Dr Greg Bahnsen - Gun Control Debate: Gun Control Debate Part 2 (Part 2)

I think we need to make sure that our people have guns available to them. That's their freedom to choose, that they should use them effectively. You talk about Killeen, Texas, what a tragic situation that was. I mean, what can anyone do to stop a person who's going to take some means of violence in it happened to be a gun. Here let me give you a counterexample. In a Jerusalem cafe just a few months before the San Ysidro massacre out in California, we had a similar situation where four armed intruders come in and begin to shoot. And by the time they've killed one person, other people in the cafe pulled guns and shot them and stopped the massacre. The one man who survived the next day was interviewed and bitterly said they did this because they fully expected these people would not be armed and they'd get away with it. What should we do to bring greater peace? Preach the gospel, have the state obey the laws of God, punishing those who use violence and allow our citizens to protect themselves.

All right, Dr. Atwood, a one minute response.

I'm a little troubled in your biblical use of punishment. And this is consistent with the NRA position of after somebody has done a crime, we will punish them severely and then we will have done God's will and then we will have done what is the most effective measure to make our society safe. It seems to me that this is ignoring the realities, the scriptural realities about who people are, who human beings, fallen humanity as it is, who folks are. People are individuals who are subject to all kinds of passion and all kinds of violence. And to permit that, and permit those folk to have access to street sweepers and Uzis and all of these guns that are available is an awful, awful solution and you're making a better society just putting folks in the slammer.

Your time is up.

Dr. Bonson, a question for Dr. Atwood.

Dr. Atwood, could you tell us what the scriptural warrant would be for state intrusion into the freedoms of its people to regulate their means of self protection? Or if there is no scriptural warrant for that specific approach, what is your norm for restricting the power of the state as to where it can intrude and where it cannot intrude?

I would turn to Romans 13, which you've already quoted before, which says, let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been instituted by God. And then Paul goes on to say, for this authority is God's servant for your good, and if you do wrong, be afraid for God's servant, that is the authority, does not bear the sword in vain. He is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be subject not only to avoid God's wrath, but also, and I'm assuming this means for the person who is in touch with God and God's will, but also for the sake of conscience, one should also obey out of conscience the authorities. Since Exodus we and the book of Leviticus and the law codes of the Old Testament with just about every single matter under the sun that you could find in Israelite society, laws have been a part of every culture of every society. And when you and laws are there for the good of society, I thank God that we have laws that require an amount of regulations. On our highways, you know, you don't travel in the emergency lane, you stop at red lights, you don't go 30 miles over the speed limit. That's for our good. The laws are for our good. And I think that we need to, to encourage the political process. And I believe it is a political decision. But political decision does not mean that it doesn't have the will of God behind it, as you seem to think.

But.

The political decision, look what it did for drunk drivers mad, for example Mothers Against Drug Driving. The they have cut down considerably the numbers of deaths of drunk drivings throughout this country. And I'm proud of that. And those are now laws. I think if we had uniform control of the most efficient and effective murder weapon in the country, those would be benevolent good laws for the peaceable Kingdom.

Thank you, Dr. Atwood. Dr. Bonson, a one minute response.

Dr. Atwood, you tell us that laws are part of every society. There's no doubt about that. The real question is what are just laws and what are unjust laws? When you tell us that laws are always for the good of society. I'm sorry. That would be nice if it were true. It is not. The laws that Hitler imposed upon Nazi Germany were not always for the good of, of society. And it has been a Presbyterian Christian position since the days of Hitler to argue that there is a right to condemn the state and even to resist the state when it doesn't do God's will in the laws that it passes. You tell us we are to obey out of conscience according to Romans 13. But of course that does not tell us what the specific scriptural limitation on the state is. Christians must out of conscience toward God, obey the state when it does the will of God. There's no doubt about that. But you did not Answer my question as to the scriptural norm for regulating the state, which just confirms my deepest concern that what you really have here is an implicit despotism that you would allow to the state because you believe it could do anything that it thinks is good. Here's something that would be very good for the state to do, I guess.

Thank you.

Thank you. Dr. Atwood, a question for Dr. Bonson.

I would like to. What is a Reformed. You are reformed.

Sorry, is that the question? No, no, that's not the answer I'm asking.

Are you a Reformed Presbyterian? Are you a Reformed Presbyterian? I'll wait for your boy. You sound like you've really been through this before. Okay, I would like to know. I'm going to assume, I'm going to make an assumption that as a Presbyterian, an orthodox Presbyterian. This is my first time I've ever met one. I'm glad to meet one. As an orthodox Presbyterian, I'm going to assume you have some affinity or some admiration, some closeness to John Calvin. What is Calvin's response to. Or as a Presbyterian, how do you regard the sixth commandment? Thou shalt not kill?

That's the question, yeah. Sixth commandment is the duties and the prohibitions of the sixth commandment are laid out for us Presbyterians very nicely in the Westminster Larger Catechism. And in the larger catechism we are told that we must do those things which tend toward the preservation the innocent life of ourselves and our neighbors and so forth. And that includes the right of self defense. It also means I should endorse what the law of God says with respect to punishing those who violate the safety and well being of other. So if we're going to be good Reformed Presbyterians and honor John Calvin and the Westminster standards and above all the law of God, the word of God, then the sixth commandment requires that I do everything that I can to protect innocent human life. That means I punish criminals when they refuse to do that. And it means that I protect the rights of my neighbors to defend themselves and therefore preserve their lives. Attack.

Dr. Atwood, my understanding.

One minute response.

What John Calvin wrote about the purpose of the sixth commandment in his institutes, that's book two, chapter eight, number 39. The purpose of this commandment is not only an individual commandment. This is a commandment for a society. And he writes, and I quote, the purpose of this commandment is that since the Lord has bound the whole human race by a kind of unity, the safety of all ought to be considered as entrusted to each in general, therefore all Violence and injustice and every kind of harm from which our neighbor's body suffers is prohibited. Accordingly, we are required faithfully to do what in us lies. To defend the life of our neighbor, to promote whatever tends to his tranquility, to be vigilant in warding off harm, and when danger comes, to assist in removing it. I'm interested in the Presbyterian or Reformed standards of our community.

Your time is up, Doctor. Which talks of Dr. Bonson. A question for Dr. Atwood. Right.

Twice there's been a reference to the NRA and I want to make sure we don't go any further that way. I don't represent the NRA tonight. I'm not a member of the nra. Toward the end of defending life, as John Calvin himself put it, and you were just quoting us. I wish to ask you, Dr. Atwood, if you really believe this rhetoric about stopping all violence. Should the state. You have said that the state should not permit access to these means of violence, guns, street sweepers, you've mentioned two or three times now. And my question for you is, taking account of the human nature which you have reminded us of, which is so wicked and vile, apart from the transforming grace of Christ, taking account of that, do you wish to bar access only to guns or to any implement of violence that would be available in our culture? Do you wish to live consistently with your premises?

I think, as I say, the instruments of death, of murder that are.

Most.

Prevalent in our society should be regulated. I would assume you're going to be talking about scissors and ice picks and, you know, fishing rods that might kill. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about efficient, smooth murder weapons. Yes, I think they should be regulated. I think it is incumbent upon people who are really interested in promoting the general welfare of our communities, which is a. A God given commandment and responsibility. We should do everything in our power to build that peaceful kingdom where neighbors are not afraid to walk out on the street. That is a disaster in our country. We ought to do everything we could and to keep these weapons out of the hands of people like Hinckley and this guy down in Killeen, Texas. To keep those weapons out of people's hands who can't handle them emotionally, or to permit a situation where, say, in Baltimore, they found two women who were buying guns for their husband or for their male friends in a crack house where they lived. Their male friends both were felons, they weren't felons. So they would go to gun shop after gun shop, buy a gun, turn it over to their male friends. That ought not to be. That ought not to be. And I think that we owe as Christians, our communities more leadership in this area.

A one minute response.

As I was afraid, Dr. Atwood, it does not appear then that you do wish to be consistent with the premises that you've offered in the debate tonight. You have said that human nature being what it is, that it's not enough that we just have laws that punish criminals severely. We must do something to take things out of their hands. And what you are saying is you're quite willing apparently to have the state allow, as you put it, permit to means of violence. You're willing to let the state permit access to means of violence provided they're not the most efficient means of violence. Well, I think that is inconsistent. As a matter of fact, if the gun is an efficient murder weapon, it is also an efficient means of self defense. And we know from statistics that more defensive uses of guns are made in a year than are violent or criminal uses of guns. Consequently, if you would pursue a peaceable kingdom and take account of human nature, then don't take the most efficient means of self defense out of the hands of people.

Thank you.

Now the final question from Dr. Atwood for Dr. Bonson.

Dr. Bonson, I approach looking at society as, for instance, in the urban areas of our country where there's the most death and impoverishment and murder. I think that all of us in this country have a responsibility of bearing those burdens to keep the level of violence.

Down.

Is there any thing that you would be willing to do to incur some sort of small inconvenience for you in terms of going out and getting a gun instead of like that, instead of waiting a week or having it registered or checked or these kinds of things. Is there anything that you'd be willing to do to bend a little bit instead of saying no, we can't compromise any or we'll be violating this principle? Is there anything that you'd be willing to do?

All right, Dr. Atwood. I as a Christian have given my life to the Lord Jesus Christ and have sworn allegiance to him and to follow him in whatever he asks of me. If the Lord Jesus Christ would ask that of me, I would give it in a minute. There is no question in my mind that we must submit our wills to God's will in this regard and we must submit our wills to his will. Contrary to our own wisdom, contrary to our own speculation, we must respect that he knows much more about human nature and what society needs than we do. And consequently, yes, I would do any of those things if you could demonstrate that the Scripture requires them. In fact, you have avoided demonstrating that the Scripture requires them. You have been inconsistent in the use of the premises you have attempted to use. You've given us a general vision which stands contrary to the means God has given to promote that peaceable kingdom. And so that's the only way I can answer your question is when you will demonstrate that this is what my Lord wants. Of course he wants me to pursue peace. That's what I'm doing. I'm trying to get my Christian brothers to recognize that taking the most effective means of self defense out of the hands of God's people and those who are at this point not God's people is promoting peace by giving a free reign to those who are not going to live by the regulations you desire.

A one minute response.

Dr. Atwood, I think that.

You are.

Missing in my estimation the spirit of.

Jesus Christ.

Who came to teach us a little gentleness. I don't pick up any gentleness here. Any sense of obligation for neighbors who are in need. I sense only a very hard kind of stance where you think that God wants you to punish and God wants you to blast. And I am aware that 138 people in 1989 were killed by justifiable homicides. According to FBI. 138 throughout the whole country and 20,000 plus were killed with guns.

That's it.

Now the final question for Dr. Atwood. For. From Dr. Bonson.

Dr. Atwood, since you endorse state intrusion to regulate the conduct of citizens when that conduct might cause death, and you do this with fervency and I believe sincerity, wishing to see death stopped. Do you as an individual and a minister and a citizen utterly opposed the alleged civil right to abortion.

We're going to talk on gun control.

We're going to talk about your premises. That's the question.

I'm not going to answer that question because that has nothing to do with the debate which you agreed. And I want to talk about gun control. And I really think that's a. Slow down dirty question.

I really.

Did you have a minute response.

That is my. That is okay if that is that.

Is that.

Is that how I got boondoggled out of that. You can use. I really think. Wait, yeah, wait a minute.

Hold on. Before it gets out of control. I'm not going to rule the question.

Start again. May we start again?

I'll give you your three minutes and answer. He has a minute to respond. All right, and that's it for this segment.

Now this is already part of this three minutes.

All right. Just as I sent you six pages of every I ever had on that subject of gun control and you sent me 17 lines and you had about nine days to think about comments and I had two. I will respond. And because I won't let it all hang out, I am not for abortion because I think abortion as a means of birth control, I'm not for it, but I am for it if a mother's life is in danger, I am for it in cases of rape and incest. And I don't think it is up to me, but I think it is up to every individual person and their God as to how they deal with intimate personality, personal choices. And I do not see the linkage and I think that's a cheap shot. But I also think, and I want to say that guns are not going to keep you safe. This is a gun dealer in Ohio, July 29, who was surrounded by guns in his shop and he was murdered by a person who came to ask you to stole.22 semi automatic.

No. Okay, hold on. We're stopping the time. I could have ruled the question out of order. I didn't because I'll accept your claim that you were using it to challenge his premises. He can use his answer time to respond in any way he wishes to. So we'll let you continue your answer. You get a one minute rebuttal. You can use in any way you want to. That's the only fair way to go, in my opinion. You've got about a minute left.

I think we say that or Mr. Bonson says that guns are going to keep us safe. Guns are going to protect us. They are not. They are not going to protect us. You are 100. According to many cases of studies, you are 114% more likely, 114 times more likely to have an accident in your own home to have a child or a grandchild get a hold of a gun than you are to stop an intruder. As I say, 138 were killed in 1989 and there were 20,000 deaths. Accidents every day. Children this high to this high are killed by guns. It is the number one cause of death for black males under 35.

That's it. Finally, one minute of response from Dr. Bonson.

Yes, the question about abortion was not at all out of line because we have here a debater who tells us that he is in favor of the state intruding in the lives of people when Human life is going to be taken contrary to God's will. And what we have as an answer is a skirting of that issue. You notice that Dr. Atwood would not tell me whether he believes it is a civil right to pursue an abortion. He simply said it's his personal opinion people should not do it as a means of birth control. I'm glad that is his personal opinion. But you see, we have a conspicuous inconsistency again, don't we, in that we want the state to intrude in some cases where he thinks, although studies show contrary, that lives will be saved. But you know, in the case of abortion, in every case, we know that a life is taken, but we will not see an affirmation of the state's right to stop that from taking place. This is a challenge to his. Your premise up now.

We're going to go into audience questions and remind me, Dennis, we have these questions written out. I will ask.

You don't.

Statements. I start. Let him start.

Okay, sounds fair. Much time are we given for answering? In view of the sixth commandment, thou shalt do no murder, is my life worth less, more or the same? Or have I less moral right more or the same as my.

Dr. Atwood?

Of course your life is worth the same as everybody else's. I suppose that this relates to using a gun to kill someone. I would find that a terribly difficult thing. I can think of some people who are in very difficult situations. But insofar as protecting yourself, you cannot protect yourself with a gun unless you have your gun drawn. If you walk down the street with a gun in hand, I think you'd be pretty safe. But if you walk down the street with a gun in your pocket and someone accosts you from the side and you reach to get the gun out of your pocket to protect yourself and shoot the intruder or villain, you're a dead man or a dead woman. It's not going to work. Guns don't protect. And just as this gun dealer surrounded by a whole shop full of guns, he wasn't safe because he didn't have it in his hand. If you walk in your store, if you. If you keep a gun in your store in your hand to protect yourself, you're probably very safe because nobody get a drop on you. But if you've got it in a drawer under the desk and you reach for it when you see somebody coming in with a gun, you're a.

Jail.

Is not going to protect you.

Every human being's life is worth the same because people are made in the image of God. And for that reason they have obligations to live according to the will of God and to praise him and glorify him, and to respect others who are made in the image of God as well. So if we're going to talk about the worth of human life, I have to say it's the same for all people. Now, when the question goes on to ask whether someone has more or less of a moral right or more of a moral right as an assailant, then the answer is clearly going to be different. An assailant loses his right to the kinds of protections that I give to innocent law abiding neighbors when he takes it into hand to attack someone else, he no longer has the protection that I would give him if he were a law abiding citizen. So to answer the question, he has less moral right to protection because I am now going to assert my moral right to protect my children, my family, myself, and I will try to ward off whatever violence he would inflict. And in some cases that requires for the most efficient use of warding it off. And that means that I should be given the right to choose to use a gun. After all, we're told that people can't reach into a drawer and necessarily defend themselves every time. Well, you can write a scenario, an anecdote, all you want. The statistics tell you, however, as a generalization, that handguns are used far more often every year to ward off criminal attack then they are used to inflict harm or violence on other people.

Some of these questions, ladies and gentlemen, are addressed to one participant and not the other. And if I followed that, all the answers, most of the answers would come from one side. So I'm going to address these questions to both, unless there's no way to do that. So this question for both, please address the statement of Christ that we should turn the other cheek. Dr. Atwood.

When Jesus said we should turn the other cheek, he was speaking of the principles of the new kingdom, the characteristics of life when the kingdom comes. This was in the Sermon on the Mount. When Jesus was saying this, he was giving us a principle of forgiveness.

Of.

Understanding, of going the second mile, of sacrificing our own individual interests and looking to the interests of others. He was, as he did on the cross, humbling himself to show a new way of living, a new way of relating to other people, a new way of being tender, a new way of being gentle. I think we got to learn that.

Dr. Bonson, please address the statement of Christ that we should turn the other Cheek.

I think it's helpful in a question like this that we make sure we understand the full statement of Jesus, especially in its historical context. Jesus doesn't say generally turn the other cheek. He says if someone slaps you on the right cheek cheek, then you should turn to him the other. Have you ever stopped to ask why Jesus mentioned the right cheek? If you'll read the commentators who are aware of the historical setting, you will find that most of them will point out that most of Hebrew literature is given from the perspective of right handed people. As you know, if you're facing an individual and he as a right handed person is to hit you on the right cheek, it's not going to be, you know, a fist in the teeth, as it were. It's not going to be a direct hit. It's going to have to be a backhand slap, which is to say you have here an idiom for if someone insults you, slaps your cheek in that way, and Jesus says you should not retaliate. We should be children of the kingdom, pursuing peace. We should walk away from that. I would argue as a Christian ministry, we should walk away even if the person doesn't just give you the slap on the cheek as a way of insult, but is actually trying to hurt you and you are able to walk away from it and not hurt him in return. However, the sad thing is this text is often used by people to argue that we have no right to self defense or to the use of weapons at all. The same Jesus who said turn the other cheek was quite capable apparently of using a scourge to drive people out of the temple.

Doctor, please stay up here.

We'll direct the next question to you. First, if Christ were living in the United States in 1991, would he carry a gun?

Yes, he would.

I think if Christ were living in the United States, he would have better sense. In the carrying of.

All right. Christ emphasized the difference between internal and external righteousness. Will taking away guns lead to God's peace? Or will conversion of people's hearts lead them to stop misusing guns? In other words, how do we seek the kingdom? By starting with the heart or starting with politics?

The Bible is clear that the kingdom of God does not come through political means. Jesus says, my kingdom is not of this world or else my servants would fight Pilate. You have nothing to worry about. I'm a king of the truth. I've come to bear witness to the truth. And through the preaching of the truth and the changing of men's hearts, that God's peaceable kingdom comes. In the meantime, however, we do live in this world which, as Dr. Atwood has indicated, is populated with people who are depraved, who are violent, often irrational. They do things which do not live up to the standards of God's kingdom. And the question then becomes, what must I do to preserve the outward order of society while the peaceable kingdom of Jesus Christ is overtaking the hearts of men? And in order to preserve the peaceable part of. In order to preserve the peace that Christ peace might come, political peace for the sake of Christ peace coming, then I must obey the law of God and what it tells the state. And the law of God grants the right of people to defend themselves, even with the use of violence. I've given numerous texts to that effect. Not one has been answered. Yet. Tonight that right is given. Now, if you were to ask me, Dr. Bonson, what are you most interested in that political rite or the preaching of the gospel that changes men's hearts? I'll tell you. You don't have to give me a tenth of a second to answer. The gospel means far more to me than this political question. Because when all is said and done under oppressive regimes, under liberal regimes, my obligation is to see that people come to know the Lord Jesus Christ and have their hearts changed by his good news. That's what's going to bring peace ultimately under whatever political regime we have. But having said that, that it's far more important because it really goes to the cause of violence. The fact remains that we live in this world. And I'm not asked to make only one decision. Will I do this or that? That's what you call in debate a false antithesis. My obligation as a child of God is to do as much as I can, all the will of God, preach the gospel and protect the outward order of society. And that means don't turn my neighbor. Don't turn criminals loose upon my neighbor. Don't take from him the only efficient means of defense that many of them, especially women, might have.

Dr. Atwood.

I've spent 31 years in the ministry preaching the gospel. I believe wholeheartedly in the gospel. And I have seen the gospel work in amazing ways. But I am also convinced that. That God calls us, as Christians, particularly out of our Presbyterian heritage, to influence the political process. To pray for the kings, pray for the rulers who have authority over us, to take them with utmost seriousness. And to try, by God's grace and God's spirit, to influence those political leaders on what is good for one's country. I think we do that. It's a shame. We always link that always to or seemingly to money. It's not the only opportunity that we have. We have an opportunity through the political process which is, I believe, a gift of God in this country. The freedom to worship and to express our faith to our leaders. To say, this is what we believe God would have us do in this new society that God is bringing on this earth. God is building his kingdom in the earth and we praise God. Have an opportunity to have something to say about that. You don't have that opportunity in many countries or in many countries around the world. But we have the opportunity. John Calvin had the opportunity and he took it and he said, friends, let's go out and we'll preach the gospel with a burning. We'll also build hospitals, we'll also build schools. And we'll also work with those leaders of Geneva to build a good and a godly city. And we'll do everything we can because God has put us here and given us his chance. I believe it's both. I believe, yes, I would vote for the gospel above everything else. But we've got a wonderful opportunity to help a new society. We've got to do it.

Dr. Atwood, stay up there.

This question.

Could Nazi Germany have as easily executed 6 million Jews if gun ownership had been as prevalent among Jews then as among Americans now?

I think there have been a lot more deaths of Nazi storm troopers. I'm sure of that. I've seen some of those old movies. You know, I think in war it's good to have guns. Yeah, in war it is. But I really don't see the United States becoming a Nazi Germany. I don't see our government ever, through the political process that we have becoming that barbaric. But if it did, I doubt that a.38 or a.270 or a.45 Magnum or any of the guns that we like is going to stop a National Guard tank. Stop. Not going to shoot the treads off these M1s. I think we have some idea that we're going to really protect our country here if we have these guns in our closets. I can't get into that. I think that's real, real close to idolatry of placing our faith in our guns rather than placing our faith in God and in Christ. I think it's. I think we're really. It's a question that I can't see any future. In imagining that we could keep the overthrow of a government by the little guns that we have and fighting their big, big war material. I don't think we could do it.

All right, Dr. Boston, the question Could Nazi Germany have as easily executed 6 million Jews if gun ownership had been as prevalent among Jews then as among Americans now?

Absolutely not. I mean, just stop and think about it. You had a helpless people who were really with no ability to fight back. And of course there would have been a difference in the statistics. I must say, it's important that we be consistent in our theological premises. I've been pushing that tonight. And on the one hand, Dr. Atwood has said very admirably that human nature is such that it needs to be changed. It's depraved, it tends toward violence, so forth. But now when I hear him say that, he just doesn't think that sort of thing can happen here. I must say, you know, to my brother here, what naivete? What makes you think Americans are not capable of the kind of corruption and violence and political oppression that have been seen elsewhere? I dare say there was a day once in Germany where people said, oh, never here could it happen. And the very way in which we make sure that it does happen is by letting down our guard as Christians and thinking that we're really free from that kind of thing. Political oppression is possible here. And it was in Nazi Germany, obviously. And sadly, sadly, my Jewish friends were not in a very good position to help themselves. The Bible would have taught them otherwise. In 1 Samuel, the 13th chapter, we read in verse 19, now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel. For the Philistines said, lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears. And then skipping to the end, verse 22. So it came to pass in the day of battle that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people, people that were with Saul and Jonathan. Now, when someone tells you that he doubts that this is going to be very effective once you get into battle. Well, that may be true, although I don't think he has the military strategic insight than he thinks he does. You can't put a tank and a bazooka on every citizen. And so if your citizens are armed, even with handguns, you can do amazing great to your opponent. We'll talk about strategy some other time if we have to do that. But the question is not what you do once you get into battle and you're facing all these sorts of things. The question is, how do you keep from having to ever get there? And the way you do so is by preparing ahead of time. If the Philistines thought the Israelites had swords and spears, they wouldn't have been so quick to attack.

Okay, Doctor, please stay up there. We'll direct this next question first to you. A person with a gun in countries with fewer guns, such as England or Canada, seems much safer than a person with a gun in countries such as Lebanon or El Salvador, which have a lot of guns. Why do you, or do you prefer that the United States become more like Lebanon or El Salvador rather than England or Canada?

According to a study done by Cates entitled Guns, Murders and the Constitution, and I quote, differentials in international crime rates reflect basic socio, cultural and economic differences that have nothing to do with gun laws. And I would encourage you all to read that study because it's rather clear when you study all of the evidence about violence and the use of weapons in various cultures that you have not just less gun violence in England or even Western Europe than the United States, you have less violence altogether, except in the areas of suicide and political violence, where England and Western Europe have far more than we do in the United States. Clearly there are cultural differences that lead people to think about suicide more in those countries than we do here. But our country is far more violent against the neighbor, and that's not a good reflection on our people. That's another reason why we both need to be preaching the gospel and seeing people's hearts changed. But why do I wish for us to have more availability to guns just because of what I just said? We live in a culture that's prone to violence against the neighbor and the way in which we defend ourselves effectively against that violence. In fact, statistics have shown 83% of the time, as a generalization over the years, 83% of the time, the use of a gun which less than 50% of the time needs to be discharged is the way to repel someone who is attacking you. Western Europe has much less violence of all kinds per capita, not just less gun violence. And that has to be taken into account culturally. From a historical perspective, gun violence rates have increased more rapidly in gun banning countries than in the United states since the mid-1960s. You understand that gun violence rates have increased more rapidly in those nations that have gun control laws than in the United States now. Yes, they still have less violence than we do. We've already taken account of that culturally. That's true. But if you look at the historical perspective, obviously gun control laws don't help the situation in relatively crime free countries. As I've mentioned, Switzerland, Israel and New Zealand, they have even more gun Availability, availability than in the United States. And so I would support greater availability of guns for our citizens. Not because I'm so naive as to think that means bad people aren't going to get them, but it just means that I believe that good people need to be able to defend themselves effectively. And statistics show that that's what does take place. More defensive uses of guns are documented than criminal uses of them.

Dr. Atwood.

Doctor Bonson, in answering this question has quoted as he has several times tonight a Keck test which is often referred to by the nra. I know he's not representing the nra, but there's a lot of crossover with the sources he's quoting. This test of quick declares that there's a 600,000 times a year someone uses a gun in self defense. And this number by the way goes up and down. According to the audience, it's often quoted as a million. This text is an interpretation of five opinion polls, two of which were nationwide. And the main question is have you or a member of your family ever used a gun to protect yourself even if the gun was not fired? First thing about that test is there's no time frame on it. Second thing about that test is 58% of those people said yes, we used to protect ourselves against an animal. And the third thing, the NRA distributes this figure frequently to advocate their stance. There's another factor here in this question question where that we have to take into consideration is that where the deaths by guns, the murders, the suicides and the accidents occur are where the guns are the most. The most. The place where the most murders. That's right, most murders and the most suicides and most accidents by guns occur in the south, the southern part of the United States because that's where the most guns are. The second highest place is out west and then in the Midwest, the least is in the Northeast. That's fact. That's the, with the, the deaths are where the guns are, they are related just as where crack is. That's where the more addicts are, where the drugs are. You're going to find more addicts. You're going to find there's a connection. There is a connection and that is statistics by the FBI.

All right, we're going to wrap up now with final closing statements, five minutes each. One final question though. Where did you get such an even handed and fair moderator? Sad to get that in. Okay, finally, since Dr. Atwood started out, we're going to let Dr. Vonson go first in the final closing statements.

Five minutes each government regulations of firearms and hope of increasing the peace and safety of law abiding citizens has been shown tonight to be both unscientific and unscriptural. It's unscientific because claims made that firearms will in the end decrease violence are based on ignorance, not factual study or research. You've heard my opponent refer to the FBI report. I just read the FBI report again this afternoon. He is just wrong. And I encourage you, go out and look for yourselves. You have eyes, you'll see. The FBI does not say what he thinks it says. These unscientific claims stem from preconceptions and I believe, naive speculation. They are fueled by emotional appeals, anecdotal stories and sadly fallacious reasoning. People who do not know how to interpret statistics and understand causal analysis. And on top of that, it's unscientific because it's argued from premises, as we have seen tonight in three or four different men major ways argued from premises which are not consistently followed by the advocates of gun controls. And therefore such premises are not sincere. They are like a taxi which are used whenever you want to go to a particular location, but then you dismiss the taxi when you don't want to go all the way. Secondly, government regulation of firearms in hopes of increasing the peace and safety law abiding citizens is unscriptural because it's contrary to the law's explicit warrant that people have the right to defend themselves and to use weapons in the process of doing so. Obviously we are to seek the goal of peace and safety. But the question is what is the God ordained means or method for doing that? God has ordained the state for very specific ends and authorized it to use only specific means to achieve those ends. A state which transgresses those limits on its power and threatens individual liberty and defies God's word is a state that is a monster. A state which acts as though the end justifies the means is not a minister of God for our good. It's a state that has assumed the prerogatives of God himself. God has not empowered the state to interfere in a citizen right to pursue effective self defense because Scripture countenances and approves the possessing and using of weapons for self defense. A state that interferes in that right stands contrary to God himself as he's revealed Himself in His Word. And thus the state regulation of firearms is immoral from a Christian perspective, not simply unscientific and will not accomplish its announced purpose. Instead, such regulation of firearms arms works against listen, works against the safety and the Political freedom of the people threatening them with ineffective defense against criminals because criminals will continue to have arms and they will not as well as now threatening them with an intrusive political order which threatens their freedoms.

Two minutes.

My opponent has said that he doesn't hear much sense of. Of gentleness and concern for a neighbor in need. And what I've had to say tonight, I've said it so many times I don't know what I can tell you. I could preach a sermon to make it more clear and more compassionate. I don't want women getting raped. I don't want them getting beat up and killed by their spouses or their ex spouses or their boyfriends. Women suffer the most from handgun control because women in particular need an equalizing situation situation against the violence that's done against them. Study the statistics. The ones who suffer. It's out of my compassion for women that I say handgun controls ought not to be allowed. We're told that guns will not keep us safe. The statistics tell you otherwise. 83% of the time studies done on both sides of this question agree. 83% of the time guns are effective either using by criminals or by those who are defending themselves. We've been called upon by my opponent to influence the political process. Aptly, I'm all in favor of doing that. We must do so. But we better influence it for justice and righteousness and the peace of our society and not vain speculation that will do no good in protecting people but only increase the burden of government upon them. The book of Deuteronomy says, doctor, not turn from the right hand or the left from the law of God. That's what kings are obligated to do. Sadly, my opponent's position tonight would encourage the king or the government here to depart from God's law by taking away a right that is granted by God and encouraging the state to do something that God has not authorized. An answer to the question that was set before us. Is the civil regulation of firearms the scriptural norm for civil government? We haven't heard one shred of evidence that would tell you that it is. We've heard a great deal of evidence that would tell you that it is not. Intrusion into our lives. To regulate the use of weapons that can be used for self defense is both unscientific and sadly and much worse, unscriptural.

Thank you, Dr. Atwood. Five minutes.

I think I know how the Israelis and the Arabs must feel. You know, here they are, they're looking at the same reality. They're looking at the Same land. And they're both saying. Saying, you know, we were here first. You know, said, no, that's a lie. We were here first. How you gonna. How are you gonna close the gap? How are you gonna close the gap? I think in this debate, we have had a. The Japanese had a great word. They call it sura qing ao. You go right by one another, and you don't listen to what. What one another is saying. I'm guilty of that. I'm guilty of that. When I'm listening to Dr. Bonson speak, I'm over there, you know, I'm hustling right down. A word here, a word there, signal here, signal there. Missing what he's saying. Really not listening as good as I can. I have a sneaking suspicion you're not hearing me. And I think that's tragic. In a Christian community, when Christians get together to talk about 200,000 people being assaulted every year, 20,000 people dying every year in our country, kids in the paper. You can't pick up paper without reading about that. I think it's a tragedy that we're not listening to one another. I think it's a tragedy that we're drawing a line right down the middle. And by golly, I'm not gonna move. I'm not gonna move an inch, because if I move, I might have to change my mind. I think it's a tragedy. It's a tragedy on my part. It's a tragedy on a lot of you. I think it's tragedy on Dr. Ponson. I hope you will study the facts. I hope you will. And if you want to get holds of some good material that's got some facts in it, let me encourage you to buy this resource out of the Presbyterian Church in Louisville. I think it's $4. It's even got some NRA material in there. The Presbyterian Criminal Justice Program out of the office in Louisville. If you need the number, call me at Trinity Church in Arlington. I'll give you the address. We owe it to God to study this thing with the Bible. We owe it to God to study this thing with the facts. We owe it big time. I think the argument Dr. Bonson would espouse that my argument is unscriptural. Lord, I don't understand how he could say that. God, I don't understand how he could say that. Presbyterian. That's scriptural. It's scripture right out of the Bible. It's based on that peace, Based on that vision of doing the things that make for peace. I've seen a bumper sticker God, guns and guts made America great. Let's keep it that way. I don't believe that.

I don't believe that.

That's elevating guns and guts to a trinity. That's the trinity. God, guns and guts. That's not the trinity. It's Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If anything happens for good in this country, it will be because by the spirit of God and by the power of God, Christians think and study and pray and act and do the things that'll make for peace. I want to be involved in that and I want to have some kinds of future dialogues where we don't go searching out but where we meet and where we sit down and say, you know, in a quiet kind of way, I disagree with you. Let's talk some more. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And on that note, that concludes the program. Let's give some applause to both of the.