Church Security

[JustChristian]

So essentially your argument is that everyone of the proper age (18 and over?) who hasn't been convicted of a crime should carry a gun (after being trained how to use it). Do I get that right? If not, why should you be able to carry one and someone else cannot? There are a lot of dangerous people out there who haven't been convicted of a crime (yet). Some of these have committed crimes and just haven't been caught.

Do you really believe that would make America a safer place to live in? It's like going back to the wild west. We could have shoot-outs at the OK Corral.

 

[Baptist Believer]

So essentially your argument is that everyone of the proper age (18 and over?) who hasn't been convicted of a crime should carry a gun (after being trained how to use it). Do I get that right?

No. As I said at the end of the last post, if that's not your conviction, then that's your business.

If not, why should you be able to carry one and someone else cannot?

If you want to do it, believe you can act responsibly, and can meet your state's requirements, then go for it.

Every time a state allows conceal-carry, the violent crime rate goes down. That's a fact you can verify easily if you have any interest in actually learning about conceal-carry.

 

[JustChristian]

SEALE Police Academy (Bedford OH) manager Ron Borsch reports their reality research has established that aggressive action, by even a solo actor, has been, and is now, the most effective countermeasure in stopping the active killer, (four victims in the same event, time, location). For example, initially solo unarmed civilians have accounted for fifty percent of mass murder aborts, (25 percent by armed citizens).

This says that unarmed citizens have accounted for stopping twice as many mass murders as armed citizens. You don't have to carry a gun to intervene.

 

[Tom Butler]

This says that unarmed citizens have accounted for stopping twice as many mass murders as armed citizens. You don't have to carry a gun to intervene.

Good for them. I'm sure those 25% who are still alive because of an armed civilian are also grateful.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This says that unarmed citizens have accounted for stopping twice as many mass murders as armed citizens.

You're not thinking very clearly. Since the ratio of unarmed citizens to armed citizens is profoundly weighted toward unarmed citizens, the reality is that armed citizens, for their number, have been much more successful at stopping mass murders than unarmed ones.

You don't have to carry a gun to intervene.

No one has made a claim that you had to be armed. It simply increases your changes for saving lives.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This says that unarmed citizens have accounted for stopping twice as many mass murders as armed citizens.

Another thing you need to consider regarding this statistic is that a large number of these acts take place in so-called "gun free zones" (such as schools, government buildings, many workplaces, and churches in many states), places where law-abiding citizens (licensed or not) are not allowed to be armed.

 

[JustChristian]

No. As I said at the end of the last post, if that's not your conviction, then that's your business.



If you want to do it, believe you can act responsibly, and can meet your state's requirements, then go for it.

Every time a state allows conceal-carry, the violent crime rate goes down. That's a fact you can verify easily if you have any interest in actually learning about conceal-carry.

I don't see anything about everyone carrying a gun in your last post. The thing is if you can carry one why can't everyone else who qualifies carry one? YOU can't choose who is armed and who is not if they meet the qualifications. I've walked around above 125th street in Harlem at night. Can you imagine what it would feel like if almost everyone you encountered had a gun whether you had one or not? The same goes for the Bronx, Watts, or even the west end of Louisville.

 

[just-want-peace]

I don't see anything about everyone carrying a gun in your last post. The thing is if you can carry one why can't everyone else who qualifies carry one? YOU can't choose who is armed and who is not if they meet the qualifications. I've walked around above 125th street in Harlem at night. Can you imagine what it would feel like if almost everyone you encountered had a gun whether you had one or not? The same goes for the Bronx, Watts, or even the west end of Louisville.

Bolded mine


Baptist Believer sez:

If you want to do it, believe you can act responsibly, and can meet your state's requirements, then go for it.

Seems he's already conceded your main objection in post #182, but you just didn't read it; or ignored it!

 

[Baptist Believer]

I don't see anything about everyone carrying a gun in your last post.

You are the one who alleged it was my position in post #181.


I think there are lots of people who shouldn’t carry a gun, but that’s for them to decide for themselves, as well as the governing authorities.
If you’re not going to handle a firearm safely, you aren’t interested in improving your shooting skills, if you don’t maintain your weapon, and you don’t learn and rehearse elementary defense tactics, then I would prefer you not carry a firearm. But that’s simply my preference.

The thing is if you can carry one why can't everyone else who qualifies carry one?

The only thing stopping them might be the laws in their state. It seems like you’re trying to paint me as some sort of elitist, or perhaps someone who thinks they are extra-special because I an authorized to carry a concealed firearm. Believe me, it is not an ego-booster, it is a responsibility.

YOU can't choose who is armed and who is not if they meet the qualifications.

No kidding.


I’m not sure what your point is here. Where did you get the idea that I think I’m some sort of authorizing agency?

I've walked around above 125th street in Harlem at night. Can you imagine what it would feel like if almost everyone you encountered had a gun whether you had one or not?

Actually, I would feel much better walking around any neighborhood with a bad reputation if I knew that most people were armed, and they also knowing that I was likely armed. Of course, in Harlem, it is very likely that anyone in the neighborhood who is armed is involved in criminal activity since it is almost impossible for a regular law-abiding citizen to legally carry in New York City. That means criminals can assume they have an unfair advantage.


The great thing about conceal-carry (as opposed to open-carry or a total ban on firearms) is that anyone could be carrying a firearm and be prepared to defend themselves. Everyone from an aged woman on a walker, to a man in a wheelchair, to a college girl running errands, to a man walking alone through Harlem or Watts at night. Since bad guys don’t want to get shot (they really don’t), they are likely to think twice about attacking anyone they believe might be armed. In effect, everyone in a conceal-carry region benefits from the effect of having a strong conceal-carry program, whether they carry or not. And statistically, you can see the effect as violent crime rates drop.


If everyone walking through Harlem at night is armed, it is highly unlikely that anyone will want to violently attack someone else. They know that the potential victim (or a bystander) will likely have means to oppose their efforts and will look for an easier mark.


As an aside, you seem to associate guns with violence instead of criminals with violence. Law-abiding citizens don’t commit violence with guns except in extreme situations where a criminal has already initiated a violence encounter. Criminals may use a gun to commit violence, but the cause of violence is not the gun.


Cain murdered Abel with a stone, yet God did not pass judgment on the stone. God did not declare stones to be evil.

 

[just-want-peace]

Cain murdered Abel with a stone, yet God did not pass judgment on the stone. God did not declare stones to be evil.

An obvious point not comprehended by most liberals!!

 

[Marcia]

The great thing about conceal-carry (as opposed to open-carry or a total ban on firearms) is that anyone could be carrying a firearm and be prepared to defend themselves. Everyone from an aged woman on a walker, to a man in a wheelchair, to a college girl running errands, to a man walking alone through Harlem or Watts at night. Since bad guys don’t want to get shot (they really don’t), they are likely to think twice about attacking anyone they believe might be armed. In effect, everyone in a conceal-carry region benefits from the effect of having a strong conceal-carry program, whether they carry or not. And statistically, you can see the effect as violent crime rates drop.


If everyone walking through Harlem at night is armed, it is highly unlikely that anyone will want to violently attack someone else. They know that the potential victim (or a bystander) will likely have means to oppose their efforts and will look for an easier mark.

This makes me think of the Wild West. Everyone walking around with a gun would not, imo, keep criminals from doing their thing. They would still try. Gangs fight even though they know other gangs are armed.

As an aside, you seem to associate guns with violence instead of criminals with violence. Law-abiding citizens don’t commit violence with guns except in extreme situations where a criminal has already initiated a violence encounter. Criminals may use a gun to commit violence, but the cause of violence is not the gun.

Actually, many law abiding citizens with guns kill themselves accidentally or in suicide, or kill others accidentally or in suicide, or kill others when provoked. I read and summarized murder trial transcripts for a living for about 5 yrs. - a large number of the murders were people killing with guns friends, spouses, girl/boyfriends or family members. Many of these people had no criminal record.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This makes me think of the Wild West. Everyone walking around with a gun would not, imo, keep criminals from doing their thing.

Certainly, there would be some who would still risk violence. But those folks aren’t going to change either way. However, a well-armed citizenry will be another of defense for the public at large. And by the way, the “Wild West” wasn’t so wild. It’s largely a Hollywood invention.

Gangs fight even though they know other gangs are armed.

But the real question is, why do gangs fight each other? They are usually competing for criminal turf or avenging each other for real or perceived injuries. When they fight each other, they are certainly not intentionally preying on the law-abiding citizen, although citizens sometimes get hurt.

Actually, many law abiding citizens with guns kill themselves accidentally or in suicide, or kill others accidentally or in suicide, or kill others when provoked.

Regarding accidents, people who are familiar with guns and follow simple safety precautions, are unlikely to accidentally kill themselves. I grew up in a gun culture in Southeast Texas. Although I did not have a gun as a child (my family didn’t hunt), most of my friends grew up shooting and were very familiar with firearms. In scenes that would even make me cringe today, my friends would show each other their firearms (not locked away in a safe) but would be fanatical about the safety rules. You would get lectured severely if you did something as foolish as pointing an even unloaded weapon in the general direction of anybody, even though the breach was open and it was clear it couldn’t be fired... it was just a very poor habit to get into. Because people were so familiar with firearms, there were very few accidental deaths by firearm in our region (I never heard of one growing up among children or teens). And the few “he was cleaning the gun and it went off” stories were mostly cover stories for people who committed suicide.


Regarding suicide, folks who were most familiar with firearms were among the least likely to commit suicide by them because of how ugly those deaths could be... actually, it was easy not to kill yourself, only brutally maim yourself with a firearm. Unfortunately, I knew probably six or seven teens who committed suicide over the years, and all but one of them killed themselves by jumping off one of the very tall bridges along the Texas Coast, bridges that are very tall so ocean-going vessels can pass under them. Everyone knew that one you jumped, your life would almost certainly end when you hit the water, and if it didn’t, you’d be knocked unconscious and would drown within moments. The only other known (she left a note) teen suicide was committed with a massive drug overdose. By the way, all of the teen suicides I knew were fueled by drug abuse.


I’ve known four adults who have committed suicide by firearm, but only one of them was familiar with guns. (He was a young pastor who had marital difficulties and his wife left him and took his son. He had been soundly condemned by his church and forced out. Shunned by his “Christian” friends, he grew very depressed and a few days later, he shot himself in the head. The authorities found his body a few days later.) The other three took someone else’s unsecured weapon and used it on themselves.

I read and summarized murder trial transcripts for a living for about 5 yrs. - a large number of the murders were people killing with guns friends, spouses, girl/boyfriends or family members. Many of these people had no criminal record.

You’ll get no argument from me. Certainly there are crimes of passion and provocation, but people have been killing each other quite efficiently for years before firearms were invented. The lack of a criminal record is no guarantee that there won’t be future crimes. But then, firearms are only tools. When good people use them, they usually save lives. When bad people use them, they often take lives. Guns are morally neutral, but people aren’t.

 

[sag38]

Actually, many law abiding citizens with guns kill themselves accidentally or in suicide, or kill others accidentally or in suicide, or kill others when provoked. I read and summarized murder trial transcripts for a living for about 5 yrs. - a large number of the murders were people killing with guns friends, spouses, girl/boyfriends or family members. Many of these people had no criminal record.

And, when they use the weapon in a wrong manner they are no longer law abiding.

 

[John Toppass]

Many people, who do not understand the facts of concealed carry use catch phrases like "Wild West", "OK Corral" or "you could shoot yourself or someone else".
When facts (real facts that are easy to find) show that when states pass laws that allow concealed carry by responsible citizens, the violent crime rate goes down. This is measurable the first complete year.
States that keep up with handgun carry license holder stats also find that these people are involved in even less accidental shooting incidents or wrong person shooting than even the police departments in the state. Percentage wise and number wise.

 

[Baptist Believer]

States that keep up with handgun carry license holder stats also find that these people are involved in even less accidental shooting incidents or wrong person shooting than even the police departments in the state. Percentage wise and number wise.

Absolutely true. If you think about it, this makes perfect sense: Police officers are directed into situations where they don't know anyone from anyone else. When armed citizens are involved, they often know a number of the innocent parties in the situation, and have usually witnessed the serious crime. They are in a better position to make those quick judgments than the police officer who is walking into the situation cold.

 

[JustChristian]

Apples to oranges. Back then, the government condoned killing Christians. Today, murder is illegal, except for the unborn.

Illegal? So what? It still happens. Innocent Iraqi women and children are being killed "legally" in Bush's unjust war in Iraq.

 

[JustChristian]

Not to derail the thread, but I highly doubt that the lack of any specific authorization of using deadly force in self defense in the NT makes any difference.

If one takes the Bible as written, then we have a God who authorizes the wholesale slaughter of entire cities in the OT, which is the same as the God of the NT.

So..

Slaughter of women and children: ok.

Killing a deranged killer in self defense: not ok?

The OT deals with God's relationship with Israel, correct? America is not Israel. Do you believe that the description of Israel's wars in the OT is a more important to Christians in America today than Jesus' life and commands in the NT? If so, why? Jesus said to love your enemy not shoot him.

BTW, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[JustChristian]

I almost wholeheartedly agree, Christ was not advocating war but selfdefense. I agree, our (believers) war is not carnal but it is spiritual, but we must able to defend our carnal beings so we can wage spiritual warfare in the battle for lost souls.

This isn't what the previous post said. Christ does not advocate violence.

 

[Marcia]

...Certainly there are crimes of passion and provocation, but people have been killing each other quite efficiently for years before firearms were invented. The lack of a criminal record is no guarantee that there won’t be future crimes. But then, firearms are only tools. When good people use them, they usually save lives. When bad people use them, they often take lives. Guns are morally neutral, but people aren’t.

People can kill each other without guns but nothing is as deadly and as easy to use as a gun. It's much harder to kill with knives, strangulation, or other ways. There is not even an argument there -- that is just self-evident.

I do not see the answer to a few shootings in churches to be Christians getting armed with guns.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The OT deals with God's relationship with Israel, correct?

The Old Testament deals with God's relationship to humankind. Much of it is in the context of the nation of Israel, but not all. And most of what we see in God's relationship with Israel can be directly applied to our situation except for specific issues of the tabernacle/temple worship and their relationship to other nations.

America is not Israel.

Not a huge revelation to me, but I'm glad you pointed it out.

Do you believe that the description of Israel's wars in the OT is a more important to Christians in America today than Jesus' life and commands in the NT?

"More important?" Nope.

If so, why?

Well, I don't dismiss the Old Testament as easily as you do. The same God Who was "The Lord of Hosts/Armies" to Israel, is also the fullness of the Godhead that is in Christ (Colossians 2:9). And Christ is depicted as a warrior in the New Testament as well (see Rev. 19:11-16).

Jesus said to love your enemy not shoot him.

I don't recall Jesus talking about shooting or not shooting anyone.

Certainly Jesus told us to love our enemies and not to retaliate or seek revenge. But since no one has actually advocated retaliation or seeking revenge, we're left to consider the nature of love.

The love of a parent often requires exercising discipline against a misbehaving child. In a Christian context, it's not about exercising power against the child for the sake of the parent, but it is exercising power against the child for the sake of the child and everyone else the child interacts with over the course of their life. The parents are loving their child by trying to prevent their child from doing things that will harm others and themselves.

In a similar, but more extreme way, a Christian who exercises power against a person who is raping or murdering others in not only loving the one who is grossly sinning against others, but is also loving the victims and potential victims of the perpetrator. Since our command to love extends both to the perpetrator and the victims, love requires that we step in to end the violence. Sometimes we can do this with purely physical action (which is usually very violent, especially if the person you're trying to restrain wants to hurt or kill others and is perfectly willing to die), and other times we need tools such as a firearm.

BTW, two wrongs don't make a right.

Obviously. However, there is only one wrong here.


EDITED to add scripture references.