The distinction is wanted and unwanted...

To bring together the wretched dissonance between outrage and grief at killing 6 and 7 year olds and the monumental moral preening of those who either defend or look away from the slaughter of tens of millions of children even more vulnerable than those who were shot ... yes, yes, yes, it is timely and ~imperative~ for Christians to point to the moral dissonance between these two things.

In the church calendar, the Feast of the Holy Innocents is December 27 -- two days after Christmas.  It is always observed in our parish on the Sunday following Christmas, this year on December 30.  It is one occasion when I invariably address the slaughter of innocents that has made our nation awash with the blood of children.

And you better believe I am going to conjoin this grisly slaughter by knives and caustic chemicals with the slaughter by bullets this past week. To heave ashes in the air over the latter and to happily ignore or to defend the former ... Christians must not fail to point to such moral perversity. And to do so in no way detracts from the outrage of killing children by bullets.  It simply sets their wretched deaths in the correct context -- a very longstanding policy to consign millions of children to deaths every bit as wretched as those in Connecticut this past week.

I'll respectfully be your loyal opposition here. I believe working to protect the pre-born, the profoundly disabled, and the frail elderly is what Jesus asks of us. Unfortunately, there will be ample time to return to this work after we grieve with the families, friends, and teachers who lost children and the families who lost mothers (teachers) who tried to shield children from harm. 

My denomination (Anglican Church in North America - ACNA) is largely pro-life. Our archbishop, Robert Duncan, is a signer of the Manhattan Declaration, as I think are some diocesan bishops. Seminary professors, parish priests and deacons, as well as many members are also signers. One of its "planks" has a strong pro-life message. Archbishop Duncan sent a prayer for the families of the victims to everyone on his e-mail list. Our rector talked yesterday about the children who died being enveloped into  Jesus's arms when they reached heaven. He dropped his usual practice of preaching from 1+ of the Scripture lessons assigned for the day. Instead, his sermon was primarily evangelistic, telling us that to prevent tragedies like this, we must boldly share our faith in Christ with others. He said that until we win the world for Christ, one heart at a time, we have no way to stop incidences like this in the future.

I believe these were appropriate reactions to the shootings in Newton, Connecticut.

Sue,

How is it that we grieve with the families? I am assuredly sad for them. I am certainly praying for them. I am encouraging those who are actually near to minister to the actual families in Newtown. What troubles me is the faux American catharsis that comes with these events, which I believe, in turn, callous our hearts still more against the murder of the unborn. We wring our hands not because we actually think a great and strange evil has happened, but because it makes us feel good about ourselves. Were it the former we would do it every day over murdered babies. In addition, though of course no one wants to turn different sufferings into a contest or a mathematical formula, why would we "set aside" the murder of 3000 on Friday to turn our attention to the murder of 30, knowing we can come back to the 3000? Can we not remember the 3000 and promise to get back to the 30 when the most vulnerable are protected? My sense is that those who are sensitive about bringing up the abortion holocaust at this time are sensitive because they are tender hearted, as we all should be, towards the weeping parents that they see. But we don't see the weeping babies, which is why we need constantly to be reminded, especially in times like this. That's my two cents of loyal opposition to the loyal opposition. God bless sister

Responding to the OP, Ben Stein connected the CT tragedy to abortion in the American Spectator today, and so did Rush Limbaugh on radio, so this sort of thing is common at this point.

I mourn against the evil, but this tragedy doesn't provoke a catharsis in me, except to finally want to pack heat.  I am not alone: Applications for gun permits overwhelmed the system in Colorado over the weekend.

I cannot, we may not, stop crying out for the littlest ones even for a day, when 3500 more little ones were killed in America unmourned the same day as the 20.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/should-pro-lifers-compare-abortion-to-t...

Some random thoughts...

As protection, guns are the great equalizer, not dependent on the size of the user, and only somewhat dependent on his skill. 

If being gun-free in your own home is a source of pride, try posting a sign to that effect in front of your house and see how that turns out.

After there has been a crime against a woman, inevitably the local news will show how women are flocking to karate classes. 

Owning a gun doesn't necessarily mean conceal-carry.  It could mean it is up in your closet, waiting for time of need.

Much evil has been perpetrated against a citizenry that was officially disarmed by government.

While I'm here, some comments from a Christian on the "front line" (Clive Calver, who's British).

http://www.charismamag.com/life/culture/16188-could-connecticut-school-s...

OK, Tim. You added an aspect to this situation that I hadn't considered. But what about shooting to maim rather than to kill? Maybe that's more difficult, but still seems like it's better to try first instead of murder. Or maybe let the public, with proper training, be allowed to use stun guns, rubber bullets, or tazers? (I know next to nothing about these "techniques" to stop a killer, so I may be blowing smoke.)

I'd still rather have my husband out there wielding his aluminum softball bat trying to beat the bejeebers out of the killer rather than shooting the killer first, or shooting to maim the killer. And I think I'd still feel the same way if a teacher were my best friend, or one of the children were my own child or grandchild. 

In Christ,

Sue

but still seems like it's better to try first instead of murder

Killing somebody to defend your family isn't murder.  Best to use words without muddying their meaning.

In my opinion, no one needs an arsenal, or assault weapons or semiautomatics to hunt, protect his or her home, family, or his or herself, or fend off a mass shooter.

Most weapons owned by Americans are semi-automatics (about 60% last I saw).  A semi-automatic weapon is a magazine fed weapon that fires a bullet when you pull the trigger.  The primary difference between a semi-automatic pistol and a revolver is higher magazine capacity and more likely to jam.  A revolver is more reliable, lower capacity.  Of course a killer could do a lot more damage in a classroom with a shotgun than with a semi-automatic rifle.  The problem is we have people who know next to nothing about firearms talking about firearms.  And what is an "arsenal"?  I have a 1916 single shot .22 and a 44 magnum revolver.  Is that an arsenal.  Too much suburban living.

If you don't want your husband to effectively defend your family that is your affair.  Don't stop others from trying to effectively defend their families.

@David Gray - the statistic you saw probably used ethnicity as a surrogate for income; there seems to be a strong relationship between poverty and homicide, both as perpetrator and certainly as victim. That is clear from the UK, in areas where ethnicity is certainly not an issue. That said, the UK has plenty of people who are not of "European ancestry", and in London, whites are now only just a majority - that place is another New York.

Freida,

Love it!

Sue

Different weapons have different strengths.  If I were a serious hunter I think I'd find 2-3 weapons too restrictive.  And it wouldn't really serve any purpose as I don't think any mass murderer has used more than three weapons, often less.

Dear Mr. Hatkow,

If you'd ask anyone who knows me well, they'd tell you that I'm very much an advocate of free speech. I was one of those folks that thought that the KKK should be allowed to march in Skokie, IL (home of many Jewish people). I support freedom of religion, even of non-Christian religions that are abhorrent to me. But if you are saying that because people should be able to keep as many weapons in their home to open a gun shop = free speech, then I respectfully disagree. 

Everyone has limits to free speech, roughly similar to those of some limitations on owning firearms. (If my analogies are poor, please forgive me. I took an exam this evening and my mind hasn't wound down yet :-)). We abide by zoning limitations. We don't have the right to drive 100 mph on a freeway or 45 mph through a school zone, but we can own and drive cars with a valid driver's license and auto insurance. Freedom of expression might mean that nudists can buy land and build a nudist colony sheltered from the street/highway and its neighbors. Obviously, it doesn't mean they can have a picnic buck nekkid in City Park. 

All I'm saying here is that the right to bear arms shouldn't be unlimited, not that the right to bear arms should be eliminated. Maybe I shouldn't have put actual numbers on the # of non-hunting, non-sporting firearms/household. But do you really want to live next door to someone who keeps a dozen or more semiautomatic weapons in the basement? 

And I'm not pro-choice. Except for cases of rape, incest, saving the life of the mother, and fetal (Latin for "little one", I think) abnormalities incompatible with life, I am against abortion. In the eyes of many, if not most, readers/posters of this blog I'm probably not considered truly pro-life. But I'm opposed to at least 97% of the abortions in the U.S. In the above situations, I don't advocate abortion; just think it is allowable and commend women who are physically and mentally able to carry their child to term. 

And I don't think it's right to regulate how many horsepower anyone's car has or how many ounces can be in a Big Gulp soda. Nutrition information on fastfood menus, yes; that's useful info, not restrictions. And as a parting comment, I'm very grateful for higher air and water quality standards. After, my adopted home state is the one where the Cuyahoga River once set on fire.

In peace in spite of our differences,

Sue

Mrs. McKeown,

This is an intersting discussion to follow, but I am somewhat confused by the distinction you are making between hunting-guns and non-hunting-guns.

Any gun can be used to devastating effect if one's aim is to take life. That is, after all, the entire point of the tool. And if the aim is to protect life by banning guns, then why would anyone stop at non-hunting-guns?

Semi-automatics are often used in hunting.  And killing a human being is not inherently sinful, it depends on context.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

David,

You wrote,

And killing a human being is not inherently sinful, it depends on context.

It does. But isn't the legitimacy (or lack of sinfulness) of killing a human being a fine line, especially if the person is acting alone, or even if it was a police officer who fired the fatal shot? 

How do you define this line, realizing that we do not live in a theocracy and must make your arguments based on the good of our society and on very broadly-based Judiac-Christian principles (slightly off topic, but that we no longer stone adulters, for example).

"If someone broke into my home they are a de facto threat to my family and in the absence of some situation altering fact they will be stopped to the best of my ability."

There are handguns designed precisely for this situation -- they are not very effective beyond a range of 30 feet. Their "paylyoad" -- while it can be as large as a .45 slug -- is ordinarily (1) birdshot, or (2) 3-slugs in .410 shotgun shell, or (3) 5 slugs in a .410 shotgun shell, or (4) 12 bb-shot AND 3 slugs, all in a long .410 shotgun shell.

I've seen paper target patterns from these revolvers. They do not require fine marksmanship; all you need to do is to point generally at the bad guy and pull the trigger.

Another feature I like about this gun is that it has little or no chance of penetrating thin sheetrocked walls and hitting someone in another room. A slug from my Dad's handgun would easily have left his bedroom, penetrated the exterior brick wall, entered his neighbor's bedroom through ~his~ brick wall and done considerable damage to the neighbor.

The point: for home defense ~inside the home~ you want to avoid high-powered weapons. The home-defense market has recognized this and designers have produced the weapon I've described.