With last week’s assassination of Charlie Kirk (X tribute | Archives: post video) still fresh on everyone’s mind, this seemed like a good time to address this question: “Why do Christians believe guns are good? Guns kill!” As usual, there is a fallacious assumption here, so let’s start with that. The assumption is of course that it is guns that kill, without recognizing that the gun is just the instrument of the person who is controlling it.
Saying that guns kill is like a student coming home from school and telling his parents, “My pencil failed my tests today.” Would any parent accept that? Would you accept that? Of course not. Pencils do not take tests by themselves. An agent is in control of the pencil, and the pencil is merely a tool by which the intention of the agent is manifested.
In the same way, chain saws do not cut down trees by themselves, spoons do not make you fat by themselves, and guns do not kill by themselves. The media is reporting that Charlie Kirk was killed with a 30.06 bolt action rifle. X account (formerly Twitter) going by the name of “Mountain Mama” has a 30.06 bolt action rifle and did a test, leaving it alone on her deck rail with ammo beside it to see if it would kill anyone. Her amusing write up is below.
In case you didn’t click through to read the entire post, obviously the gun didn’t kill anyone. I include it here merely to underscore the point that guns do not kill—people kill. People kill using many different instruments: rocks, knives, axes, cars, rope, jet airliners (think 9/11) and, yes, guns. Are we to ban all these items because people can use them to kill? Obviously it is not the instrument that causes the killing. The killing is caused by the agent in control of the instrument.
So we’ve established that guns don’t kill. People use guns (and many other instruments) to kill. So let’s look at the first part of the question. Why do Christians believe guns are good? Very simply because guns are used to defend against aggressors attacking you, your family or your neighbor (as Jesus would put it – Luke 10.36) or a third party (as the law would put it). They are also used to defend against governmental or ruling powers when they become tyrants or aggressive against their own people or against people in lands they want to conquer. What do conquerors do to the people they vanquish? What do totalitarian governments do when they want to make sure the people can’t fight back against them? The first thing they do is disarm the people by removing their weapons.
We see this in the days of Samuel when Israel was up against the Philistines because of their disobedience. When the Philistines subjugated the Israelites, what’s the first thing they did? They removed the weapons from Israel so they could not fight back. Not only did they remove the weapons, they prevented the Israelites from becoming blacksmiths or practicing that trade to prevent the Israelites from even making arms with which to defend themselves. (1 Sam 13.9) You see the same practice among dictators in this age in order to make the people defenseless. Consider these more recent examples:
- Hitler prevented Jews and other persecuted minorities from owning guns.
- Mao, after the communist victory in 1949, outlawed private gun ownership.
- Pol Pot outlawed civilian firearms, so the people were unable to defend themselves when the deaths began in the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia.
- In North Korea (Kim Dynasty), private gun ownership is outlawed.
There are many more examples, but that should suffice to make the point. When tyrants want total control and don’t want the people to be able to resist them, one of the first things they do is remove the ability for people to defend themselves by removing and outlawing their primary means of defense: firearms.
The writers of the constitution wanted to insure that citizens would always be able to defend themselves against tyrants. That, to a large extent, is why the right of gun ownership is enshrined in the U.S. constitution in the second amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
While many see the first amendment [1], with its protections on speech and religion as the most primary and fundamental of rights, many conservatives are now arguing for the importance of the second amendment. John Zmirak of the Stream drives that point home with his book, “No Second Amendment, No First.” The point is summed up in the title. If you have no means to protect your first amendment rights, you have no guarantee of retaining those first amendment rights. Thus the need for the right to “Keep and bear arms” to be clearly spelled out in the constitution and the need for all who would defend themselves, families, and neighbors against thugs, tyrants and invaders to have available to them the means by which to defend themselves. One of the best self-defense weapons available today is, of course, a firearm.
The day is coming, when the Prince of Peace (Is 9.6) rules on earth, and nations “will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.” (Mic 4.3) This means national resources will no longer be put into making weapons and war. But that day is not here yet. In this day we are instructed to be “… as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” (Matt 10.16) Part of that shrewdness is having the foresight, preparation and ability to defend ourselves and those around us against all types of physical attacks. While guns themselves are neither good nor bad, they are neutral tools; for the purpose of defense, guns are good.
Duane Caldwell | September 15, 2025 | Printer Friendly Version
Follow @rational_faith_
Notes
1. Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Back
