Dr Greg Bahnsen - Gun Control Debate: Gun Control Debate Part 1 (Part 1)

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It should be an interesting evening, to say the least. I'm here as the fair and objective and professional moderator. I'm going to introduce the speakers and explain to you the format of this evening's activities and give you some introductory remarks about the topic. William Peter Blatty is an author who has written several very interesting and scary books, one of which was, of course, the Exorcist, and another which was made into a motion picture, was called the Ninth Configuration. And in that book the central character says the I think about sickness, cancer in children, earthquakes, war, painful death. If these things were just part of our natural environment, why do we think of them as evil? Why do they horrify us so, unless we were meant for someplace else? All of us are horrified by the gun violence in this society. In America today, 23 dead and Colleen, many dead at the University of Iowa, more than 20,000 killed every year in what is called handgun violence alone. Such horrifying evil. And yet what are we as Christians or non Christians supposed to do about it, if anything? That's what we're going to talk about tonight. In one corner, as they say on ESPN when they have the fights, let's get ready to rumble, because we're going to do some rumbling tonight. There are going to be some sharp disagreements. And in one Corner we have Dr. James Atwood, Pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Arlington. He has a master's in divinity from Union Theological Seminary, a master's of theology from Princeton Theological Seminary and a doctorate in the ministry. And he's pastor formerly of Grace Presbyterian Church in Springfield. He's been a missionary to Japan and now sits on the board of the National Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which was formerly known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. For your own information, the program agency of the Presbyterian Church USA is still listed as a participating organization in the National Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. And the General assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA has declared in effect that the Bible mandates opposition to the killing of anyone anywhere, for any reason, even in self defense. Reverend Atwood, Dr. Atwood wants to take handguns out of the hands of all private citizens. On the other side is Dr. Greg Bonson, an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He's a scholar in residence at the Southern California center for Christian Studies. He received his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Southern California, specializing in the field of epistemology, the theory of knowledge. He received his BA From Westmont College and then earned his master's in divinity and master's in Theology degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary. Both of our speakers tonight have a lot of important background, but they disagree sharply. Dr. Bonson will argue that you have a God given right to keep and bear arms and that there is no biblical basis for the government to infringe upon your rights, assuming you are law abiding citizens. And the question specifically before the House tonight is the cellation of firearms, the scriptural norm for the civil government. I have to admit up front that I'm a little bit nervous about this kind of a debate when it gets so religious, especially debates where each side seems to be claiming that God is on their side. Can God take both sides of this issue? Is he really on one side or another? I remember the old story about a lawyer who's laying death bed in the.

Hospital.

Frantically thumbing through the Bible and he was asked why and he said, well, I'm looking for loopholes. Dennis mentioned the radio talk show. I did. I'm still involved in radio and I've been in the middle of so many debates and I have an opinion to be sure, but I've heard every kind of argument on gun control and on other issues and inevitably one side or the other always resorts to the Bible. And the question specifically before the House tonight is the cellation of firearms the scriptural norm for the civil government. And I have to admit up front that I'm a little bit nervous about this kind of a debate when it gets so religious, especially debates where each side seems to be claiming that God is on their side. Can God take both sides of this issue? Is he really on one side or another? I remember the old story about a lawyer who is laying on deathbed in the hospital, frantically thumbing through the Bible and he was asked why and he said, well, I'm looking for loopholes. Dennis mentioned the radio talk show. I did. I'm still involved in radio and I've been in the middle of so many debates and I have an opinion to be sure. But I've heard every kind of argument on gun control and on other issues, and inevitably one side or the other always resorts to the Bible or some holy book or biblical or scriptural or Jesus teachings. I've heard gay rights advocates on my radio show contend that biblical arguments against homosexuality have simply been misinterpreted and that, for example, God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah only because the town was impolite. I've heard it said on the one hand that a person who argues most about religion usually has the least of it. On the other Hand, it has been said that a man who brags of having no religious prejudice probably has no religion either. And gun control tonight for us is being presented as a religious issue.

Really.

I took a look recently at the national organizations endorsing what's called the National Handgun Waiting Period, and I found the American Jewish Committee, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, and the U.S. catholic Conference and the Presbyterian Church. It wasn't on this list, but I assumed they had to be on it. And you wonder if differences in the religions in the churches cause indifference among the public. If ordinary members of the public figure, well, look, the religious people can't agree. How can I take a position? How can I know what's true? I wonder if our two speakers tonight will find any common ground at all. Should they try? Perhaps in the end, we can't expect religious people to agree on this, to agree on anything really, since people can't unite on other issues anyway. So maybe it's fruitless, maybe we can't find common ground, but maybe we will. We'll have to see. And it's going to be an interesting evening. Without further ado, let me tell you before I introduce Dr. Atwood again, what the format is going to be. Quickly, each side, and I'm going to time it will be given 15 minutes for an opening statement monitored closely by yours truly, to be followed by 8 minute responses and then segments where they can ask each other questions with three minutes each to respond, followed by a very quick response to that. In the end, closing statements of five minutes duration each. Then we'll open it up to some questions from you. So the question again before the House is the civil regulation of firearms, the scriptural norm for the civil government. Speaking first, Dr. Atwood.

Mr. Busaro, Mr.

Kincaid and Dr. Bonson and friends. Ladies and gentlemen, I consider it a privilege to be here and to talk about matters of faith on such a sticky issue as gun control. I think we do need to address this topic and I want to particularly thank Mr. Frissaro for having the foresight and the cordiality and the faith to say, let's talk about this as Christians together from a biblical perspective. I have appreciated him and his diligence, his interest in the topic. And I must say I appreciate Dr. Bonson coming all the way across the country to talk to me. You know, that's never happened to me before. I appreciate that, you know, flying across, you know, California talk about this. You got some interest in this, too.

That's great.

The topic is the civil regulation of firearms. The scriptural norm. Norm for the civil government. No, no, I'm talking, you know, there's no scriptural norm for gun control and Bible. No scriptural norm for a lot of the laws that we have that are pretty good. Stopping at stop signs, getting the dog rabies vaccination, getting catalytic converter on a car, prohibiting carcinogens being put in, kept out of our food, those good laws. But there's no scriptural norm for them. There's no scriptural definite, you shall do this or do that. But it is my strong conviction that there is a strong scriptural bias that helps us talk about this issue from the Christian faith and would help us build a vision of peace. As I look at the Bible, I see the vision of Shalom, the vision of God's peace for the world as one of God's hope for the world of peace as one of the greatest common themes that goes from Genesis through revelation. God loved and redeemed the world. God sent Jesus Christ. And this Christ told us to pray thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. The kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever. And the day will come when there is no more suffering or crying or grief or death. My theological position is based on this vision of a peaceable kingdom. And it seems to me that as Christians address this problem and address any problem in the world, no matter how deep it is, our common faith in Christ believes or affirms that God is in control, God is sovereign Lord. That's what we believe as Presbyterians. Therefore, I think we ought to look at this in hope. Hope in the face of a very complex issue, a tremendously complex issue. Hope in a world of despair which promulgates this issue. Hope that we as individuals and as communities of faith have a role to play in eliminating the violence of that is so rampant in our country today. Hope that there should be and will be shalom in our future and in our children's future. Hope as we can discuss this matter and hopefully come to a meeting of the mind. I'm not here to draw a hard, fast rule line right down the middle and say, you're over here, buddy, now and forever, and I'm over here. That's not why I'm here. I'm here hoping that there will be a blurring of the lines and that we together as Christians can come and reason together. As Isaiah says, it is in hope that I come here, that the spirit of Christ would lead us all to bridge some of the gaps and that there can be some giving on my side and some giving on Dr. Bonson's side. I think that's how we do things in the Presbyterian family. That one person comes to a meeting and he says, I believe the Lord tells me this. And then he checks that opinion with the others. And then together, collectively, they decide what the Spirit tells everybody together. And I appreciate the chance to come because in the last statement that was made by the Presbyterian Church regarding its new study of the problem of gun violence, a study that's called Hope, Respect and Reconciliation, a Christian Response to Gun Violence, which I want to give Dennis as a gift that I hope he will use and that others of you might write in to use in your churches. The General assembly said this, that they commend and encourage Presbyterians and others who are members of gun clubs or the National Rifle association as they continue to expand their educational programs on gun safety, that they urge governing bodies, congregations and members to join in dialogue with the National Rifle association and other similar associations in the effort to establish responsible gun regulations to build a safer and less violent society and to ask sports people to agree to incur some small inconveniences, such as waiting periods, purchases, in order to reduce the senseless deaths of many people. I want to make it clear that since 1968, Presbyterian Church has been making statements, faith statements, based on scripture, based on their theology, our theology regarding the problem of guns and violence and their connection. And I want to make it clear that the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is not opposed to hunting. It is not opposed to target shooting, and it is not opposed to legitimate. That we consider these all legitimate sports. Presbyterian Church is opposed to handguns, especially Saturday night specials and assault weapons and automatic weapons that have more than seven rounds in them, because, as a rule, these guns are manufactured for the purpose of using against people. Let me tell you a little bit about how I got involved in this matter of gun control. It was in 1975, when I was pastor at Grace Church in Springfield. I got a call from one of our members alerting me that a charter member of our church was at that moment in Alexandria Hospital in intensive care about to die. Herb Hunter. Perhaps you came by Highway 95 and Newington Crossroad there or where the exit comes off at Newington, the Hunter Motel. He was the owner of the Hunter Motel. He was shot one night because there was a young fellow at the Springfield bowling alley who said he didn't have any money. One of his friends said well, I've got a gun. I'll give you a gun. You can pay me $25. Later, he took the gun, went to the Hunter motel, held up Mr. Hunter, and as he was backing away from the cash register, afraid, he tripped over a throw rug, fell down, and the boy turned around and shot him three times. Damaged his liver so badly that he died. I was saddened, but more than sad, I was livid. I was livid. And I called the coalition, which was at that time the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, for some facts on how a teenager in a bowling alley could get a hold of a gun so easily. Then I began an education about our problem here in the United States, and particularly in Virginia, which is one of the three top gun running states in the United States. I don't know if you knew that one of the three top gun selling states in our country. But after that happened, my mind began to race back. Other connections about. About guns, gun control. I had recently returned from Japan. When I went to Japan in 1964 as a missionary, I took my shotgun with me because I'd heard they had great duck hunting and pheasant hunting and deer and bear hunting there. So on my arrival in Yokohama, my gun was confiscated by the police. Several weeks later, when I arrived in Kobe, the Kobe police one day showed up at my door and they said, is this your gun? I said, yes. Can I have it? They said, after. You do four things. First of all, we have to check it to see that it's safe. Secondly, you have to go to a doctor and get a statement that you are physically and mentally capable of using this. And thirdly, you have to pass a hunter safety course. And then you have to buy a license and register this gun to hunt every year. I was really annoyed. I was really annoyed. Why all this fuss? All I want to do is hunt some ducks. Why all this fuss? And then I began to think, well, maybe this was an inconvenience that I could really endure, because Japan had that year, five deaths, five by guns. It's an amazing statistic. And what was happening in the United States at that time. Remember that was between 1963, 1973, the years of Vietnam. We as a nation were incensed that we had lost 46,120Americans in Vietnam.

We were incensed.

And the American people called off the war. They were so angry about it. But on our own streets, in the United States of America, in our cities, in our towns, we lost 84,000 people to guns in our own land, not in War in our own country, 46,000 in war, 84,000 on our own streets. And you know, Mr. Kinkaid, I'm not sure if the American people really are horrified, as you put it, horrified that we lose 20,000 people a year. I don't think we are. I think we are. If we were, we'd have done something by. But I think that we are the only nation in the world that permits the use of guns in such proportion. No other nation permits the indiscriminate buying and and selling of guns. For some inexplicable reason, we seem to accept as part of our culture that one should be able to go out, buy a big, Buy a gun as easily as they could buy a Big Mac. Now, in light of these responsibilities, in light of these facts, what are our responsibilities as a Christian community? How are we going to address this epidemic of violence in our midst? Are we going to accept this and say, well, can't be helped. This is the way it is? I really don't believe that that is what God wants of our American society. I really don't think so. What is the responsibility of Christian people who are called to seek the welfare of the city? You know, when Jeremiah talked to the exiles who were living in Babylon, wicked Babylon, tell them, you can't come home. You got to stay there in Babylon. And what are you to do? You're to seek the welfare of that city in Babylon, not their own, but Babylon City. Pray for that city, work for that city. Because as Babylon has peace, so will you have peace. Seek the welfare of the city. I think it's ours. I think we have plenty of scriptural warrant for this to do the things that make for peace in our city. And part of the problem, friends, part of the problem is the large amount of handguns and the growing amount of assault weapons that are being put to use on our streets in our cities. We as a Christian community have got to take some responsibility and make the community and the cities safer. To me, it is God's will we do so. Thank you.

Next up, Dr. Bonson, on the question, is the civil regulation of firearms the scriptural norm for civil government for 15 minutes?

I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important subject to you tonight. But more than anything else, I'm grateful to the Lord Jesus Christ, who has been so gracious as to call me into his peaceable kingdom and to establish peace in my heart by his reconciling work through the cross and to show me the way of peace, the way of Shalom His Word and I thank him that for some reason that is beyond my human comprehension. He called me to serve him and to try to teach to others the way of peace as well as he's presented to it in His Word. And I hope that I'm able to do that for you tonight. I thank the organizers of this event for being here And I thank Dr. Atwood for his gracious spirit in approaching this subject and I hope that I can do as well. Let me give you a real brief overview of what I'd like to us tonight and then make my own positive presentation. It is my own conviction that if we would do those things which make for peace, we cannot, as Christians committed to the authority of God's Word, endorse government intrusion into the lives and freedoms of our people that would interfere with their ability to defend themselves against the sad and unfortunate fact that there are people who don't want peace in this world. But we will not advance the cause of peace by permitting those who don't want peace to have their way. In overview I would argue that government regulations on firearms in hope of increasing the peace and safety of law abiding citizens is both unscientific and unscriptural. In the first place. We need to understand that in many cases those who are against the possession of guns, handguns as my opponent is, many of those who are crusading against the right to arm oneself in self defense, even using handguns, are not themselves often armed with the facts and many times, sadly, the things they have to say are unreliable. If we are going to make a case, we need to make our case truthfully and factually. Let me give you a few real quick illustrations. It's sometimes said, as Dr. Atwood said in the text of a sermon he preached this year, that the Second Amendment doesn't confer any individual right to bear arms and that every time the Supreme Court has dealt with that, it has only dealt with it as a collective right of the states rather than an individual right to own a gun of any sort. But in fact the Constitution precludes laws which would prevent adults from choosing to own guns for their own defense. You take a man who is a constitutional scholar and who opposes gun ownership like Sanford Levinson. He's written of this in the Yale Law Journal for 1989 and the article is entitled the Embarrassing Second Amendment. He says we can't avoid the fact the Second Amendment teaches the right of individuals to bear guns. Every other time the Bill of Rights speaks of, quote, the right of the people it has, in view the right of individuals, for instance, the right to assemble in Amendment 1, or the right to be protected against unreasonable search in Amendment 4, or to a speedy trial by jury in Amendment 6. None of these are the right of a State not to be unreasonably searched and to assemble, and so forth. These are rights of individuals. The very same language is used in Amendment 2. And as a matter of fact, contrary to Dr. Atwood's statement, the Supreme Court has spoken on that. In the case of Verdugo Urguades versus the United States on February 28, 1990, the Supreme Court declared that the words, quote, the right of the people, denote the right of individuals, not merely the collective right of states, and specifically mentioned the Second Amendment as an illustration of that. Dr. Atwood has said that the United States is the only nation in the world that permits such indiscriminate use of firearms, that no other nation permits such indiscriminate buying and selling of guns. In his sermon, as he repeated tonight, he says, you can go out and get a gun as easily as you can a Big Mac, but that's just not factually the case. The United States in his sermon said as well, what we have today is in effect, no gun control whatsoever. No gun control whatsoever. In fact, the United States already has some 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws. No one in the United States has to fill out a form, answer questions about his or her past record, or show a driver's license to buy a hamburger in the United States of America. This may make for good rhetoric. It does not make for good science. This is not reasonable.

The program is continued on the other side.

And is the United States the most indiscriminate? Absolutely not. If we were to really look at the situation, you would learn that Switzerland, Israel and New Zealand, to begin the survey, have even more gun availability than in the United States. And by the way, are all comparatively more crime free than the United states as well. Dr. Atwood has said in the sermon that I have cited already that in the decade of the 80s, over 300,000 persons were killed by guns on our streets, more than all those killed in all our foreign wars. Well, you see, this makes it difficult if you want to take a scholarly approach to this. In the first place, the figure of 300,000 in the decade of the 80s translates into approximately 30,000 per year in the 1980s. According to the Uniform Crime Reports 1990, published by the FBI, the figure was only 11 or maybe as much as 12,000 in any of the years 86, 87, 88 or 89. And to say that 300,000 persons were killed by guns on our streets and that exceeds more than all those killed in all our foreign wars. You can check any almanac to see how outlandish a claim that is. Just the U.S. combatant casualties in World War I were 117,000. In World War II, 425,000. In Vietnam, 68,000. And so what you have here is a mistake in the order of magnitude of about 1/2. I mean you have just 2 to 1. Now my point of bringing these things up is that you have to understand that tonight what we need is not rhetoric, not sloppy scholarship. What we need is a scientific and scripturally regulated approach to the subject. Just because it is so important. Just because Dr. Atwood and I both want so much to see peace maximized and violence minimized in our world. Sadly, many anti gun crusaders are not interested in the facts nor inaccurate claims. They rest their claims on gross exaggerations and emotionally laden distortions of reality. As Christians we're called to tell the truth and we must tell the truth even when we're debating things that are very near and dear to our hearts. Dr. Atwood's sermon on the 10th of March this year, the text for it claims the majority of the murders in the United States are committed by first time offenders who up until that very moment of murder were law abiding citizens. Let me quote Don Cates from his study Guns, Murders and the constitution published in 1990. He's speaking of claims like this. He says this claim is contradicted by all national and local studies of homicide which uniformly show that murderers are not ordinary law abiding people. Rather. Rather, murderers are highly aberrant individuals characterized by felony records, alcohol and or drug dependence and life histories of irrational violence against people around them. Now remember, we're talking as sociologists, we're looking at statistics. Of course there are some people who have absolutely no history, but they're very few. The vast majority of people who finally engage in active gun violence have long histories of violence and abuse and law breaking. This could be confirmed if you look at Strauss's study in the Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine for 1986, the Bruce Briggs Study in the Public Interest for 1976, the Kleck Study Law and Contemporary Problems 1986, or the Kate Study Violence in America 1989. They will all indicate to you that scientifically it's just not true that murderers are previously law abiding citizens and just all of a sudden, boom, out of the blue, they get irrational and they kill somebody or try to, and then that's the end of it. That is just not true to human psychology. It's not true to the sociology of this country. We have to understand that gun ownership is not the cause of violence in the United States of America. Gun ownership is not the cause of violence. The National Institute of justice analysis 1978 states and I quoted. It is clear that only a very small fraction of privately owned firearms are ever involved in crime or unlawful violence, the vast bulk of them being owned and used more or less exclusively for sport and recreational purposes or for self protection. And of course, reputable studies find that there is no relationship, no relationship, scientific relationship, between gun ownership and rates, or if there is any, it would happen to be a negative relationship. That is, cities and counties with high gun ownership suffer less violence than demographically comparable areas with lower gun ownership. That is verified in studies by Murray in social problems for 1975, Kleck in firearms and violence 1984 and McDowell in Law and Politics Quarterly 1986. The fact is, murderers are only an extremely small subset of gun owners and thus it would prove to be irrational to try to regulate gun ownership in hopes of achieving peace. It would be irrational to apply to the whole class of gun owners the fears and responses that are appropriate to only 1% or less of the group that owns guns. That would be like applying to the whole population blood therapies and restrictions based on the medical history only of hemophiliacs. Gun control is ineffective in dealing with criminals and turns out to prevent or hinder self defense by the innocent. It's utterly naive for us to believe that gun controls will somehow keep firearms out of the reach or possession by lawbreakers. Guns will still end up in criminal hands. And by the way, all the studies, even of gun opponents admit that at the same time, such gun controls will simply render good citizens unprotected, lacking adequate defense against lawbreakers who have more lethal weapons than they do. So the issue before us is whether individuals should be free to choose gun ownership as a means of protecting themselves, their homes and their families. Obviously, the police forces are never able, and they were never intended as a practical reality to provide protection for each citizen. And therefore citizens will in most cases need to protect themselves, themselves, not expect the policeman is going to be right next to them when they happen to be the one mugged on the street. The fact is that most gun owners use their guns, handguns in particular, for self defense and they are effective at it. Guns are used more often by good citizens to repel crime than they are used by criminals to commit crimes. The studies done by Gary Kleck in Social Problems 1988 indicate that approximately 581,000 crimes crimes are committed with guns over against 645,000 uses of guns in the same period for defensive purposes. And thus there is a positive social benefit to widespread gun ownership. Just think of that. 645,000 crimes prevented per year because handguns were available to people. Other studies indicate that in about 83% of the cases when a victim faces a handgun, he submits to it. And as well 83% of the cases when a criminal faces a handgun, he flees. Handguns are 83% effective depending on who's using them, but it's 83%. Now the question is, do we want to take away that 83% effectiveness for the sake of the less than 1% who misuse handguns? This is irrational. This is not Christian thinking. It's not scientific. The Bible gives us a right to self defense. In Exodus 22:2, the law of Moses exonerates a person for killing an intruder when he wishes to protect himself or his family. You see in Judges 15 the example of Samson who killed a thousand Philistines in defense using a donkey's Jawbo. In Matthew 24, our Lord Jesus speaks favorably of a man's willingness to stay home and defend his house against a burglar. In Luke 11:21, as part of lesson that he is presenting, he says, when a strong man, fully armed, guards his own court, his goods are in peace. The Bible gives us the right of self defense. And the Bible also gives the right to bear arms. In Nehemiah, the fourth chapter, verses 13 and following, you notice that Nehemiah placed people in families in particular places in Jerusalem, and they were allowed to have their own spears and swords and bows. In Luke 22:36, Jesus exhorts his followers to buy a sword. Of course he's making a spiritual point, but the point is he makes the spiritual point. On the background of that, it's perfectly alright for you to buy a sword and to bear it. Your time is up. Thank you.

Now we'll have each speaker be given eight minutes to respond.

Dr. Atwood. Really starts flowing in a place like this, you know, because you, you, you get stung by some of the things that are said. I'm glad you read my sermon, Dr. Bonson. And I believe that was six pages, wasn't it? Single space, was that right? Six page sermon and I got 17 lines from you. I let it all hang out in that sermon. I let everything hang out in that sermon. And I was really disappointed that I didn't receive from you anything really, other than 17 lines which were quite theoretical.

But.

I'd like to talk about the right business just for a minute because it seems that you, your position hangs on this right business, this right to bear arms, which I think is probably the greatest con job that's ever been put on the American people. And I have on my table, or.

I have right here.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Supreme Court cases where the Supreme Court has never, never affirmed an individual right to own any weapon.

Never.

And also you quote, you know.

Half.

The amendment is what's usually quoted, the right to keep and bear arms from not being friends. The first half isn't before. The comma isn't quoted very much. And that says a well regulated militia, militia being necessary for the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be French. And the Supreme Court has said there is a connection between the militia and the keeping and the bearing of arms as where the right is concerned. Now, I have several guns in my home and I have them. I consider it a privilege to go hunting. Just bought my hunting license today, as a matter of fact.

But.

I don't think this is an individual right any more than it's a right I have to have a car or a fishing license. You are absolutely right. The 20,000 laws that we have on the books for gun control laws are a real laugher. They're a real laugher. They do not do the job. They don't, they don't promote safety. And that's because there's no centralized or uniform standard of the law. I mean, one of the laws on the book is that a person in Georgia can have a gun if he's of good moral character as judged by the person that hands out the license. Or it's against the law in Illinois for a person to wave a handgun or wave a gun in the air in the presence of three or more people. That's one of the laws. I mean, rather ridiculous, I mean, say. But the Brady Bill, thankfully is a small baby step to help the laws have some credibility. Yeah, I mean, you've got a strict gun control law in Washington and it leads the nation in numbers of homicides at 78 point something per 100,000 deaths, 100,000 population, 78.6 deaths. And the reason the law isn't much good is they can drive about five miles across Potomac, get most any gun he wants. Go to Maryland, get most any gun he wants. Got a lot of gun dealers just having their office on four wheels riding around selling their wares. I will stick by my statistics and I will also stick by the fact that my statistics are not drummed up by the National Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. The statistics that I have are from the FBI, which I would think would be. I would think they have no particular axe to grind. You and I do. We got grind. We got some. We got some axes to grind ourselves. The truth. You know, I really think I find myself wishing that we had, when we talk about this issue, the. Some objective party that could keep both of us, both of us, Dr. Bonson, telling the truth. When we start talking statistics, you know, you always get into that liars figure. And figures don't lie, but liars figure. You know, I think, I think the gun control people probably made some mistakes in that I think they have in some of the figuring, some of the, you know, determinations. But I ask you, has the NRA ever done that? Have they ever made their case a little better? I mean, you know, I would, I would bet my house to have. Bet my wife too. Orange county, where you live, Sir? Interesting. In one four month period in Orange county where Dr. Bonson lives, there are more deaths in four months than there are in Lebanon in a year. There are more deaths in Orange county in one four month period than there are in Ireland in many years. Big time problems in Orange county where you live. Big time death there. And it seems to me there is a definite connection with the guns because people do kill people with handguns. People do kill people with street sweepers and Uzis and Mac tension. They do. They kill them. They kill them dead with guns. It's truth. There is 138 justifiable homicides in the United States every year. 138. According to the FBI, over 20,000 people are killed by guns. And the majority of these are family members and friends, children, people where there's an accident in the home.

Thank you, Dr. Boston, for eight minutes in response.

In Dr. Atwood's permanent presentation, he told us that there is no scriptural norm for gun control. And in that sense, I suppose I could sit down and say end of debate. Since he does not believe that he can warrant this from the teaching of God's word, then it certainly cannot be in any distinctive or authoritative way the Christian position that he's presenting. Rather, he said there's a more general Scriptural tendance toward peace in Christ's kingdom, a bias that we should have toward that which I certainly share with him. And he says it's because of that that many regulations are warranted, such as traffic regulations and medical controls and that sort of thing. But of course, in the case of all these other regulations, there must be a factually warranted means to end relationship that warrants applying regulations because God, says the civil magistrate, is supposed to enforce the protection of human life against unwarranted intrusion and so forth. Has that means to end been demonstrated in the case of gun controls? No, it has not. And contrary to Dr. Atwood's remark about statistics, statistics no more lie than guns kill. People lie, people kill, people are hurt by lies, and people are killed by guns. What we are dealing with tonight are people problems, whether they have to do with violence on the street or disagreements between debaters. And God does regulate the activities of people. The question is, how do so claims that are made. Dr. Axford says he stands by his statistics. The problem is I've cited case after case after case in the journals where he is wrong. He makes an outlandish claim about Orange county, and all I can think is that he certainly must be confusing different categories, configuration comparing apples and oranges. We do not in Orange county have more deaths in four months than there are in one year in Lebanon. If that is supposed to in some way be applied to handguns or guns in general, there is no means to end connection there. He says that there are numerous studies to support him, and he cites the FBI. But it's precisely the FBI that I quoted in my speech that disproves the figures that he has set before you. Now, let's get away from this for a second because obviously everyone's uncomfortable with that. You think you can fudge with the figures? Well, we came here tonight to debate moral principles. Moral principles. Dr. Atwood said in his opening presentation that we should move toward a corporate agreement with each other after everyone has rechecked his approval opinions. And I plan to recheck my opinions. We need to do that as Christians. We need to be humble and teachable. I hope Dr. Atwood will recheck his opinions as well. But in the end, whether Dr. Atwood and I come to an agreement or all of us in this room do, is utterly irrelevant to moral right and wrong. As Paul says in Romans 3, 4, let God be true. Though all men are liars, you can get corporate agreement among men. But as I disagree with the word of God, they are still Liars. Our ultimate standard is the word of God. Dr. Atwood knows that. In the sermon that I cited previously, he said, and I quote, our Scriptures must lead us to God's peaceable kingdom. That must influence our dialogue. Absolutely. That's the way I feel about it as well. And the fact of the matter is the Scriptures present a different way dealing with deterring violence among people in a society. In the first place, the Scriptures require that the civil magistrate apply very stiff penal sanctions to those who violate the standards of justice that are found in God's word. As Ecclesiastes 8:11 says, because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is emboldened in them to do evil. In Proverbs 29, we're told that the king gives stability to the land by justice. But in Proverbs 28, we're told the wicked do not understand justice. When kings follow after justice, According to Proverbs 28, they will disperse evil. And in Hebrews 2:2, we're told that the justice of God's penal sanctions is irrevocable. Perfect justice is found in what God says you do in response to criminals. And the fact of the matter is we don't do that in our country. We don't live up to the law's provision, God's law's provision for dealing with violent people in our country. It should not surprise us, therefore, that we have the kinds of problems that we do. The Bible says when we follow God's law, that people will see and hear and fear to do such things. That doesn't mean you're going to get rid of all crime. The law is not intended to do that. But if you want to in some sense turn back the rates and the ratio of violence in our country, then what we ought to be talking about here is not the state intruding into the rights of individuals, but the state doing what it is supposed to do according to God's word. Moreover, it's crucial for us, and this is the second point in terms of Dr. Atwood's call, for us to look at the Scriptures. It is crucial for us to understand that the state has to be delimited in the authority that it has to intrude into the lives of its people. If we do not have any restraint upon the state doing that, the state becomes a monster, or as revelation, the 13th chapter says, a beast. It becomes a beast thinking it can intrude anywhere it wants based on its own thinking and upon its own law. If we are not going to have a lawless beast for our government. Then we as Christians need to insist upon a biblical approach to the limitation of the state's intrusion into the lives of its people. The state has an authority that was delegated from God According to Romans 13:1. And God forbids kings to swerve to the right or to the left from the path of his law. Deuteronomy 17:18, 20 Jesus clearly said that there are things which belong to God separate from the things that belong to Caesar. And so thus there is a distinction to be drawn as to what the state may do and what it may not do. As Isaiah 10:1 says, Woe to those who enact evil statutes. We're told in 1 Peter 2:14. And I'd have you note specifically the telic infinitive there in the Greek that God has ordained the state and the sword of the state specifically. Specifically to avenge evil against evildoers. To avenge wrath against evildoers. The thing that worries me so very much about Dr. Atwood's presentation is what I would call the threat of statism. In his sermon he said, I believe that developing the political will to do something about gun violence is the greatest spiritual need before our church and nation today. If anything good is to happen, it must be a political solution. Safer streets and the well being of our people will be enhanced by bringing it about politically. And that is especially what scares me. Not only has he violated the provisions of God's word for self defense. That's not a right given in the Constitution, that's a right given by God. But he also has the state. So we don't have the state doing what it should do. And we do have the state intruding in places it shouldn't go into. If we have a political solution to just any problem that may come about, I'm afraid that the state has become a messiah. A monster messiah. A huge overgrown, bloated bureaucracy that does things God doesn't intend for it to do and doesn't do them very well. You want the state to help us with respect to handgun violence. This is the same organization that runs the post office for crying out loud. Politics is not the solution. By the way, on this I am sure me and my opponent agree. Politics is not the solution because the problem is not with guns or the means of violence. The problem is in the hearts of men. That's why we argue with each other and that's why people finally get to the place where they hit each other and they get guns and they kill each other. And because people do that, I do not want to take from them the right to protect themselves while Christ peaceable kingdom advances through the preaching of the gospel. Politics is not the solution.

Your time is up. We're going into another section of the evening's activities which are called interrogatories, meaning that each side will be given the chance to ask the other three questions. The other side being asked the question will be given three minutes to respond. The side asking the question then has one minute to respond. I think it would be best to get each of you up to the mics and Dr. Atwood, you can start asking the question and we'll go from there.

Each side can switch.

Yeah, you can ask the first question, we'll go through the procedure, you can ask the second, etc.

It seems like every three, four days we get another little article in the paper about somebody who's mowed that mowed.

Down by a gun.

Children who were hit with bullets in their cribs and DC to the person going into the restaurant in Killeen, Texas and mowing down 20 some people with a semi automatic pistol. In Fairfax county, which is this county, elementary school children are often carrying often, I wouldn't say every day, but enough so that it ought to give us pause. Yes.

Is this leading question?

Yes, sir.

All right.

They're coming to school with loaded guns and on the 22nd of September there was a youth who was shooting at other students over a girlfriend. What is your approach to stopping that kind of real danger? What do you advocate in society?

I would advocate a series of things that need to be done if we're going to realistically, that is to say scientifically and scripturally deal with the real problem of violence. First of all, we need to become much more effective in preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. If Christ doesn't make us peacekeeping people within our hearts, we are not going to have peacekeeping in our culture, in our society. In the meanwhile, while we are still working on the religious renovation that is needed in individuals lives, we need to have the state do what God calls upon it to do. To punish criminals who abuse their rights. The state same rights that you and I share. To drive a car, to own a gun, whatever it may be. So the state must do what God tells it to do and punish severely those who abuse those rights and punish them according to the just standards of his word. The fact of the matter is most criminals do not fear what the state will do to them. In fact, some studies have shown large number of incarcerated felons have said, in fact, five times more have said this than the other, that they would rather meet the police than an armed victim. We need not only the police to do their job more effectively and the courts to punish these people, but we need also to provide for the protection of our people. 83%. 83%. By studies done by pro gun and anti gun organizations, 83% of the uses of a firearm are effective in either making the person submit or flee. Now granted, we'd like it to be 100%. We'd like to have Christ's peaceable kingdom here in its full consummated glory. But in the meantime, 83% is pretty good.