Christians Carrying Concealed Weapons - Falwell vs. Piper

[preachinjesus]

Because the things you listed are inadequate in the face of multiple assailants.

I'm just curious, who are you hanging out with that you're getting violently attacked by multiple attackers? And, even if armed with a handgun, do you think the vast majority of Americans are well trained to fend them off?

 

[Revmitchell]

I think it does. Of course, one might also point to the episodes where the crowd sought to seize Jesus and kill him (Luke 4:29-30) or when a crowd tried to stone him (John 8:58-59.) Jesus could have used force to repel these crowds, but instead he sought another way. In the second, the text plainly states that he ran and hid, in the first, a bit more miraculous perhaps.


When Paul, or maybe other early believers, was accosted by a crowd intent on harming him or killing him, how often did he, or they, take up arms in defense? Seems a new ethic is a hand.

Indeed, if we consider the literature of the earliest Christian communities through Nicaea there is a serious point made by the early Christians to resist using force to harm others seeking to harm them. If this weren't the model of the NT, why did a near pacifistic ethic suddenly emerge from the first Christians?

I understand what you are saying. However, their example can be attributed to any number of things. There is no clear indicator here that it was a biblical command to be a pacifist. I would be careful on trying to insist these passages communicate an absolute command from God. The actual purpose in those passages is not to speak to the issue. They may be a good example but it would do those passages harm to insist they give a clear command on pacifism.

 

[Rob_BW]

I'm just curious, who are you hanging out with that you're getting violently attacked by multiple attackers? And, even if armed with a handgun, do you think the vast majority of Americans are well trained to fend them off?

I'm curious, what type of neighborhood do you live in where you have theft coverage through your homeowner's policy.

 

[preachinjesus]

I'm curious, what type of neighborhood do you live in where you have theft coverage through your homeowner's policy.

Apologies, but I don't think I catch the drift here. It is entirely likely that my dunderheadedness is getting in the way.

I've always said anyone who truly needs something from my house need only ask. Forceful taking not necessary.

 

[preachinjesus]

I understand what you are saying. However, their example can be attributed to any number of things. There is no clear indicator here that it was a biblical command to be a pacifist. I would be careful on trying to insist these passages communicate an absolute command from God. The actual purpose in those passages is not to speak to the issue. They may be a good example but it would do those passages harm to insist they give a clear command on pacifism.

I agree that radical pacificism is not directly taught in the NT. That said, I believe the model of Scripture is to live at peace as best as possible and that Christians are to champion a total pro-life position. This includes seeking ways to end violence without means of taking life from another. If our prolife position ends with abortion and doesn't extend to all areas of life we seem to have short sold the NT witness. Jesus says blessed are the peacemakers, and our model is to turn the other cheek, go another mile in the oppressor's shoes, etc. and not to be rebellious or reactionary. Perhaps this hermeneutic is short sighted, but I do believe that when Paul grants the power of the sword to the state (Rom 13) it is in direct line with Jesus' teachings and anytime death is inflicted on others that it should grieve the heart of the Church for we stand for the whole life of all until their natural end. If for no other reason than it allows us the time to appeal to their souls for salvation.

 

[Rob_BW]

Apologies, but I don't think I catch the drift here. It is entirely likely that my dunderheadedness is getting in the way.

I've always said anyone who truly needs something from my house need only ask. Forceful taking not necessary.

You asked about the likelihood of encountering multiple violent attackers after I pointed out that stun guns and pepper spray weren't effective against multiple attackers. My response was only meant to show that there are many unlikely events that people still prepare for.

I thought it was a better response than googling up gruesome examples of people being attacked by multiple violent attackers.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm just curious, who are you hanging out with that you're getting violently attacked by multiple attackers? And, even if armed with a handgun, do you think the vast majority of Americans are well trained to fend them off?

You would be surprised at just how many Americans can handle guns of all kinds.

 

[HankD]

You would be surprised at just how many Americans can handle guns of all kinds.

There are 22 million veterans, 1 million law enforcement personnel, and 300 million guns in America.

LOTS of people can handle guns in America.

HankD

 

[HAMel]

HankD..., I remember a sound bite from Pelosi a few years ago where she claimed that 18 year old "kids" were not responsible enough to have or own weapons. Beside the comment was a picture of a platoon of "kids" armed to the teeth in a rice patty in Vietnam.

 

[Zaac]

Apologies, but I don't think I catch the drift here. It is entirely likely that my dunderheadedness is getting in the way.

I've always said anyone who truly needs something from my house need only ask. Forceful taking not necessary.

Ditto. Gives me an excuse not to have to pack it if I move.

 

[Zaac]

Supposing they could get through security, I wonder what would happen if, for example, during the 1 million people plus gathering in Times Square for New Year's , a terrorist strikes and 10,000 armed concealed carry permitted individuals decide to start shooting?

I wonder how many would get killed from the fire of others or from the cops thinking they were a danger? It's just not wise to have everybody playing cop.

 

[Don]

Supposing they could get through security, I wonder what would happen if, for example, during the 1 million people plus gathering in Times Square for New Year's , a terrorist strikes and 10,000 armed concealed carry permitted individuals decide to start shooting?

I wonder how many would get killed from the fire of others or from the cops thinking they were a danger? It's just not wise to have everybody playing cop.

Zaac, please go back and edit this. You're smarter than this. Your scenario is stupid. You're using histrionics; you're better than that.

How much space do 10,000 people take up? (1 terrorist with a firearm; unless you can fit all 10,000 into his/her immediate vicinity...only those "within range" will return fire, and that will most likely be in the "12 people" range, not 10,000.)

What weapon is the terrorist using? (If I were so inclined, in an area with 1 million people, I would go for maximum damage--so I wouldn't use a firearm. I'd use the biggest explosive I could muster, with lots of ball bearings and metal bits. This, there'd be no one for your 10,000 to start shooting at.)

Unless you're trying to say that 10,000 people with carry licenses will be attending, just itching to pull the trigger on someone...and that's just as bad as saying all muslims are terrorists.

 

[HankD]

HankD..., I remember a sound bite from Pelosi a few years ago where she claimed that 18 year old "kids" were not responsible enough to have or own weapons. Beside the comment was a picture of a platoon of "kids" armed to the teeth in a rice patty in Vietnam.

Pelosi - It figures.


HankD

 

[preachinjesus]

There are 22 million veterans, 1 million law enforcement personnel, and 300 million guns in America.

LOTS of people can handle guns in America.

HankD

I don't believe 22 million veterans, however well trained with rifles and small arms, have ever had to actually kill someone and even less so in close combat. Also, I trust the 1 million properly trained (and I think it is higher than that) law enforcement officers to properly use a handgun.

I do not trust the vast majority of untrained Americans to properly handle a handgun in a moment of extreme physiological terror. With a rifle, from a longer distance, the entire situation is different. With a handgun, the action is on top of each other. You are in close proximity. The amount of adrenaline that is injected into your body training to manage and channel. Firing, precisely, amid a torrent of emotion, psychological energy, physical responses, and nervous system overload is extraordinarily difficult without the proper training.

This is called scotopic vision in technical literature and it takes significant training to harness and use effectively. Someone who is under duress of an attack has to master their physiological response in addition to maintaining focus, narrowing peripheral vision, utilizing proper hand-eye-coordination, ensuring the depth perception stays the same, not fixating on one point and neglecting the field of vision, and channeling their adrenaline to maximize their sensory perception without sudden temporary blindness and/or loss of motor control. And all in a split second.

I do not trust the average American to accomplish this successfully with a handgun.

Police officers, psychologists, security experts, and medical professionals all warn against the dangers of untrained civilians believing they can fire for effect in crucial moments of close range. With the proper training someone can indeed overcome the physiological responses and be effective, but the vast majority of Americans do not have that training.

Lots of people can carry handguns in the United States. Few people can properly handle them in crucial moments of need. This isn't the movies. This isn't tv. There are extraordinary psychological, emotional, and physical challenges to ending someone's life...even for law enforcement.

 

[preachinjesus]

You would be surprised at just how many Americans can handle guns of all kinds.

I respectfully disagree in heightened moments of having to shoot someone to end their life. Many Americans can handle single shot rifles or shotguns when hunting, but that is entirely different than close quarters combat which the vast majority of handgun incidents are. This isn't the movies. Bullets don't fly around people, and shooters don't have amazing aim (unless you're a storm trooper and then you'll miss everything.)

 

[Rob_BW]

.

I do not trust the average American to accomplish this successfully with a handgun.

Does that mean that they should be denied their chance?

If I was in a plane and all of the pilots died, I would still get behind the stick, even if I doubted my ability to accomplish a landing successfully.

Likewise, if an American is confronted with armed assailants wishing to take his or her life, I would not deny them their chance at defending themselves, just because I doubted their abilities.

 

[Zaac]

Zaac, please go back and edit this. You're smarter than this. Your scenario is stupid. You're using histrionics; you're better than that.

How much space do 10,000 people take up? (1 terrorist with a firearm; unless you can fit all 10,000 into his/her immediate vicinity...only those "within range" will return fire, and that will most likely be in the "12 people" range, not 10,000.)

No. I'm envisioning something of a domino effect. If one person fires, then someone else might react to that fire and fire. And that might cause some other folks who are near and see someone with a gun to fire.

There's nothing any more histrionic about this scenario than 10,000 Syrian refugees deciding to blow us up.

What weapon is the terrorist using? (If I were so inclined, in an area with 1 million people, I would go for maximum damage--so I wouldn't use a firearm. I'd use the biggest explosive I could muster, with lots of ball bearings and metal bits. This, there'd be no one for your 10,000 to start shooting at.)

In my scenario, a gun was being used so what you would do, even though more effective in a crowd, doesn't have anything to do with my scenario.

Unless you're trying to say that 10,000 people with carry licenses will be attending, just itching to pull the trigger on someone...and that's just as bad as saying all muslims are terrorists.

That's not what I said. Again, I think the country is so on edge, that if in a crowd of people, someone starts to shoot and you've got permitted people in the crowd who react, they might end up shot too because someone thinks they are the original shooter.

 

[HankD]

I don't believe 22 million veterans, however well trained with rifles and small arms, have ever had to actually kill someone and even less so in close combat.

Then you don't believe the US Census Bureau.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/11/10/veterans-day-data-boot-camp

Every veteran (at least when I was in the military) has to qualify in the field of firearms. My last 3 years in the USAF I qualified as Marksman, Sharpshooter and then Expert before my tour of duty was up.

I do not trust the vast majority of untrained Americans to properly handle a handgun in a moment of extreme physiological terror. With a rifle, from a longer distance, the entire situation is different. With a handgun, the action is on top of each other. You are in close proximity. The amount of adrenaline that is injected into your body training to manage and channel. Firing, precisely, amid a torrent of emotion, psychological energy, physical responses, and nervous system overload is extraordinarily difficult without the proper training.

OK so the Second Amendment was not needed? The founding fathers thought so. Let everyone join the NRA and learn.

This is called scotopic vision in technical literature and it takes significant training to harness and use effectively. Someone who is under duress of an attack has to master their physiological response in addition to maintaining focus, narrowing peripheral vision, utilizing proper hand-eye-coordination, ensuring the depth perception stays the same, not fixating on one point and neglecting the field of vision, and channeling their adrenaline to maximize their sensory perception without sudden temporary blindness and/or loss of motor control. And all in a split second.

I do not trust the average American to accomplish this successfully with a handgun.

Police officers, psychologists, security experts, and medical professionals all warn against the dangers of untrained civilians believing they can fire for effect in crucial moments of close range. With the proper training someone can indeed overcome the physiological responses and be effective, but the vast majority of Americans do not have that training.

Lots of people can carry handguns in the United States. Few people can properly handle them in crucial moments of need. This isn't the movies. This isn't tv. There are extraordinary psychological, emotional, and physical challenges to ending someone's life...even for law enforcement.

Well call it what you will, analyze it and dissect it.
It's the second Amendment part of the Bill of Rights and as much as you dislike it you have to live with it.

HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

I respectfully disagree in heightened moments of having to shoot someone to end their life. Many Americans can handle single shot rifles or shotguns when hunting, but that is entirely different than close quarters combat which the vast majority of handgun incidents are. This isn't the movies. Bullets don't fly around people, and shooters don't have amazing aim (unless you're a storm trooper and then you'll miss everything.)

Well I trust them. I certainly trust them more than I trust the government for anything.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't believe 22 million veterans, however well trained with rifles and small arms, have ever had to actually kill someone and even less so in close combat.

However, they are trained under stressful conditions to defend against enemies. They and their training are well worth all trust.