you're not a rapist, you should never fear someone will shoot you for trying to rape them. But the statistics do not discriminate. They lump both together.


But gun deaths are not the only statistic worth looking at. In fact, I dare say they aren't helpful to us at all, given how easily both sides can finesse them for support. Might I suggest a vital stat to look at is defensive uses of firearms? After all, this is the central argument of the pro-gun side. It's simple: If we have the right to defence, and guns increase our defensive capabilities, then we have the right to keep and bear arms. But do the facts bear this out?


As it turns out, absolutely! One study that is frequently cited here was performed by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (8), which suggested around 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms occur in the U.S. every year. A more recent study from 2021 (9) gives a lower estimate: 1.6 million.


These estimations are quite fair, but to an anti-gunner, or even to a neutral party, it seems quite far fetched. We've all seen the movies, we've all played the videogames, we all know that when a gun comes out, someone always dies. Right?


Recently, I had some first hand experience of exactly how ridiculous this perception is. Growing up in England, I had never fired a gun, and had rarely even seen any (though I'll add, that doesn't mean never). But in May of 2024, two of my most beloved friends - two Americans - got married, and I had the privilege of attending that wedding in person. But not before they, the best man, and the people I was staying with, took me to the local shooting range. I fired a total of 13 guns that day, including two AR-15s, which is one of the most demonised guns in America. My British indoctrination meant up to this point, I still had

some residual misconceptions in my head. But with the experience I now have, I can personally testify that guns are nothing like they are portrayed, be it in movies, videogames, and especially anti-gun media. They are often difficult to hold, they can be hard to aim even at a still target, the recoil takes your aim off course, and they even have the capability of jamming up.


Why does this matter? Well, it matters first because it's reality. If you're basing your opinion on a fictional world, it doesn't matter whether you're pro or anti gun, you just don't have a realistic worldview, and your arguments aren't worth listening to. But back to the original point, the reality behind how firearms work explains why there can be such a high number of defensive uses, yet such a comparatively low number of deaths and injuries.


To begin with, the mere presence of a gun is often enough to deter an attacker. In fact, in roughly 81% of cases, the gun in question was never fired. And obviously, if no gun is fired, no gun injuries occur. Sometimes, shots are fired. Usually, a single shot is enough, with each subsequent shot becoming progressively less common. I don't have the stats on exactly how often a defender had to reload, but I would imagine it's not very high.


It's important to note, even when shots are fired, they often miss, assuming they were even fired at the attacker/s in the first place. And that's not just regular civilians. Even the police and military miss a large number of their shots. So it makes perfect sense that there would be 1.6 - 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms every year without significantly increasing the number of deaths or injuries.


But I actually like to steel man the anti-gun argument here by showing that even if we really want to ignore all of the above and discard the conservative estimates, it works out quite well for us as pro-gunners. Let's start out easy and reduce the conservative estimate to a mere 1 million. That's just to make the math easier for me, there is no good reason to ignore the 600,000 I just removed. Without good reason, chop the 1 million in half. What do we have? 500,000 defensive firearm uses per year. Chop it in half again. 250,000. Again. 125,000. One more time. 62,500. Chop it in half one more time and you finally come to 31,250 defensive uses of firearm in the U.S. every year, roughly equal to the number of firearm deaths per year (and that's including suicides and justifiable homicides). You see, then, just how vastly defensive uses of firearms outnumber gun deaths every year. Yet, this is not a statistic anti-gunners frequently acknowledge, simply because it is easier to persuade people guns are bad if you just reduce your claim to "guns kill this many people every year".


But guns aren't unique in lethality. As I already pointed out, vehicles have always been the bigger threat. This is perhaps the sneakiest thing anti-gunners do. Like a good magician, they misdirect your attention towards the guns, all the while concealing two simple facts: 1. Death is death whether by gun or other means, and 2. those who seek to kill are exactly as capable of using those other means.


My native country, the UK, exemplifies this spectacularly. While Brits tend to be quite boastful when it comes to the gun debate, we do have a major problem with violence. That does actually include gun violence, as guns are shockingly easy to obtain if you know how. At one point, you could even obtain a black market handgun for a mere £150 (10). I daren't taint my search history by looking for the price in the modern day, but as gun crime isn't taking any major hits, I'm willing to assume there haven't been any significant advancements in the enforcement of British gun control.


But it's not all about the guns. As I said, however you die, you are dead. A person who dies from a stab wound is exactly as dead as a person who dies from a gunshot, and I guarantee you, "at least I didn't have a gun" is no comfort to a murder victim. So, it's all well and good making the saddest possible case by focusing on school shootings in the U.S., but when we look at mass violence in general, what we find is that the U.S. is by no means unique. This is simply because those who are intent on doing violence will do so, and ultimately, while they do have ways of obtaining guns, they tend to just skip the trouble and use whatever happens to be available to them.


An obvious example of this is the London Bridge attack in June 2017 (11). Without firing a single shot, 3 Islamic terrorists murdered 8 people and injured several more. The most ironic thing? In the end, they were all shot. It turns out, not even the British government is so foolish as to entirely reject the value of guns. They just want them all to themselves, because they are selfish, greedy, pride-filled hypocrites.


Now, above, I effectively made a secular case against gun control, but that actually isn't the intended takeaway for this section. Rather, my intention is to demonstrate just how much manipulation there is on the anti-gun side, both exposing some of it directly, but also teaching you how to recognise it. Everything I have demonstrated can be applied to any other issue, and actually, while I of course contend there's a lot less deception on the pro-gun side, you can use the same logic to scrutinise the pro-gun position. My main point is that, as Christians, we need to be both aware of, and resistant to, manipulation tactics. As I said, the devil is the father of lies, and where we see such a huge collection of lies, we are wise to assume he has his reasons for them. As Peter says, we must be vigilant.


Statutory interpretation


Of course, the primary defence against the devil is to stick as closely to the word of God as a soldier would stick to his guns. Interestingly, this is a very Biblical analogy. Modernised, of course, but the Bible is filled with weapon-related imagery. The Bible is said to be "...sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12), and Ephesians 6:17 tells us to "...take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;".


Before you roll your eyes, I'm not going to take that too literally, as if every Christian in the world should be expected to have a sword on his belt. For this section, all I want to do is establish a foundation for the rest of my case, rather than making more specific arguments. In particular, I want to ask how do we interpret the Bible on this matter?


A particular challenge in our time is the major advances in technology of all kinds. The Apostles didn't have computers or cars. They didn't even have flushing toilets. Most relevant to us for this discussion, they didn't have guns. Thus, they didn't directly address them. This leaves us in an awkward position. What do we do about all of this modern technology the Apostles probably couldn't imagine?


Like with all modern questions, we look to the principles laid out in Scripture. Though the Bible does have a few straightforward rules that all but eradicate certain questions, it is primarily principle based. The Golden Rule, for example, is less of a rule, and more of a principle. "...just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise." (Luke 6:31). This doesn't tell us what, specifically, we must do to men. Rather, it gives us a filter for all possible scenarios.


The Bible has no direct command to carry, or avoid carrying weapons, at least not to all believers for all time. It does, however, lay down a number of principles by which we can assess the morality of doing so. If we understand these principles, we can assess who has the most Biblical worldview when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.


In college, I actually spent two years studying law, which gives me a particular perspective on Biblical hermeneutics. My favorite aspect of the subject was "statutory interpretation", the process by which the courts will interpret the law in order to apply it in a given case. While there is, of course, some disconnect between interpreting British law in the modern day and interpreting the Bible, there is also some overlap. In fact, it is quite demonstrable that Christ Himself used similar principles. In particular, He can be observed using the Golden Rule (which is distinct from the golden rule discussed above) and the Purposive Approach.


I've written more detailed articles on this topic before, so I won't go too deep here, but in short, there are four general approaches to interpreting the law: The Literal Rule, the Golden Rule, the Mischief Rule, and the Purposive Approach. The Literal Rule takes the law literally in all cases, regardless of the outcome. The Golden Rule does likewise, but does not do so when the outcome would be repugnant to the law (e.g. allowing a criminal to benefit from a crime, or severely punishing someone who obviously doesn't deserve it). The Mischief Rule seeks to assess what "mischief" the law is trying to get rid of. The Purposive Approach, similarly, seeks to establish what the purpose of the law is.


All of these approaches have their own strengths and weaknesses, especially when applied to man-made legislation. Though Scripture lacks the flaws of man-made legislation, it still requires interpretation on our end. It is up to us to diligently seek, and follow, God's intentions. These four rules are good standards by which we may do so, and as I say, Christ Himself can be seen using them.


An example of this can be seen in Mark 2, wherein Jesus discusses the Sabbath. The main text for the Sabbath is Exodus 20:8-11: "“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."


This is the fourth of the famous 10 commandments, and it outlines the doctrine of the Sabbath from a legal perspective. This law was both active and enforced during the time of Christ, and actually, more than it needed to be. In fact, in the modern day, the term "Sabbath Laws" is used as a description of the way Christians add things to Scripture, seeing it as a way of honoring God. Alcohol, for example. Drunkenness is sin, but alcohol itself is not. Thus, if a Christian makes a bunch of extra rules on when and what to drink, that might be called a "Sabbath law".


But in Mark 2, we see Jesus showing off His full authority when He and His disciples are criticised for disobeying the Sabbath. In Mark 2:23-28, we read "Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. And the Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” But He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?” And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”"


Notice how Jesus not only rebukes the Pharisee's overcompensation regarding the Sabbath, but actually applies both the Golden Rule and the Purposive Approach. Applying the Golden Rule, he reasons that David did break the law (Leviticus 24:5-9), but that there was good reason for doing so. In connection with this, Jesus uses the Purposive Approach: The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.


Jesus isn't alone. Paul also interprets the Old Testament law using the Purposive Approach. For example, when discussing Deuteronomy 25:4, "“You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.", Paul says "For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about?" (1 Corinthians 9:9). The law says not to muzzle an ox while it treads out grain, but Paul, under inspiration of God, tells us this isn't the purpose, only the literal application.


It is vital to be careful how one applies each of these approaches to the Bible, but with these examples in mind, we see that Jesus used them Himself, as did His Apostles. Thus, we can also study Scripture in this manner, being aware that it isn't just a long list of rules regarding the use of technology which hadn't been invented yet. Rather, it is a set of principles telling us how to live, and relate to God, and through these principles, it thoroughly equips us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).


The elephant in the room


Following this, we come to the elephant in the room: The 6th commandment, which is seemingly a blanket statement. In the KJV, it leaves little room for interpretation: "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13). If we, as Christians, are not permitted to kill, then how can we justify owning, carrying, or otherwise operating devices which are specially designed with this purpose in mind? At least, this is how Christian anti-gunners see this issue.


But it literally cannot be that simple, as is proven by the simple fact that God would follow this command up with a vast array of times when the Jews (who were regularly armed) were permitted, or even flat out required to kill. Three examples of the latter are idolatry (Deuteronomy 13:6-11), contempt of court (Deuteronomy 17:8-13), and persistently rebellious sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Each of these segments concludes with a simple concept: Once the offender has been killed, "...all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you." (Deuteronomy 13:11).


This is very similar to a central pro-gun concept: That criminals, who do not fear the police, must instead be taught to fear their victims. The pro-gun case is as much about preventing a crime as being able to respond to one when it occurs. As it turns out, this works fantastically in an armed society! One study, performed by two formerly anti-gun professors, confirms that criminals generally fear armed victims, and respond accordingly. In 1983, James Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed more than 1,800 criminals from various prisons in the U.S. (12). Their findings are as follows:


  • 88% affirmed that a criminal who wants a gun will get one.

  • 81% affirmed a smart criminal would check to see if their victim was armed.

  • 74% affirmed that burglars are less likely to rob occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.

  • 57% had encountered an armed victim.

  • 40% said they had been deterred from a specific crime because their victim was armed.

  • 57% also affirmed they were more scared of an armed victim than the police.

Prior to this study, both Wright and Rossi were anti-gun, but not surprisingly, this study changed their minds. Armed victims are absolutely a deterrent to violent crime, more so even than the police.


But there is quite the distinction between the state carrying out the death penalty, as in the verses I cited earlier, and a regular civilian killing another person. So even if the results speak for themselves, can we really take this fear principle into our own hands? Absolutely. In fact, the Old Testament even prescribes a vigilante-like system for cases of murder, in which a close relative of the victim would become the "avenger of blood". I do not advocate this particular system be replicated in modern society, but the fact that it existed at all shows that God is not opposed to civilians killing in certain scenarios. We just need to have a very clear idea of when these times are.


As I say, the avenger of blood system is not something I recommend replicating in the modern world. Sadly, this point cannot be stressed enough, as many anti-gunners do attempt to frame pro-gunners as would-be vigilantes. But this is a despicable straw man argument that just needs to die. There is a world of difference between avenging a crime that has happened - one of the legitimate roles of government (Romans 13:1-7) - and preventing yourself or a loved one from being a victim of a crime. The right to keep and bear arms is a matter of defence, not vengeance, and so the vigilante argument does not apply.


From a purely defensive point of view, the Bible does seem quite clear on the right to self defence. The most commonly cited example here is Exodus 22:1-4, where we read "“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double." (Emphasis added).


This is where the aforementioned purposive approach comes in very handy. What is God's concern here? Evidently, theft isn't the justification for killing, since the ideal is that the thief is captured alive, and restores double any property stolen. So, this passage isn't an excuse for civilians to run around killing thieves. The criteria is "if the sun has risen on him".


So what exactly are God's intentions in Exodus 22:1-4? Is it the sun God cares about? Surely not. It's not as if God expects lawful behavior during the day, but as soon as the sun goes down, it's the puuuuuuuuurge!


Clearly, the intention here is the level of threat posed by the thief. The thief himself has identical value during both night and day, but so does the homeowner. The crime is also equally sinful during both night and day. Theft doesn't become more evil during the night, nor does it suddenly become ok during the day.


But during the night, especially in a time before electric lights, a thief is significantly more dangerous than during the day. He cannot be as easily identified, his intentions are harder to discern, you might not even be able to tell if he's armed or not. Thus, when God says there is no bloodshed due for killing a thief caught breaking in, He is effectively advocating what we would call "castle doctrine". That is, you have no duty to retreat in your own home. It is evident, at least to me, that the intent of this passage is if it comes down to a sinner's life or his victim's, even if the victim is a private citizen, he has the right to do what is necessary to protect himself, his loved ones, and apparently, even his property.


One concern that often comes up in this case is what about the sinner's eternal destiny? If I die as a Christian, I know where I'm going. If I kill someone threatening my life, where does he go? The simplest answer to this, blunt though it is, is that this isn't a consideration that is ever even glanced at in Scripture. Scripture is filled to the brim with the death of evil men and women, yet Scripture stops just shy of presenting this as a good thing. While God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, rest assured He will kill them, occasionally even at the hands of His servants. Where is Goliath, for example? David didn't care that he will spend the rest of eternity paying for his crimes, he picked out 5 stones, and took Goliath down with one. This not only shows that David didn't consider Goliath's eternal destiny as a reason for showing mercy, but that he even considered it worth "overpreparing", carrying 5 times the amount of firepower he actually required. The modern equivalent would be a "high capacity magazine".


On top of this, God isn't even afraid to destroy people who, under other circumstances, would have repented. Sodom and Gomorrah, according to Christ Himself, would have repented had He given them a sign (e.g. Matthew 11:20-24). Yet, sadly, they were not given these signs, and perished for their sins regardless.


This gives us a perspective Christians need to understand: Both lives matter. That's why David didn't get a free pass for murdering Uriah and taking his wife. Uriah may well be in Heaven, but killing him was still a grave sin that God alone could cover. You see, then, that not even a man's eternal fate should determine his Earthly fate. When someone commits a crime that leads to death, God says don't even pray for that person (1 John 5:16-17). This obviously doesn't mean we should run around slaughtering criminals by the dozen, but it does mean if the situation demands it, there is no guilt for the shedding of impenitent blood. Killing in self defence, while not the goal, is also not a sin. The logical extension of this is that carrying defensive equipment is also not a sin.


The Fall and the nature of man


We see, then, that there are, and have always been, scenarios in which killing a human being does not count as murder. This is likely why modern translations render the 6th commandment as "you shall not murder", instead of "you shall not kill". But unfortunately, there will always be people who disregard this command. In fact, long before the first gun, maybe even before the first weapon, human beings have been capable of murder. The obvious example is Cain, the first murderer in history. It isn't quite like many pro-gunners put it, "a rock in the wrong hands committed the first murder". Exactly how Cain killed Abel isn't mentioned. But we do know that one way or another, before the gun was even invented, Cain murdered Abel without one.


This is because of the Fall. From the moment the devil tempted Adam and Eve to disobey God, bringing death into the world and spreading it to all men, human beings have been capable of all kinds of evil, even flat out inventing new ways to do it (Romans 1:30). And as God said following the flood, "...the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth..." (Genesis 8:21).


As Christians, it is vital for us to keep this loaded in the back of our minds, always. We cannot afford to forget the actual origins of violence. As Jesus said, "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." (Matthew 15:11). An anti-gunner might object here. Perhaps I'm crossing the streams by using a discussion on dietary laws as a platform for my pro-gun views. But watch what Jesus goes on to say: "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”" (v18-20, emphasis added).


Remember, the Bible operates on principles, not rules. Yes, the specific context is about the purity of all foods, but the principle in view here is that it is the heart in which sin starts. Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders etc. The specific scenario is interchangeable, but the principle is constant: Sin starts in the heart.


But anti-gunners aren't focusing on the heart! In fact, they are taking attention away from the heart. When you focus on guns and act like disarming everyone will solve the problem, or allowing everyone to be armed will cause more problems, you're missing the point entirely. See, even if we assume we can magically poof every gun away at once (which has never gone well for any region that has tried it), that doesn't get rid of the intentions of the heart.


One argument I like to use against anti-gunners is to ask them one simple question: If I give you a gun, how many people will you kill? Almost inevitably, the answer is "none", which of course is a good answer. Most anti-gunners struggle with the thought of killing even in self defence, so their first thought upon obtaining a firearm obviously isn't going to be "let's go to the local school and see how many students we can pop before the police arrive". But this answer acknowledges the simple fact that murder begins in the heart, not in the hand.


My answer would be quite similar: I have no intention of killing anyone, and in fact, as I have already pointed out, even killing an attacker is an unlikely (though not impossible) outcome of using a firearm in self defence. If I absolutely had to kill someone for whatever reason, I would, but that is certainly not my desire, and it would only ever be as a result of a greater desire to survive in the event my own life is threatened, or to defend a loved one.


Of course, every so often, you'll get the odd numpty who will say they would quite willingly commit murder, even if just one person, if they had a gun. Usually, this is just to be contrarian, or to throw off the point. Most people would not kill someone just because they gained access to a weapon.


But let's assume this is a serious answer. This still acknowledges that murder begins in the heart, it's just that this particular person does have it in their heart to commit murder. The problem? You don't need a gun for that. If you would kill someone just because you gained access to a firearm, what about a kitchen knife? A claw hammer? A nail gun? A chainsaw? You can kill a human being with your bare hands if you know how. If the presence of a gun makes you a dangerous person, you remain a dangerous person in its absence, and I submit that actually, your desired victim has a greater reason to possess a firearm than you have to disarm them against their will. Think about it: If you knew there was someone out there, right now, who hates you so much that they would take the first opportunity to murder you, wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself if they found such an opportunity?


The nature of a weapon


While anti-gunners tell us "guns kill", the simple reality is that it is people who kill. Accidental deaths are possible, again being a tragic reality with just about any object, but when it comes to murder in particular, a gun is not a special threat. In fact, while guns are by far the most common murder weapon in the U.S., most of these are with handguns (not the "scary black rifle"), whereas "personal weapons" (i.e. fists, kicks etc.) outnumber every other kind of gun! (13).


With this in mind, we see that it's actually people who pose the threat, even if they are completely unarmed. However, being armed does provide an advantage. Even a handful of dirt can alter who wins in a combat situation. But guns are unique among weapons. They are called the "great equaliser", because their power comes primarily from their mechanical function. This means a fight which should realistically be skewed in one direction can be, at the very least, levelled out.


Typically, fights are skewed heavily in the attacker's favor, due in large part to the fact a predator will choose their victim based on two main factors: How likely they are to get hurt, and how likely they are to get caught. And it actually only takes them 7 seconds to make this assessment, as even your body language tells them how much of a threat you are to them (14). Surprisingly, this isn't as simple as "that's a small woman, she's easy prey", and "that guy's got huge muscles, he's not worth the trouble". But generally, we can assume a man in a wheelchair probably isn't a professional kickboxer.


But he can be a pretty decent shot. No amount of working out, or martial arts training, can make a man bulletproof, nor is any of it necessary to use a gun in self defence. Again, I can use my own experience here. First, I have been a victim of violent crime. In 2014, I was threatened and attacked in an attempted robbery. In 2019, I took up Krav Maga lessons. And again, in May 2024, I took a trip to the U.S. and fired 13 guns at a shooting range.


This means I know what it's like to be defenceless, how hard unarmed combat is, and exactly how much difference a gun can make. In the controlled environment of my Krav lessons, I have gained a strong awareness of just how difficult self defence can be, both to learn it, and ultimately, how to implement it once learned. In the uncontrolled environment of the canal bank, I gained my first taste of self defence in the real world. Had my attacker been intent on killing me, I would not be writing this article today.


But with my experience with firearms, I am now more sure than ever that a gun would have changed that situation. To begin with, I detected the threat early. I recognised my attacker, and attempted to put some distance between us, initially succeeding. He was on a bike, and had to actually get off to approach me. Thus, up to a certain point, I was able to walk away.


Unfortunately, my options were extremely limited. The attack happened along a canal, giving me a grand total of one safe direction to flee. To my right, a canal, which I didn't especially want to jump in (especially with a thug explicitly threatening to drown me in it). To my left, a steep dirt bank, some trees, and a spiked fence, cutting off that route. Ahead of me, my attacker, obviously not a safe way to run.


My final option, which I attempted to take, was to just keep walking in the direction I was heading and hope my attacker wouldn't follow me. Unfortunately, I've never been particularly fast, and I run out of breath very quickly, meaning I would have no chance of outrunning an attacker even on foot. With his bike, and superior fitness, my attacker obviously had the upper hand in the speed department. Long story short, as much as I wanted (and attempted) to flee, I didn't have that option.


But let's suppose, as should have been the case, I had the option of being armed. In particular, what if I possessed one of the models I fired in the U.S.? The Jericho was a particularly easy gun to use. With the distance I initially managed to put between myself and my attacker, I had more than enough time to draw a firearm. With the statistics discussed above, this would have an 81% chance of ending the encounter without injury to either myself, or to him. He might have gone off and victimised someone else, but that's another discussion entirely.


Supposing the mere sight of a gun wasn't enough to deter him. Depending on his speed, I may have actually been far enough away to fire a warning shot into the dirt to my left. This, too, is statistically likely to end the encounter without injury to either party. In the worst case scenario, if the warning shot didn't work, or if he got too close too quickly, he, the sinner who insisted on turning the situation violent, would have been the one injured - an injury he would have brought on himself. You see, then, how having a gun would have changed that scenario quite dramatically for me.


The ever-present threat of tyranny


In the above sections, I discussed both the nature of human beings, and the weapons we wield. In particular, I noted that sins like murder begin in the heart, meaning that disarming criminals will not prevent crime, but arming the victims will give them a fair chance of defending themselves. This makes sense both on paper, and in practice, which I have already cited evidence for.


But for some reason, anti-gunners do have a blind spot. They believe that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but somehow, they implicitly trust the government as the sole exception. This is strange, to say the least, as the government are people too. Furthermore, they may even be Christian people. Biblically speaking, while we are commanded to obey the governments God raises up regardless of their religious orientation (Romans 13:1-7), we are not commanded to abstain from entering it. We may even already be in that position when we first convert. This includes armed roles, such as the military. Yet, when John the Baptist preached, some soldiers asked him what they ought to do, since he had said "bear fruits worthy of repentance". This would have been the perfect time for John to say "leave the military", but his simple response was "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14).


With this in mind, anti-gun Christians are actually major hypocrites. Surely most, if not all of their arguments should apply equally to the government? If you believe criminal lives are valuable, and therefore civilians shouldn't be killing them even in self defence, you cannot logically follow that up with "let the government kill them for you"! If you believe humans are capable of great evil, and therefore shouldn't be allowed guns, by what logic do you assume the people in government aren't capable of great evil, and should therefore be trusted with them?


Ironically, looking back through history, we see that the worst atrocities mankind has committed have been at the government level! Most notorious of these is, of course, the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were murdered, not by some mentally ill nutters who managed to obtain firearms in the U.S., but by the German government, which already had some very strict gun laws at the time. Rather than protecting its Jewish citizens, the German government persecuted them literally to the death.


Not without resistance, of course. Even a disarmed population will struggle against aggression. A particularly famous example is the Warsaw Ghetto revolt in Poland (15). During the German occupation of Poland, the Nazis established ghettos, like Warsaw Ghetto, as places to keep Jews until they could be murdered. Sadly, starvation and disease took many Jewish lives even before the Nazis could come for them, but the Nazis did cart many Jews off to their murder mills.


Over time, however, a Jewish resistance cell called "Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa" began to take root in the ghetto. This group managed to smuggle a few weapons into the ghetto, amounting to at least 9 rifles, 59 pistols, and several hundred grenades, explosives, and mines, which the Germans managed to capture after the revolt. That's not many weapons, considering how many Jews fought in the revolt, but it was a sufficient arsenal to hold the Nazis off for a time. This in spite of the fact the Nazis had tanks, rapid fire artillery, ammunition trailers, superior numbers, and of course military training. Heinrich Himmler, the chief of the SS, had initially promised Hitler that the revolt would be over in 3 days. The ŻOB, however, managed to hold the Nazis off for four weeks.


If a rag tag militia, armed with smuggled and improvised weapons, can cause such problems for the Nazis, one can only imagine what would have happened if Germany had been a bit more... American, prior to the war. If even half of Hitler's victims had owned firearms, it seems unlikely the war would ever have happened, and certainly wouldn't have resulted in as many innocent deaths.


Warsaw Ghetto proves two things. First, it proves that the government can go bad. They are not always protectors, and in fact can be an existential threat to those within their sphere of influence. Second, it proves that the best defence against this particular problem is the even distribution of arms. By contrast, the centralisation of arms is a very bad idea, as it allows the wicked to gain a monopoly. Even if a good government passes gun control measures, it only takes one regime change (or invasive occupation) for it to go horribly wrong. Gun control is the best gift you could ever give to an aspiring tyrant.


Is resistance permissible?


While the Nazis are one example, and frankly low hanging fruit, they are not alone. Bad governments have existed throughout history, and of course, all of them have resstricted the right to keep and bear arms. I would argue, by contrast, that good governments are anomalous. The best governments are those that are small and accountable. But as we've already pointed out, the Bible actually tells us to obey the government whether they're good or bad. So is it ever actually permissible to resist the government?


The short answer is yes, there are times when we are actually obligated to disobey the government. First, it is possible for the government to sin in both their commands and judgments, as we see when Jesus is handed over to Pilate. "Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:10-11). The presence of a greater sin necessitates the existence of a lesser sin. In this case, Pilate's sin is diminished by his authority, which was given to him by God Himself. Yet, by abusing that power, and in particular by abusing it against God's own Son, Pilate was, indeed, sinning.


Second, when the government tells us to follow in their sin, we must disobey. We see this in Acts 5. When commanded not to speak in the name of Christ, the Apostles said "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), and there and then gave a forbidden Gospel presentation to the very council who had forbidden them to speak in the name of Christ! Clearly, therefore, resistance is permitted, and in some cases required. These are not arbitrary, by any means, but there comes a point when the vast majority of the Church would likely say enough is enough.


Faith without works


Of course, Christians should always be praying. In good times, when the government is competent and seeks only justice and the good of the people, we should pray it continues to do so. When the government falls into corruption, we should pray for their repentance. As Paul writes, "Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:1-4).


This is the primary role of government. It isn't to tell us what to eat and drink, what sort of car to drive, or even what sort of weapons to own. The primary purpose of government is to maintain peace within its jurisdiction, enabling us to live peacefully in all godliness and reverence.


Of course, we should take it for granted that peace should be at the top of the list of things to pray for. If we believe we are praying to a sovereign God who loves and cares for us, why would we not? But I find far too many Christians, in the modern day, place too heavy an emphasis on prayer, to the exclusion of action. Or, to put it in Biblical terms, I see a lot of faith without works.


That's not to say this is always the case. I find a lot of anti-gun Christians wear their seatbelts, keep first aid kits and fire extinguishers, lock their doors at night, visit the doctor, and supplement their prayer with many other such works. And I don't blame them! It's good to trust God with your health and safety, but it is foolish to sit on a shovel and pray for a hole. But when I debate British people on the merits of our Draconian gun laws, one of their most common arguments is that I shouldn't be concerned, and should just trust God to defend me. They are not alone. John Piper, a popular Christian preacher, once said that if you carry a gun, your hope is in your back pocket (16).


To a degree, I can level with the idea. The Bible is filled with encouragement that God has our backs. As we see from Job, the devil can't even touch us without His consent, and if He says "do not do this...", he cannot. How encouraging it is when we read all of those "fear not" verses? "A thousand may fall at your side, And ten thousand at your right hand; But it shall not come near you." (Psalm 91:7). What a concept!


But when I hear this argument, it has an eerie familiarity. When you own a fire extinguisher, you are exemplifying wisdom, for as James says, "...O foolish man, that faith without works is dead". Thus, if you have faith that God will protect you if your house catches fire, but give Him the opportunity to use your own hand to do it, you are being wise. Your hope is not in this little red canister hanging on the wall, it's hanging there because it is extremely useful to have one in certain situations. By contrast, if you have the opportunity to arm yourself, yet you refuse out of some feigned piety, what are you saying but "...throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ”" (Matthew 4:6)?


If you aren't familiar with the reference, this is one of the ways in which Satan attempted to tempt Jesus. In rejecting the devil's challenge, Jesus isn't doubting the authenticity of the Scriptures he quoted, but rather, He is demonstrating great faith in God, refusing to put Him to the test (v7). And so I would contend that Christians who attach God's name to their anti-gun views are likewise using that Holy name in vain!


To be clear, as I said at the outset of this article, I am not trying to do this with my own view. You will never catch me saying anti-gunners are showing a lack of faith in God with all their fearmongering. It would be easy to do. Tempting, even. Why don't they trust God to protect them in constitutional carry states? As of right now, there are 29 of them. And I've had many anti-gunners tell me they'd be quite concerned if the UK finally restored the right to keep and bear arms. As if the arm of the Lord would somehow be shortened by pro-gun legislation... They don't follow their own logic.


Civilian power


The greatest irony is, they don't even really need to. A gun is only as good or evil as the one who wields it. As we've already seen, sin is always in the heart, so if you don't fear someone while they're disarmed, you shouldn't suddenly fear them because they're armed. But actually, even your civilian neighbor may be of more use to you armed than a police officer. For proof of that, look no further than Texas, which, in 2017, suffered a mass shooting at a church. But the shooting did not go as the shooter intended. Sadly, 26 people did die, and a further 22 were injured (because weirdly, God doesn't surround Christians with magical bubbles of invincibility, even if we pray for it). Eventually, however, a brave hero named Stephen Willeford reached the church and engaged the shooter (17). I'll add, with an AR-15...


We can all wish mass shooters were not armed, but that is literally wishful thinking. As mass shootings across the world prove, not even the strictest of gun laws could stop mass shootings. In fact, I personally managed to predict, within a 2 year margin of error, when the next mass shooting in the UK would be. I had always said that Britain would lose all right to argue from mass shootings if one happened by 2023. In 2021, a shooting occurred in Plymouth, the very city in which I was born! The gunman murdered 5 people, and injured 2 more, before shooting himself (18). If you truly believe we can eliminate mass shootings by disarming potential victims, you are living in a fantasy land.


Sadly, the Sutherland Springs shooting did not have a happy ending. Willeford undeniably saved lives, and I've even read that he may have distracted the shooter from an easy kill just by announcing himself. Nevertheless, Willeford was not on scene when the shooting began, and thus, while he got there before the police, he did not get there in time to save the entire congregation.


But there have been many shootings stopped before they happened, simply because an armed civilian was present at the time. For example, within the same week as the infamous Uvalde shooting, a second shooter was stopped in his tracks when a woman on scene shot and killed him (19). What could have been a mass shooting wasn't.


This is generally the way such incidents go when armed would-be victims are already on scene. Of course, for various reasons, these are not as prominent, firstly because they're just not as scary. We all feel a little uneasy when we hear 10 people died in a mass shooting here (20), or 22 over there (21), and especially 67 in this area (22), but it's not quite as emotionally impactful if the only death is the one who opened fire in the first place. All of those numbers are from real shootings, by the way, and they did not take place in the U.S. Rather, they happened in Canada, Germany, and Norway, respectively.


But aside from just not sticking out, they also don't happen as often, because mass shooters tend to choose their locations based on the likelihood of success. Think about it: If you were a mass shooter, even if you did not plan to survive the attack, would you rather a place where you can be instantly taken out before killing anyone, or a place where your victims will likely scatter like baby ducks? Statistically, mass shooters pick "gun free" zones the majority of the time. 96% of the time, in fact (23).


Now, I think we can all agree stopping mass shootings is a goal here. It's not the goal, but I think we can all agree it's a good goal. But the simple fact is removing gun laws is a more effective way of achieving that goal. Attempting to disarm the shooters fails miserably, and they'll even resort to other means if they genuinely can't get guns. But arming the victims usually reduces the number of casualties of a potential mass shooting, often even to zero.


If this is the goal, then who can object? As Christians, should we care as much about who does the good as that the good is done? Can you even say out loud "I'd rather 10 people die waiting for the police than one shooter be shot by a civilian"?


Biblical figures carried


Even if you can say that, I doubt it's the attitude the Apostles took, because believe it or not, they carried. Of course, this is where anti-gunners like to bring up Matthew 26:52, "...Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." But they neglect to mention that actually, Christ is the one who told them to carry the sword in the first place. "And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”" (Luke 22:35-38).


Now, it can be assumed that Jesus didn't want the Apostles to carry swords for gardening purposes. That's just not what swords are for. Nor are they especially effective as hunting equipment. A deer is too fast, and a lion is too strong. No, swords are generally only good for human combat. If you're lucky, your opponent doesn't have one. If he does, you better hope you're armed too.


We can further surmise that this wasn't a one-time command. Jesus contrasts this command with a previous command. He sent the Apostles out with minimal supplies, proving to them that God will never send His people out "underequipped", because even when He does, He will provide. But now, He's not only telling them "you need these supplies", but that they actually need the sword, in particular, more than their garments. Sell the garments and get a sword!


So clearly, Jesus isn't opposed to His own Apostles carrying the weapons He absolutely knew they already owned. It seems especially strange for Him to say "...he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" if He did not anticipate this as a future investment beyond the two already present. The only questions remaining are what were these intended for, and can we reasonably translate this into guns in the modern day?


The latter seems obvious to me. We translate everything Biblical into its modern equivalent. We translate shekels into pounds, or dollars. We translate kings into presidents and prime ministers. We even translate swords into guns when it's convenient for anti-gunners, like in Romans 13, where the government is said not to bear the sword in vain, or when Jesus tells Peter to put hiss sword away. Why, then, would we refuse to translate these particular swords into guns? If Jesus allowed, and even commanded His Apostles to carry the weapons of their day, surely we are at least permitted to carry the weapons of ours?


Providing for your own


I would actually contend that the answer is not only yes, but to an extent, the "bread winner" of the household, in particular, should own weapons. In 1 Timothy 5:8, we read "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." I will not be dogmatic here, as my conclusion is not inescapable. But that phrase "provide for his own" is a very broad brush, is it not?


Obviously, we can reasonably conclude that fulfilling your household's basic needs is included. Food, water, shelter, these are a few basic needs that the providers of the household should be providing. If your children are hungry, for example, you've got a problem. But I would contend that defending your loved ones falls into this category.


As I pointed out earlier, even an anti-gun Christian who claims everyone should just trust in God to defend them will likely have no issues owning a fire extinguisher, or a first aid kit. Do these things not also count as "providing for your own"? It's not like there's a countdown to the next fire, like there is to the time you need to eat again, but fire is still a possible threat, and so if you're indifferent to your family's potential survival if one happens, are you not covered by 1 Timothy 5:8?


It is a tragic fact that in this fallen world, everyone faces threats of various kinds. It doesn't even have to be a human threat. Ironically, my native country overemphasises the threat posed by dogs. It is a real threat, as dog attacks, unfortunately, do happen. They're just excessively rare. Yet, in spite of its extreme rarity, the UK has some abominable laws regarding dogs. They want to "protect" us by stealing and destroying beloved family pets, but don't want us to have the equipment to protect our families when the identical species has our children in their jaws?


But of course, that's just a side note. The majority of threats to your safety come from your fellow man. Kidnappings, rapes, serious bodily harm, and even murder, are threats we all face. Threats which the police, lacking God's omni attributes, cannot protect you or your family from. So, you face the threat, just as you face the threat of starvation, exposure to the elements, medical emergencies, fire, and a host of other things. Why is it the one time your family faces a threat, and you're absolved from blame if you fail to act, is when that threat is physical violence, be it by man or beast?


At this point, most anti-gunners will admit that no, they would not sit idly by if they, or their family, actually came under attack. I find many of them are naive enough to believe it couldn't happen to them in particular, but they will at least admit that if it does happen, they will fight back. But as we say in the world of martial arts, "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face". The issue of preparing to defend yourself, or your loved ones, is just as important as the actual act of doing so.


Conclusion


There is much more that could be said on the gun issue, and in fact, the original draft of this article did say a lot of things I ultimately decided not to include in the re-write. But with all that has been said in this article, I think we can safely conclude that while the pro-gun position is not "the" Christian position, it is, by far, the wisest. While anti-gun Christians often attempt to argue from the Bible, their arguments are weak, inconsistent, unwise, and frankly, take the name of God in vain, and that is a sin we can charge them with.


Ultimately, the pro-gun case comes down to a few key principles, each of which can be Biblically established. Biblically, it cannot be denied that we have the right to life, which logically extends to the right to defend your life, which logically extends to the right to prepare to defend your life. We further see that, at least as far as the Old Testament law was concerned, someone who kills in self defence is not guilty of murder. But it seems logical that a government who prevents a successful defence is guilty of the blood of the victim. We have seen that the government is, indeed, capable of sinning, with their primary purpose being the preservation of peace within their jurisdiction. Therefore, I would go as far as to say that any government which deprives its subjects of the right to keep and bear arms is guilty regarding the blood of every victim of violent crime. Violent crime which actually tends to go down when criminals fear their victims. Thus, governments which deprive their subjects of the right to keep and bear arms should be deprived of the right to keep and bear legislative authority. They have catastrophically failed in their duties.


Ultimately, I cannot say that anti-gun Christians have departed from the faith, but I can, and will, say that they have departed from reality. I cannot bring myself to agree with Jesse Hughes that "until nobody has guns, everyone should have them", as there are certainly people I would prefer to deny access to guns. The obvious example would be those who enforce tyrannical gun laws. But unfortunately, a reality we all have to face is that humanity has a capacity for extreme violence. Therefore, I amend Hughes' statement, and conclude with what I'm sure everyone, Christian or not, pro-gun or not, will agree with: "As long as there are people prepared to do violence, everyone should be prepared to face violence". By far the best way to do this is to ensure that everyone is able to appropriately equip themselves with the most effective weaponry available. Therefore, I firmly believe all Christians should be pro-gun.


References

1. Ray, Michael. "Paris attacks of 2015". Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 Feb. 2024 (link)

2. Kreps, Daniel - Eagles of Death Metal Merch Manager Nick Alexander Killed in Paris Attack, Rolling Stone, November 14th 2015 (link)

3. Hughes, Jesse - cited in "Eagles of Death Metal frontman: 'Everybody has to have guns'", the Guardian, February 16th 2016 (link)

4. Igraham, Christopher and Johnson, Carolyn Y. - How gun deaths became as common as traffic deaths, December 18th 2015 (link)

5. Ecker, Ullrich K.H. - The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines., American Psychological Association, 2014 (link)

6. Harris, Shane - New Data Shatters Liberal Myths About Gun Violence & Constitutional Carry, AMAC, Friday, January 26th 2024 (link)

7. Malon, Claire and Charles, Sam - Pair of mass shootings in suburbs offers grim reminder: Illinois and Chicago routinely rank among nation's worst for such crimes, Chicago Tribune, January 28th 2024 (link)

8. Kleck, Gary, and Gertz, Marc - Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, Jornal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1995 (link)

9. English, William - 2021 National Firearms Survey: Updated Analysis Including Types of Firearms Owned, SSRN, May 18th 2022 (link)

10. Ford, Richard - Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007 (link)

11. BBC News - London Bridge attack: What happened, May 3rd 2019 (link)

12. Wright, James D. & Rossi, Peter H - Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, NCJRS Virtual Library, 1994 (link)

13. Murder Victims by weapon, CIUS, 2015-2019 (link)

14. Grayson B, Stein MI. Attracting assault: victim's nonverbal cues. J Commun. 1981 Winter;31(1):68-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01206.x. PMID: 7204631.

15. Berenbaum, Michael - "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising". Encyclopedia Britannica, 9 May. 2024 (link)

16. Piper, John - Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?, Desiring God, December 22nd 2015 (link)

17. Mooney, Michael J. - The Hero of the Sutherland Springs Shooting Is Still Reckoning With What Happened That Day, Texas Monthly, November 2018 (link)

18. Plymouth shooting: What happened?, BBC News, August 14th 2021 (link)

19. Musto, Julia - West Virginia woman with pistol shoots, kills man firing at graduation party: 'Saved several lives', Fox News, May 28th 2022 (link)

20. Hanau shooting: Has Germany done enough to tackle far-right terror threat?, BBC News, February 20th 2020 (link)

21. Boyko, John - 2020 Nova Scotia Attacks, The Canadian Encyclopedia, April 15th 2021 (link)

22. Ray, Michael - Oslo and Utøya attacks of 2011, Encyclopedia Britannica, March 29th 2024 (link)

23. Lott, John R. - Breaking down Mass Public Shooting data from 1998 through May 2022: Info on weapons used; gun-free zones; racial, age, and gender demographics,CPRC, May 29th 2022 (link)


26 views
bottom of page