A rotating panel of experts from the worlds of philosophy, psychology and religion offer their perspective on the dilemmas that come with living in Southern California.

Today’s question: The House of Representatives has voted to repeal a 2-year-old ban on the sale and manufacture of 19 types of semiautomatic assault weapons. The president said he will veto the bill and restore the ban. Are there moral grounds for private citizens to use such weapons?

The Rt. Rev. Frederick H. Borsch

Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles

Seeking to follow the way of Jesus, the Christian faith opposes all forms of violence. Exceptions could be made in extreme cases of self-defense, although not all Christians would make these exceptions. There can also be disagreement as to when self-defense may be used, but, knowing that violence breeds violence, Christians may at most respond with the least violence possible. They are to remember the call to love one’s enemies. While some may argue that the possession of weapons of great violence inhibits violence, experience indicates otherwise. On the basis of these understandings, the Convention of members of my church has voted to oppose the private possession of assault weapons.

Sharon Presley

Executive director, Resources for Independent Thinking, Oakland

This is an emotionally charged issue. The point is not what kind of weapon but how it is used. Whether a .22 or Uzi, if used to harm innocents, then it is equally as reprehensible. If used for purposes that don’t involve harm to innocents, there is no problem. There are private citizens in the world who may have to face terrorists, thugs, two-bit dictators, even a new Gestapo. They have a right to protect themselves, and better an Uzi than a .22. Citizens in both peaceful Switzerland and war-torn Israel routinely carry such weapons. The different violence levels are the result of political circumstances, not the weapons carried.

Richard J. Mouw

President, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena

The constitutionally guaranteed right to self-defense has considerable moral weight. But it does not mean that people are morally free to use whatever weapons they choose. We would all agree--I hope--that no individual has a right to use a nuclear bomb to protect a private residence. Nor does morality require that people be free to collect “high-tech” weapons for “hobbyist” purposes. The question of where a government draws the line is a matter of prudence. And prudence seems to dictate some new boundaries in our increasingly violent culture. No one should claim, then, that restrictions as such are a violation of a moral right.