Gun control activists routinely try to tell us that they don’t really want to interfere with our right to own guns, that they support gun ownership, they just want some rules in place that kind of interfere with our right to own guns.

Funny how that works out.

Yet few will actually attack lawful gun ownership because, frankly, it’s a losing position to take.

That’s not stopping a writer and activist who recently spoke at Hope College, a Christian college in Michigan, and the article about his talk titled, “HOW THE EPIDEMIC OF GUN OWNERSHIP IN AMERICA IMPACTS HOPE’S STUDENTS.”

Yes, it’s in all caps.

This past Monday, Hope College’s Students Demand Action for Gun Sense chapter partnered with the Peace and Justice Department to bring the community a guest speaker, Shane Claiborne.

Natalie Schiller (‘26), a member of Hope’s SDA and survivor of the 2021 Oxford shooting, opened Claiborne’s lecture with words on her experience as an advocate against gun violence.

Claiborne’s presentation took place in Winants Auditorium and was titled “Beating Guns.” The presentation featured his thoughts on the epidemic of gun violence as it applies to the Christian perspective, as well as what we can do as students, individuals, activists and members of the community to bring about real change regarding the issue. Claiborne highlighted his time fighting for peace on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reflected on how these experiences impacted his point of view and fueled his fight for peace.

…

Claiborne implied that those in the Christian community may find it more difficult to grapple with drastic changes in laws regarding guns, and says that gun violence is a “spiritual crisis.” He also acknowledged that if this part of the gun-owning population realizes how deeply the issue of gun ownership and violence lies, it has the potential to become a politically neutral question.

Also included as one of Claiborne’s areas of concern in his lecture was gun ownership’s role in domestic violence. He stated, “A gun in the home means that you are five times more likely to become a victim of domestic homicide.” Though not closely linked at first glance, gun and domestic violence—in combination—can be catastrophic.

Now, I’d never heard of Claiborne before this. It seems he’s a big believer in nonviolence, which I can respect. I can’t agree with it, but someone who believes in nonviolence as an approach to life isn’t likely to really worry too much about whether or not I agree.

Yet the concept that gun ownership is, in and of itself, a problem as it’s presented here is a concept I’m obviously going to take issue with.

For example, the idea that gun ownership plays any role in domestic violence is insane. While domestic violence homicides may often involve a firearm, but the implication here is that there’s a correlation or something, which is just not true.

Further, laws already exist that seek to disarm domestic abusers. I mean, even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge will lead to someone losing their Second Amendment rights completely. What more would Mr. Claiborne suggest here?

The problem here is that Claiborne is so profoundly anti-gun that he apparently sees gun ownership as the problem. If that’s not the case, then he clearly did a poor job of articulating that to his audience at Hope College.

Gun ownership isn’t the problem. There’s no “epidemic” of gun ownership as the headline describes simply because “epidemic” conveys the idea that it’s a negative thing.

The right to keep and bear arms is essential to a free nation. There’s nothing un-Christian about owning firearms, either, since Christ himself told his disciples to have swords and if they didn’t have one, to sell their cloaks to buy one.

Being nonviolent is fine and all, but we live in a world where most people aren’t. That’s especially true of those who are willing to kill you for your wallet. Do you know who is less likely to die in a situation like that? A gun owner who has her firearm on her person.

Plus, in most cases, she doesn’t even need to get violent to end the threat. How’s that for a win?