John 12:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."
Showing posts with label self defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self defense. Show all posts
30 September 2020
20 March 2020
08 June 2019
Why Self-Defense Training Matters
By Rob Morse. June 6th, 2019
Original Source
Fear and panic are hard to understand. The assumption is that the same thinking-mind we’re using now will be available if we’re attacked. In fact, our memories are jumbled when we’re frightened. Words escape us and we can’t think clearly. That happens to us when we face a lethal threat. Fortunately, we remember how to act even though we forget how to think. That is why firearms and self-defense training is critically important. Let’s contrast two recent example of armed self-defense. An attack at home showed the benefit of a planned response, while an attack on the street showed the benefit of recent training. You only have the solutions you planned and practiced.
The first example comes Kaufman County, Texas.
You are a woman home alone. It is almost ten in the morning when you hear someone banging on your front door. You don’t recognize the visitor, so you don’t open the door.* A minute later you hear someone trying to get into your house through your back door. That seems suspicious, so you retreat to a back room in your home.* You get your gun*, hide in a closet*, and call 911. You’re talking to the police when the intruder opens the closet door. You shoot him several times.
The police arrive minutes later.
The police arrive minutes later.
You can’t think and make plans as someone is breaking into your home. You can perform the actions you planned and practiced. Let’s give this woman credit for her safety plan.
*She planned to lock her doors and windows. She planned to keep the door closed and to talk to strangers through the door. She planned to retreat to a back room rather than confront an intruder. She planned to have a firearm for self-defense. She planned to get the police on their way before an intruder even made it into your home. She planned to protect yourself if she were confronted.
This attacker had twelve prior felony convictions. Some criminals want what to take what we have. This criminal searched out and confronted the female homeowner.. and may have wanted to take more. Have you practiced running away from danger?
You’ll only have the responses you practiced.
Our second example comes from Chicago, Illinois.
You are walking to your car with your 5 year old son. That is when a man across the alley starts yelling at you for no reason. It is four in the afternoon. The man across the alley has a gun in his hand. You step back, pulling your 5 year old behind you.* That’s when the criminal starts shooting at both of you.
You have your Illinois concealed carry license.* You’re armed* and you’re well trained.* You present your gun from its holster*. You shoot the criminal until he stops shooting at you and your son.* You rush your son to your vehicle and hand him to your friend. You check to make sure your son is uninjured.* Then you call police while keeping your eyes on the bad guy.*
You have your Illinois concealed carry license.* You’re armed* and you’re well trained.* You present your gun from its holster*. You shoot the criminal until he stops shooting at you and your son.* You rush your son to your vehicle and hand him to your friend. You check to make sure your son is uninjured.* Then you call police while keeping your eyes on the bad guy.*
There is a difference between knowing what to do in the calm of the evening, and being able to act under extreme stress. The part of your brain that recites lists stops working when we’re attacked. Fortunately, this defender was very well trained.
*This defender made all the legal preparations to go armed in public. He practiced carrying a concealed firearm. He trained to step between his loved ones and an attacker. He practiced presenting his firearm and shooting accurately. By coincidence, the defender was on his way home from a multi-day defensive firearms class and had recently fired thousands of shots in training. He also trained to stop firing when the threat stopped. He practiced moving his loved ones to safety. His training included interactions with the police.
This attacker was a convicted felon and gang member. It was illegal for the attacker to have a gun. Have you taken the training and secured the permits to carry your self-defense tools in public?
I want you to have a plan to retreat. I also want you to defend your life when you can’t retreat. I want you to protect you and the people you love.
Please plan on it. Please practice it.
17 November 2015
Quote of the Day
"Consider getting a carry permit for protection, and maybe take a friend to a range to enjoy some safe shooting. Self-defense is a God-given right."
~ Sarah Palin, Sweet Freedom (2015, Regnery Press)
The lady knows whereof she speaks.
~ Sarah Palin, Sweet Freedom (2015, Regnery Press)
The lady knows whereof she speaks.
19 September 2014
Overheard Today
In a discussion about firearms:
"My right to defend myself supersedes your ignorance and irrational fear of guns."
Yep, what he said.
"My right to defend myself supersedes your ignorance and irrational fear of guns."
Yep, what he said.
Friday Thoughts: On Firearms
I carry concealed anytime I step out my door. Those who would rather
that people leave those "nasty guns" elsewhere are, IMHO, living in
denial. With Pacific Islanders shooting each other; Mexican drug cartels using Anchorage (among other cities)
as a distribution point; with bears, moose, and wolves, it's
just prudence on my part. My safety, and that of my family, are my
primary motivations for carrying a firearm.
There is no on-site security for the property I manage, and I assume responsibility for that, as well. I fervently pray that I never have to draw my weapon for any reason other than target practice ... but I will not assume that it won't happen. Sors ventus qui es paratus.
On the topic of firearms...
A lady I work with has known me for several years now, and we have a great relationship. A couple of weeks ago, she saw my holster sticking out from under the tail of my jacket, when I was retrieving papers from the floor.
She got a little pale, and said, "I hope you don't have a gun in that thing." Guns make her nervous, she explained.
I tried to keep a straight face while answering that it wouldn't make much sense to wear an empty holster.
I asked her if I make her nervous, and she said no. As gently as I could, I pointed out that the firearm is an inanimate tool, and that it obeys my commands. While she thought that over, I said, "If I'm trustworthy, then you needn't fear any tool I might use. A hammer, a screwdriver, a cordless drill ... all could be dangerous, in the wrong hands."
She allowed as how that's true, and then said, "And you were in the military, so I guess it's okay."
Baby steps ... sigh ...
But at least those steps are in the right direction: I'll take that conversation as one minor victory.
There is no on-site security for the property I manage, and I assume responsibility for that, as well. I fervently pray that I never have to draw my weapon for any reason other than target practice ... but I will not assume that it won't happen. Sors ventus qui es paratus.
* * * * *
On the topic of firearms...
A lady I work with has known me for several years now, and we have a great relationship. A couple of weeks ago, she saw my holster sticking out from under the tail of my jacket, when I was retrieving papers from the floor.
She got a little pale, and said, "I hope you don't have a gun in that thing." Guns make her nervous, she explained.
I tried to keep a straight face while answering that it wouldn't make much sense to wear an empty holster.
I asked her if I make her nervous, and she said no. As gently as I could, I pointed out that the firearm is an inanimate tool, and that it obeys my commands. While she thought that over, I said, "If I'm trustworthy, then you needn't fear any tool I might use. A hammer, a screwdriver, a cordless drill ... all could be dangerous, in the wrong hands."
She allowed as how that's true, and then said, "And you were in the military, so I guess it's okay."
Baby steps ... sigh ...
But at least those steps are in the right direction: I'll take that conversation as one minor victory.
01 July 2014
Post #4,200: Wasilla Homeowner Shoots at Intruders, Stops Burglary
An apparent attempt to burglarize a Wasilla home was thwarted when the homeowner fired a pistol at the intruders, Alaska State Troopers said.
About 3:06 a.m. on Tuesday, Mat-Su dispatchers received a report of a burglary in progress at a home on Limberlost Avenue. The homeowner told dispatchers that someone had forced open her kitchen door and entered her home. It was not immediately clear how many suspects were involved.
Troopers found in a preliminary investigation that someone had pulled up into the residence's driveway and first tried to steal a four-wheeler by hot-wiring it.
When that didn't work out, the suspect or suspects entered the home, but then fled after the homeowner fired a single shot at them, said troopers spokeswoman Beth Ipsen.
That's the way it's done, folks. Exactly like that.
09 January 2014
Self-Defense: A Case Study in "How Not to Do It"
How did this guy become that guy? Let us count the ways...
You can read the whole story at the link, but ... wow.
So he had time to load his rifle, went outside, and shot the man - who was running away - in the back of the head.
So much fail.
An Anchorage man shot in the head early Tuesday outside his Mountain View apartment remains hospitalized and on life support, his mother said Wednesday.
In the meantime, new details emerged in the charges filed Wednesday against Talon Draper, 19, accused of shooting his neighbor, Jermaine Twiley, 22.
According to the charging document, this is what happened: Twiley and his girlfriend were yelling at each other inside an apartment at 3424 Thompson Ave. during the early morning hours Tuesday.
{snip}
About an hour later, neighbors heard the couple yelling again. The girlfriend was screaming for someone to call 911.
This time, Draper dialed 911. He also got a .22-caliber rifle out of his bedroom closet and loaded it. He went to the door of the family's third-floor apartment -- the door appears to open onto a walkway -- and saw Twiley running down the street.
"He yelled for Twiley to stop and fired his gun twice, striking Twiley in the back of the head," the charges say.
Back inside the apartment, Draper asked his family to call 911 because the man he had shot needed help. Draper told his mother "he screwed up," according to the charges.
Officers found Twiley lying facedown in the street with a gunshot wound to the back of his head, according to the charges ...
Homicide Unit chief Slawomir Markiewicz said Draper told detectives he saw Twiley reach for something while he was in the street and shot in defense of someone else: the girlfriend in the altercation, who was still back at the apartment. Markiewicz said there was no evidence that anyone else was near Twiley, who was unarmed.
You can read the whole story at the link, but ... wow.
So he had time to load his rifle, went outside, and shot the man - who was running away - in the back of the head.
So much fail.
24 May 2013
An Experiment in Crime Control and Social Engineering. . One Free Shotgun at a Time
|
I wrote about social engineering by 
Applicants are selected and trained in a several block area at one time. The first class from 
01 May 2013
JPFO: Letter to the editor of the Jewish Ledger ...
|
I am disappointed in the response of the rabbis in the Ledger last week in regard to what is so glibly referred to today as 'gun control' ("Our Rabbis Respond: 
Our Jewish tradition tells us that righteous self-defense is not only permissible but an obligation: "If a murderer comes for you, strike him down first." (Talmud Sanhedrin 72a)??The Torah teaches: "Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:16). According to Rashi, this passage means that one who is able to help another escape harm and fails to do so is held culpable in the Heavenly Court for the harm he failed to prevent. When we disarm citizens, we place them in harm's way every day.
Newtown was a tragedy, but both logic and analysis show that the number of lives saved by allowing Americans to retain their right to bear arms is much larger than the number of lives lost as a result of guns that are misused in pursuit of an evil purpose. There are many other factors that need to be addressed when we talk about Newtown and other incidents of this nature.21 January 2013
Quote of the Day: John Lott
If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it's time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. Had some citizens been armed, they might have been able to stop the killings before the police got to the scene.
~ John Lott, January 18, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal
~ John Lott, January 18, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal
17 December 2012
09 October 2012
The Christian Case for Self-Defense
Editor's note: I don't remember where I first saw this; if it's yours, please let me know & I'll take it down or provide credit, as you prefer.
* * * * *
* * * * *
Thou shalt not kill.
Those four words are often used by opponents of self defense when they
claim that divine law forbids the taking of another human life, even in defense
of your own. So, how can a Christian justify the carrying of arms for self
defense, or should they abhor such a practice and rely on divine intervention?
The first issue with the opening argument of this article is that it is
the result of a mistranslation. While many Roman Catholic texts translate the
fifth (sixth in some texts) Commandment as "you shall not kill", many
other texts hold true to the original meaning of "you shall not
murder." That is the key distinction.
In fact, when analyzing the issue using the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5 goes right to the heart of the
matter.
§2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an
exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that
constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a
double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the
aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."
§2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality.
Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life.
Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to
deal his aggressor a lethal blow.
§2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for
one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good
requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this
reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms
to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their
responsibility.
This tells us that not only do we have the right to use deadly force
against those tho would try to take our own lives, but we have that right to
defend others in our care as well. We all have a responsibility to each other
individually, and those charged with the protection of the community (such as
police officers) are justified using deadly force as well.
When you are forced to defend yourself to preserve your life, it is
that act of preservation that is the intended result of the employment of
force. You're trying to stop the aggressor. If the aggressor dies as a result
of your meeting force with force, that outcome is considered unintentional by
the church. You are trying to stop, not kill, though sometimes only the death
of the attacker can halt the assault.
During the Last Supper, Jesus was preparing his followers for what was
to come after he was gone. He told them, "one who has a money bag should
take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his
cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36). Once He, their shepherd, had left them,
they would need to protect themselves, even if it meant selling their clothes
to be able to buy a weapon to do so.
Some Christians are fond of saying "The Lord Will Provide,"
yet here is Jesus telling his disciples to provide for themselves, which would
seemingly support Benjamin Franklin's 1757 quote in Poor Richard's Almanac,
"God helps those who help themselves." What Jesus is really telling
his followers is to prepare themselves using
the tools God has provided in order that He might work His will through
them.
If evil confronts a man in the form of an armed attacker, do we really
expect God to strike the attacker down with a heart attack? Or is it more
likely that He would provide "a defense for the needy in his distress"
(Isaiah 25:4) through placing an armed, good man in the path of evil? If we are
to believe that "the secret things belong to the LORD our God"
(Deuteronomy 29:29), we cannot discount the idea that there are earthly ways in
which God might intervene on our behalf.
But, how do we reconcile this with the Christian value of turning the
other cheek? Again, the answer is in the text.
"When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other
one to him as well." (Matthew 5:39). What is being referenced in the text
is not a deadly threat. You're not going to be killed by a slap to the face,
and Jesus was urging the letting go of anger and pride.
Consider also Isaiah 2:4, "they shall beat their swords into
plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." Though this is often
taken to mean that weapons should be destroyed now, what it is actually
referring to in context is Judgment Day.
According to the Scripture, after the Final Battle between good and
evil, God himself will rule the Earth and all forms of evil, vice, and sin will
be gone. It is only after that time that weapons will no longer be needed for
self-defense, and until then, we need to be prepared to act to preserve our own
lives and the lives of others. It is the Christian thing to do.
06 April 2012
What can you do, for yourself, right now?
by Kirby Ferris
© Copyright Jews For The Preservation of
Firearms Ownership (www.JPFO.org) 2012
Moral conscience is in dwindling supply in this nation. Our bankers are thieves, stealing TRILLIONS because they are allowed
to do so. Nearly all of our politicians are venal, lying parasites who a
century and a half ago would have all had their heads lopped off by
rage-fueled mobs. A growing proportion of our citizenry behave like hyenas, jackals and vultures at the slightest opportunity. Our nation has been invaded by twenty million illegal aliens.
Only a fool can’t see that we are headed for a potential showdown.
To those who will listen, it’s time to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself: “What am I going to do as this societal and fiscal decay continues to its logical end?”
You need to evaluate what you can independently do for yourself, quietly on your own, in the coming weeks and months? And I mean for just yourself, not your mate, family, friends, or neighbors. You’ll be of no help to any of them unless you’ve got your own base well covered first.
The most fundamental expansion of your personal power is to acquire the tools, and achieve the skill to have the means and wherewithal to defend against one, several, or even a dozen other human beings. The legally safe term is “self defense”, but when the code red light starts flashing, and your options are coming at you with overwhelming intensity, you will shift into the bone chilling animal presence of your primitive ancestors. But you MUST have the tools and a modicum of skill.
Most of The United States is unique in its stubborn persistence in actually preserving, and even expanding, the individual’s unalienable right to meaningful and justifiable self defense. The Second Amendment does not mean your right to squirt someone with pepper spray. It preserves your right to, under certain life-threatening circumstances, apply emphatic lethal force.
But let’s step away from political theory and extrapolate the situation to everyday life. That stranger you confront in the parking lot late at night.
The group of “youths” you run up against if you stroll a block too far into the “bad” side of town. The guy on the park bench watching you jog past.
The weird driver tailgating you on a desolate stretch of road. The knock on your door and someone you do not recognize standing outside waiting to confront you for one reason or another.I’m asking you to either prove or disprove your sanity here: Would you rather deal with these mundane issues armed, or would you rather simply take your chances? This isn’t “Leave it to Beaver” America anymore, friends.
This is now an America that has lost its way, a nation drifting in “situational morality” and where theft is called “redistribution of wealth”. Pre-teens beat innocent people to death, and laugh and giggle as though it were a day at the playground.
Are you going allow yourself to remain defenseless? Are you going to be left staring at your cell phone (if you have time) as your 911 call is ignored because of massive overload?
Are you going to be a survivor, a potential protector of the innocent? Or are you going to be a Darwin Award Candidate, too stupid to even provide for your own survival?
Let’s cut to the chase. In my opinion Barrack Hussein Obama is going to be re-elected. This nation has become addicted to socialism. It will be Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton sashaying into the White House when the smoke has settled.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TIME to wait to see this actually happen to buy a gun or seriously stock up on ammunition. You have to act immediately. You must behave as though you have only a week from the time your read this to get your act together.
The rush is on for handguns. As I write this, Ruger and Smith & Wesson have BOTH suspended taking new orders because of an unprecedented six month backlog. Expect other quality handguns to be fetching record prices. It’s just supply and demand.
So let’s turn to the lowly shotgun in the “if you could own only one gun” debate. NOTE: This evaluation leans heavily on keeping within a tight budget.A reliable pump shotgun is the gun to own if you could own only one gun. This is for home defense or for tossing in the back of your car in the event of social turmoil. Eight rounds of 00 buckshot skipped across the pavement and into the shins of a mob can be a very significant behavior modification device.
In
my town the price of a Mossberg 500 pump (holding up to eight rounds)
is less than $300. A box of five 00 buckshot is $4.50 (see photo) and a
25 round box of standard shot is $4.99. Do the math. Compare the cost
to a handgun of significant caliber or a rifle of significant caliber
along with ammo. For less than $400 you can be seriously prepared with a shotgun. Practice with the bird shot and only try out the buckshot to get a feel for any difference in recoil. What’s also important is the reliability of a “thrift” shotgun.
The somber fact is that handguns are generally more difficult to hit something with than a shotgun. The “stopping power” of a 12 gauge round loaded with 00 buckshot is ruthless, and therefore preferable. As mentioned above, a street mob scenario presents no contest. A shotgun is just downright scarier to assailants.
Time for theorizing is over. Act now. Do what you can, for yourself, immediately.
Frequent JPFO contributor and strategist, Kirby Ferris, collaborated intensively with Aaron Zelman over the last two years of Aaron’s life. Ferris is currently the Research Director of JPFO.
05 March 2012
A Thought on Gun Control
This post over at North's place prompted my comment:
I have long observed that the liberals/leftists/Progressives project their own insecurities & incompetencies on everyone else. They don't trust themselves with firearms, ergo we shouldn't have them either.
Tough. No reason I should disarm in the face of danger simply because THEY have their tails between their legs.
23 February 2011
Castle Doctrine Bill Reintroduced in Juneau
Anchorage 2nd Amendment Task Force Newsletter
To: Paul xxxxxx
Alaska House Bill 80
HB80 re-introduced by Rep Neuman is the “Castle Doctrine” bill that failed to be enacted last session. You may recall Hollis French killed the bill during the last hours last year. We support of this measure and are tracking it through the legislature. It has passed judiciary and is on it’s way to finance. We will let you know when and if it hits any roadblocks and suggest action you can take to help move it along. The opposition so far has been Max Gruenburg and Lindsey Holmes who don’t like this bill. We expect others to oppose it and will let you know who they are as it becomes apparent. The full text of HB80 is at the bottom of this newsletter for those that want to read it. The last line is important.
HOUSE BILL NO. 80 01 "An Act relating to self defense in any place where a person has a right to be." 02 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: 03 * Section 1. AS 11.81.335(b) is amended to read: 04 (b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows 05 that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others being 06 defended, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area 07 of the encounter, except there is no duty to leave the area if the person is 08 (1) on premises 09 (A) that the person owns or leases; 10 (B) where the person resides, temporarily or permanently; or 11 (C) as a guest or express or implied agent of the owner, lessor, 12 or resident; 13 (2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's 14 employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380; 15 (3) in a building where the person works in the ordinary course of the 01 person's employment; [OR] 02 (4) protecting a child or a member of the person's household; or 03 (5) in any place where the person has a right to be.
16 February 2011
A Christian's Guide to the Second Amendment
(I found this in a Roman Catholic publication, once upon a time. I don't remember the source, nor did a quick search of the cortex reveal it. If you know whose this is, please contact me at manager208 AT gmail DOT com and I will provide correct attribution, or take it down, if the owner prefers.)
Thou shalt not kill.
Those four words are often used by opponents of self defense when they claim that divine law forbids the taking of another human life, even in defense of your own. So, how can a Christian justify the carrying of arms for self defense, or should they abhor such a practice and rely on divine intervention?
The first issue with the opening argument of this article is that it is the result of a mistranslation. While many Roman Catholic texts translate the fifth (sixth in some texts) Commandment as "you shall not kill", many other texts hold true to the original meaning of "you shall not murder." That is the key distinction.
In fact, when analyzing the issue using the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5 goes right to the heart of the matter.
§2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."
§2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.
§2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
This tells us that not only do we have the right to use deadly force against those tho would try to take our own lives, but we have that right to defend others in our care as well. We all have a responsibility to each other individually, and those charged with the protection of the community (such as police officers) are justified using deadly force as well.
When you are forced to defend yourself to preserve your life, it is that act of preservation that is the intended result of the employment of force. You're trying to stop the aggressor. If the aggressor dies as a result of your meeting force with force, that outcome is considered unintentional by the church. You are trying to stop, not kill, though sometimes only the death of the attacker can halt the assault.
During the Last Supper, Jesus was preparing his followers for what was to come after he was gone. He told them, "one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36). Once He, their shepherd, had left them, they would need to protect themselves, even if it meant selling their clothes to be able to buy a weapon to do so.
Some Christians are fond of saying "The Lord Will Provide," yet here is Jesus telling his disciples to provide for themselves, which would seemingly support Benjamin Franklin's 1757 quote in Poor Richard's Almanac, "God helps those who help themselves." What Jesus is really telling his followers is to prepare themselves using the tools God has provided in order that He might work His will through them.
If evil confronts a man in the form of an armed attacker, do we really expect God to strike the attacker down with a heart attack? Or is it more likely that He would provide "a defense for the needy in his distress" (Isaiah 25:4) through placing an armed, good man in the path of evil? If we are to believe that "the secret things belong to the LORD our God" (Deuteronomy 29:29), we cannot discount the idea that there are earthly ways in which God might intervene on our behalf.
But, how do we reconcile this with the Christian value of turning the other cheek? Again, the answer is in the text.
"When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well." (Matthew 5:39). What is being referenced in the text is not a deadly threat. You're not going to be killed by a slap to the face, and Jesus was urging the letting go of anger and pride.
Consider also Isaiah 2:4, "they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." Though this is often taken to mean that weapons should be destroyed now, what it is actually referring to in context is Judgment Day.
According to the Scripture, after the Final Battle between good and evil, God himself will rule the Earth and all forms of evil, vice, and sin will be gone. It is only after that time that weapons will no longer be needed for self-defense, and until then, we need to be prepared to act to preserve our own lives and the lives of others. It is the Christian thing to do.
15 February 2011
05 November 2010
Lethal Force: a Christian Response?
I found this some time ago, and cannot remember the original source. If it is yours, please let me know and I will either provide appropriate credit, or remove it, as you prefer.
Thou shalt not kill.
Those four words are often used by opponents of self defense when they claim that divine law forbids the taking of another human life, even in defense of your own. So, how can a Christian justify the carrying of arms for self defense, or should they abhor such a practice and rely on divine intervention?
The first issue with the opening argument, above, is that it is the result of a mistranslation. While many Roman Catholic texts translate the fifth (sixth in some texts) Commandment as "you shall not kill", many other texts hold true to the original meaning of "you shall not murder." That is the key distinction.
In fact, when analyzing the issue using the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5 goes right to the heart of the matter.
§2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."
§2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.
§2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
This tells us that not only do we have the right to use deadly force against those tho would try to take our own lives, but we have that right to defend others in our care as well. We all have a responsibility to each other individually, and those charged with the protection of the community (such as police officers) are justified using deadly force as well.
When you are forced to defend yourself to preserve your life, it is that act of preservation that is the intended result of the employment of force. You're trying to stop the aggressor. If the aggressor dies as a result of your meeting force with force, that outcome is considered unintentional by the church. You are trying to stop, not kill, though sometimes only the death of the attacker can halt the assault.
During the Last Supper, Jesus was preparing his followers for what was to come after he was gone. He told them, "one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36). Once He, their shepherd, had left them, they would need to protect themselves, even if it meant selling their clothes to be able to buy a weapon to do so.
Some Christians are fond of saying "The Lord Will Provide," yet here is Jesus telling his disciples to provide for themselves, which would seemingly support Benjamin Franklin's 1757 quote in Poor Richard's Almanac, "God helps those who help themselves." What Jesus is really telling his followers is to prepare themselves using the tools God has provided in order that He might work His will through them.
If evil confronts a man in the form of an armed attacker, do we really expect God to strike the attacker down with a heart attack? Or is it more likely that He would provide "a defense for the needy in his distress" (Isaiah 25:4) through placing an armed, good man in the path of evil? If we are to believe that "the secret things belong to the LORD our God" (Deuteronomy 29:29), we cannot discount the idea that there are earthly ways in which God might intervene on our behalf.
But, how do we reconcile this with the Christian value of turning the other cheek? Again, the answer is in the text.
"When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well." (Matthew 5:39). What is being referenced in the text is not a deadly threat. You're not going to be killed by a slap to the face, and Jesus was urging the letting go of anger and pride.
Consider also Isaiah 2:4, "they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." Though this is often taken to mean that weapons should be destroyed now, what it is actually referring to in context is Judgment Day.
According to the Scripture, after the Final Battle between good and evil, God himself will rule the Earth and all forms of evil, vice, and sin will be gone. It is only after that time that weapons will no longer be needed for self-defense, and until then, we need to be prepared to act to preserve our own lives and the lives of others. It is the Christian thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)