John Piper, Guns, Self-Defense

[Peairtach]

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.

Yes. I'm not "sitting in judgment" on the American situation, just saying that the issue of owning a gun for self defense has never arisen in my lifetime of 48 years, which some might say is a blessing. I've not come across it as a topic of conversation that I can remember. Many of my cousins own guns for their work as gamekeepers and for hunting.

I believe its the same for a great many regarding the subject of guns on this side of the pond.

If I was living in the States or certain parts thereof, or parts of Manchester or London, that might change.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[RamistThomist]

(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.

Restoration within the church implies removal and discipline from the church. If I kill the proverbial rapist, are you suggesting I would be disciplined and removed?

 

[RamistThomist]

#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.

That's only in certain scenarios. The average mugger doesn't care whether you are a Christian or not, in which case the criticism against Piper obtains.

Tangentially - you need guns because you have guns. Piper is suggestion Christians lead the way in reversing that.

I do not need guns. I don't have many and I haven't taken them out of the safe since my daughter was born. I am intrigued about the psychological readings you are giving us. Where did you get this cognitive access to our internal motivations:?

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

When the adrenaline is rushing in a life-or-death you don't think like that. And most people's ninja skills aren't that good to begin with. I've been in the middle (trying to break up) 10+ people gangfights (the police had to pepper-spray the area). Your suggestion isn't realistic.

The real challenge is to imagine guns only in the hands of the authorities (police/military).

Ferguson, MO.
Baltimore, MD.
Chicago, IL.

Our African-American brothers and sisters, given their communities's relationship with police violence (either real or perceived; not entering into that debate here) would take strong issue with that statement. As probably would Ann Frank.

All in all, this doesn't justify Jacob's response to Pipers point in this case, in my opinion.

Yes, it does.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

I wonder if rape victims think this is sensationalistic. Take guns out of the picture and use knives, axe-handles, whatever. I am using guns as a metonymic device for any kind of violence.

And I am not sure in the situation how I could be "punishing" him. Is stopping him with less-than-lethal force appropriate, yet once I use "guns" it becomes punishment?

 

[RamistThomist]

But you'll have to forgive us if it appears as if John Piper covers no new ground here.

I covered this in another post brother. Piper's article is more of a "cri de cœur" than a manifesto. To approach it in any other way would be uncharitable and frankly, ludicrous.

Cries of the heart are still subject to logical analysis

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

Gun ownership is general equity. You seem to be operating under the assumption that guns are a "badder" form of violence than, say, knifing someone. Dead is dead. Why are guns worse?

As to the proliferation of guns, have you ever gone through the process of buying a handgun? Or even worse, getting a concealed-carry permit? It's tedious.

 

[RamistThomist]

WLC Q136 ("Sins Forbidden"), includes this phrase, "The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, (Acts 16:28) or of others, (Gen. 9:6) except in case of public justice, (Numb. 35:31,33) lawful war, (Jer. 48:10, Deut. 20:1) or necessary defence; (Exod. 22:2–3)"

The magistrate is appointed to public justice and war. Taking life in defence is something I agree is necessary in this fallen world. This gets us nowhere towards proliferation of gun ownership or an expectation that we all carry one on our persons at most times etc.

I don't think you understand the issues about guns "proliferating." It's a lot harder than you think. And getting a carry permit is a nightmare. It takes months after an intensive course and the 20+ page file the state police make you fill out is almost overwhelming. It's such a pain in the neck that I did not renew my license.

The reason you need guns is because you have guns.

How would you possibly even know this? When Louisiana was suffering from hurricanes I carried a gun on my person when I traveled. Not because i "had" a gun but because of the dangers on the road. But I can prove your statement false quite easily. I Have two handguns in my house. Under your logic I should be carrying them regularly. I have not done so in years.

In Australia we don't have a proliferation of gun ownership so I am unlikely (Lord willing) to face an armed intruder or even be involved in an armed situation at all. But I would use lethal force if required.

Let's say that the United Nations' dream comes true and all citizens are disarmed. Let's say a guy (yeah, I know these are hypotheticals, but that's how ethical reasoning works) comes at you with a K-bar knife. How good are you at hand-to-hand or hand-to-knife combat? Let's say he is built like Tookie Williams.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

You are offering false information. We are correcting it. This isn't a technicality. If I take a math test and write down the answer "4" when the correct answer was "5." I can't just say to the teacher, "Yeah well, you got me on a technicality."

And while you might think that Piper's essay is a noble cry from the heart, you aren't open to people subjecting it to biblical and logical analysis.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

As I've pointed out a number of times, the scenario of a "guy in a back alley" is just ethical shorthand. It's a way to explore ethical issues in less than technical jargon.

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.

Judging someone's "attitude" or "demeanor" is next to impossible. You've already conceded the self-defense point.

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."

Can we not approach it with "wisdom"? How about, "God has provided me with the means of protecting my family?" I live in Louisiana. Why don't you read up on the crime in New Orleans after Katrina.

Romans 12 and 13 verses supplied substantiate his position - do you disagree?[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Unless your position is that the civil magistrate must act in every situation before I act. In which case, you and your family will probably be dead long before the police get here.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

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.

The point isn't about killing the intruder or not.

What makes a firearm of a different ethical category than any other weapon used to stop a violent act?

How do you deal with the statistics that as gun ownership has gone up since 1993, all violent crime in the United States has dropped to 50 year-lows and the murder rate has dropped 50%?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

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.

No one is bullying you.

If you are going to continue to make false accusations about our hearts, show a general lack of knowledge about firearms, and show a general ignorance concerning the general American attitude towards firearms then you are going to be countered.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

thread reopened.

 

[Logan]

In Australia we don't have a proliferation of gun ownership so I am unlikely (Lord willing) to face an armed intruder or even be involved in an armed situation at all.

Matt, this is what the media would have you believe, and I'm amazed at how well it has worked. Look at actual numbers and you'll find that things really didn't change after your "ban" in '96.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Total homicides? About the same, maybe a slight decline that had started before the ban.
Homicides involving firearms? No difference that I can see. Maybe a change from about 25% to 20% of total homicides? And again, that decline was starting well before the ban.

It's strange that some Aussies think they're safer, but statistically you guys were pretty good before and indications are that the restriction on firearms haven't even affected the firearm homicide rate. Or the homicide rate in general.

Edit:
Or check out the list of "massacres" in Australia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Yes, it looks like there may be fewer involving firearms after 1996, but they are still there, and with no less frequency (if anything, more frequency). As Jimmy said, firearms aren't the problem, and removing them doesn't really change anything except leave the innocent less able to defend themselves.

 

[Logan]

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.

Agreed. I was just thinking about this the other day because currently I cannot buy a firearm because my driver's license does not have my current address. Here in our state we have a proliferation of laws: you can't carry in this place because they have gambling, or this place that sells alcohol unless that is not its primary sales, or this place because rented by state politicians for the purpose of this kind of meeting. You have to be very knowledgeable about what is and isn't allowed.

People who don't own firearms and don't try to be responsible with them, typically have no idea what the restrictions are, what laws are currently out there, training required for carry, or the expense involved. And then they proceed to tell everyone what they should be doing

And Matt, please keep in mind that everything you know about firearms and America seems to be based on what the media tells you. Come out here for a visit, you'll be surprised at how nice it actually is!

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

Agreed. I was just thinking about this the other day because currently I cannot buy a firearm because my driver's license does not have my current address. Here in our state we have a proliferation of laws: you can't carry in this place because they have gambling, or this place that sells alcohol unless that is not its primary sales, or this place because rented by state politicians for the purpose of this kind of meeting. You have to be very knowledgeable about what is and isn't allowed.

People who don't own firearms and don't try to be responsible with them, typically have no idea what the restrictions are, what laws are currently out there, training required for carry, or the expense involved. And then they proceed to tell everyone what they should be doing

And Matt, please keep in mind that everything you know about firearms and America seems to be based on what the media tells you. Come out here for a visit, you'll be surprised at how nice it actually is!

There is one time that our easy "gun laws" backfired on me. I had a very fine 30-30 lever action rifle that I foolishly sold to a relative. Boy do I miss that gun. Ironically, Hillary's commie paradise would have legally prevented that transaction, leaving me with that gun.

 

[RamistThomist]

If I were to take out a bunch of people, a gun would be the last thing I would use. I worked on natural gas pipelines (had a natural gas pit explode in my face). That will take out more people than a gun.

Barring that, have you ever seen what a Kukri knife can do to someone? Let's take Britain for example. They outlawed guns, so everyone is safe, right? Except for all of the knifings by Muslims. And when Muslims carve out hearts and eat them.

 

[Rom]

WLC Q136 ("Sins Forbidden"), includes this phrase, "The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, (Acts 16:28) or of others, (Gen. 9:6) except in case of public justice, (Numb. 35:31,33) lawful war, (Jer. 48:10, Deut. 20:1) or necessary defence; (Exod. 22:2–3)"

The magistrate is appointed to public justice and war. Taking life in defence is something I agree is necessary in this fallen world. This gets us nowhere towards proliferation of gun ownership or an expectation that we all carry one on our persons at most times etc...In Australia we don't have a proliferation of gun ownership so I am unlikely (Lord willing) to face an armed intruder or even be involved in an armed situation at all. But I would use lethal force if required.

Since the thread started with a discussion of Piper's views, I would contend that you and John Piper are at odds with each other. John Piper has a type of pacifist view which he states in the article, "And there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military."

This is a very important point where John Piper completely departs from the teaching of the Reformed Confessions, because this doesn't take into account the general equity of the law. You and I seem to agree when it comes to self defense. The only disagreement we have is that you see guns as completely unacceptable in the defense of innocent life, while I do not accept that to be the case. At least, from your statements above, I think that is fair to say. I would hope the issue of guns does not cause us to grow apart in our commitment to the general equity of the law. I think we are far closer to each other in viewpoint than John Piper is to you, from a Biblical perspective. You just don't like guns, and neither does John Piper. But at the end, you agree that there is a Biblical basis to self-defense, even self defense that is lethal as the Scriptures and Standards maintain.

But, I am also with you in that I believe that if it is possible to not kill the perpetrator, and defend life at the same time - even better! If they ever invent a Phaser that can be set to "stun", I'd be all for that

In another post, you claimed that my analysis of John Piper was "ludicrous" because I should have seen it as an emotional appeal. However, John Piper is handling the Scriptures, and his "cry of the heart" has to be rooted and grounded in the Word of God. We know what the Scripture says about our hearts, after all.

So, if I see deficiencies in his handling of the "whole counsel of God", I am going to point them out, as I hope I have done so in the thread.

My primary concern with John Piper's handling of the Scriptures is that if he is to consistently use this way of teaching the Word of God, he is going to come to even worse conclusions about the nature of God, that far transcends any points he might make against guns.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Can someone comment on Luke 22:36-38? The Lord's command to own and carry a sword is clear, and the disciples were not civil magistrates.

 

[RamistThomist]

Can someone comment on Luke 22:36-38? The Lord's command to own and carry a sword is clear, and the disciples were not civil magistrates.

Most pacifists and Piper would say Jesus wasn't being serious or literal.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I'd like to understand from a Reformed position what the passage teaches us about bearing arms for protection, in light of Christ's rebuke to Peter to put away his sword, and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Any good resources for reading, or can someone briefly exegete and apply this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RamistThomist]

I'd like to understand from a Reformed position what the passage teaches us about bearing arms for protection, in light of Christ's rebuke to Peter to put away his sword, and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Any good resources for reading, or can someone briefly exegete and apply this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It goes back to a basic principle in Reformed ethics: not every situation in the world (and in the bible) is universalizable. Jesus had to die, so he had to prevent Peter from rescuing him. Therefore, so a Reformed ethic would read, we can't make his response to Peter binding in all times and all cultures, if for the obvious reason that we aren't trying to rescue Jesus from a Roman arrest.

 

[CDM]

Pacifism is evil

To the sensitive gentlemen that claims to know the vengeful motives, thoughts, and intentions of men who would use weapons in their defense. That same standard can be applied to almost every situation imaginable. Are your thoughts at all times and in every action pure from any hint of sin? I don't think so.

The phrase "x is a logical fallacy" is way over used, especially with Reformed folks. You must demonstrate which logical fallacy in particular is being used or many of us will have a hard time listening to what else you have to say, on any topic. Whenever I hear someone saying "x is a logical fallacy" it just means they don't agree with your argument. Saying something is a logical fallacy doesn't make it so.

As for the WCF LC question that was cited earlier - it should put to rest, for the Reformed anyways, the moral and biblical question of the right to lethal force in defense of person and property and preservation of the innocent. Not only does the WLC affirm the Scripture's teaching but makes it clear it is our moral obligation. Is the objection about the instrument used in defense - a gun? Is using a knife more Christian than using a gun? No, I will not be any more or less righteous if I send a 00 buckshot into the chest of a home invader tonight or strangle them with my bare hands. Something terrible has happened when men have lost their God given instincts to defend kith and kin. Even worse is the pretension of piety for their derelictions of duty.

As for the magistrate and Romans 13 objections. The magistrate in the USA don't simply give us permission to bear arms but recognizes its citizens have the "inalienable" right to bear arms. "We the People," we Americans recognize these rights come from our Creator. Not only this but also the right to defend ourselves and the innocent with lethal force. In fact, as some here do not seem to understand, or have neglected reading world history through the ages, the chief reason why a free people should always be "well-armed" is for their own defense from their government's potential for tyranny, i.e., to defend the innocent citizens from wicked magistrates. Be that as it may, this is not my simple opinion it is the Law - Federal and in all 50 States. Besides, Romans 13 does not teach the State has some divine monopoly on the use of weapons anyway. Romans 13 is about the magistrate’s divine authority in punishing evil doers. Law and order. Prosecution, Sentencing, and Execution. A private person having the right or not, to use what kind of weapon or not, in defending himself against an attacker has absolutely nothing to do with this portion of Scripture.

As for me all the hypotheticals on either side, pro- or anti-gun, are next to useless. The anti-gun proponent says 'Look at all the gun deaths' and so on. The pro-gun proponent says 'Look at all the good guns do and here are some statistics that show it’s not as bad as what you're saying and so on. So what? On both accounts. What does this have to do with the law, our rights, and the Bible teaching? A thousand shooting murders could happen a day and it is irrelevant to these questions.

Bearing arms and using them for defensive purposes is legal, and much more than that it is biblical. If in God's providence I am found in that unpleasant situation I trust that he teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.

 

[johnny]

In Australia we don't have a proliferation of gun ownership so I am unlikely (Lord willing) to face an armed intruder or even be involved in an armed situation at all.

Matt, this is what the media would have you believe, and I'm amazed at how well it has worked. Look at actual numbers and you'll find that things really didn't change after your "ban" in '96.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Total homicides? About the same, maybe a slight decline that had started before the ban.
Homicides involving firearms? No difference that I can see. Maybe a change from about 25% to 20% of total homicides? And again, that decline was starting well before the ban.

It's strange that some Aussies think they're safer, but statistically you guys were pretty good before and indications are that the restriction on firearms haven't even affected the firearm homicide rate. Or the homicide rate in general.

Edit:
Or check out the list of "massacres" in Australia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Yes, it looks like there may be fewer involving firearms after 1996, but they are still there, and with no less frequency (if anything, more frequency). As Jimmy said, firearms aren't the problem, and removing them doesn't really change anything except leave the innocent less able to defend themselves.

Australia has always had strict gun control laws, (especially for hand guns)
When the ban occurred, most people just handed in their old rifles.
We are a farming nation and guns were mostly used in the country on farms.
Only people I know who had handguns were licensed gun club enthusiasts.
You had to lock your handgun in a safe and a locked box when carrying to the club.

Handguns are designed to kill people, that's what they do.
If you have heaps of handguns floating around in a society you will have handgun deaths.
I am glad I don't live in a country with handguns available everywhere.
You can't compare hand guns with knives or even rifles (its apples for apples guys)
Who would carry a rifle around to protect themselves. A hand gun is a convenient killing machine.
Not a great idea to allow such a thing into a society thats mostly unregenerate.

 

[Logan]

Handguns are designed to kill people, that's what they do.
If you have heaps of handguns floating around in a society you will have handgun deaths.
I am glad I don't live in a country with handguns available everywhere.
You can't compare hand guns with knives or even rifles (its apples for apples guys)
Who would carry a rifle around to protect themselves. A hand gun is a convenient killing machine.
Not a great idea to allow such a thing into a society thats mostly unregenerate.

I'm trying to understand here and I'm a bit confused by your post. Are you mostly concerned about preventing handgun deaths and not just deaths period?
I for one am glad I live in a country where they are available, but that neither proves nor disproves an argument.
Why can't you compare handguns with knives or rifles? What exactly are we trying to argue for here?
You're right about the convenience of a handgun (at least for its portability). That's why it's the perfect defensive weapon for say, my wife, who I put through a concealed carry class for when she was out biking by herself. A knife is a tool I carry daily to cut open just about anything, but it could be used to cut open humans. A car gets me to my destination in comfort, but it could be used to plow through a parade and kill dozens, like we had here recently. But none of the abuses make it an evil tool.

 

[RamistThomist]

In Australia we don't have a proliferation of gun ownership so I am unlikely (Lord willing) to face an armed intruder or even be involved in an armed situation at all.

Matt, this is what the media would have you believe, and I'm amazed at how well it has worked. Look at actual numbers and you'll find that things really didn't change after your "ban" in '96.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Total homicides? About the same, maybe a slight decline that had started before the ban.
Homicides involving firearms? No difference that I can see. Maybe a change from about 25% to 20% of total homicides? And again, that decline was starting well before the ban.

It's strange that some Aussies think they're safer, but statistically you guys were pretty good before and indications are that the restriction on firearms haven't even affected the firearm homicide rate. Or the homicide rate in general.

Edit:
Or check out the list of "massacres" in Australia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Yes, it looks like there may be fewer involving firearms after 1996, but they are still there, and with no less frequency (if anything, more frequency). As Jimmy said, firearms aren't the problem, and removing them doesn't really change anything except leave the innocent less able to defend themselves.

Handguns are designed to kill people, that's what they do.
If you have heaps of handguns floating around in a society you will have handgun deaths.
I am glad I don't live in a country with handguns available everywhere.
You can't compare hand guns with knives or even rifles (its apples for apples guys)
Who would carry a rifle around to protect themselves. A hand gun is a convenient killing machine.
Not a great idea to allow such a thing into a society thats mostly unregenerate.

This language is misleading. They aren't "floating" around in America. They aren't even available everywhere.

Who would carry a rifle around to protect themselves

Would it ruin the reductio if I named a few people?

A hand gun is a convenient killing machine

How often do you shoot them? They are NOT convenient killing machines, contra the movies. It takes training, both the nerves and the physical situation, in order to be effective. That's why I said earlier I can kill (hypothetically, which is all this discussion really is) far more effectively with any object but a gun.

 

[RamistThomist]

Albeit for home self defense nothing beats a pistol grip shotgun.

 

[RamistThomist]

This link is quite fitting in light of Piper's argument. Here we have a man that uses a knife (and not a deadly killing machine hand gun floating around). He also saves a girl from rape. It makes me wonder in light of Piper's issue: what was the most Gospel thing he could do?
http://www.artofmanliness.com/trunk...akes-on-40-train-robbers-with-only-a-khukuri/

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I apologize if I'm re-treading old ground but I can't read this whole thread and I wanted to make a few observations about Piper's article.

1. He begins well by noting that the Christian's duty in the 6th Commandment is not to have a Dirty Harry disposition toward others. The Christian should not be leading with a "don't mess with me because I'm armed" disposition.

A lot of people remind me of young Marines who have first joined the Marine Corps and buy T-shirts with Death before Dishonor with a skull and crossbones or some other macho image of how tough they are and daring someone to knock the Duracell off their shoulder (sorry if you're too young for that reference). Seasoned warriors don't wear their lethality on their sleeves. Professionalism seasons a warrior so that they are prepared to be lethal when the situation demands but they're not looking for a fight. General Mattis put it this way (of the Marines): No greater friend, No worse Enemy. We won't go looking for a fight but if you're intent on harm then we are trained to use lethal force like none other.

I know I'm using a military analogy but I think a Christian need not be "loud" about his ability and willingness to defend family, property, and others when the 6th Commandment requires it of him/her. I'm very proficient with a handgun and a rifle but I neither obsess about either not look for opportunities to glorify my ability or hope that I find someone who wants to put my ability to the test. I have a handgun in the home and hope I never have to use it for deadly force. I will probably get a concealed carry permit and know many friends who do but they don't advertise it (this area has a lot of retired Marines).

2. I think Piper's points 1-7 are good but then the wheels fall of in points 8-9. He applies spheres of activity for the Christian or the Church and its work with the sphere of what we are required to do as neighbors. His confusion, if taken to extreme, would prohibit a person from engaging in police or magisterial or military activity. A Christian police officer could not even execute his duties because he would have to "trust in God" or act as some sort of Evangelist instead of executing to duties he has been commissioned to execute. A judge could only minister mercy and grace and never hold men accountable to the laws of the land.

I think Piper ends up, as pacifists tend, to call the 6th Commandment and what it requires as evil acts. The 6th Commandment requires the preservation of life. It is not a matter of scruple for me to decide to protect innocent life but it is my duty as a husband and father to protect it. Some of his counsel is, frankly, sinful in counseling Christians to do the opposite of what the Law requires of them. It does not mean that they need to own firearms but they do need to learn that the Law requires, as they are able, to defend themselves and others against harm. Again, it is his confusion over spheres of activity that leads to this unnecessary dilemma.

3. Finally, I agree with others who point out the general equity of the Law, which Piper seems to deny. He's not dispensational but he is effectively teaching that Christ somehow fundamentally transformed neighbor-neighbor interactions rather than giving application as to how to properly apply what has always been the moral law of God. OT believers were not permitted to defend their homes simply because they lived in OT times and this kind of hermeneutic that draws a sharp division and seems to imply a change in the character of God is dangerous.

 

[au5t1n]

Matt,
Sorry for the delayed response. I apologize for taking a joking tone rather than responding more substantively. Perhaps I will have time to do that tomorrow evening. I do think you have a lot of misconceptions about American firearm ownership that are more than mere technicalities, especially with regard to the motivations and utility.