Life and Death, pt.7
Following closely on the heels of the last post, would those who believe Christians may serve in the military, defend themselves and their family, and serve as a police officer be guilty of becoming tiny Thomas Jeffersons as well? Would they have to cut out all the "Prince of Peace" and "blessed are the peacemakers" passages of their Bibles?
No.
Those who believe that Jesus was — and requires us to be — a pacifist have to remove a huge amount of text from both the Old and New Testament or they will have to spend their whole lives explaining those passages away. For those of us who keep and bear arms, who come from a warrior tradition, or who have personally stood in harm’s way on behalf of another, we understand the longing for peace in Christ’s life and message. We agree with it!
Samuel Colt called his revolver the Peacemaker for a reason. He understood the maxim "An armed society is a polite society." For those offended already, let me pose a simple question: should American police officers, federal agents, and military personnel be armed? What would happen if they laid down their weapons — never to pick them up again — today? Who among us would be safe? Can you even imagine the terror what would be unleashed upon the entire world because every American citizen laid down their arms? Those of you who imagine a world that would see our example, say "Ahhhhh" and join us in a green field picking dandelions are trapped in a bad 60′s era Coca-Cola commercial and need to get a brain, a spine, and a clue.
When a deranged man (well known to the police, with a long history of mental problems) entered an elementary school in Scotland and slaughtered the children with handguns, Britain overreacted as nations are wont to do. They banned almost all remaining guns from private ownership. Rich people with political connections could buy shotguns but every gun must be licensed along with each box of ammunition and the guns had to be locked away from the ammunition (which also had to be locked in a safe). By buying a shotgun, the buyer gave up all privacy rights as the police and other government officials could enter their home at any time, without a warrant or warning, to make sure the guns were locked and kept inoperable until an organized, approved sporting event took place.
The result? Murders in the United Kingdom skyrocketed. While the number of murders is still far below that of the US, the murder RATE is higher. Hot burglaries (meaning a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are home) are now FOUR TIMES what they are in the US. Rapes, assaults, vandalism and auto theft are higher than they are the US for the first time in history. When Australia followed the UK’s lead and banned all semi-automatic weapons, all handguns, etc. their crime rates soared, too. As researchers have shown time and again, the presence of weapons in the hands of the good guys (no criminal record, trained in their use) greatly reduces crimes against persons and property.
In other words, the armed individual is a peacemaker. The moral, upright individual who is willing to put himself in harm’s way to defend others creates peace. Without him in place, society breaks down.
So… should everyone have a tank in their front yard? Not exactly. Those who are armed by consent of the citizenry (police, federal, military) enforce the laws to make sure that only those meet society’s rules continue to keep the right to be armed. Those who violate our laws and endanger others lose that right just as they lose their right to freedom, voting, etc. That is why we aren’t a Sierra Leone or Liberia back in the back ol’ days of their civil wars. We allow our citizens to be armed (both of those countries denied that right to their citizens so any thug who brought guns in became a de facto warlord) and our legal system backs up that right. (one of our ministers said that he had wavered on the subject of self defense until movies like "Tears of the Sun" and "Blood Diamonds" convinced him of the need for good men to be armed to protect the weak)
We who believe in defending our families and neighbors ARE peacemakers. No warrior lives for war. Ask those who have seen war if they want more of it! They love peace and seek peace because they know its cost; they know what had to occur to create that peace. Nobody prays like an old soldier.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
So … can you get those statistics on the UK and Australia to me? I’m really interested in where you found those!
August 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
The point is well made. Those who agree will agree and those who disagree will disagree. Research facts sometimes helps to change minds but not always. Laws do not dictate morality, respect for others, love, decency etc., therefore frobidding guns does not keep guns out of the hands of those who desire to hurt someone. It would be nice if we all learned from history. When liquor was outlawed it didn’t disapear but created the hidden making of liquor. Instead we need to teach Jesus to others and He can change hearts.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Chris, there are lots of places to get those statistics. Start with these:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78
http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/guns/index.html
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0211f.asp
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/firearms/control.html
http://lonestartimes.com/2006/03/09/gun-control-reduces-violence/
August 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Interesting that you would use the word, warrior, as that is a revered title in the Old Testament. David surrounded himself with men of a warrior spirit. In my opinion, any self-respecting man would be a protector and would, in a given situation, want to have a warrior spirit.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:24 am
I agree wholeheartedly with you about the right, and sometimes need, for having firearms in our homes. Just a question to answer, please. Do or do not bobbies in UK have guns? Somewhere I thought I had read that they do not. But even if they do not, I do not want our officials to give them up. I want that protection.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:36 am
This has been an outstanding series of posts and – all due respect to Tina Marie – I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing.
I am, perhaps, too deeply steeped in the chamomile tea of peace to lose its stain.
I am also, perhaps, too human to deny that I would fight with whatever weapon to defend those I love – or even the defenseless stranger.
I am so very glad that there are Christians who find it within their conscience to serve in the defense of others. They are exactly the people who ought (and whom I want) to serve at the pleasure of the law. I want Christians like Duncan in such positions to defend me and my family because I would make a miserable muck of it. I want them to serve and prevent the kind of abominations like Abu Grahib that forever taint the reputation of our nation.
At the same time, I do not feel that the thousands who willingly surrendered to their government in the first two and a half centuries of Christendom died in vain rather than deny their Lord as commanded by Rome.
I cannot accept an act of unprovoked aggression to deter war as a doctrine something Christ would approve.
At the same time, I cannot accept that He would condemn to hell those who defend the defenseless from acts of unprovoked aggression.
He is the Prince of Peace. He is also a Mighty Warrior.
He says, “Love your enemies. Bless those who curse you.”
He also says “Sell your coat and buy a sword.”
He is One as well as Another. He is a Mystery wrapped in Enigma cloaked in invisibility clothed in white. I don’t get Jesus at all. I just try to follow Him.
And I trust His Father’s righteousness and mercy and judgment and providence … providence that included His Son’s blood to cover what I don’t understand and what I do wrong.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:07 am
“At the same time, I do not feel that the thousands who willingly surrendered to their government in the first two and a half centuries of Christendom died in vain rather than deny their Lord as commanded by Rome.”
I don’t understand what this has to do with the discussion. Could you elaborate?
August 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
CrazySaint,
Simply that Christians in late century one through early century three could have resisted with force to Rome’s law requiring them to call Caesar “Lord,” but they would not. They were tortured, humiliated, murdered – martyred – often in front of their families and fellow Christians. Their brand of “pacifism” went back to Peter, Paul, Stephen, and Christ.
Yet, in a plague that swept Europe, their dedication to tending sick and dying pagans who had persecuted them turned hearts toward Christ.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Keith, as always, I deeply appreciate your cogent and balanced take on things. Thank you.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Jeanne M.,
Bobbies do not, currently, carry firearms. They do carry batons. I don’t know if they also carry any sprays or tasers, but batons for sure.
I seem to remember officers in the UK being equipped with firearms during certain terrorist scares. But I can’t say for certain.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Every police station has at least one “firearms officer.” They do not carry the weapon. It is locked in the safe at the station. When crises occur, they go get the gun! Canadian border guards also don’t carry weapons. Those just north of us told me that, in case of emergency, they are to drop down below their hardened booths and hit the panic button. That brings the US border/ICE agents across the bridge with their guns to stop the problem.
In some areas, such as airports, you will see British police carrying not only pistols but fully automatic weapons. Armed undercover officers are also on the streets of major cities but, like air marshals, you have no idea who they are.