Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016    Login | Register        

Should weapons be banned? Part 2

David Epps's picture

There are always those who believe, with all sincerity, that weapons of any kind should be outlawed. The reasoning is that, if no one had weapons, society would be a much safer place. Any conflicts would be handled with words and, at most, with fists. There would be injuries, of course, but not destruction on the scale currently experienced.

The same sort of thinking is often applied to the world scene. If there were no nuclear weapons, and no weapons of any kind, the world would be a safer place.

Some even go as far to call of a unilateral disarmament. That is, our nation should disarm itself regardless of what other nations do. And, besides, since defense takes up such a huge chunk of our national budget, think of all the good we could do to help people.

So what if we did that? How would that work out?

We could eliminate our nuclear stockpiles. We could scuttle our navy, disband the army and the marines, permanently ground the air force, disarm and destroy all weapons and weapons systems, declare ourselves neutral and announce our intention to be at peace and harmony with all mankind. We could “visualize peace.”

Yet even the most fervent pacifist, while maintaining their own non-violent position, would likely balk at such a suggestion. But if disarming our nation would be the first step to peace, love, and harmony, why shouldn’t we do it?

The answer to that is a long list. It begins with North Korea. And Iran. And it continues with a host of other well-armed, ill-intentioned regimes that would like nothing better than for the United States and other democracies to lay aside their arms.

We are armed because those who wish to do us violence are armed. If the United Nations were to declare a global ban on all arms and, if the democratic nations of the world complied, it would matter not one bit to the North Koreas and the Irans of the world.

They would retain their weapons and, at some point, when they realized that we were, indeed, without a means of defense, our borders would be violated and we would be occupied and cease to exist as a free people. Anyone who doubts that fact has no grasp of human history.

The same scenario applies to domestic life. In the state of Georgia, the number of licenses permitting lawful citizens to carry weapons stands at 600,000 or three times the number of U. S. Marines world-wide. That is exceeded only by Pennsylvania (786,000) and Florida (1,026,000). A person intent on doing harm to a law-abiding citizen of those states has a very good chance of encountering a person capable of defending him- or herself.

New York City, with a population of 8,245,000, has only 2,145 citizens authorized to carry a firearm. Of course the city has a police force that exceeds the size of the standing army of most countries. In the fall of 2011, Mayor Bloomberg famously declared, “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world.” Is one safer in Georgia or Pennsylvania, or Florida? Or is New York City the safest ground in the nation?

The simple truth is, if peaceful nations or peaceful people have no means of defense, the violent and ill-tempered nations and people of the world will inflict terrible harm on the defenseless. There will always be weapons and the bad guys will always have them.

If all weapons are banned, only the good people will not have them.

[David Epps is the pastor of the Cathedral of Christ the King, 4881 Hwy. 34 E., Sharpsburg, GA 30277. Services are held Sundays at 8:30 and 10 a.m. ( He is the bishop of the Mid-South Diocese ( may be contacted at]


Another foolish column from Rev. Epps on guns. He sets up straw men who he says advocate for unilateral disarmament or banning all "weapons" (those people do not exist or are so on the fringe to not be part of our national debate).

Epps perpetuates the idea that the way for everyone to be safe is to arm themselves. I guess he thinks a fully privately armed nation is a safer nation. That idea is dangerous and scares me.

The truth is that most Americans feel safe in their homes and our country despite the fear mongering of the pro-gun faction.

Most Americans do not own guns. Most American households do not have guns. Most Americans feel safe because we have professional police forces, lock our doors and windows at night, and stay away from dangerous places when we go out.

If a gun in your house makes you feel safer, then have one.

But the truth is that guns at home are rarely used to deter or shoot an intruder.

A loaded gun in a home is more likely to be used for a suicide, to shoot a spouse in a moment of anger, or for a child to pick up and shoot himself, a playmate, or parent.

You may feel safer with a gun in your home but my guess is that you are ignoring the dangers that loaded guns present to your family. Responsible gun owners sometimes get careless, children get curious, and too often bad things happen--those stories are in the news too frequently.

We need to reject this pro-gun culture which has too many advocates today.


G35 Dude's picture

[quote]Epps perpetuates the idea that the way for everyone to be safe is to arm themselves. I guess he thinks a fully privately armed nation is a safer nation. That idea is dangerous and scares me.[/quote]

Lets play the game your way for while. Lets say all weapons are banned and the criminals that refuse to obey all the other laws decide to turn in their guns. Now the world is a safe place and we can all sit around and sing cumbaya? Well no not really. Now you've made certain segments of the population targets. No one is armed now so what chance does a 120lb woman have against a 250lb man? Or the elderly against the young? Or the individual against a mob? We'll never be 100% safe. But all the rest of us are asking for is a chance to defend ourselves. You see with a weapon the woman has a great chance. And even if they both have a weapon she has a better chance than she does totally unarmed. You refer to the number of people that are deterred by the fact that the intended victim has a gun? That is something we'll never really know as those are crimes that won't happen and thereby will not be reported.

S. Lindsey's picture

.. and care less about what made America great.

That's right the Gun.

The Gun tamed the west brought Fascism, Socialism and Communism to their collective knees and both protects and feeds Americans today.

We have a love affair with the Gun. It symbolizes our Independence and security.

Many people like Lion have no idea why someone would want to keep a gun in their home or on their person..and he wouldn't want one if you gave it to him..BUT... why is it I am not forcing him to take one, yet he would be very happy if Government used it power to remove mine... That is typical of the mindset of the left..

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Americans are slowly beginning to understand that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Gun laws are irrelevant to outlaws. No wonder increasing numbers of Americans believe that a gun in the home is more likely to keep them safe than to put them in danger.

Now, obama will try to tell you that 90% of Americans support universal background checks. The fact of the matter is, less than half of Americans support obumbles gun control policies.

barrack hussein obamma is a liar. Smart people already knew that though.

kcchiefandy's picture already out of the bottle; like nuclear weapons, the only defense is offense; period.

Continued uncontrolled proliferation of guns into society is not going to make anyone safer.
To drive a car, I register it,I insure it and I get a license to drive it.
To own a gun, what ? Nothing ?
A car is a conveyance. A gun is what ? A deadly weapon ? Ideal for home defense.
Guns need to be taken more seriously by society.
Universal registration? Think universal registration will lead to confiscation ? If the goverment wanted to confiscate, couldn't they do it anyway ?

Universal registration is inevitable.

Finally, if American die over seas there is universal indignation in the press. If Americans are killed at home by American with guns, there is no indignation. Why? What makes that life taken at home by a gun so cheap?


As the GOP across the country pushes for tougher standards for voter identification, should gun owners be held to the samestandard ? Why would gun woners get a bye that voters cannot ?


If you don't think vehicles can be deadly weapons, just check the annual nr of traffic deaths. Many drivers are just as dangerous as trigger-pullers--they just have a 2-ton gun!

Insurance etc, just use it on your private property.

Ad space area 4 internal