John Piper, Guns, Self-Defense

[RamistThomist]

Don't try to buy a firearm around 5:30 PM on a Friday. The store has to call the FBI office to make you aren't a terrorist, convict, or Ron Paul voter and they have to do all of this before they close.

 

[Tirian]

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.

no problem with that sir it's better for me not to have the wring terminology.

whenever you start a post with "and you can stop with the ..." rest assured i will call you out for being condecending. if you are a moderator - discuss my behaviour in private. if you are a concerned brother, talk to me in private. such condescension is nothing short of bullying. im asking kindly that you don't do that again.

 

[lynnie]

I am not going to post a link to this quote, and I did not watch the video, but I read comments underneath it on two sites. It happened in Germany.

Just it seems like I could not be more disgusted by the followers of Islam, this disgusting video surfaces. Below you can see as this nasty Muslim bastard openly brags about horrifically torturing a little young virgin girl, as he and his 6 friends took turns raping her while she screamed and cried. By the end of the ordeal, the Muslim in the video then goes into explicit detail about how the young girl was covered in dirt and sperm after enduring the brutal gang rape by he and his sadistic buddies.

WARNING: DISTURBING FOOTAGE

Frankly I think Piper is off his rocker, and it is time to take up collections to buy more ammo. They are here in the USA, tens of thousands of them, either on legal visas or slipping in from Mexico. It is coming to the USA.

If you ever heard of Ferfal in Argentina, he is a survivalist dude who chronicled the collapse of Argentina back when the peso crashed and the banks shut. Early 2000s. Middle class thrown out of work, factories shut, nice families dumpster diving to try to keep from starving. Gangs went out to the farms, and didn't just take food, but sometimes raped and tortured- tortured brutally and then killed- the families before they left. For no reason. You think that can't happen in the USA? Really? You want to watch your little kids be tortured, raped, and killed if we have social breakdown after some disaster?

I am positive Piper is trying to be biblical as he understands it, I would never question that. But if you really really really believe in total depravity, and that sinful man apart from Jesus Christ is deeply fallen in every area of our being, I think you'd be buying ammo. I really do. I thank God hubby can aim and fire the shotgun.

Note to self- get more ammo.

 

[Tirian]

(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?

i think this has travelled a long way from the topic at hand. however my knowledge of local church discipline in Australia - restoration comes through repentance and doesn't always follow that someone is put out of the church. we have some struggling alcoholics who sometimes come to church drunk - we dont put them out we work with them. not sure if that helps?

 

[Tirian]

(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?

i think this has travelled a long way from the topic at hand. however my knowledge of local church discipline in Australia - restoration comes through repentance and doesn't always follow that someone is put out of the church. we have some struggling alcoholics who sometimes come to church drunk - we dont put them out we work with them. not sure if that helps?

if we all agreed that i had used excessive force and the law and the elders agreed that i had and i refused to repent of it I supposed I may be put out of the church. So many variables but i think that might be one valid outcome.

 

[Tirian]

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.

in our hypothetical of one assailant attacking my wife and I have a fire poker in my hand, i'm telling you my gut reaction would be to swing it not thrust it.

trying to tie this back to where we started - Piper leaves a purposeful abiguity here. given there are so many variables he is saying he wouldn't judge someone else for making a different decision.

it still doesnt address the underlying issur if promoting wider gun ownership. the need to take a life in some circumstances is allowed for in his argument.

 

[Edward]

If you have heaps of handguns floating around in a society you will have handgun deaths.

You have a heap of knives floating around, and you will have knife deaths. They have about 25,000 knife crimes a year in England and Wales combined. About 3,000 firearms crimes a year in England and Wales. Source ONS. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...ons.html#tab-Firearms---Prevalence-and-trends http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...s-or-sharp-instruments--Prevalence-and-trends

You can't compare hand guns with knives

Sure you can.

A hand gun is a convenient killing machine.

As our previous governor proved while walking his dog. He had to use his .380 to take out a coyote that attacked. They can be useful for snakes, as well.

 

[Tirian]

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?

I think we are both in agreement that the rapist needs to be stopped. Whether I strike him, run him through, shoot him in the leg, shoot him in the head - Pipers purposeful ambiguity allows for it and the circumstances will determine the action (he said he would not condemn someone for making a different decision and I took that to mean either way.)

 

[Tirian]

Cries of the heart are still subject to logical analysis

Could you point out brother where I said they weren't? My point is that Piper didn't write 400 pages on it like Wilberforce on re-stating the Abolitionist position on slavery so if it's about new ground then by all means cast it aside. If God uses someone like Piper to make an impassioned cry an alternative might be to give it due consideration even as a potential wake up call, as you are doing Jacob.

 

[Tirian]

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?

Are they specifically? Making guns broadly available puts guns into the hands of many. It means a teen can walk into a school and kill many whereas he or she might have easily been overcome by teachers or other students if he or she only had a knife. Yes, people are still going to be hurt, but unlike your most recent massacre there would be far fewer.

I understand that in order to defeat the guy with the gun you are better off to have a gun. I'm arguing for no guns except in the hands of the lawful magistrate. It is the secondary effect of broad gun ownership that makes it so unappealing. Take the money spent on guns and ammunition and put it into more and/or better equipped police.

 

[Tirian]

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.

This is patently incorrect. Hold anything I have said or will ever say up to the highest level of scrutiny you can muster. The more of you the merrier and rightly so and likewise for Piper. I look forward to seeing a biblical rejection of Piper's paper.

 

[Tirian]

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.

We all have to die sometime Jacob (save the Lord return) and our death may be more important than our lives. King Jesus has appointed your time and mine and will care for your family and mine if we are taken first.

 

[Tirian]

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.

Hey Logan nice to hear from you brother. I guess we should just try to arm the Reformed Christians, particularly Puritan Board members then

 

[Tirian]

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!

Thanks Logan - If I ever do make it to the US I'd love to drop in an meet you (I promise i'll try not to grab your guns).

 

[Tirian]

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.

I think that is fair. I think that Piper intentionally inserted ambiguity into the critical part of that discussion. Having said that, his confessed ambiguity leaves open the door for lethal self defence in that he said he would not condemn someone for making a different decision. I read that both ways - in that in the heat of the moment he might take someone's life where someone else might not, and vice versa. He stated that with so many variables it was near impossible to "reduce" this to a simple position - it's complex.

One particular exception though - to say I don't like guns is not true. I've always maintained that our magistrates should be as well equipped as possible to protect those who do good and punish those who do evil. Therefore I am greatly in favor of guns continuing to be refined and made safe to operate and effective to use, but only in the hands of the magistrate that God appoints.

 

[Tirian]

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.

Could you build a case for broad gun ownership from this passage? Two swords between 12 fishermen seem well suited to the defense of what they had - after all they had the Lord with them, and so do we.

A fishermen would find it hard to go on a killing spree with a sword.

Put a handgun in the hands of a troubled teen in a school and you have a completely different dynamic. The effect of broad gun ownership is that you increase the likelihood of someone who is unstable having access to a weapon that is not used (merely) defensively but can be used very easily in a mass killing incident.

 

[Tirian]

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.

There is great confusion in your post Christopher. Because you have an inalienable right you will build a biblical construct from it?

In any case, the question at hand here is not the defence of ones kith and kin - this is understood even in Pipers article, and I have certainly made my position clear on the matter so you are certainly right in saying the question of defence should be put to rest.

How you jump therefore to broad gun ownership is puzzling and an appeal to the law of the land is not comprehensible.

Reverse the situation - if you did not have the legal right to carry guns, and domestic security was excellent in preventing illegal gun possession, would you be here today arguing that guns should be introduced as a biblical right?

 

[Tirian]

Why can't you compare handguns with knives or rifles? What exactly are we trying to argue for here?

Logan, it's really simple. A person with evil intent with a knife can kill for sure but they are relatively easily contained or stopped dead in their tracks by a magistrate. Even lots of potentially wicked people carrying knives have a limited ability to kill. Put a handgun into the hand of a hurting teen and they can walk into a school and kill a classroom of kids. Why not remove guns from everyone except the law? Then you don't live in a society where you need to equip the students to stop a mass murder.

 

[Tirian]

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.

Rich thank you for your gracious post. I think you go too far with your criticism of points 8-9. Piper is addressing Falwell's call to arm university students broadly. I don't think for a second he was addressing the magistrates use of weapons in the just execution of justice.

I think you use that unfairly to accuse him of being derelict in his duties under the sixth commandment and further you accuse him of sinning thusly. I think you have stretched his meaning well beyond its intent and so found fertile ground upon which to to accuse him.

 

[Tirian]

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.

Austin - after ruffling feathers by using the wrong terminology I felt grieved by my own lack of responsibility. I've been reading up on the common mistakes that gun control advocates make when discussing gun ownership and I find that I have made all or most of them. Hopefully I will be able to converse with less noise!

 

[johnny]

If you have heaps of handguns floating around in a society you will have handgun deaths.

You have a heap of knives floating around, and you will have knife deaths. They have about 25,000 knife crimes a year in England and Wales combined. About 3,000 firearms crimes a year in England and Wales. Source ONS. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...ons.html#tab-Firearms---Prevalence-and-trends http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...s-or-sharp-instruments--Prevalence-and-trends

You can't compare hand guns with knives

Sure you can.

A hand gun is a convenient killing machine.

As our previous governor proved while walking his dog. He had to use his .380 to take out a coyote that attacked. They can be useful for snakes, as well.

How about the old addage, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

And here in Australia, rifles work great against taipans and king browns,
but we are not allowed to shoot snakes anymore either.
Everything in Australia is protected and when Bear Grills came over
to do a tv show, he was only allowed to eat a few insects.

I probably shouldn't have imposed my cultural sensibilities on everyone.
If I lived in America, then I would seek to own a gun. (no problem)
But can anybody here admit that the world would be a safer place
if no civilians owned guns in the first place. (especially hand guns)

I think it would, but I can't prove it.

 

[arapahoepark]

If you have heaps of handguns floating around in a society you will have handgun deaths.

You have a heap of knives floating around, and you will have knife deaths. They have about 25,000 knife crimes a year in England and Wales combined. About 3,000 firearms crimes a year in England and Wales. Source ONS. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...ons.html#tab-Firearms---Prevalence-and-trends http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...s-or-sharp-instruments--Prevalence-and-trends

You can't compare hand guns with knives

Sure you can.

A hand gun is a convenient killing machine.

As our previous governor proved while walking his dog. He had to use his .380 to take out a coyote that attacked. They can be useful for snakes, as well.

How about the old addage, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

And here in Australia, rifles work great against taipans and king browns,
but we are not allowed to shoot snakes anymore either.
Everything in Australia is protected and when Bear Grills came over
to do a tv show, he was only allowed to eat a few insects.

I probably shouldn't have imposed my cultural sensibilities on everyone.
If I lived in America, then I would seek to own a gun. (no problem)
But can anybody here admit that the world would be a safer place
if no civilians owned guns in the first place. (especially hand guns)

I think it would, but I can't prove it.

Only in a fantasy land. I wish it wasn't the case, I really do but, thats not how it is. Those killing with guns are those who had stolen them or purchased them illegally on the black market where their sales are restricted. If it wasn't obvious, these people doing so are already criminals.

http://mises.org/library/mass-shootings-state-makes-us-less-safe

 

[RamistThomist]

If you have heaps of handguns floating around in a society you will have handgun deaths.

You have a heap of knives floating around, and you will have knife deaths. They have about 25,000 knife crimes a year in England and Wales combined. About 3,000 firearms crimes a year in England and Wales. Source ONS. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...ons.html#tab-Firearms---Prevalence-and-trends http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...s-or-sharp-instruments--Prevalence-and-trends

You can't compare hand guns with knives

Sure you can.

A hand gun is a convenient killing machine.

As our previous governor proved while walking his dog. He had to use his .380 to take out a coyote that attacked. They can be useful for snakes, as well.

How about the old addage, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

And here in Australia, rifles work great against taipans and king browns,
but we are not allowed to shoot snakes anymore either.
Everything in Australia is protected and when Bear Grills came over
to do a tv show, he was only allowed to eat a few insects.

I probably shouldn't have imposed my cultural sensibilities on everyone.
If I lived in America, then I would seek to own a gun. (no problem)
But can anybody here admit that the world would be a safer place
if no civilians owned guns in the first place. (especially hand guns)

I think it would, but I can't prove it.

Do guns somehow create a desire to kill? The world has always been a dangerous place. The way to deal with sin is internal, not by passing laws. Cain killed 1/4 of the human race before guns.

 

[RamistThomist]

Why can't you compare handguns with knives or rifles? What exactly are we trying to argue for here?

Logan, it's really simple. A person with evil intent with a knife can kill for sure but they are relatively easily contained or stopped dead in their tracks by a magistrate. Even lots of potentially wicked people carrying knives have a limited ability to kill. Put a handgun into the hand of a hurting teen and they can walk into a school and kill a classroom of kids. Why not remove guns from everyone except the law? Then you don't live in a society where you need to equip the students to stop a mass murder.

That's just not how guns operate. Handguns have a limited capacity and you have to hit key parts of the body to be fatal.

Why not remove guns from everyone except the law?

And how will that stop criminals from using guns? You have just aided the criminal by making his job safer.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

We all have to die sometime Jacob (save the Lord return) and our death may be more important than our lives. King Jesus has appointed your time and mine and will care for your family and mine if we are taken first.

Let's say a bad guy breaks into your home. You have a chance to defend your wife and kids. Will you tell your wife, "Sorry, everyone has to die." This is why Rich said Piper was sinning on the 6th commandment. The Reformed interpretation says we are "obligated" to preserve life. Piper fudges on this bit. Will you admit that Piper rejects the implications of the sixth commandment?

As Gary North says, "For John Piper the question "what is better, a raped wife--or even yet, a dead one--or a dead criminal?" Piper has no coherent answer to that question.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/14653.cfm

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

This is patently incorrect. Hold anything I have said or will ever say up to the highest level of scrutiny you can muster. The more of you the merrier and rightly so and likewise for Piper. I look forward to seeing a biblical rejection of Piper's paper.

That's what we have been doing. Earlier in the discussion you rejected criticisms of Piper's assertions based on what you perceived our motives to be.

 

[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?

i think this has travelled a long way from the topic at hand. however my knowledge of local church discipline in Australia - restoration comes through repentance and doesn't always follow that someone is put out of the church. we have some struggling alcoholics who sometimes come to church drunk - we dont put them out we work with them. not sure if that helps?

THat's irrelevant to the question at hand. You implied that church discipline would be brought on the one who shoots his wife's wouuld-be-rapist. That means what he did was sin. This is why Piper can't answer Gary North's question, "What's better--a raped wife or a dead criminal?"

 

[Philip]

I've always maintained that our magistrates should be as well equipped as possible to protect those who do good and punish those who do evil. Therefore I am greatly in favor of guns continuing to be refined and made safe to operate and effective to use, but only in the hands of the magistrate that God appoints.

I've been following this but am only going to respond to this one. In political theory, there is a term for this state of affairs: a police state (or Feudalism in pre-modern societies). An armed populace is meant to be a check on the overreach of civil power.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The studies show that gun ownership does not equal more homicide per capita.

(As an aside one of the things about stats on this is that the U.S. is one of the few nations that honestly reports all its stats, and one of the few that includes suicides with homicides)

This study from Harvard (hardly a pro-gun outfit):

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries,
however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,” that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then extant studies.

 

[RamistThomist]

Piper:

I realize that even to call the police when threatened -- which, in general, it seems right to do in view of Romans 13:1--4 -- may come from a heart that is out of step with the mind of Christ. If one's heart is controlled mainly by fear, or anger, or revenge, that sinful disposition may be expressed by using the police as well as taking up arms yourself.

So...should I wait to call the police when my "heart is better"?

Piper:

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.

So when presented with this threat to my wife or daughter or friend, my heart should incline toward doing good in a way that would accomplish this great aim. There are hundreds of variables in every crisis that might affect how that happens.

But see Reformed Ethics 101:

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves[721] and others[722] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[723] subduing all passions,[724] and avoiding all occasions,[725] temptations,[726] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[727] by just defence thereof against violence,[728] patient bearing of the hand of God,[729] quietness of mind,[730] cheerfulness of spirit;[731] a sober use of meat,[732] drink,[733] physic,[734] sleep,[735] labour,[736] and recreations;[737] by charitable thoughts,[738] love,[739] compassion,[740] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[741] peaceable,[742] mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;[743] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[744] comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.[745]

The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,[746] or of others,[747] except in case of public justice,[748] lawful war,[749] or necessary defence;[750] the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;

You cannot be a reformed christian and say Piper has a good argument. FTW