Would you consider owning a handgun for protection?
- Thread starter franklin
- Start date
Thanks, I was really worried there for a minute.... Man, you are a night owl arent you? Originally posted by Evangelion
That's OK. I'm here to help.
Actually, I didn't think that you were, I had my tongue in my cheek when I asked ...
I would say there is plenty of scriptural evidence or "proofTexts" as you put it, that when you apply the normal level of commonsence and logic to the situation. God holds us responsible for providing security for our own lives and the lives of our families and those around us. It may seem pious to say that one is trusting in God for protection (and we all must) but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures He has laid out for us in scripture. As for proof texts, I'm not sure if this will satisfy you so let's look at it:
No, I'm not doing that either. But if you have a proof text which says that self-defence is permissable, I'll be delighted to examine it and let you know how it looks to me.
Paul wrote in a letter in 1 Timothy 5:8, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
Wouldn't be absurd to have a house, furnish it with food and facilities for ones family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property? Likewise, it would be absurd not to take, if necessary, the life of a nighttime thief or some thug bent on commiting murder to protect the members of the family (Exodus 22:2-3). Fathers are to protect their families and the state is to protect the right to do so.
It's pretty clear in scripture how Peter reacted, wouldn't you agree? No need to be a theologian, he was seeking revenge and Christ rebuked him. Peter had the wrong motive!
Well evange, I couldn't agree with you more on this one! However, not all attacks or assaults from the criminal element are created equal and I don't advocate using deadly force in all circumstances either! I'm referring to a last resort situation. I'm talking about when a life is in danger of being taken. And there are laws that deal with the use of deadly force. It's not justified in all situations. I even carry mase with me just in case. If I can keep from killing someone, great! I never look forward to it coming to that.
I hope your having a great sunday in Australia or whatever day it is right now..... have a great day......
FR
Upvote
0
I've been noticing that there has been considerable support for the use of trigger locks and having firearms locked up for security purposes but for whose security? The criminals? I'm not saying that keeping firearms secured as a resonable precaution is a bad idea, however, it must be kept in perspective.
Following are some quotes from Larry Pratt on the subject:
Nowhere in scripture does God make any provision for dealing with the instruments of crime. He always focuses on the consequences for an individual of his actions. Responsibility only pertains to people, not to things. If this principle, which was deeply embedded in God's Law, still pertained today, lawsuits against gun manufacturers would be thrown out unless the product malfunctioned.
Responsibility rightly includes being liable for monetary damages if a firearm is left in a grossly negligent fashion so that an ignorant child gets the gun and misuses it. The solution is not to require that trigger locks be used on a gun to avoid being subject to such a lawsuit. Some might argue that this is nothing more than an application of the Biblical requirement that a railing be placed around the flat rooftop of a house where people might congregate. But trigger locks are to be used with unloaded guns which would be the same as requiring a railing around a pitched roof where people do not congregate.
Surely in protecting against accidents we cannot end up making ourselves more vulnerable to criminal attack, which is what a trigger lock does if it is in use on the firearm intended for self-protection. The firearm that is kept for self-defense should be available in an emergency. Rooftop railings have no correspondence to the need for instant access to a gun. On the other hand, guns that are not intended for immediate use should be kept secured as a reasonable precaution. But to make the owner criminally or monetarily liable for anothers misuse violates a basic commandment of Scripture: "...the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20).
Following are some quotes from Larry Pratt on the subject:
Nowhere in scripture does God make any provision for dealing with the instruments of crime. He always focuses on the consequences for an individual of his actions. Responsibility only pertains to people, not to things. If this principle, which was deeply embedded in God's Law, still pertained today, lawsuits against gun manufacturers would be thrown out unless the product malfunctioned.
Responsibility rightly includes being liable for monetary damages if a firearm is left in a grossly negligent fashion so that an ignorant child gets the gun and misuses it. The solution is not to require that trigger locks be used on a gun to avoid being subject to such a lawsuit. Some might argue that this is nothing more than an application of the Biblical requirement that a railing be placed around the flat rooftop of a house where people might congregate. But trigger locks are to be used with unloaded guns which would be the same as requiring a railing around a pitched roof where people do not congregate.
Surely in protecting against accidents we cannot end up making ourselves more vulnerable to criminal attack, which is what a trigger lock does if it is in use on the firearm intended for self-protection. The firearm that is kept for self-defense should be available in an emergency. Rooftop railings have no correspondence to the need for instant access to a gun. On the other hand, guns that are not intended for immediate use should be kept secured as a reasonable precaution. But to make the owner criminally or monetarily liable for anothers misuse violates a basic commandment of Scripture: "...the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20).
Upvote
0
Evangelion
<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Franklin -
It goes with the territory. I'm a shift worker, just as my dad used to be. I've worked a single shift, a split shift, and a rotating shift.
I've always been a late night kinda guy, and when you've spent the best part of a year working from 8 PM - 4 AM, you start to feel that being a "night owl" is actually quite normal.
Oh, I wouldn't have been offended if you'd thought I was. I admit that I could have been a lot more clear on this point.
I prefer to rely on as few assumptions as possible.
Well, sure! I've got security screens, deadlocks, window locks, exterior lights, and comprehensive home + contents insurance.
This I am not convinced of - and arguments from the Law of Moses just don't carry any weight with me in the context of this debate.
I am not really interested in the provisions of the state. The state provides us with many liberties that - as Christians - we cannot, in all good conscience, indulge.
Well, sure!
Sorry, I must have missed something. Just where are we told that Peter was "seeking revenge"? What was he attempting to avenge?
I see only that he was trying to protect Christ. I see no mention of vengeance.
I sympathise with your position, but we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on that one.
Yes, it was Sunday - and yes, I had a great day, thanks.
I hope you did too.
It goes with the territory. I'm a shift worker, just as my dad used to be. I've worked a single shift, a split shift, and a rotating shift.
I've always been a late night kinda guy, and when you've spent the best part of a year working from 8 PM - 4 AM, you start to feel that being a "night owl" is actually quite normal.
Oh, I wouldn't have been offended if you'd thought I was. I admit that I could have been a lot more clear on this point.
I prefer to rely on as few assumptions as possible.
Well, sure! I've got security screens, deadlocks, window locks, exterior lights, and comprehensive home + contents insurance.
This I am not convinced of - and arguments from the Law of Moses just don't carry any weight with me in the context of this debate.
I am not really interested in the provisions of the state. The state provides us with many liberties that - as Christians - we cannot, in all good conscience, indulge.
Well, sure!
Sorry, I must have missed something. Just where are we told that Peter was "seeking revenge"? What was he attempting to avenge?
I see only that he was trying to protect Christ. I see no mention of vengeance.
I sympathise with your position, but we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on that one.
Yes, it was Sunday - and yes, I had a great day, thanks.
I hope you did too.
Upvote
0
Jutsuka
<div style="width:100%; filter:glow(color=royalblu
I'm going to post my view on this not as a buddhist but as a citizen of Sweden.
In Sweden the majority of weapons owned by civilians are hunting rifles, handguns are very hard to get a permit for and if you use it for self-defence you had better not have had any other choice.
Firearms overall are not used very often in crimes and the phenomenon of people going beserk with firearms in schools, workplaces, etc is virtually unheard of in our country.
I can say with confidence that very few swedes feel a need to have a firearm for self-defence. I feel no need whatsoever.
Speaking ethically i would have to say that any weapon used for self-defence must be used to cause a minimum of harm to the assialant. A firearm is hard to use in this manner...
In Sweden the majority of weapons owned by civilians are hunting rifles, handguns are very hard to get a permit for and if you use it for self-defence you had better not have had any other choice.
Firearms overall are not used very often in crimes and the phenomenon of people going beserk with firearms in schools, workplaces, etc is virtually unheard of in our country.
I can say with confidence that very few swedes feel a need to have a firearm for self-defence. I feel no need whatsoever.
Speaking ethically i would have to say that any weapon used for self-defence must be used to cause a minimum of harm to the assialant. A firearm is hard to use in this manner...
Upvote
0
So that explains it! 2am to you is like 6pm in the evening for me when I get off my day gig! Originally posted by Evangelion
I've always been a late night kinda guy, and when you've spent the best part of a year working from 8 PM - 4 AM, you start to feel that being a "night owl" is actually quite normal.
So you think it is an assumption to draw logical conclusions from scripture?
This is all well and good and I have some of these measures also including a monitored security system, however, they are all not 100% guaranteed to keep you safe and I'm not saying owning a gun is either. But what if someone does manage to get into your home threatening your life and your loved ones. BTW, what is a comprehensive home anyway?
So let's just set aside the law of Moses for a minute and some thug is breaking your door down and persuing you with a machete, this doesn't convince you of the fact that he is about to take your life? So now what is your next split second decision to make? Hide in the closets? Better yet, call 911 right? I noticed that was not in your list of security measures.
I'll try to get to the rest of the quotes in your post tomorrow, I have to head on off to snewsville to catch some zzzz's after I set my security alarm.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Good link sarge, the anti-gunner socialists just don't get it do they?!
I like your guardDog!
Upvote
0
Evangelion
<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Franklin -
No, that's not what I said. I said that I prefer to rely on as few assumptions as possible. I say this because I believe that you (and others) have made certain assumptions about what a particular passage of Scripture is saying, without actually advancing a comprehensive defence of your interpretation.
Sure. We agree on this.
Well, I'll do my best to get them out again without a resort to violence - and if that doesn't work, I'll have to defend myself without a resort to lethal force.
LOL, cute.
If he's pursuing me, it's because I'm running. If I'm running, I've obviously decided that he's trying to kill me. So I think you have to go back to the part where I first meet him with Mr Machete, and take it from there. Perhaps he brought the machete as a housebreaking tool. Perhaps he brought it for the purpose of intimidation. Perhaps both. Either way, I'll make that call when I have sufficient information.
Depends on the situation. (See above.) As I said before - I'll do my best to get them out again without a resort to violence - and if that doesn't work, I'll have to defend myself without a resort to lethal force.
If I have time, I'll certainly call the police, yes. No point in dialling 911, is there? That wouldn't do anything.
Dialling 911 is hardly a security measure, is it? It's a response to a situation - and in my case, a fruitless one. So no, I wouldn't include it in my list of safety measures.
LOL, no worries mate.
No, that's not what I said. I said that I prefer to rely on as few assumptions as possible. I say this because I believe that you (and others) have made certain assumptions about what a particular passage of Scripture is saying, without actually advancing a comprehensive defence of your interpretation.
Sure. We agree on this.
Well, I'll do my best to get them out again without a resort to violence - and if that doesn't work, I'll have to defend myself without a resort to lethal force.
LOL, cute.
If he's pursuing me, it's because I'm running. If I'm running, I've obviously decided that he's trying to kill me. So I think you have to go back to the part where I first meet him with Mr Machete, and take it from there. Perhaps he brought the machete as a housebreaking tool. Perhaps he brought it for the purpose of intimidation. Perhaps both. Either way, I'll make that call when I have sufficient information.
Depends on the situation. (See above.) As I said before - I'll do my best to get them out again without a resort to violence - and if that doesn't work, I'll have to defend myself without a resort to lethal force.
If I have time, I'll certainly call the police, yes. No point in dialling 911, is there? That wouldn't do anything.
Dialling 911 is hardly a security measure, is it? It's a response to a situation - and in my case, a fruitless one. So no, I wouldn't include it in my list of safety measures.
LOL, no worries mate.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I seriously doubt that you'll have any success trying to convince an intruder to leave your home if your not pointing a firearm at him! Unless you are extremely proficient in marshall arts and standing in the appropriate position of defence! But according to your thinking that would be resorting to just another form of violence, right? So what form of self defense would you use that is not on the level of violence? Like I said in previous posts, self-defense is not violence, it's the prevention of violence. I don't follow your line of logic or the lack of it.
This is almost laughable evange.... are you kidding me or what?! I just used the Machete as an example! If I catch an intruder in my home with his bare hands, there is no open discussion or debate in order, he is going to get shot! period! He might be wired on speed or some other dangerous drug and I'm not going to be giving him an invitation to sit down for a cup of coffee! Get real brother!
It could get you killed! Dial 911 and die! Many people believe its the police departments job to protect its citizens! That is a myth in just about every state in the USA. (no rolling eye balls here) BTW, do you live in America or Australia? If I have time, I'll certainly call the police, yes. No point in dialling 911, is there? That wouldn't do anything.
Upvote
0
I used to, but I don't anymore. I believe that hapkido is a better means of protection. They teach you moves on how to get a gun away from someone or any other kind of weapon-- & also how to defend youself using your hands. It's not even about strength or size.
Upvote
0
sounds good to me! I've never heard of hapkido, is that some form of marshall arts?
Upvote
0
Yes, it's a form of martial arts. I took some classes in it a few years ago at a Christian place in Houston, TX called the "Daering Academy of Self Defense". It was a lot of fun... I'd like to do it again.
Upvote
0
Evangelion
<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Franklin -
How about a baseball bat?
Well, never mind. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
You're confusing "violence" with "deadly force." I suggest you go back and read my previous posts on this subject.
Nope.
Fine. Same principle applies, though.
Well, if I catch an intruder in my house, it will mean that he has somehow managed to smash his way through (a) a solid wood, double-deadlocked door, or (b) a glass window with a steel security screen.
Now, if he's capable of doing that, I can safely conclude that he's built like the Terminator, and therefore impervious to a half-ounce of lead in the guts.
You betcha! I'd never dial 911 in the first place!
It might be a different situation over here. I don't know. Haven't checked.
As you can see from all of my previous posts (not to mention the little flag in my profile), I live in Australia.
That's why I wouldn't dial 911.
I'd dial 000.
How about a baseball bat?
Well, never mind. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
You're confusing "violence" with "deadly force." I suggest you go back and read my previous posts on this subject.
Nope.
Fine. Same principle applies, though.
Well, if I catch an intruder in my house, it will mean that he has somehow managed to smash his way through (a) a solid wood, double-deadlocked door, or (b) a glass window with a steel security screen.
Now, if he's capable of doing that, I can safely conclude that he's built like the Terminator, and therefore impervious to a half-ounce of lead in the guts.
You betcha! I'd never dial 911 in the first place!
It might be a different situation over here. I don't know. Haven't checked.
As you can see from all of my previous posts (not to mention the little flag in my profile), I live in Australia.
That's why I wouldn't dial 911.
I'd dial 000.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
As a USMC Vet for several years and having trained and continuing to train on various hanguns the terminator you speak of can be stopped without question. Mozambique drill/shooting techinique will stop the above mentioned terminator even if he was flying high on PCP.
Upvote
0
As a USMC veteran and trained regarding CQB skills disarming someone (handgun, sharp edged weapon or blunt instrument) can be quite difficult. These type of skills must be practiced and honed.
Personally, I believe that protection of my home and family deserves the best legal protection I can render.
Upvote
0
Evangelion
<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Gunnysgt -
I find that very difficult to believe, especially since the Terminator to which I refer, is none other than your friend and mine, the right honourable Arnold Schwarzenegger, of Terminator and Terminator II fame.
If I remember correctly (and I think I do), the Terminator in question was totally unconcerned by anything less than a 5lb mortar.
Even the robotic one?
Now that's a showdown I'd love to see...
I find that very difficult to believe, especially since the Terminator to which I refer, is none other than your friend and mine, the right honourable Arnold Schwarzenegger, of Terminator and Terminator II fame.
If I remember correctly (and I think I do), the Terminator in question was totally unconcerned by anything less than a 5lb mortar.
Even the robotic one?
Now that's a showdown I'd love to see...
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Evangelion
Well, if I catch an intruder in my house, it will mean that he has somehow managed to smash his way through (a) a solid wood, double-deadlocked door, or (b) a glass window with a steel security screen. Now, if he's capable of doing that, I can safely conclude that he's built like the Terminator, and therefore impervious to a half-ounce of lead in the guts.
Well, evange, I guess if I lived in Australia where it is illegal to own firearms, I'd live in a house like yours that is built like Fort Knox too! It sounds like the criminals have you living like a prisoner in your own home and that my friend is a sad way to live! Here in TX and in most states in America the criminals think twice before they break into homes knowing full well it's citizens will not hesitate to blow them away if they chose to invade someones home! As for your Terminator character, I think your probably watching to many of Arnold S's movies! I think I would have to concur with the sarge on his response to your comments on that! That fellow that has broken down your highly secure prison you live in is only human and not some make believe hollywood delusion!
(no winky smiley faces here bro) BTW, what the heck is dialing triple zero anyway? I guess it's just another one of your cute little jests?
How bout a Glock 17 !
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Evangelion
<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Hi Franklin.
Ummm... it is not illegal to own firearms here. You can own all sorts of firearms, and if your home is invaded, you're allowed to use 'em, just so long as you can prove that it was a justifiable resort.
There are test cases on the books. It's legal.
Ummm... my house is not "built like Fort Knox." It's just a little California bungalow-style joint with a regular wooden door at the back (like anyone else would have), and a wood-and-glass-panel door on the front. (Wood and glass, Franklin! Does that sound overly defensive to you?)
I have security screens on all the windows except for the long one at the back of the house, and I have double deadlocks on the front and rear doors. The walls of the house are asbestos. (If you really wanted to break in, you could smash the walls open with a pickaxe!)
Hardly "Fort Knox", Franklin.
Nope. Not on your nelly. I have very basic security - just a regular set of security screens and a regular pair of doors. (I don't even have an alarm system!)
It would indeed be "a sad way to life" if I was a "prisoner in my own house", and if my house was "built like Fort Knox", but since neither of these is true, there's no need to feel sorry for me.
Yikes! What a bunch of nutters! I'd hate to live like that. I would feel like a prisoner in my own home!
I just want to learn more about American culture. The Terminator reminds me of so many Americans I've met on the Internet...
LOL, surely a little humour won't go astray, Franklin?
Oh, and if the hypothetical felon had any smarts, he wouldn't be wasting his time on the doors. He'd grab a pickaxe and split the walls open, instead.
Ah, c'mon, Franklin - lighten up a little! Living, as I do, in one of the most peaceful countries on the face of the planet, I think a few winky smiley faces are definitely in order!
It's what you do when there's an emergency.
Nope. 000 is the Australian equivalent of 911. It's a direct line to the emergency services (fire brigade, ambulance and police.) You just ring the number and specify your required service.
Ooooh, that would be awesome! The Glock 17 is a truly magnificent weapon.
Horribly expensive, though - and in my case, quite unnecessary.
Ummm... it is not illegal to own firearms here. You can own all sorts of firearms, and if your home is invaded, you're allowed to use 'em, just so long as you can prove that it was a justifiable resort.
There are test cases on the books. It's legal.
Ummm... my house is not "built like Fort Knox." It's just a little California bungalow-style joint with a regular wooden door at the back (like anyone else would have), and a wood-and-glass-panel door on the front. (Wood and glass, Franklin! Does that sound overly defensive to you?)
I have security screens on all the windows except for the long one at the back of the house, and I have double deadlocks on the front and rear doors. The walls of the house are asbestos. (If you really wanted to break in, you could smash the walls open with a pickaxe!)
Hardly "Fort Knox", Franklin.
Nope. Not on your nelly. I have very basic security - just a regular set of security screens and a regular pair of doors. (I don't even have an alarm system!)
It would indeed be "a sad way to life" if I was a "prisoner in my own house", and if my house was "built like Fort Knox", but since neither of these is true, there's no need to feel sorry for me.
Yikes! What a bunch of nutters!
I'd hate to live like that. I would feel like a prisoner in my own home!I just want to learn more about American culture. The Terminator reminds me of so many Americans I've met on the Internet...
LOL, surely a little humour won't go astray, Franklin?
Oh, and if the hypothetical felon had any smarts, he wouldn't be wasting his time on the doors. He'd grab a pickaxe and split the walls open, instead.
Ah, c'mon, Franklin - lighten up a little! Living, as I do, in one of the most peaceful countries on the face of the planet, I think a few winky smiley faces are definitely in order!
It's what you do when there's an emergency.
Nope. 000 is the Australian equivalent of 911. It's a direct line to the emergency services (fire brigade, ambulance and police.) You just ring the number and specify your required service.
Ooooh, that would be awesome! The Glock 17 is a truly magnificent weapon.
Horribly expensive, though - and in my case, quite unnecessary.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
