Should guns be used for self defense?

[Brighthouse]

Brother Still, my mindset is simple. It is better to have one, and not need it,then to need one and not have it!Luke 22:36-38

 

[Brother_Don]

i can't say what is right for someone else, what they should or shouldn't do for self defense. But as for me the answer is no, i don't like guns, but i know don-kuan-do, with a little of that, and alot of God, its all taken care of.

 

[Rachel20]

Pro-gun and anti-gun people have something in common. They both dislike it when someone misuses a gun to harm an innocent victim. Pro-gun and anti-gun people differ, in that the pro-gun people think the innocent victim has a right to be armed so she doesn't become a victim in the first place.

Thus making the pro-gunners the most intellectually consistent. The anti-gunners claim to stand for the victim, but they illogically deny them the one thing that could prevent them from becoming a victim.

I don't speak for secular anti-gunners but on a personal stand as a Christian. It's not just the life of the victim, it's also the life of the person committing a crime.
Why are there no alternatives to a gun?

Someone tries to break into someone else's house, and the only solution seems to shoot that person? Is life of so little value?

I see far too often, that the people committing a crime are dehumanized. They're seen as people who have ''forfeited the right to life''.

I understand that, people have commited terrible crimes, some so unimaginable that even the idea of rehabilition into society is abhorrent, but as Christians, how do we know that the desperate person stealing for food or money, could not be saved?

How do you know, that the person shot could not be reformed?
We too once were criminals in the eyes of God, and it was Jesus' death on the cross that reconciled us.

There are many alternative self defense options rather than a gun and a gun is not a guarantee for life.

 

[Rachel20]

Re: Gun Safety

Kids with Guns. They seem very educated about the usage of them.

They're protecting their lives and those of their countrymen. Is this ok with you guys?

 

[wwjd_kilden]

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[Historicist]

Should guns be used for self defense?
Debate it here!

Yes, I will use guns for self defense and the following is my scriptural authority.

If a thief be found breaking up, an be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be she for him. Exodus 22:2

This tells us that a weapon may be used to correct the problem of a thief breaking into your house.

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed. Luke 11:21

"Armed," in a 1st century context was an edged weapon, today its a firearm.

Then said he unto them... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

If, therefore, someone is breaking into your house, or car, etc. to rob, rape or kill you, a gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone. And, according to scripture, it is entirely justifiable to use it. Women, especially those without a man in their house, need a firearm (and training) for protection. It's their best defense against someone with evil intentions, and who is much larger and stronger.

 

[Historicist]

Problem with our modern translations is they really do a poor job of conveying what the originals actually meant. The language of the time. Idioms.
Self-defense?

The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.


Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14). When protecting one's family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.


Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."

Well said djness.

 

[1still_waters]

Problem with our modern translations is they really do a poor job of conveying what the originals actually meant. The language of the time. Idioms.
Self-defense?

The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.


Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14). When protecting one's family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.


Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."

You my friend are both a gentleman and a scholar.
And your awesome post did indeed..firin your lazar...

 

[1still_waters]

Yes, I will use guns for self defense and the following is my scriptural authority.

If a thief be found breaking up, an be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be she for him. Exodus 22:2

This tells us that a weapon may be used to correct the problem of a thief breaking into your house.

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed. Luke 11:21

"Armed," in a 1st century context was an edged weapon, today its a firearm.

Then said he unto them... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

If, therefore, someone is breaking into your house, or car, etc. to rob, rape or kill you, a gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone. And, according to scripture, it is entirely justifiable to use it. Women, especially those without a man in their house, need a firearm (and training) for protection. It's their best defense against someone with evil intentions, and who is much larger and stronger.

Agreed kind sir.

 

[JimJimmers]

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
View attachment 71785

I can see the intent behind this poster, but it's not true. Dodgeball hasn't been banned in America. It actually had a thriving resurgence, thanks to a movie a few years ago. Dodgeball has been banned in some schools, but guns have been banned in almost all schools. (Unless in the hands of a police officer, of course)

One thing that bothers me, we seem largely divided of geographic lines. We are all one in Christ, but we are from different culture. I feel like it will get to the point where we will just be engaging in "foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless."

WWJDKilden and Rachel20 are both my sisters, why should I have a back-and-forth with them about something that will pass away? Now, I do hope y'all can see it from our point of view. I use weapons to protect my livestock, as did King David, and I have no qualms about that. I hope you don't think of any brother or sister who isn't anti-gun as less than Christian. -JIM

 

[1still_waters]

I don't speak for secular anti-gunners but on a personal stand as a Christian. It's not just the life of the victim, it's also the life of the person committing a crime.
Why are there no alternatives to a gun?

I understand that, people have commited terrible crimes, some so unimaginable that even the idea of rehabilition into society is abhorrent, but as Christians, how do we know that the desperate person stealing for food or money, could not be saved?

How do you know, that the person shot could not be reformed?
We too once were criminals in the eyes of God, and it was Jesus' death on the cross that reconciled us.

There are many alternative self defense options rather than a gun and a gun is not a guarantee for life.

Someone tries to break into someone else's house, and the only solution seems to shoot that person? Is life of so little value?

I see far too often, that the people committing a crime are dehumanized. They're seen as people who have ''forfeited the right to life''.

I don't really understand the mentality that gives the benefit of the doubt to someone who breaks into ones home and creates any level of perceived threat due to breaking into their home.

If one doesn't want to be "dehumanized" then don't break into someone's home and pose a perceived threat.

How come if someone breaks into a home, and they get shot, the first question asked by some is..."Well was the intruder armed?"

As if the initial benefit of the doubt belongs to the person who actually broke into a home and created a perceived threat.

The benefit of the doubt goes to the person who was at home, in peace, minding their own business. Don't turn the victim into a suspect by asking him why he did something to someone who broke into his home.


This is another example of to me what seems like an odd mentality, a mentality that empowers the evil doers, and puts the questioning spotlight on the victim.

There are many alternative self defense options rather than a gun and a gun is not a guarantee for life.

We don't refrain from doing things simply because they don't always work.

 

[1still_waters]

Victims are not suspects.
When you give the initial benefit of the doubt, and initial concern to the wrong doer, you in fact turn the victim into the suspect.

In the home invasion scenario, it's about as dehumanizing as saying to a sexual assault victim, "Well why were you dressed that way, and why did you go there?"

 

[Rachel20]

I don't really understand the mentality that gives the benefit of the doubt to someone who breaks into ones home and creates any level of perceived threat due to breaking into their home.

If one doesn't want to be "dehumanized" then don't break into someone's home and pose a perceived threat.

How come if someone breaks into a home, and they get shot, the first question asked by some is..."Well was the intruder armed?"

As if the initial benefit of the doubt belongs to the person who actually broke into a home and created a perceived threat.

You completely missed the point that I was making.

Why do people break into homes and commit crimes? It's because they are human.

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

When there's poverty and hopelessness, people can become desperate.

If someone breaks into your house, and is in fact unarmed and then you shoot them without blinking an eye, I think there's something incredibly tragic there. However that's just what I think.

You're right. You have a right to defend your house.
Anyone who breaks that threshold deserves to be shot like an animal.

The benefit of the doubt goes to the person who was at home, in peace, minding their own business. Don't turn the victim into a suspect by asking him why he did something to someone who broke into his home.

Alright. If you say so.

The person who died doesn't deserve any justice or probe into the circumstance of his/her death.

This is another example of to me what seems like an odd mentality, a mentality that empowers the evil doers, and puts the questioning spotlight on the victim.

Well, if we're trying to be intellectually consistent, then I would say what Jesus said here, seems to be of rather odd mentality as well.

Matthew 5:39-45

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

Victims are not suspects.
When you give the initial benefit of the doubt, and initial concern to the wrong doer, you in fact turn the victim into the suspect.

In the home invasion scenario, it's about as dehumanizing as saying to a sexual assault victim, "Well why were you dressed that way, and why did you go there?"

Showing concern for another human being doesn't mean that there's no concern for the victim. It is shown equally in all regards in the right context and temperament.

Please don't be confused by it.

 

[1still_waters]

You completely missed the point that I was making.

Why do people break into homes and commit crimes? It's because they are human.

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

When there's poverty and hopelessness, people can become desperate.

If someone breaks into your house, and is in fact unarmed and then you shoot them without blinking an eye, I think there's something incredibly tragic there. However that's just what I think.

You're right. You have a right to defend your house.
Anyone who breaks that threshold deserves to be shot like an animal.

When you're sitting in your home, minding your own business, doing no harm to anyone, maybe sitting there with your husband/wife, and children, and someone busts in the door, and intrudes, it's not the victim's burden to figure out WHY the person is now in their home. By time they figure that out, the wife and kids could be injured or dead.

Are you suggesting we give home intruders a survey/questionnaire to fill out before they come in. Then they can hand it to us, and if they say they're doing it because they're poor, then we'll know not to shoot?

Again, don't put the burden of proof on the person sitting at home with their kids! It's not their job to find out if the person is armed, or what their motives are. By time they do that it could be too late.

You seem to show annoyance at the intruder being "shot like an animal",
Well the innocent people inside may be shot like an animal too, for simply sitting in their homes minding their own business.

In this scenario are you really going to give the intruder the benefit of the doubt, if the victim shoots him, because the victim didn't want themself and their kids to be shot like animals by the person who entered their home and posed a clearly perceived threat?

Alright. If you say so.

The person who died doesn't deserve any justice or probe into the circumstance of his/her death.

Lol, you're calling for justice for someone who intruded into someone's home, but you turn the spotlight on the victim and ask why he did what he did?

REALLY!?!?!?

Of course there is always investigation into the home intrusion cases to see if the victim was justified in shooting.

Well, if we're trying to be intellectually consistent, then I would say what Jesus said here, seems to be of rather odd mentality as well.

Matthew 5:39-45

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven.




Showing concern for another human being doesn't mean that there's no concern for the victim. It is shown equally in all regards in the right context and temperament.

Please don't be confused by it.

Under your interpretation of these verses, a victim of sexual assault shouldn't resist, because that wouldn't be turning the other cheek, and it wouldn't be going the second mile.

Jesus isn't saying to allow yourself to become a victim of extreme crime.

 

[Rachel20]

One thing that bothers me, we seem largely divided of geographic lines. We are all one in Christ, but we are from different culture. I feel like it will get to the point where we will just be engaging in "foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless."

WWJDKilden and Rachel20 are both my sisters, why should I have a back-and-forth with them about something that will pass away? Now, I do hope y'all can see it from our point of view. I use weapons to protect my livestock, as did King David, and I have no qualms about that. I hope you don't think of any brother or sister who isn't anti-gun as less than Christian. -JIM

It bothers me too. Our differences.

I find myself dealing with ''American Christians'', rather than just Christians. I have said earlier, I think if people feel the need to constantly protect themselves with a gun then they should have one, for their peace of mind.

You can protect your livestock. From bears, or other wildlife. I don't consider that un-Christian.

Btw- I noticed that you posted in the thread pertaining to wrongful usage of guns. I think that in itself, is hopeful that you don't venerate a weapon. Good for you. I think that's worthy of mention and commendable.

A question of curiosity- Are you allowed to carry your gun in malls and airports? Do you have metal detectors or security scanners, in subways etc.

 

[Rachel20]

When you're sitting in your home, minding your own business, doing no harm to anyone, maybe sitting there with your husband/wife, and children, and someone busts in the door, and intrudes, it's not the victim's burden to figure out WHY the person is now in their home. By time they figure that out, the wife and kids could be injured or dead.

Are you suggesting we give home intruders a survey/questionnaire to fill out before they come in. Then they can hand it to us, and if they say they're doing it because they're poor, then we'll know not to shoot?

Again, don't put the burden of proof on the person sitting at home with their kids! It's not their job to find out if the person is armed, or what their motives are. By time they do that it could be too late.

You seem to show annoyance at the intruder being "shot like an animal",
Well the innocent people inside may be shot like an animal too, for simply sitting in their homes minding their own business.

In this scenario are you really going to give the intruder the benefit of the doubt, if the victim shoots him, because the victim didn't want themself and their kids to be shot like animals by the person who entered their home and posed a clearly perceived threat?

Actually if such a fast paced scenario were to ever occur, then it's no use for the home owner to even have a gun. By the time, he'd reach out for his gun, he'd get shot.

I don't say give a questionnaire, but are you saying, shoot and then ask questions later?

And I think in most home break-in situations, the owner is not at home. It's foolhardy for any criminal to just ''burst'' into anyone's house. It's a very unlikely scenario that you presented, but even then that's not the point.

Lol, you're calling for justice for someone who intruded into someone's home, but you turn the spotlight on the victim and ask why he did what he did?

REALLY!?!?!?

Yes it might seem funny to you, but the death of a human being, no matter whether criminal or victim deserves to be probed into. Everybody needs to be accountable for their actions.

Of course there is always investigation into the home intrusion cases to see if the victim was justified in shooting.

Ok, I am sorry to know you have problems with that.

Under your interpretation of these verses, a victim of sexual assault shouldn't resist, because that wouldn't be turning the other cheek, and it wouldn't be going the second mile.

Jesus isn't saying to allow yourself to become a victim of extreme crime.

I don't recall giving you my interpretation of the verses. I just quoted them. Please don't misrepresent me by falsely claiming my position on sexual assault.

The Bible says, this in Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, [SUP]24 [/SUP]you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you

It's that serious about expecting women to protect themselves and cry out for help.

 

[1still_waters]

Actually if such a fast paced scenario were to ever occur, then it's no use for the home owner to even have a gun. By the time, he'd reach out for his gun, he'd get shot.

I don't say give a questionnaire, but are you saying, shoot and then ask questions later?

And I think in most home break-in situations, the owner is not at home. It's foolhardy for any criminal to just ''burst'' into anyone's house. It's a very unlikely scenario that you presented, but even then that's not the point.

This happened just yesterday. A mother and daughter were at home, and a man intruded, and started attacking the daughter. The mother protected her teen daughter by shooting the intruder.
Man Shot by Homeowner after Allegedly Breaking into Home - KTUL.com - Tulsa, Oklahoma - News, Weather & Sports

In this scenario a man on a crime spree entered an occupied house. The father inside protected his baby and wife by shooting the intrude.
Cops: Homeowner fatally shoots intruder in midst of crime spree - KCTV5

A man broke in while the homeowner was home. The homeowner held the suspect at gunpoint. This was seven days ago.
Terre Haute Man Held At Gun Point By Homeowner During Clay County Burglary - News - WIBQ Terre Haute's News / Talk 98.5 WIBQ

I could keep going, but the point is these scenarios are not rare or unlikely. People do break in when folks be at home.

 

[1still_waters]

I don't recall giving you my interpretation of the verses. I just quoted them. Please don't misrepresent me by falsely claiming my position on sexual assault.

So in a thread about armed self defense you quote these verses...
Matthew 5:39-45

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven.http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/84834-should-guns-used-self-defense-4.html#post1403536

What is your interpretation of those verses in regards to resisting evil and defense during sexual assault?

 

[Rachel20]

This happened just yesterday. A mother and daughter were at home, and a man intruded, and started attacking the daughter. The mother protected her teen daughter by shooting the intruder.
Man Shot by Homeowner after Allegedly Breaking into Home - KTUL.com - Tulsa, Oklahoma - News, Weather & Sports

In this scenario a man on a crime spree entered an occupied house. The father inside protected his baby and wife by shooting the intrude.
Cops: Homeowner fatally shoots intruder in midst of crime spree - KCTV5

A man broke in while the homeowner was home. The homeowner held the suspect at gunpoint. This was seven days ago.
Terre Haute Man Held At Gun Point By Homeowner During Clay County Burglary - News - WIBQ Terre Haute's News / Talk 98.5 WIBQ

I could keep going, but the point is these scenarios are not rare or unlikely. People do break in when folks be at home.

I read those links.
The first story about the mother and daughter, and investigations are still going on. It's an alleged breakin.
The second story is just tragic. A desperate robber, who tries to steal the family vehicle gets shot.
The third story involves no loss of death.


Either way, since it's apparently so common for break-ins to happen, then have a gun by all means. Americans clearly live in a land of high violence perpetuated by guns. As I posted earlier, it's a self feeding cycle.

I'll ask the same question to you that I asked Jim, are you allowed to carry your gun in a mall or an airport? Or in a closed public train station ? Can you carry your gun everywhere?

 

[1still_waters]

At this point it's just the same rehashed discussions that have been had in other threads.
Me thinks I'm gonna go have some hash browns instead.