John Piper, Guns, Self-Defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is interesting that shortly after young Arab jihadists began attacking Israelies with kitchen knives the stores began removing knives, scissors, and such from the shelves. Of course these jihadists have used bulldozers, automobiles, whatever is effective and available.

There are many cities in the USA that have stringent gun laws, such as Chicago, Washington DC, and NYC. Cities with very high murder rates. When the law abiding citizens are disarmed because they respect the law, the predators that do not respect the law are empowered. Cities and states where concealed carry is legal for licensees have much lower violent crime rates in general, and lower murder rates in particular.
 
I've got an old sword.

But in my 42 years in Perth, including also a few years in Aberdeen, I can't remember having a life-threatening crime committed against me, or a burglary, apart from one attempted robbery/assault by two drunks, which probably wasn't going to end up life-threatening.

I don't hear that we as a family had any problem either, in Glasgow (West End), Oban, Strathpeffer or Inverness, or that the question of owining a gun or making preparations for defending oneself against burglay or a lone gunner was ever raised.

Some parts of the world are obviously more lawless than others, otherwise these things would be a topic of conversation and preparation in all neighbourhoods and circles. Maybe if I lived in a different part of Britain I'd be interested in guns.

If all of the Christians of Britain saw it as their God given right to own a gun then your situation might change. Give some a gun then everyone has to have a gun to keep the playing field even.

It seems that the US is in that final state where the need to have a gun comes stems from the fact that everyone already has one - were transitioning to a situation where very few people have guns is unthinkable and in fact, is derided as being unbiblical from the community of faith.
 
It is interesting that shortly after young Arab jihadists began attacking Israelies with kitchen knives the stores began removing knives, scissors, and such from the shelves. Of course these jihadists have used bulldozers, automobiles, whatever is effective and available.

There are many cities in the USA that have stringent gun laws, such as Chicago, Washington DC, and NYC. Cities with very high murder rates. When the law abiding citizens are disarmed because they respect the law, the predators that do not respect the law are empowered. Cities and states where concealed carry is legal for licensees have much lower violent crime rates in general, and lower murder rates in particular.

I guess if you can drive for 2 hours to purchase a gun from a local convenience store then those cities will struggle with those who are doing evil. A nationwide initiative would be a difference matter, but the transition to that will be full of all sorts of wickedness and uncertainty.
 
It is interesting that shortly after young Arab jihadists began attacking Israelies with kitchen knives the stores began removing knives, scissors, and such from the shelves. Of course these jihadists have used bulldozers, automobiles, whatever is effective and available.

There are many cities in the USA that have stringent gun laws, such as Chicago, Washington DC, and NYC. Cities with very high murder rates. When the law abiding citizens are disarmed because they respect the law, the predators that do not respect the law are empowered. Cities and states where concealed carry is legal for licensees have much lower violent crime rates in general, and lower murder rates in particular.

I guess if you can drive for 2 hours to purchase a gun from a local convenience store then those cities will struggle with those who are doing evil. A nationwide initiative would be a difference matter, but the transition to that will be full of all sorts of wickedness and uncertainty.

You cannot buy a firearm from a convenience store like one would a coke or a bag of chips.

There is a lot of misinformation out there about how one can into possession of a firearm.
 
WLC Q135 ("Duties Required"), includes "by just defence thereof against violence" (Ps. 82:4, Prov. 24:11–12, 1 Sam. 14:45)

I'm not sure where you derive gun ownership from this. The application is far broader of course, but if you are using this to justify owning a gun then the burden is upon you to justify it from the rest of scripture. The gun "race" has the effect of arming thousands (or in the case of the US probably millions) of people which introduces risk that wasn't there otherwise. I can see how such a verse argues against the proliferation of guns - at the very least high powered automatic style weapons.

High powered automatic style weapons have been illegal since approximately the 1930's.

Part of the problem in all the years of this discussion is the knowledge barrier about the laws in the United States and about firearms in general.

This is also a problem for many anti-gun folks in the United States as well.
 

I guess if you can drive for 2 hours to purchase a gun from a local convenience store then those cities will struggle with those who are doing evil. A nationwide initiative would be a difference matter, but the transition to that will be full of all sorts of wickedness and uncertainty.

You cannot buy a firearm from a convenience store like one would a coke or a bag of chips.

There is a lot of misinformation out there about how one can into possession of a firearm.

No doubt. I was implying the general convenience and availability rather than a process. I think even in approaching Pipers article - this type of "technicality" seems to be used all too readily to dismiss the cry behind the claims.
 
WLC Q135 ("Duties Required"), includes "by just defence thereof against violence" (Ps. 82:4, Prov. 24:11–12, 1 Sam. 14:45)

I'm not sure where you derive gun ownership from this. The application is far broader of course, but if you are using this to justify owning a gun then the burden is upon you to justify it from the rest of scripture. The gun "race" has the effect of arming thousands (or in the case of the US probably millions) of people which introduces risk that wasn't there otherwise. I can see how such a verse argues against the proliferation of guns - at the very least high powered automatic style weapons.

High powered automatic style weapons have been illegal since approximately the 1930's.

Part of the problem in all the years of this discussion is the knowledge barrier about the laws in the United States and about firearms in general.

This is also a problem for many anti-gun folks in the United States as well.

Ah, the old "I got you on a technicality" defence. Well done!
 

I guess if you can drive for 2 hours to purchase a gun from a local convenience store then those cities will struggle with those who are doing evil. A nationwide initiative would be a difference matter, but the transition to that will be full of all sorts of wickedness and uncertainty.

You cannot buy a firearm from a convenience store like one would a coke or a bag of chips.

There is a lot of misinformation out there about how one can into possession of a firearm.

No doubt. I was implying the general convenience and availability rather than a process. I think even in approaching Pipers article - this type of "technicality" seems to be used all too readily to dismiss the cry behind the claims.

Again, purchasing a handgun (especially, which is the firearm of choice in approx. 95% of all gun homicides), is anything but "convenient".

You have to buy it from the holder of a Federal Firearms License, which is not exactly easy to acquire.

Depending on the individual state there is a time period between purchase and when you can have the firearm.

Again, I could go on here, but I think you have a real misunderstanding of how this works in the United States.
 
WLC Q135 ("Duties Required"), includes "by just defence thereof against violence" (Ps. 82:4, Prov. 24:11–12, 1 Sam. 14:45)

I'm not sure where you derive gun ownership from this. The application is far broader of course, but if you are using this to justify owning a gun then the burden is upon you to justify it from the rest of scripture. The gun "race" has the effect of arming thousands (or in the case of the US probably millions) of people which introduces risk that wasn't there otherwise. I can see how such a verse argues against the proliferation of guns - at the very least high powered automatic style weapons.

High powered automatic style weapons have been illegal since approximately the 1930's.

Part of the problem in all the years of this discussion is the knowledge barrier about the laws in the United States and about firearms in general.

This is also a problem for many anti-gun folks in the United States as well.

Indeed, with all the talk of vengeance, automatic weapons, and buying guns at convenience stores, this has been quite an amusing thread to follow. I know a lot of Christians who own guns besides myself (mine was a gift - does that count?), and all of these fanciful stories sound more like something out of a movie than any reality I have encountered.

Nudge nudge, wink wink, chortle. Well we certainly fried him on those technicalities, so no need to interact with the intent or to treat someone who doesn't speak with cultural elegance with grace.
 
WLC Q135 ("Duties Required"), includes "by just defence thereof against violence" (Ps. 82:4, Prov. 24:11–12, 1 Sam. 14:45)

I'm not sure where you derive gun ownership from this. The application is far broader of course, but if you are using this to justify owning a gun then the burden is upon you to justify it from the rest of scripture. The gun "race" has the effect of arming thousands (or in the case of the US probably millions) of people which introduces risk that wasn't there otherwise. I can see how such a verse argues against the proliferation of guns - at the very least high powered automatic style weapons.

High powered automatic style weapons have been illegal since approximately the 1930's.

Part of the problem in all the years of this discussion is the knowledge barrier about the laws in the United States and about firearms in general.

This is also a problem for many anti-gun folks in the United States as well.

Ah, the old "I got you on a technicality" defence. Well done!

Are you aware of how few homicides are committed in the United States with any kind of rifle, high-powered or otherwise?

If you are interested in being educated on this here are a few links worth considering.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...204/America-s-massive-decline-in-gun-violence

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
 
sorry guys in Australia we call sidewalks "footpaths" and in the UK they may call them "pavements".

i fear my use of the words "high", "automatic" and "powered" may have derailed the discussion.

sincere apologies.
 
i certainly understand that in most cases of mass shootings, a gun was involved.

Do facts matter here?

could you elaborate?
From my perception no, facts don't matter. Anti gun liberals, particularly those who live on the other side of the world have their presuppositions and are sticking to them. Reminds me of a movie I saw when I was a kid ........ 'why oh why can't there be peace in the valley ?"

We've got plenty of gun laws dating back to NYC Sullivan Act at the turn of the 20th century. Our main problem is the first example of brotherly love when Cain slew Abel. No firearm involved in that one.

Man's fallen nature is the problem.

This thread is reminiscent of the Received Text versus the Critical Text threads that pop up ad infinitum. The same people show up holding their rigid positions come hell or high water, and I include myself in that bunch. Both bunches in point of fact. :(
 
Guns do make a difference. A Black gang in Texas targeted South Asian immigrants for home invasion robberies. They rightly surmised that the Hindus would not have guns in the house, making the robberies relatively safe. Random home invasions in Texas can otherwise be a risky operation.
 
Anti gun liberals, particularly those who live on the other side of the world

Well that was certainly less veiled. Add that to the labels thrown at me passive-aggressively in this thread and it makes for an edifying discussion indeed.
 
His #2 argument almost carries water, except I dispute the point that a bad guy in a back alley, trying to kill and rape my family, is simply an "unjust situation."

There is no guy in the back alley - his argument here is solid. Remeber the tenor of his article: "My main concern in this article is with the appeal to students that stirs them up to have the mindset: Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson if they come here. The concern is the forging of a disposition in Christians to use lethal force, not as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries.

The issue is not primarily about when and if a Christian may ever use force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are significant situational ambiguities in the answer to that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me”? My answer is, No."

Romans 12 and 13 verses supplied substantiate his position - do you disagree?
 
#3 argument: I dispute that every act of violence against a Christian is necessarily an act of persecution.

That dispute does not negate the thrust of argument 3 - Matthew 10 and Luke 21 verses supplied aren't that narrow. Your death, my death may be the means by which the Kingdom is advance through our witness irrespective of whether it is specifically faith related persecution. Imagine your life being profiled on national/international television following your death and your gospel centric life speaking to millions? I think that is closer to the tenor of what Piper is saying here.
 
#4 doesn't deal with self-defense.

He doesn't need to here. "I think I can say with complete confidence that the identification of Christian security with concealed weapons will cause no one to ask a reason for the hope that is in us. They will know perfectly well where our hope is. It’s in our pocket." I think the mistake you are making here is reading guns INTO self defence. If no one has guns, then you don't need a gun for self-defence.
 
5: Does loving my enemy mean letting my wife and daughter be killed and raped? Is the most loving act I can do for my enemy is letting him satiate his lusts?

You are sensationalising this and assuming guns are already a part of the situation (which he is ultimately arguing they are not or ought not). In this hypothetical your duty is to stop the rapist but not to punish him. Take the guns completely out of the situation and where does it leave you? If he has a gun and you dont then your duty is still to stop him or die in the attempt. You can't refute his fifth point so obscurely and conclude that guns are therefore justified - particularly when you view that in light of what he is addressing in Falwell's speech.
 
5: Does loving my enemy mean letting my wife and daughter be killed and raped? Is the most loving act I can do for my enemy is letting him satiate his lusts?

You are sensationalising this and assuming guns are already a part of the situation (which he is ultimately arguing they are not or ought not). In this hypothetical your duty is to stop the rapist but not to punish him. Take the guns completely out of the situation and where does it leave you? If he has a gun and you dont then your duty is still to stop him or die in the attempt. You can't refute his fifth point so obscurely and conclude that guns are therefore justified - particularly when you view that in light of what he is addressing in Falwell's speech.

So let's say I grab the fireplace poker and sink it into his skull, thereby killing him, while protecting my wife in this hypothetical.

What is the ethical/moral difference between the fireplace poker and a firearm?
 
Anti gun liberals, particularly those who live on the other side of the world

Well that was certainly less veiled. Add that to the labels thrown at me passive-aggressively in this thread and it makes for an edifying discussion indeed.

You can stop with the "woe is me, I am the victim" routine.

The needling above in this post http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/88541-John-Piper-Guns-Self-Defense?p=1094583#post1094583 and the other like it show this is not a one-way street.

Several attempts have been made to gently, and honestly deal with the reality of your lack of knowledge, not only with firearms, but American crime (see: mass shootings) and it is only met with comments about a mocking tone about "technicalities".
 
So let's say I grab the fireplace poker and sink it into his skull, thereby killing him, while protecting my wife in this hypothetical.

What is the ethical/moral difference between the fireplace poker and a firearm?

Well, personally my inclination would be to strike the offender hoping to disable him rather than immediately going for the kill-shot by sinking a poker into his head. But this is still besides the point. Piper is arguing against encouraging everyone to get a license and carrying. The real challenge is to imagine guns only in the hands of the authorities (police/military). If the circumstance required you to take the offenders life with the poker then you would have to.

The secondary effect of encouraging that more and more people carry, is that more and more people need to arm themselves against those people turning rogue. The wicked have far easier access to weapons and are able to kill tens if not hundreds easily. The answer is not bigger gun - it's no guns (conceptually).

All in all, this doesn't justify Jacob's response to Pipers point in this case, in my opinion.
 
You can stop with the "woe is me, I am the victim" routine.

The needling above in this post http://www.puritanboard.com/showthre...83#post1094583 and the other like it show this is not a one-way street.

Several attempts have been made to gently, and honestly deal with the reality of your lack of knowledge, not only with firearms, but American crime (see: mass shootings) and it is only met with comments about a mocking tone about "technicalities".

With all due respect brother you can take this up with me privately if you feel the need. This is not progressing the discussion, and I am not going to be bullied by you or anyone else.
 
#6: Piper again confuses persecution with self-defense situations.

Per your argument against point 3 I think this is a false dilemma. You don't stop an armed intruder to first qualify if you are being targeted because of your faith.

Tangentially - you need guns because you have guns. Piper is suggestion Christians lead the way in reversing that.
 
#8.1 He says the NT 'resists that ethical reduction," but then he goes on to give just such a thing.

He also uses "drug" as the past tense form of drag - which Google tells me is ok in informal US English. His appeal to Saul was strange given the contention of the paragraph but I think the premise of what he is saying stands. Do you have an objection other than his illustration?
 
(8.4') When the police get there--if they get there in time--they will probably kill the assailant. My actions in calling the police led to the assailant's dying. Even though on his quasi-anabaptist ethics, where the state has the right to kill, the bad guy is still dead and I am partly the reason. I'm not sure the end result, on his principles, is any better.

We cannot possibly know the outcomes of such a hypothetical. He is merely talking about the possibility of sinning in the action of producing a right outcome. I wouldn't have thought this too controversial. How does this detract from his overall contention?
 
(8.6*) If I arm myself and proverbially kill the bad guy, did I sin? If yes, will I be placed under church discipline?

I'm sure there are parameters that define excessive force etc that would come into play no matter how you killed the bad guy - gun, fireplace poker, wushi-finger. Restoration within the church would be dependant on local church policy presumably. None of this destabilises his opening contention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top