Wow, Dan. Thanks for that sobering information. I had no idea.

@Christine > My solution is to live somewhere with a well-trained and responsive police force. It’s the role of the government to protect us, right? No. Courts all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States have long held that the government has no responsibility to protect you or me. Let me leave you with a couple of court cases. Law-enforcement has no duty to protect individuals. South v. Maryland. There is no duty owed by the police, the city, or the state to act to prevent or avoid harm to citizens. Susman v. City of Los Angeles. The state has no affirmative duty to protect an individual, even if they know that person is in danger. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. Neither the police nor the government is liable to victims for failure to provide adequate police protection. Warren v. District of Columbia. Police departments enjoy absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. Hartzler v. City of San Jose. Neither cities nor police departments are responsible for failing to enforce restraining orders or protect citizens. Castle Rock v. Gonzales “Failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law.” Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence. “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered.” Bowers v. DeVito.

I need to check what I have written better before posting! sorry! I meant to say... "That is why we need to learn how to start listening to God and developing a relationship with Him through reading the BIBLE as the best defense for any type of attack we may experience as a Christian." sorry not prayer though it is reading His Word and prayer combined really!

Anonymous the very first thing she should do is hand it over to God, ask for His guidance/help, pray about it - even if it is a 5 second prayer. Seriously. What God may lead her to do is different for each situation and between them. That is why we need to learn how to start listening to God and developing a relationship ith Him through reading the prayer as the best defense for any type of attack we may experience as a Christian. As Christians we need to start learning how to hand things over to God in prayer instantly and always - it needs to become a habit.

Steve, If you are married, please go right now and tell your wife that if she should encounter a man masturbating while watching her that you expect her to give him the Gospel right then and there. Seriously?

Christine, "how can you tell a woman she is acting from a sense of entitlement if she wants to do something as reasonable go running early in the morning without being accosted by would be criminals?" Key words: "wants to", "without being accosted". It is not reasonable to expect not to be accosted, it is a sense of entitlement to expect the rest of the evil world to conform to what you want because you want it. This essay makes the issue, quite literally, all about her. Does she present the Gospel to those she encounters? Not according to her essay. Does she make it absolutely clear that she is God's child, and one accosts her at their eternal peril? One's response can be reasonable or not reasonable- how your relationship with God impacts your response is the question.

There is much food for thought here. Every Christian is called to grow in surrender to God and in holiness. That means, that different people will respond differently in different ways in different times and situations. But we are called to be like Jesus, to grow into union with Him, to act as he did. He said His kingdom was not of this world; to gather not into barns; to not be afraid of those who can kill the body. The question is, how is 'packing heat' going to draw me closer to Christ? We fight against not humans, but principalities...that battle can only be won by spiritual weapons. But in a 'fallen' world, where people are at different levels of spiritual growth, some could in good conscience in certain times and situations use force (but not out of anger, resentment or hatred). I do not believe it Christian to argue for carrying and using firearms as a general principle. Dietrich Bonhoeffer struggled with this; no easy answer. A good movie of two possible responses to injustice; 'The Mission', with Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro. But it seems to me that those 'closest' to Christ would not use violence.

In my first post (August 1), I addressed those who are unarmed for using the Holy Spirit to be their defense. Those who trust in the sword often prefer to die by the sword. A member of my church got out of the Army and got a job on the night shift in a jiffy mart. One morning, he was found dead on the floor. The till was open. He had money in his left hand and his gun in his right hand. The robber must have sensed something was wrong and shot him high in the chest. That froze the marksman so he couldn't even return fire. In the book "The Cross and The Switchblade" Nicki Cruz told his gang that he was leaving the gang to follow Christ. He prayed for God's protection and walked out, fully expecting a bullet in the back. Later, the gang members admitted they were trying to reach for their weapons, but they physically couldn't.

"Ann, just so I understand, you also refuse the care of physicians and the benefits of modern medicine?" Of course not. They are there to help. Though I do not discard the true stories I know of people who have been healed without them by God. I do not believe God inspired, invented or created guns for us. I do believe He has inspired doctors to find cures for various diseases. However I am very anti-vaccine (considering some have aborted baby cell lines in them - check out cogfor life dot org - and or other harmful substances). I also do believe that some forms of medicine used by doctors are not the full story - I think there are some alternative medicines at times or better (you have to understand that a secular field which involves a lot of money will always put that money first). As well as prayer is needed. Guns are a killing machine. Doctors are not. I do understand that some afflictions can be spiritual and need prayer not just a doctor. As an example are the many stories of psych patients who spend decades in mental care and the mental care doctors have given up hope on them - yet when they are prayed for and develop a relationship with Jesus they are set free. I do not believe there is a one answer fits all when it comes to healing and what is needed. But for a Christian prayer should always be part of that answer. "Now let me ask you, Ann, are you a Good Samaritan? We can discuss and argue whether or not Christians should carry firearms, but are you a Good Samaritan? Jesus clearly commanded that. There is no discussion there." Probably not as much as I could be. But I have stopped to help people and the homeless at times if that counts and have done a lot of charity work when a natural disaster hit my community last year for 6-8 months - but I do not help out as much as I could. I could do more.

@Ann > Dan if your not acting in the Spirit of Love which is the Holy Spirit what spirit are you acting in? Not God's! Just saying. Jesus uses scripture against the devil and also rebuked wrong spirits. I agree that scripture is powerful against Satan. The Bible clearly shows us that. Jesus used the Word against Satan. Now let me ask you, Ann, are you a Good Samaritan? We can discuss and argue whether or not Christians should carry firearms, but are you a Good Samaritan? Jesus clearly commanded that. There is no discussion there.

Ann, just so I understand, you also refuse the care of physicians and the benefits of modern medicine?

Dan if your not acting in the Spirit of Love which is the Holy Spirit what spirit are you acting in? Not God's! Just saying... I think sometimes we ignore to much how Jesus rebuked wrong spirits in the NT. I think this is why when I spoke to the person who wanted to bash my mum that they were not able top touch her. They were able to knock the phone out of her hands and scream at her face - seemed like just millimeters not even cm's but yet could not touch her - though she was able to knock me against a wall and cause injury as well as my brother when he came. I think we to often forget the power of scripture and the name of Jesus. Jesus uses scripture against the devil and also rebuked wrong spirits.

> Law breakers are under demonic inspiration to do crime. I exceeded 70 MPH on my way to work this morning. Am I under demonic inspiration?

What Christian answer is there to this dilemma? Law breakers are under demonic inspiration to do crime. We all have authority over demons. For those of you who are unarmed, say this: "For anyone who comes against me, may they be frozen on the spot at that moment, in Jesus' name." I was told about a fellow who was going to Iraq. I offered this deliverance for him. Then I found out he would go AFTER he had gone through basic training. I found it amusing that in all the mock combat exercises, he or his team always won. They had the best 'win' record on the base. It turned out he didn't go to Iraq after all.

I saw this article and had to comment on it. I am a christian biker and get flack from my in laws who do not believe however quote the ten commandments saying thou shalt not kill, however this has been miss interpreted through basic english translation. It really means murder, or kill in cold blood. I carry 90% of the time and make no apologies about exercising my second constitutional right to keep and bear arms.Sometimes we find ourselves in predicaments that call for the use of deadly force. Pepper spray use to be effective but with the chemicals used in narcotics today they may just aggravate the situation making the bad guy more mad thus deadly force is needed. I think God gives us the ability to understand and comprehend the training and gives us wisdom on when to shoot and when not to shoot. I have carried for sometime and only had to almost pull my weapon one time and that guy tried to rob me when he saw I was pulling no punches and not playing around he left and was never seen again.

Good for you Karen!! I'm sick of people spouting that being a Christian means having to accept whatever evil the world throws at us. That's just what the devil wants you to think; the more of us that roll over, the easier he has it! Remember, "ALL IT TAKES FOR EVIL TO SUCCEED IS FOR GOOD MEN (or women!) TO DO NOTHING."

I agree we are not to be passive - but I disagree that those who do not own guns are being passive - well they should not be as Christian soldiers. They just fight/defend differently. Regarding God changing His mind - somewhere in one of these blog posts on here in the comments I recommended a book but I will again here - The God who Risks by John Sanders. I didn't agree with everything he wrote but it did open my mind up to some possible theories of how God could relate to us.... Wasn't really looking for a finite answer to the questions - just I think they are important ones to be asked. Regarding the contradictions - I am not sure what the answer is to some forms of violence ie wars and I stated that from the start - because I do not know God's heart on it though I would like to think He would prefer no wars and other methods if we gave Him the choice but alas He can only work through us as best He can. Plus I do wavier between some things because this is the first time I have really thought about the matter on a deeper level though I have always known I would never carry a gun - I could not imagine killing another human even if it was to save my own life. I have stated that though and which I am still sure on in my view that a Christian should not need to, want to or desire to carry around a gun in their every day life. But that is just me and like I said before if a Christian does really at the end of the day that is between them and Jesus. Just be extra sure it is okay with Him if you do!

Ann, thanks for replying again. > What are Christians - either collectively or individually - going to do when the enemy one day has a weapon greater than guns? They already have that. Our own governments have that. That is not the issue. Ultimately we cannot defeat Satan or the anti-Christ alone. You and I know that. That is Jesus' job. I read the end of the book. But, in the meantime, that does not mean we are to abandon our families and friends and leave them to the wolves of society, As long as we are alive we have responsibilities. One is to spread the gospel. I believe another is to protect our loved ones and people around us. I believe this is Biblical. I do not believe Jesus would have us sit idly by and watch as our daughters are raped and murdered. I do not believe Jesus taught pacifism throughout the OT or NT. Jesus always taught opposition to the wicked, whether he was with us in word or flesh. You are just trying to invent some sliding scale which says we can do x amount of violence but not y amount. Actually you initially said we could not do any violence. Perhaps that is still your position, but you have made statements since then that contradict that. > Do you already understand the levels of protection God has already bestowed upon you as a child of His? I know that God has already protected me. I understand God can protect me or take me home. It is His decision. I sometimes wonder why God chose to take Rich Mullins home when he did. I have a few theories which may be 180 degrees opposite of God's idea. I try not to second guess God, although the Bible tells us He has changed His mind on occasion because of the petitioning of righteous people. How far do you take God's level of protection? Do you deny the services of physicians and the drugs modern science has to offer because you know that God will protect you from everything? You will never get sick? You will never get cancer? This has nothing to do with trusting God. This has everything to do with living in a fallen world. God told us that.

I may or may not address some questions you posed in your last points/posts Dan - not sure... I do feel like I have addressed those issues/questions in my posts already. Will see... I just bought a whole pile of books on a different subject I want to sit down and read!! I just wanted to quickly say and input a hypothetical question I have asked a few times before but I think it is important.... What are Christians - either collectively or individually - going to do when the enemy one day has a weapon greater than guns? A weapon the general population won't have access to? What will you do to protect yourself and your loved ones? Another quick question - Do you already understand the levels of protection God has already bestowed upon you as a child of His? Just asking! No biggie....

I don't know what's happened here, but this discussion has devolved from Biblical principles to political (England laws, Australia laws, liberal/progressive ideas). This isn't about politics, it's about whether or not Christians should carry firearms. Is that hard to understand?

Derek > People can defend themselves in other ways than carrying a gun. How can my wife, a 125 pound woman, defend herself against a 250 pound man? > Banning assault weapons, not allowing concealed guns and making gun owners register their guns still allows hunters and others to arm themselves within reason. 1. An assault weapon is a machine gun, a fully automatic weapon. Those have been regulated since 1938. They are legal in many states. Sniper rifle? The best sniper rifle is a deer rifle. You know this, right? 2. Not allowing concealed guns? I'm for that. Force people to carry their firearms out in the open like I do. But you know what? Many people want concealed carry and prefer hidden weapons to openly carried weapons. 3. Register? Unconstitutional, although Michigan (where I live) currently requires handguns to be registered. That has never prevented a single crime. Why are you demanding that? 4. Hunters have zero rights under our US Constitution. None. There is no right to hunt. Or target shoot. Or skeet or trap shoot. There is a right to self defense in both our US Constitution and every single state constitution. Hunting could be banned and it would be constitutional (except for Indian lands, probably). Please learn history. > Why politically conservative Christians won't support these common sense laws is truly baffling to me They are not common sense. They are blatantly anti-American and anti-Bible. I suggest you read a little history, and your Bible. > If George Zimmerman had been carrying anything other than a gun, Trayvon Martin may still be alive. Trayvon would be alive if he hadn't physically attacked George Zimmerman and started beating his head into the concrete. You are one of the ones who would rather have 10 attackers go free and 100 innocents murdered. Not going to happen any time soon. I hope. > even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation because exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written. You should read or listen to everything he said and take it in context. I don't think you understand the issue at all. The SCOTUS already allows some restrictions. NFA, for example. Which, IMO, should be abolished. And this has nothing to do with whether or not Christians should carry firearms.

Wendy, you state that there hasn't been a gun massacre since the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996. That may be true, but that was an anomaly (and you know it), and it is truly tragic that your country based entire laws off of this one incident. Your non-firearm homicide rate is five times this! (And those aren't even the most recent stats. The trend was getting worse). If you think you are safe because of some law severely restricting legal firearms from law-abiding people like you, you are sadly mistaken. How will you defend yourself if you are attacked? How will you defend your daughter if she is attacked? I chuckle (sorry) that you say you feel safe now that firearms have been restricted in Australia. You do realize that violent assaults resulting in serious bodily injury in Australia are 125% that of the USA, right? Australia is much more unsafe than the US. Will your gun bans comfort you when you are in the hospital recovering from your attack? (Hopefully you are not). England and Australia and Europe are much more violent than the USA which has more firearms. That is indisputable. Would you readily agree to be hospitalized with severe injuries (or be killed) so that your attacker doesn't get shot by you? Is that the society you choose? And none of this addresses the Biblical position of self-defense. Why do people from England and Australia post here about the availability of firearms in the US when the topic is "Should a Christian carry and use a firearm?"

Dan, I guess we disagree on the impact guns have on increasing or decreasing violence and can both find stats to support our views. However, I'm not ignoring innocents. People can defend themselves in other ways than carrying a gun. Besides, gun control laws allow people to have guns. What it does it limit them. Banning assault weapons, not allowing concealed guns and making gun owners register their guns still allows hunters and others to arm themselves within reason. Why politically conservative Christians won't support these common sense laws is truly baffling to me. If George Zimmerman had been carrying anything other than a gun, whether mace, a baseball bat or stun gun, Trayvon Martin may still be alive. And politically conservative Christians who say the Constitution protects gun owners should keep in mind even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation because exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written.

wendy, if that if your rebuttal to the fact that crime does increase after guns are banned, that is rather weak. In country after country, crime increased after banning guns. For the US, it's in our Bill of Rights that we have the right to bear arms. The first thing Hitler and Stalin and other tyrants did was to ban arms, there's a reason for that. Our founding fathers made many statements including that guns in the hands of the people will help prevent a tyrant from taking over. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington James Madison "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. "The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals." President James Monroe (November 16, 1818) "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson

btw here is the truth about the report that Australian crime rates have risen: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp I live in Australia. We feel much safer with fewer guns available. And there hasn't been a gun massacre since the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996 (which precipitated the stricter gun control here)

Derek, you couldn't be more wrong. Studies show that violence goes down with firearms ownership both in the US and across the world. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf You also are creating a false assertion that reducing the number of guns saves lives. First of all, you cannot eliminate guns from criminals. but even if you could, you are ignoring the lives that would be lost by innocents protecting themselves from more powerful attackers. Your unreasoned argument is that it is better that 10 attackers live than 100 innocents be slaughtered. Do you have such little disregard for innocent life? Innocents protect their lives with firearms. In your myopic shortsightedness (how's that for a tautology) you would throw the innocent to the wolf.

Growing up I was told the Bible says to turn the other cheek. Yet Christians seem to be more about defending their rights than turning the other cheek on almost every issue. Guns kill. End of story for me. And studies show that fewer gun control rules result in more people being hurt or killed. Fareed Zakaria on CNN touched on this subject this past weekend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ziSVtvgqs I don't understand how someone who freaks out about a fetus the size of a pea being killed refuses to stand up for common sense laws that reduce gun violence and save lives. I'm praying Christians start putting more emphasis on the things of God and less on the Republican platform. If restricting guns can save just one life, don't you think God would be OK with it?

Ann, I would also like to mention (forgot to add this in my previous post) not to confuse God's principles with specific laws applicable only to the Hebrews back then. They are different. A lot of people mix the two together as if they were the same thing. They are not. I am allowed to eat shellfish. I am not allowed to murder.

Ann, let me talk a little about Exodus 22:2-3. The principle I was trying to get across is that God allows and justifies the use of force (violence), even to death. He never states that you should even allow a thief to steal, much less murder your children in front of you. Now in this example of a thief, at night if you are using force (violence) to repel him and he dies, you are given "the benefit of the doubt." An accident. But in the daylight, not only could you respond with force (violence) better, even if you let him go altogether you can identify him later and justice can presumably be meeted out. But in any case stealing, alone, is not justification for intentionally killing someone. But the use of force (violence) to repel evil clearly is, even to the point of death sometimes. That's the point of Exodus 22:2-3. The general principle of using force (violence) to repel force (violence) is allowed, and I would argue your responsibility. You must be under the assumption that I and others carry firearms just hoping someone offends us so we can kill them. That is not the case. I hope I never have to draw mine. And I would never shoot someone who is stealing my iPod. But I would shoot to stop someone who was trying to kill my daughter, or someone I didn't even know in my presence (7-11, parking lot, whatever). The point is to stop evil, not go around killing people. A gun isn't the answer for someone stealing from you (in America now). It might be appropriate for someone trying to kill you or those around you.

Chris Wayte, I don't want this to get far afield of the original topic, but please indulge me while I address your point about America and firearms. Yes, our Constitution recognizes the pre-existing right we have as free men to freely own firearms. Yes, we have a lot of guns in America, one per capita. 300 million citizens, 300 million guns. Look at England. Your violent crime rates dwarf the US, and you, for the most part, don't have firearms. Look at nice little Luxembourg. They don't have firearms and have over 9x the murder rate of Germany which does. The U.S. has a violent crime rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, and the U.K. 2,034. Ref: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg In 2009 (latest UNODC statistics) the crime rate/100,000 for just violent physical assaults resulting in serious bodily injury are:: USA - 262 England/Wales - 730 (3x the US) Scotland - 1487 (6x the US) England also exceeds the US crime rates for robbery by force, theft, and B&E. Now homicides, yes, we are 4x higher than England (1.2 England v. 5 for US). But you are talking a couple of points per hundred thousand people. Compare that to physical assault resulting in serious bodily injury: 262 for US v. 730 for England or 1,487 for Scotland! A couple of points is just a rounding error for all violent crime. Despite the headlines, homicide is really a very, very small percent of violent crime and overall the US is actually a safer place to live than England and many other European countries. It is true that we have a higher murder rate than England, mostly of criminals killing criminals. Also, our murder rate is high largely due to the multicultural nature of our society. Blacks have a vastly higher criminal and victim homicide rate than our society as an average: Homicide Offender Rate/100,000 by Race in US: 3.4 – White 25.8 – Black 3.2 – Other (Asian, American Indian, etc.) If you took blacks out of the equation, we'd be on par with Germany and lower than France, yet we have over three times as many firearms per capita as they do. Firearms are not the problem. You might be interested in the following. Here’s some "Columbine-style" (as you say) gun violence in Europe where gun control is more restrictive than the US. You can google more if you want. I just grabbed this quickly. 2011 Norway 69 killed at a camp by 1 man 2010 England Derrick Bird shot twelve people to death and wounded eleven others in the northwestern county of Cumbria Naples, Italy, Sept. 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall. Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: Ten people shot to death at a college. Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: A 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers. Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: Ten people injured when a man opened fire on a nursery school. Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: Three people killed and two injured by a student at a vocational college. Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: Three people killed and one injured at a crowded cafe. Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: One dead and 15 wounded in an attack on a Sikh temple. Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: Four people shot to death at a mall. Madrid, Spain, Oct. 1, 2006: A man killed two employees and wounded another at a company that had fired him. Emsdetten, Germany, Nov. 20, 2006: A former student murdered eleven people at a high school. Tuusula, Finland, Nov. 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal killed at a high school. 2002 high school in Erfurt, Germany, where 18 were killed. 1996 Dunblane, Scotland, where 16 kindergartners and their teacher were killed. 1999 15 dead, happened in Winnenden, Germany. 1990s eleven murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany. Zug, Switzerland, Sept. 27, 2001: A man whose lawsuits had been denied murdered 14 members of a cantonal parliament. Tours, France, Oct. 29, 2001: Four people ...

Dan, you raised some excellent questions that had occurred to me as well. When we consider that our nation's founders created a system of self-government, it becomes clear that citizens (including Christians) are responsible for defending their own lives and those of their families from violent criminals. As another reader commented, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not responsible for protecting the lives of American citizens (that would pretty much be impossible, since the police can't be everywhere). And Chris, taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will only give people like James Holmes free rein to go on shooting sprees all across this country. Whenever nations and cities enact severe restrictions on gun ownership, crime always skyrockets (Chicago and Australia come to mind). And consider this: if some Americans have an "obsession" with owning guns, perhaps that is because access to firearms by civilians has enabled this nation to remain relatively free for more than 200 years. Dictatorships like Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, and the Khmer Rouge were only made possible by gun control. For more information, check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, www.jpfo.org. For those who argue that Jesus taught pacifism, please note that he never told the centurion to quit the Roman army, nor did John the Baptist when Roman soldiers came to him to be baptized. If it is morally acceptable for nations to have standing armies to protect their citizens, then it follows that private citizens, who are part of a nation, should be able to protect themselves against armed aggression. If you want to live in a world where people like James Holmes, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin are able to slaughter as many people as possible, then keep on advocating for gun control. Alternatively, you may want to check out the book "Death by Government," by R.J. Rummel. It may give you something to think about. See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

I think that you Americans need to realise how weird your attitude to guns is. The rest of the world cannot understand your obsession with owning guns, and your acceptance of such a high rate of gun-related deaths and injuries. As long as you continue to insist on your "right" to own guns (and the associated "right" to go around killing your fellow citizens) the tragedies like Aurora, Columbine, etc etc will continue to happen. And to try and put some sort of Christian spin on the argument is just plain crazy. America has many excellent things about it as a country, but it's attitude to guns is just ridiculous. yours bemusedly Chris Wayte UK

Ann, I am not condoning abortion because it is legal. As Christians we should be doing what we can to both reduce the people wanting one as well as outlawing it by voting in a government that will write just laws and nominate just judges. But even in your argument you acknowledge the difference between innocents and those who are the aggressors. You do not believe a Christian should carry a firearm. I ask you if that extends to Christians who are in law enforcement or the military? Should they carry a firearm and kill people simply because their boss tells them it's okay? It's their job to defend themselves with deadly force if necessary, but it's not our job to defend ourselves with deadly force if necessary? Or should Christians not be a part of government? Our government is corrupt. It does many morally wrong things. I was just reading this morning about a corrupt DEA operation that resulted in the murder of one man and the near bankruptcy of an honest business owner. Are you a Good Samaritan? You are correct, at the end of the day we are accountable to Jesus - not man.

I knew it would come back to what is governmental roles and laws. I believe we give to Caesar what is Caesars and all that - but I do not believe in obeying a government that is corrupt when such corruptions or laws etc leads to death of innocents. As an extreme example - one would hope as a Christian German during the Holocaust times one would disobey orders to turn on a gas chamber. Or in China one would disobey orders to shoot at an illegal church service. Just as in America I would disobey giving someone an abortion if told I must. So neither would I do that actions but I do not agree with others doing it. So I do not see personally how shooting an abortion clinic person would differ from shooting an murderer or attacker if you believed using arms was okay as a way to solve evil. Which obviously I do not. And as a Christian I do not believe that is how we are to deal with these immoral behaviors and or laws. Violence isn't the answer. But neither is shrugging off the killing of babies as a governmental concern and not the every day Christian citizens concern - to leave it to the government etc. I would never allow the law of the land to override what is morally right in God's eyes when it comes to saving lives and leaving it up to them and or ignoring it. It is a wrong law. Just as dictators have wrong laws against their citizens in some countries and therefore should not be just left to their governments. And so yes I agree that if a person is working for a corrupt government and a Christian - they should not be working for that government if their role involves doing ungodly things. For at the end of the day they are accountable to Jesus - not man.

Ann, in general all of your arguments are ignoring that God clearly distinguishes the difference between the duties of the government and the duties of the individual. Governments have the responsibility of the administration of justice. The individual has the responsibility of self defense, of protecting their lives and the lives of their loved ones from attackers. Most of your arguments amount to, "well, if you're going to defend your own life you should also be a vigilante and go around righting wrongs, shooting up abortion clinics, and performing the role of government as a one-man crusader. That's just not the case and it is un-Blibical. I understand why some people believe in pacifism. I just don't think it is Biblically mandated. According to you, and some others here, Christians must never be law enforcement officers or in the military.

I live in New Zealand, not even our cops have guns, theyve only just been allowed tasers for crying out loud, and the gun licence tests training are such high in their standards the only people here who have them are military or recreational hunters. I understand why people would want to have one. My husband is a mennonite and therefore a pacifist and has strong feelings against guns whereas I am not mennonite nor pacifist, nor am I entire anti gun while Im also not pro 'everyone should have a gun - in case kind of attitude. For me, what is physically, emotionally and theologically easier and cheaper than a gun is to learn excellent self defence or learning a defensive martial art. Self defence requires training and self control. Anyone can pull a trigger and point a gun, its better to be trained to control my actions during my own self defence than to become a perpetrator of violence in anger beyond self defence myself. Also I recommend for the writer, when I used to go running, particularly early in the morning I used to run with my keys in my fist with the sharpest pointiest one poking out like a weapon. If someone tried to assault me I could hurt them pretty bad in self defence and in a way that police could recognise them by clear scratch marks but not enough to kill them.

Dan - if everything you just said above is true - and violence or self-defense is the answer - why is the church not protecting babies who are being born half burnt, or killed when they are half birthed, at even 5 months sometimes. Where with medical aide they could even have a chance to survive? Why are we not carrying around guns or being violent and physical when all these other injustices in the world are happening? Do we only protect ourselves and "to hell" with everyone else? My response and answer is because violence, guns and physical force are not the answer or response for a Christian. When you carry a gun to protect YOUR life - why are you not using that same gun to protect the next aborted baby?? It does not make sense to me if that is what you really truly believe. You are saying your life is worth more than that baby, or the next 1000 that will be aborted today. Or the 43 plus million aborted this year. Why not use a gun to protect them? Abortion is just ONE moral/ethical problem in our society that Christian are not using violence or physical force in. There are many more. If you say violence and or physical force/defense is okay then it must be okay as well for the other social and ethical problems we face. It isn't. In the article the author wrote that she understands about putting everyone first before herself BUT the rapist. Jesus died for the rapist as much as anyone else. Is it only rapists and murderers we can use violence on? I tell you and you should know that there are many ways for a person to murder someone without ever having to face them and pull the trigger or slit the throat with a knife. And though rape is a great injustice and never to be justified act against a womens body - it can be soul destroying. There are people out there who are doing far worse to many thousands of people. As an extreme example - with holding food and causing starvation/death. Should we get a gun and go and shoot those people? If you say no - why not? It is good enough to protect your life? If you are protecting your life why are you not out there shooting these other people protecting their life? I will tell you why - because we need to get away from the me me me - it is all about me - mentality. And I can do what I want to protect myself regardless mentality. Violence isn't the answer. Because if it was you would be using it in other areas. But you say for your own life it is. Well whatever is good enough for your own life should be good enough for every life on earth. You shouldn't quote - "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Tim 5:8 and say see using guns is okay. That is crazy. That is like saying - see I can rob a store and take whatever I want cause hey I am providing for my family! This doesn't mean that any means is okay and justifiable or fine just because you are providing for your family. When you provide it needs to be within godly guidelines. BTW though here is something interesting though as a side bit of information - I have heard it says in the bible (so I would/you would if your interested need to check) that stealing food if you are starving and have no other way to eat isn't considered a sin. Then you say "Obviously you cannot only provide your family with housing and food, but with spiritual guidance, love, and protection as well. We are not to allow wicked to flourish. "Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked." Prov 25:26" Again same principal above for the first bible quote you said. This does not mean we can use any means possible to stop the wicked from flourishing. Jesus tells us in the NT how to stop and or overcome evil... and it wasn't use arms. And then you go on to quote - Exodus 22:2-3 without the whole verse. The verse actually goes on to say "2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is ...

"If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Tim 5:8 Obviously you cannot only provide your family with housing and food, but with spiritual guidance, love, and protection as well. We are not to allow wicked to flourish. "Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked." Prov 25:26 The Bible clearly distinguishes the difference between the duties of the government and the duties of the individual. Governments have the responsibility of the administration of justice. The individual has the responsibility of self defense, of protecting their lives and the lives of their loved ones from attackers. Both the Old and New Testaments teach individual self-defense. If a thief breaks in and is killed by the homeowner, he is not guilty of murder. Ex 22:2-3 Remember, Jesus *is* The Word, and The Word is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Heb 13:8 I am the Lord, I do not change. Mal 3:6 All scripture (including the OT) is profitable for doctrine... 2 Tim 3:16 We've already talked about Luke 22:36 and Matt 26:52-54. While Christ told Peter to put away his sword, he clearly did not tell him to get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what he had told the disciples only hours before. His sword was to protect his own life from danger. It was not needed to protect Jesus, the Creator of the Universe. Jesus summarized all the laws of the Bible into two: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. He then gave the illustration of the Good Samaritan, who took care of a victim. If you had the opportunity to save the life of an innocent victim by shooting an attacker, should you instead turn the other cheek? The Bible speaks of no right to allow innocents to be murdered, but it does speak of responsibilities in the face of an attack as providers and neighbors. God clearly showed us in the OT the relationship between righteousness and self-defense. When the people left God in the time of the judges, and later when they rebelled and demanded a king, it resulted in disarmament and oppression. There may be some times when it is appropriate not to be armed, such as suffering for the gospel. If you are evangelizing, perhaps you would choose not to be strapped. But then again, I think those would be times when you alone are in danger. To those who say fighting back--self defense--is not what God would have us do, do you also stop to help others out on the side of the road when they are in trouble? Give a ride to those whose cars have broken down? Clearly the parable of the Good Samaritan teaches that we should help others in distress. If you say, "no, because that is dangerous," refer back to your previous arguments about what to do in dangerous situations.

Steve, how can you tell a woman she is acting from a sense of entitlement if she wants to do something as reasonable go running early in the morning without being accosted by would be criminals?

Larry, I am not familiar with "Pacifism" and being pro-gun and all those terms. And I am not interested in looking into their definitions and beliefs for each side because that tends to box people and I do not believe a one definition fits all approach and labeling, especially when talking about such blurry matters. Simply saying you do not agree with using a gun does not imply you sit back and do nothing as your post implies to a degree. Or that there is a blind trust in Jesus to do everything for you and stand back and do nothing. Hardly at all. That is a false understanding of everything that I have been saying regarding what God and Jesus have asked us to do and how to fight evil. I agree Christians are not to be passive. I could - but I wont - quote the many verses that encourage Christians to do the work laid out before them, to overcome, to be active, to run the race, to not be on the sidelines, to fight against evil. You said "This let go and let God approach is not scriptural". I totally agree. And that is not what I was saying nor others who disagree with using a gun were saying either. God tells us what to do to fight evil and yes it is not sitting on our bums expecting that He will do everything and make everything right. That is un-biblical because God cannot override our passiveness due to our freewill.... He tells us to flee from evil and How to overcome it. We must take up or own cross and do those things. Saying you do not agree with using a gun in a social context as a Christian no way implies that you are sitting on the sidelines doing nothing and being passive and have a fairy airy understanding of how God's Kingdom works.

Another one from reknew dot org " Why does Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords (Luke 22:36-37)? Question: If Jesus is opposed to violence, why did he tell his disciples to buy swords (Lk 22:36-37). Answer: Given how Jesus responds to Peter’s use of the sword (he rebukes him), and given everything Jesus says about loving enemies, doing good to them, turning the other cheek, and so on, it’s clear that, whatever Jesus was up to in telling his followers to buy swords, he clearly didn’t intend for them to use them. I think a close look at the passage reveals Jesus’ purpose. Immediately after telling them to buy a sword (Lk 22:36) Jesus says, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”(vs. 37). To fulfill prophecy, Jesus had to be viewed as a transgressor. He had to at least appear to be a political revolutionary to the Jewish authorities for them to feel justified in arresting him. His cleansing of the temple a few days earlier was probably calculated for the same effect. So, to fulfill the prophecy and to provoke the Jewish authorities, he had to have enough weaponry to justify being viewed as a law breaking revolutionary. This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “That is enough.” (vs. 38). Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, that wouldn’t be nearly enough. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus look like a transgressor. When Peter used the sword to cut off the guard’s ear, Jesus rebuked him and then demonstrated the kind of power the Kingdom of God uses to advance its cause by healing the guards ear. When Jesus later appeared before Pilate and was asked if he was the King of the Jews, Jesus responded that his kingdom is not of this world, and he points to the fact that his followers are not fighting as proof of this fact (Jn. 18:36). So, a distinguishing characteristic that a person belongs to Jesus’ Kingdom is that they refuse to fight their enemies. They rather prayer for their healing and seek to serve them any way they can — including dying for them, as Jesus did, if necessary."

Re the Sword verses - simply because I am not going to spend hours writing my own explanation - here is one of many given of the sword verses - there are other takes and explanations but this one does a fair enough job... From answering-islam dot org " A Brief Explanation of the Sword in Luke 22:36 by James M. Arlandson Did Jesus endorse and encourage violence in the Gospels, presumably a righteous kind of violence? Did he call his original disciples to this? Did he order all of his disciples to buy swords, really? One verse may indicate that he did. And Luke 22:36 reads: 36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (New Revised Standard Version, NRSV) Cited in isolation, the verse suggests that swords and violence are a possibility. It seems as if all of the disciples should go out and buy one each. After the death and burial of Jesus, they would have to face the world alone without him, so they thought. However, what happens to the apparent meaning of the verse when it is not read in isolation, but in context? Did Jesus really wield a sword and want all of the disciples to buy one each? Exegesis of Luke 22:36 The historical context of Luke 22:36 demonstrates that for three years Jesus avoided making a public, triumphal entry of his visits to Jerusalem because he understood that when he set foot in the holy city in this way, he would fulfill his mission to die, in a death that looked like one of a common criminal, just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted hundreds of years before (Is. 53:12). He needed to complete his work outside of Jerusalem. Now, however, Jesus finally enters the city famous for killing her prophets (Luke 13:33-34), a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders were spying on him and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him (Luke 20:20). These insincere questions, though they were also asked before he entered the city, increased in frequency during these compacted tense days. But he answered impressively, avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him, for fear of the people. Then Judas volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd was present (Luke 22:1-6). As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Last Supper (most likely the Seder). He elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:17-20). However, during the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that night would be no different. At this point we pick up the textual context of Luke 22:36 (bold print). He is eating the Last Supper on the night he was betrayed. Luke 22:35-38 says: 35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "No, not a thing." 36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled." 38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "It is enough," he replied. (NRSV) The textual context reveals at least two truths. First, Jesus contrasts his ministry before his arrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities themselves were seeking to trap him. Does the tension play a part in understanding why he told his disciples to go out and buy swords? This is answered, below. ...

The sword is a weapon that is both defensive and offensive in nature. It can be used to defend without causing injury or death. A sword cannot accidentally kill in a horrible fashion. It has been recognized throughout history that a having a sword says to all and sundry, "I can and will defend. I will injure you if you attempt to injure me." Of course, a sword can kill. I also am leaving out what using a sword for offense means, but even attackers with swords thought twice when facing a defender with a sword, because then it became a much more difficult equation. A gun is an offensive weapon, that is its essence. Its only purpose is to kill. It says to all and sundry, "I can and will kill you. I will kill you if you attempt to injure me." There is a difference between the sword in Jerusalem in AD 33, and the Bersa .380 of today. A difference of culture, a difference of meaning, and a difference of purpose. KSP, you have not spoken of your gun training or your other self-defense training methods. You have spoken of what you won't give up, what you must have. Your American entitlement is very definite. You will have what you will have, and will wrap your theology around it as necessary. Protection of your life while doing what you want to do is not a stewardship issue. Christ spoke, "therefore be as wise as serpents, and as innocent as doves." Know the enemy's ways, but keep your innocence. Your pardon, but I do not see a gun in that equation.

That may be so Dan but I did say all the great women and men of God that I (*I*) have read about IN and out of the bible never carried a gun or I never heard that they did. And the whole sword verse in the NT is so taken out of context - like I said earlier anyone can google about that verse and how it needs to be placed in context. I won't list all the people in the NT because we know them all. But people such as (I'll name the more well known ones...) David Wilkerson (The Cross and the Switchblade), Angus Buchan (God's Potato Farmer - may have had one on his farm but not that I am aware when traveling and preaching), Jackie Pullinger (Chasing the Dragon), Brother Yun (The Heavenly Man) and they were all in the most dangerous situations on earth at some point in their mission as you could ever get. And they are just for a start..... Of course there are going to be some Christians who pack guns - just as this author does. But I personally have never read or learned about any great men or women of God who had a gun with them. I am aware others may have as you just gave examples. Because you are all Christian and some of you have said you own guns to so I am not ignorant to the fact that there would be other Christians out there on missions fields believing the same wrong theology of needing to pack guns to. I love the hypocrisy about violence to defend evil. If that was the case you would be using violence right now to defend the MANY evils in society that are occurring in front of you day in and day out. Yet the church is not. Because violence isn't the answer.

I would also reiterate my belief that there is nothing in the Bible that teaches pacifism in the face of evil for all believers. There is much that could be commented on in the comments above, but some of it would be a repeat of what others have already said. I would address one assertion made that all missionaries or those working abroad (or at home) do not defend themselves. That is simply not the case. You should read about the St. James Church Massacre in Africa. The missionary and pastor Charl Van Wyk pulled his own gun and fired back at the attackers, saving untold lives. The assertion that people "working for God" always go about unarmed or unprotected by escorts who are armed is simply not the case. Even here in the US many churches, particularly large ones, have armed security. And on occasion they have had to use it. To say their considered Biblical positions are wrong and that they are simply not trusting God would, I think, be inaccurate.

My .02 cents: There isn't a major denomination catholic or protestant that believes the bible teaches pacificism for everyone. The Jews and Muslims don't believe it either. Even sub groupings like monk orders don't believe that pacifism is a universal biblical teaching. Resisting evil is also never about just you and the perpetrator: you are also dealing with possible future victims of the aggressor. That is why is is so critically important that evil is confronted and stopped in any legal manner. If you don't confront evil when you have the capability and God's OK then you are showing that you don't care about other future victims of evil, you care only for yourself. If you can't take action yourself then you can at least cooperate with the police and help them. And don't believe this argument about trusting God but doing nothing. I trust God to take care of me but I also cut the grass, go to work and wash the dishes. This let go and let God approach is not scriptural, we all have to carry out our responsibilities while trusting God with the results and strength to do our part. Paul trusted God but he still walked to the next town and preached in the synagogues. I have been walking with God for 40 years and currently work as a security guard with a conceal carry carry permit, and there is absolutely nothing in the bible that teaches pacifism in the face of evil for all believers. Remember that Jesus's comments about violence were done in the context of a Roman occupation tinderbox with false beliefs of a conquering Messiah. He had to take a non violent approach to his mission and His followers mission in that context. As a good Jew then and now they do not believe the bible in either testament teaches pacificism in the face of evil for all believers, though there are some believers who may believe that for them it makes sense.

Thanks for this look into a gun-carrier's psyche. I happen to be a pacifist and though I learned how to fire a gun so I would know what I was rejecting, I have a hard time with the idea that people would be so afraid of the world around them that they would choose to carry a gun. Your description of not being willing to sacrifice your runs to your fear made sense to me. I live and work in the Bronx, but I don't carry a gun. I'm smart - I don't walk through bad areas alone, I walk briskly and with purpose, I don't have my wallet or cell phone out, etc. - but I've also decided that what I want sacrifice is the part of my character that isn't prepared to kill or even maim another human. Even a rapist. I'd rather be robbed or even raped. I'd rather die; as a Christian I believe bodily death isn't the end of the story. This isn't nihilism on my part; I really do love my life and I try to be smart about it. But I have always felt that carrying a gun meant giving more over to the realities of this fallen world than I was prepared to give. On the whole pro-life approach to gun control: the problem I've heard is less that you might have to kill a criminal in self-defense. It has more to do with the fact that when there's a gun around, angry situations are more likely to turn lethal. Having that capability just means it's easier to turn violent. (Guns don't kill people, but I do believe that having guns makes it more likely that people will kill people.) Anyway - I mainly wanted to say that while I feel this way, I now have better insight into why you feel your way. That's a starting point of sorts on this whole messy issue, I think.

Clearly I am going to have to explain my opposing view to the verses about the swords at some point..... but first.... Karen (KSP) - personally I have to disagree with all those things that you listed as being biblical principals. That is just what I believe. I appreciate that others may believe different to me. But this is why.... - Preservation of life I agree with everything Rahab wrote plus.... If anything Jesus says lay down your life for others. Also... John 12:25 "The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." Yes life is a gift and each day a gift from God but do we love it more than we do (fear of) going to heaven and or more than Jesus himself and what He has asked us to do and or how He has asked us to treat others or be? No. Of course this doesn't mean we are to eat what we want, dice with death, drink etc - to throw away this life - we are to be responsible with the life Jesus gives us yes, but it does mean we are not suppose to love this life so much that we go against the teachings of Christ to preserve it - we are to lay down our lives for others, to not kill, but to put others first. To love your life more than doing and being who God has called you to be or asked you to do is unbiblical - in my opinion. - Refusing to allow evil to reign I do not see this as a biblical principal in using weapons to stop evil in our every day life. Was just thinking earlier - if someone is so very pro-life in this manner (using force) why not go and take out the lives of abortion clinic people who are killing babies day in and day out? Or is it only our own children and ourselves that we should be defending? For violence is not how God has told us to combat evil. He has told us how to combat evil in the New Testament and it isn't through taking up arms. Jesus has CLEARLY told us how to overcome evil. And it is not with guns. Also evil may reign on earth as we are fallen but do not forget for the Christian Jesus has already overcome evil and it is no longer the stronghold or winning power of their life regardless what may happen to the body/physical form. John 16: 33 “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” "For everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. " I John 5:4-5 Also.... "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" ( Romans 12:21 ) "We are to bless when cursed, feed and care for our enemies even when we are wronged and live at peace with everyone (Romans 12:14, Romans 12:16, Romans 12:18, Romans 12:20). We should allow God to judge and settle all wrongs for us (Romans 12:19). As born again believers we should be above reproach as far as the world is concerned." (from JC blog dot net) - Political and personal freedom As Christians are we to expect to live luxurious self indulged lives? With no suffering? That is not what Jesus said will happen to us here on earth. Should we do what we can - even if that is go against God's Word - to keep our perceived freedom? not in my view.... "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs — heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together." Romans 8:16-17 "He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 "... we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so ...

Rahab, good point about the women who keep running for reasons other than trust in God. :) It WOULD be another post to expand along the lines you suggest -- and a good post, too, I think. One frustration as a blogger is the seeming expectation that a blog post (which is not supposed to go over 900 words here, though mine always seem to!) can focus pretty narrowly on one thing and one thing only. In this case it was why, as a Christian woman, I own a handgun. All the other issues are important and good, but can't be addressed in one blog post. Nor very adequately in the comments section, though I do the best I can to engage despite the fact that I already have two other assignments from my editors that I'm supposed to be working on right now! :)

KSP, thank you for your patient responsiveness. Of course there are Christian pacifists; that's not the issue here, though. As I said above, I'm not saying it's never appropriate to carry a gun. Nor is there any reason to think that calling your mother was necessarily an act of faithlessness. There's no way to tell from what you've written. That's all I'm saying: there's no way to tell what trust in God has to do with this subject. Can you expand on that? Perhaps with a follow-up article? That, it seems to me, is what we need to understand about your position on this subject. Not, "I carry a gun," or "I would never carry a gun." As Jeri points out, Peter was not rebuked for carrying a weapon. But he was rebuked for the way he used it—because it indicated a complete misunderstanding of God's work on earth, despite His clear teaching about it. How can we, despite the scary things happening around us, avoid that same mistake? What would faithful gun use look like? Just as an aside, I do know several women who keep running despite scary experiences, one of whom also carries a gun. They don't keep running because they trust God at all--at least they sure wouldn't express it that way. They do it because they love to run and they're gutsy, stubborn people who feel entitled to do so where and when they want. You can admire that determination, but you sure can't call it trust in God.

Don't you think it is probable that the disciples carried swords on a daily basis since Peter just happened to have one that night in the garden? It seems very doubtful that that was the only time Peter was carrying a sword and that he was the only one to do so. And once he did use it, Jesus did not tell him or the other ones to never carry them again. To me, it appears it may have been the norm, it's not just talked about. The Bible says that they could never fit into books all the things that happened during Jesus' ministy. This carrying of the sword by Peter happened close to the end of His ministry, so it's probable that swords were carried throughout His ministry." Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus. So Jesus said to Peter, “Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?” John 18 Notice Jesus did not make any comments suggesting that swords should not have been carried. It was inappropriate that night because Jesus needed to fulfill His mission of being crucified for our sins and then being raised again and then returning to heaven where He had come from.

The fact that I keep running despite the scary situations shows the trust I put in God. The end of the post even illustrates that reminder of his protection (except maybe by calling my mother when I felt in danger also shows I wasn't trusting God sufficiently, too). To ,simply having a gun means one doesn't have sufficient trust in God. To those there is no rebuttal, really, so I won't try.

KSP, what does that look like? You've given us a clear enough picture of the fears you face--fears we all face--but only a sentence acknowledging a theory we're supposed to live by because we call ourselves evangelicals. How does trust interact with gun ownership? How to maintain proper trust in a scary situation? How to arm ourselves, in other words.

Rahab, perhaps you need to read the post again where I say, "Ultimately, in my running, as in all things, I must put my trust in the Lord, yet without testing him."

KSP, you've raised such an interesting issue here. I wonder about this instinct for the preservation of life that is endowed by our Creator. In what way is it a Biblical principle, as you seem to claim in your July 28, 5:38 post? Just because it's a strong human drive? So is eating, social behavior, the establishment of families, procreation. But are they Biblical principles in the sense that we should uphold them no matter what? Or just human instincts that we must choose to follow or forego, depending on the demands of the circumstances we find ourselves in? We choose to fast, or to spend time alone to concentrate on God, to remain single and parent no children to focus our energies on Kingdom work. (Jesus himself, for instance, did all of those, and he offered up his life as well.) You've seen children dying in Guatemala, where perhaps the medical resources were not as plentiful as ours. Have you seen people dying here? The preservation of life can be ugly too, and wrong-headed, when we persist in allowing loved ones to suffer on because—thanks to medical technology—we can. When that instinct takes over our priorities, resulting in behavior that is thoughtless at best and selfish at base, it's an instinct that needs to be denied, not defended. I'm not saying you shouldn't pack a gun, only that preservation of life, as an unthinking instinct, is not a Biblical principle. Here, though, is a Biblical principal that is not an instinct, but a way of Kingdom living: "Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD!" True, it's a single verse, but that's to make this discussion short enough to be readable. We could expand it ad infinitum throughout the Old and New Testaments, because it is, in fact, the central principle of Scripture: trust in God. It's the TRUST that is the issue, not the gun. Anyone who is trusting to their weapons, their strength, their own smarts, is in trouble. In your arguments you have neither challenged us to trust in God nor convinced us that that's your focus in spite of owning a gun. I'm not saying it's not your focus—I have no way of knowing that—only that, in what you've written thus far, you have not made that clear.

The biblical principles are the ones given in the post: preservation of life (an instinct which if endowed by our Creator), refusing to allow evil to reign, and political and personal freedom -- all rooted in the God of the Bible. I spent time in Guatemala this summer with a wonderful Christian ministry doing work with dying babies, orphans, the elderly and all ages in between. Everywhere we went, our hosts, drivers, etc. had guns with them. I was thankful: not only for my own protection, but for that of the two dozen students I accompanied and, even more, the lives of those the ministry was serving. It's a capitulation to the fallen world we live in, yes, but a capitulation that can be, I believe God-honoring.

Agreed KSP - so what are the biblical principals that you believe allow you to own and use a gun? If it is pro-life principles for preservation of your own life - what about the attackers life? Do you agree with the death penalty? Because if you shoot an attacker you are (whether in or out of the law) ending their life there and then (instead of a needle in their arm in a jail cell years later) for attacking you and that is not pro-life. Like I have slightly hinted at in my previous posts - though I have said what I have - I am not 100% sure (though I am 95-99%? sure) what the answer is in every given circumstance and possibly there is not one solution for every circumstance and at the end of the day it is between the person who owns a gun and God - something they need to work through with Him - and it really should be as it is such a serious thing even though it has become as simple as buying milk nowadays and seen as such. BUT I find it hard to justify for a Christian to own and carry a gun in their every day life (if a preacher owned a gun I would seriously question them, their faith and who they cared about more - the sinners out their or themselves). And I just know personally I couldn't carry around a gun knowing what the end outcome could be (killing a person) and also my conviction is towards not owning a gun simply because no great man/woman of the bible in the NT or in history that I know about or read about has ever "packed a gun". And what happens one day when the enemy has something greater than a gun - what will Christians rely on then? Instead of taking the easy answer and solution to safety the church should be encouraged in being built stronger in the Word of God and prayer. Interestingly I was reading last night that apparently David was forbidden from making a sanctuary for God because He had taken lives. Not that it was sin to in his wars etc but simply because of how much God valued all/any life that He wouldn't allow him to. Not sure how true it is as I have to yet look those verses up - just read it in passing and thought how interesting.

I'm finding the comments here so thoughtful and constructive, even in expressing widely divergent views. However, I do take issue with what strikes me as the use of Bible verses as proof-texting. I think that Biblical principles must be used in toto, not merely verses. For example, there is no verse in the Bible that prohibits abortion per se, but I strongly believe that biblical principles drawn from the body of scripture make a clear case for the wrongfulness of abortion. Similarly, the Bible does make allowance for human slavery, yet biblical principles certainly support a social evolution that makes the evil of human slavery clear. The biblical principles for defending one's life and body might be debatable, but I think one's position on the matter, ultimately, must come from biblical principles not verses or anecdotes that may or may not be taken out of context. (I'm not thinking of any particular comments here, only pointing out a general trend within the entire thread.)

Barbara, The example you gave is from a man under the Old Covenant and under different rules. Can you give examples from the New Covenant (that is, in the New Testament)? If you want to live under the Old Covenant when it comes to using deadly force, you need to also be under the Old Covenant for the rest (do you stone people for adultery, blasphemy, insult to parents?) If you embrace one, you need to embrace the others. The Sermon of the mount shows Jesus beginning to change the believer's relationship to the world around him or her. We cannot selectively appeal to the Old Testament as rule for believers without taking into account the change in covenants and the higher standards that apply to us in the kingdom. Can you show anyone in the New Testament being approved for using deadly force (even when Satan's armies are unleashed against believers)? can you give an example of believers participating in battles? Do you have a verse (only one) when someone prays to God for help harming or killing an enemy (However, you have many verses about love for our enemies). This is really the bottom line, Christians advocating the use of deadly force by believers only have two choices to justify their position: appeal to the Old Testament or appeal to "common sense and/or emotions". There is not a single verse in the New Testament that supports the use of deadly force by a believer. This was the understanding of the early Church. We should ask ourselves who is more likely to have gotten the Biblical teaching right? was it the early Church which came directly after the apostles and saw their examples first hand as they gave their own lives in accordance to the belief or is it the American Church which is marked by materialism, individualism, "fight for my rights", and a me, me, me mentality" and often confuse the american dream and values with the Gospel?

Some are forgetting that David used a slingshot against Goliath and he aimed the rock in the slingshop to the temple between the eyes, if I recall correctly. So in other words, it was aimed to kill, and it did so. David knew that God was on his side. There were a lot of battles in the OT, and David asks for God's help against his enemies many times in the Psalms.

Julie I just suggested google because my posts can be long and I already have posted way to much on this thread so I thought instead of spending paragraphs explaining that verse why not simply direct to where people can find their own explanation. Maybe I could have just simply said I don't agree with that understanding of that verse. Just as the verse that says Jesus is the door doesn't make Jesus an actual door.... they need to be read and taken in context. You said "Ann, I truly hope that you are not as condescending and judgmental toward others with whom you disagree as you have been toward me." I am not sure. Maybe? I dont know! But I do get angry when I see what I perceive to be un-bliblical statements. To say that the Armour of God is not related to the physical world we live in is absurd in my opinion. You may be the loveliest kindest person there is. You probably are nicer than me. God knows I have a lot of growing to do. But this is nothing about who we are. I believe that to be a wrong theological idea and thus yes wrong insight into how God's Kingdom works and thus a lack of understanding of how it works. I am sorry if this offends you but that is my view if you believe that the Armour of God isn't for the physical world we live in right now and what we face day in and day out in battles in this world right now. We are commanded to pray so many times and in all occasions. "Why would you assume that just because I believe God's Word allows innocent people to defend themselves against aggression, I am lacking insight into how the Kingdom of God works?" I never said that is why I believe that to be so. My explanation of the Armour of God being a proficient way to battle our wars as Christians in the spiritual world because it affects the physical world as well should have shown that is what I disagreed with and why I said that. So in my opinion (whether rightly or wrongly) I personally believe that is lacking insight into how God's Kingdom works when you say it does not affect how we live our lives day to day or our physical world. Because the Armour of God is what God gives us for ALL our battles that we face as Christians - ALL - spiritual and physical for physical ones are from spiritual causes and spiritual battles affect the physical which is what the Armour of God is for as I explained at least a little in my previous post hopefully. The bible does command as to not judge but I fail to see how I am judging who you are and where your heart is. I am judging what I believe to be wrong biblical ideas and insight into what the Kingdom of God involves. Now you say to me how dare you judge me etc but then you ask me the questions you just did which would be the same form of judging me that you are accusing me of doing towards you would it not? Luckily this is not what I count as "judging a person" - to me anyway. I could be wrong - I am open to being wrong however for sure. But I would think there is surely a place for theological disagreements and what people believe is a wrong or right understanding of God's Word and Kingdom and how it works. Just because we use medicine and surgery to fight illness does that null and void our prayer for the sick as well? Of course not. I would say prayer is the most important. Take a look at the hospitals in the Solomon Island which are so poorly lacking in medical resources and nurses and doctors. With such lack in one of the main hospitals - do you know the first thing they do is? The main and only doctor on duty every morning when he arrives, before he even sees one patient worships in the wards with the patients and prays. They know and understand the importance of prayer. Why are we undercutting prayer? Are we that comfortable in our lives that we start to neglect and not use what God has told us to use and use man made inventions and solutions so quickly instead? But your argument could fail simply on the fact that you are saying - we can use guns ...

Ann, I'm glad to see that Google is your authority in such matters; next time I'm tempted to look up something in the Bible, I'll just use Google instead. Sorry - it's late and I'm afraid I'm getting a little punchy. :) Goodnight and God bless!

Julie Regarding the verse buying the swords - you need to read the whole context of that verse and why Jesus was saying what He was saying. A quick google search will show you why. He wasn't condoning carrying weapons or violence at all. Amy "The idea that other forms of self defense are somehow more noble or less dangerous is a myth." I would have to disagree. If that were true people would not go into war zones with guns but any item that could case harm like a tree branch, a piece of wood, or their fist. Of course guns are more dangerous than other forms of self defense. Yes other things can cause death to. But guns are one of the more dangerous. To use what you said as an example means that we could carry bombs with us around the place because hey whats the problem - a single punch with my fist would kill them anyway to. You ask "How can we, as the Church, work to prevent crime and not just passively react?" God tells us how in the bible and it certainly isn't "take up arms". Was it passive when Jesus asked His disciples to pray the night before He was crucified? Is it passive advice when Jesus tells us to pray? Are we being passive when we pray?

Ann wrote, "If you cannot comprehend that all the evil man do is because of spiritual reasons then you are lacking insight into how the Kingdom of God works." Ann, I truly hope that you are not as condescending and judgmental toward others with whom you disagree as you have been toward me. Why would you assume that just because I believe God's Word allows innocent people to defend themselves against aggression, I am lacking insight into how the Kingdom of God works? What qualifies you to make a judgment like this about me when you don't even know me? Doesn't the Bible command us not to judge, lest we be judged? You stated, "When a person tries to kill another that is evil and not of or from God - so who is it from - that is the devil. It is a scheme of the devil." This is true. It is also true that disease and sickness are from the devil. Just as we use medicine and surgery to fight certain illnesses, some people choose to arm themselves with guns and pepper spray, or learn martial arts, to defend themselves against assailants. This doesn't mean we have any desire to take a human life. Quite the contrary; no one who owns a gun for self-defense ever wants to use one. In fact, did you know that in most cases, it isn't even necessary for an armed homeowner to fire a gun at a would-be assailant? Most of the time, simply showing the gun or saying "I have a gun" is enough to scare off the perpetrator. As Jon stated in the post immediately after yours, "The Bible is full of violence sanctioned by God. If the Hebrews had not been willing to wage war, God's plan would have been snuffed out by their enemies." If God's chosen people were authorized by Him to use deadly force against those who were intent on annihilating them, why would you assume that His people today are prohibited from doing the same thing?

Many great man and women of God in the New Testament and in History went into violent and dark places without taking a gun or any weapon. If they did so how could that be considered the gospel of peace? To me it is contradictory. Julie Regarding the verse buying the swords - you need to read the whole context of that verse and why Jesus was saying what He was saying. A quick google search will show you why. He wasn't condoning carrying weapons or violence at all. Amy You said "The idea that other forms of self defense are somehow more noble or less dangerous is a myth." I would have to disagree. If that were true people would not go into war zones with guns but any item that could case harm, block of wood, a stick, just their fist. Of course guns are more dangerous than other forms of self defense. Yes other things can cause death to but guns are one of the more dangerous weapons. To use what you said as an example means that we could carry bombs with us around the place because hey whats the problem - a single punch with my fist would kill them anyway to so why not a bomb? You ask "How can we, as the Church, work to prevent crime and not just passively react?" God tells us how in the bible and it certainly isn't "take up arms". Is praying a passive act? Was it passive of Jesus to ask His disciples to pray the night before He was crucified? Is it passive advice when Jesus tells us to pray?

When Jesus tells us not to resist evil, he is speaking of the small evils that people do each other on a daily basis, the humiliations and slaps. It is a stretch to say "turn the other cheek" means we should have allowed Hitler and Stalin to rule the world. Do you think he meant that we shouldn't stop a man from raping a child? What if it took lethal force to stop him? If a man placed a knife to your child's throat, preparing to cut her throat, and a police sniper had him in his sights, would you give him the okay to shoot? Whose life gets spared, your daughter's or the killer's? Your choice, but ultimately the death will be on you whether or not you act. The fact is, the Bible is full of violence sanctioned by God. If the Hebrews had not been willing to wage war, God's plan would have been snuffed out by their enemies. If Christians had not been willing to fight, Europe would have been Muslim before the year 800. God is not a pacifist and he doesn't want us to be, either, if it means surrendering all that is good and being enslaved to evil.

Julie The Armor Of God protects us in the physical realm as well as it is through the spiritual realm that we are affected in the physical. We are to use the spiritual weapons to fight the good fight. You don't pray for no reason. "Ephesians 6 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes." The devils schemes are spiritual and physical. When a person tries to kill another that is evil and not of or from God - so who is it from - that is the devil. It is a scheme of the devil. "12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." If you cannot comprehend that all the evil man do is because of spiritual reasons then you are lacking insight into how the Kingdom of God works. I am sorry if that is rude/blunt but if it is evil it is not coming from God. That is why we are to pray. That is why Christians pray. Because prayer changes things. In the spiritual realm and then the physical. If a man is doing evil you pray. If a man backslides you pray. Prayer is spiritual. And it changes what we see in the physical. "15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace." What peace is there in a gun? "16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one." Do you think he meant real flames that the devil goes around shooting Christians with that we cannot see? Of course not. He is not like the cherub valentine angels. This is meaning things done in the spiritual world to cause a Christian harm in the physical world. "18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people" ALL occasions.

Amy, I just read your comment and I think it's excellent! You are absolutely right that a gun is not the only weapon that can result in death. As a matter of fact, I have heard that a baseball bat is the preferred weapon of choice for many criminals. If that's true, then a firearm in the hands of a potential victim can be a great equalizer. I also agree with you that mandatory gun ownership (a policy of both Israel and Switzerland) is not the ultimate answer to the problem of violence (and I think that forcing a pacifist to own a firearm against their will violates their right to freedom of conscience). Thanks for posting such a thoughtful, well-crafted response to this discussion.

Amy I am in no means or way or shape or form telling anyone that if they are a victim of a crime that it is their fault. It never ever ever never ever never ever is. Never. Ever. If you walk through a dark city and get mugged that is in no way shape or form your fault. That does not mean we do not use our commonsense - just as a mother would never let her child go wandering the streets alone, or a child at home alone, or a child who cant swim go swimming in a creek with no adult supervision - that is just commonsense. Of course if something happened to any kid in that situation it is not their fault at all never ever never. BUT the mother needs to use their wisdom and commonsense. No? So if you are in any way shape or form are saying that from me saying that that I am blaming a victim you have it soooo wrong. I also understand there are other ways of killing someone than just a gun, but just as people don't walk around with bombs to ward of strangers and killings I don't agree as much with people carrying guns. There are degrees of weapons. I have to keep going back to the great men and women of God in History and out of History who were in violent places and never to my knowledge had or held a weapon of any sort or any gun - the only weapon they had was prayer. But in war - such as in the Holocaust - I have to say I could not blame any Jews from having and holding a weapon.... (yet I am learning I am not sure what God's heart on this is yet). Thus I am at a crossroad and unsure where/when/if having one is okay at some point or in any given circumstance. If you live in a relatively safe community I would find it rather hard to justify. And I really do not think I would personally ever own a gun. I would just have to trust God wherever He placed me to protect me. But I wont judge others who do - that is between them and God. But like I said in my last post even if you do own a gun I would be arming myself with the Armour of God first and foremost and not be placing my trust in a gun.

Wow, Amy, just wow. And thanks.

Tim, I think you are taking the Ephesians passage out of context. Note that verse 11 states, "Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes." Taken in that context, it is clear that Paul is talking about spiritual warfare when he says that our battle is not against flesh and blood. There is no reason to assume, based on the context of the passage, that followers of Jesus are prohibited from defending themselves when their lives are being threatened with deadly force. Jesus never forbade His followers from carrying weapons for self-defense. Indeed, he said to His disciples, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" (Luke 22:36). Also, I don't believe that being under the New Covenant means that the writings and teachings of the Old Testament have no validity for us as believers today. For instance, even though we are under the New Covenant, I am sure that you and I both agree Christians should refrain from murder, adultery, and theft, even though these prohibitions are part of the Old Covenant.

Several things-- first of all, I don't think "turn the other cheek" was a reference to self defense, but not responding to insults or dishonor with hatred and escalation. Of course this is not the place to get into a full exegesis of those verses. I am a gun owner, and a concealed carry permit holder. I am also trained in self defense and have carried pepper spray prior to turning 21 and being able to purchase a handgun. It's astonishing to me the disinformation presented about physical self defense such as tasers, batons, pepper spray, and hand-to-hand combat. Do people not realize that you can kill your attacker by using all of the above? It doesn't take a handgun to do that. There's no such thing as a fair fight. You can punch someone hard enough to kill them, in the head, or even in the chest and induce cardiac arrest. In people with pre-existing conditions, or even a certain size, tasers have caused death. So can pepper spray and mace if someone chokes. Batons in particular are an extension weapon and one I have trained with-- you thinking hitting someone with a steel rod isn't going to cause severe physical trauma and potential brain injury? And don't say "then don't hit the man on the head"-- the ideal of a fair fight where you have the time to study and figure out where to strike is ludicrous. Usually the person is moving so fast (or you are in poor light conditions), you may not be able to see what body part you are striking, especially at that close range. There is nothing more humane or Christian about using any of these methods versus using firearms. Either make a case for using physical force to resist an attacker, or make a case for pacifism. The idea that other forms of self defense are somehow more noble or less dangerous is a myth. Criminals prey on those who are vulnerable; they do not choose a fair fight or someone they think will be able to resist them effectively. Attackers choose the distracted, the sick, the tired, the injured, the isolated, and then overwhelm them with the element of surprise. There have been studies done on the reaction when the victim pulls out a firearm, and most of the time, they do not even have to use it-- their attackers flees in the face of superior force. Some have made the argument (I find it too simplistic, but it's worth mentioning) that it is actually safer to carry a gun because there is less chance of using it on the assailant than if one pulls out the pepper spray! Nevertheless, I think it is the responsibility of any gun over to be prepared to use their weapon as intended should they ever pull it out in a life-or-death situation, and be trained. One night this past spring, I woke up to hear someone jimmying the lock to the door of my apartment. I wasn't out running or in a dangerous area or out late at night-- I was in my own home. Once I knew there someone coming into the apartment, I grabbed my gun off of the nightstand, went into the living room, and as the door started to swing open, told the intruder in no uncertain terms to leave. And he did, immediately. This took about six to eight seconds from start to finish (starting with me waking up). That was not adequate time to even call 911 and tell the operator what was happening and my address, nevermind the police getting there. I am thankful for my gun, and that I did not have to use it! As for trusting God, I'm sure all of us have heard the fable of the man in a flood, sitting on the roof of his house as his neighbors and other people sailed by on boats offering him a way off, but he said God would protect him. When he drowned and went to heaven, he asked God why not, and was told he had been sent several opportunities to escape death, but had refused them. God protects people in many ways-- some of them miraculous. For me, God has protected me by equipping me with the opportunity to arm myself and be prepared for when the time came (and it did come, and the apartment was not the only situation, just ...

Amanda, I'm glad dog ownership works for you (it could not for me). Neither does gun ownership. My solution is to live somewhere with a well-trained and responsive police force. but I know my solution is also not possible for everyone. Where my mother lives, it recently took a full half hour for the sheriff to respond when shots were fired. (and then the response was wimpy at best.)I won't live there but she does and I fully support her right to protect herself with firearms.

"I carry a gun cause I live in the US...... go figure !" Trish

Alan, I'm not going to make the argument that gun ownership is "Biblical" because guns obviously didn't exist in the Bible. However, I don't believe your arguments do not give me enough reason to believe that those who use force force for self defense or the defense of others are going against Christ either. The example of the Peter cannot apply because it was a special situation and Peter attacked an innocent bystander. From your arguments above I would have to conclude that Christians should never serve in the military or police because that would be "living by the sword." (despite the fact that there were sword carrying Christians recorded in the New Testament) I would also have to conclude that next time I see someone committing a crime of any kind I should not in any way try to stop him because that would be "resisting" an evil person. I don't believe that there are simple answers to this or a one size fits all answer. (If I did, I would tell people to do as I do and not own a gun.)

As a woman who lives alone, I too have wondered at how to protect myself. I have never been comfortable handling a firearm and could not be a gunowner. For myself though, having a large dog (in fact several) has been the best solution. I feel safe at home and when out running (they accompany me ). Obviously they need to be well trained, but that initial time investment is more than worthwhile. It's not a solution that will work for everyone, but as the prior posts attest neither is owning a gun.

Thanks for your response Alan :) Some big questions! Not easy answers. I agree with most if not all of the points you have said. I am reminded continually in reading all this also of the verses you shared where the sword was drawn and Jesus rebuked his disciple. I also agree God gives us ways out at times as evident from my two personal examples plus the many other stories I have heard of His protection. But in saying that we are not to be fool hardy and think God will protect us if and when we keep doing very dangerous things against His will - we are to listen to Him, and like you said be wise. If we are not wise, do not use our commonsense that He has given us etc than we are avoiding God's protection and plan for us through our own choices. We do not go and walk the streets at night in a crime ridden city by ourselves UNLESS you are super duper close to God and He has told you to/lead you to! That is also why we need to learn to listen to Him because we are living in dangerous times. Every day we need to be covered by the Armour of God. Also I think prayer has way more power than we like to grant/give it. Be armed with the Armour of God! Not a gun.... I would trust my Jesus more than I would a weapon each day. And if you (as in anyone!) insist it is okay to still have a weapon, still arm yourself with God's Armour first and foremost and don't put your faith in something else.

Christine, If you argue that Christians can use deadly force to protect themselves or others, the burden of proof is yours to show where it is permitted and/ or where examples of such actions are given without disapproval. This is especially crucial since there are many verses indicating just the opposite. As far as explicit teachings The Sermon on the Mount already points in that direction by telling saints “do not resist an evil person; (Mat 5:39)” Luke 22 specifically deals with the issue of weapons. The disciples misunderstood Jesus figuratively asking them to arm themselves with swords (verse 36) and brought two swords leading Jesus to say “it is enough” or more specifically “enough of that” as He ended this line of discussion due to their misunderstanding of spiritual realities (verse 38). In verse 49, Peter asked Jesus "Lord, shall we strike with the sword? Jesus responded again “Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed the wounded soldier. Matthew adds more details to the incident and Jesus’ response by adding “Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. (Mat 26:52 )” As far as examples: the New Testament records many Christians being attacked and persecuted for their faith or sometimes just attacked robbers. The security situation in the first century was certainly worse than anything you are experiencing in the USA. However, is consistent is that there is not a single example of Christians using weapons and being (Peter being the only exception but he was rebuked for it). From the above two things are clear. Jesus discouraged the use of weapons and there is no example of Christians in the New Testament ever using a weapon (except Peter) despite the many opportunities to do so created by insecurity in the first century. Weapons are not absent in the New Testament, they are just not used by Christians. This is in sharp contrast with the Old Testament when believers used weapons for self-defense and warfare. If you are not able to support your view under the New Covenant, should you hold such a view and much less call it Biblical (which should mean as found in the Bible)?

Ann, About the case of “a man […] lining children up along a wall each day and shooting 50-100 just because he wanted to” or rescued people from the Nazis/warlords by killing the Nazi/warlords. I do believe in protecting the innocent as long as we stay within the boundaries of the Word of God. Under the Old Covenant, God allows Israel as a nation under theocratic rule to fight His Holy war and dispense His divine justice. Under the New Covenant, we, as saints, are not a geo-political nation and we do not live under s theocratic system. As such, the laws and rules that govern Israel as a nation do not apply to us. That is why people advocating the use of deadly force by beliers only find “help” in the Old Testament I also believe that God will never put us in a situation without giving us a way out if it is His will for us to find a way out. This means that I will never have to lie or use deadly force to rescue one of a billion human beings because if it is His will, God can find another way. The same God who delivered Israel from Egypt without them fighting a single Egyptian is able to fight my battles in this life and deliver me by natural or supernatural means if it is His will. I only need to uphold my part of the bargain by staying faithful to Him and trusting Him. Notice that I say “If it is His will”, because at times, we might not escape or survive and might suffer great loss (this is part of the Christian life and our share in this life (Mark 10:30). I think the only thing which varies is whether God delivers us or not. What does not change is our duty to act in a way that is consistent with the express teaching of the Word of God, this includes not seeking to protect ourselves or others at all cost (protect ourselves/others yes, but not at all costs). I trust that if God desires to save innocent lives, he will find a way if my biblical options have been exhausted. I or my whole family could have been killed during that home invasion where shot were fired. God chose to spare us that time and heard our prayers for protection. I put my life in God’s hand and I try to be prudent and wise a serpents but innocent as a dove (Mat 10:16)

Alan, I don't see the passage in the New Testament where we are told never to defend ourselves but rely on others to do so. (who of course must not be Christians) Nor do I think you can extrapolate that since governing authorities are appointed by God, they are the ONLY ones who can ever use weapons. I will also point out that I rely on God for provision just as I rely on him for protection, but I still go to work every morning. The reason I don't own a gun is because I'm not sure I would have the have the wherewithal to shoot to kill as I know the police have. Thus the criminals have a better chance with me.

Christine , You are mistaken. The New Testament asks Christian not to use violence themselves but rely on God for protection. God’s protection comes in many forms. One of them is the governing authorities who are appointed by God and bear the sword (or gun nowadays) as ministers of God, avengers who bring wrath on the one who practices evil. (Rom 13:1-4). This is why Paul could ask for an armed escort of government soldiers when some of the Jewish leadership wanted to ambush and kill him on his way to Caesarea to be tried(Acts 23:12-31)

Gottlieb, You are reading a lot from a single sentence that I wrote and which was not one of the main points of my post I said “ Especially since a rightly placed shot sends them to hell and that all she wrote”. I did not say anything about thwarting God’s plan or preventing someone’s meant for salvation from knowing God, I certainly did not describe God as “ pacing the halls of heaven hoping that little Johnny on earth will "make a decision for Christ" before he dies”. Let us not use straw man arguments to score points of peripheral issues. My point was simple, if you end someone’s life, you put an end the person’s opportunities to hear the Gospel and be saved (Heb 9:27). Christians should be in the business of multiplying opportunities for people to hear the Gospel and come to a saving knowledge of Christ. We are certainly not called to do the opposite. I will leave issues of predestination, Calvinism versus arminianism for another debate. What I said above should be true no matter what camp you are in because the Gospel is only the good news for those who are alive and able to hear it. Dead people hear no tales… of salvation

I am one of (I think) the majority in America who does not and will not own a gun, but who supports the right of other law abiding citizens to do so. However, I do have "hired guns" who are willing to kill for me should that become necessary. They are also known as the local police force. It seems to me (and I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way) that those who argue Christians should not avail ourselves of any potentially lethal form of self defense but rather trust God and accept what violence my happen to us as his will, should also be in favor of removing weapons from the police and military, or at least resolve not to call them when threatened. I don't see the difference between shooting at someone who attacks me or my family and asking the police to do it, except that I may be dead by the time they arrive.

Julie, you are right about those passages providing "strong theological grounds for being armed for the purpose of self-defense", but only in the context of God's relationship with his people under the Old Covenant, the covenant that defined his relationship with his people Isael, a nation of people governed politically and culturally by God's word. Today the relationship God has with his people, the Church, is defined by the New Covenant. We are not a politically identifiable nation, but a subjects of a kingdom which is not of this world. (John 18:36.) If we are to find a basis for self-defense, it will not be found in passages describing the united actions of the ancient Israelites. Otherwise, the passage you cite would be the basis for Christians to gather together and take up arms to kill their enemies. However, since our enemies are not flesh and blood but the dark forces in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:12), our armor and weaponry against our enemies is spiritual and not physical. (Ephesians 6:10-18.) There may be biblical reasons to act in self-defense or defense of others, but examples from Israel's conduct as a nation under the Old Covenant are not among those reasons. Blessings, Tim

I don't recall any place in the new testament where Jesus Christ called for gun control. Today, there is a story about a man who bought a knife in a store and started stabbing people. Fortunately, there was a man who was carrying a gun and he told the man to drop the knift or he would shoot him. He dropped the knife and was subdued. The framers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they guaranteed the right to bear arms. Mexico has some of the strictest gun controls and the cartel loves it. They can walk into a town and take it over without any resistance. Chicago has strict gun controls and the gang members love it. Oh, that's right, call the police and it will only be ten minutes or more before they get there. With such strict gun control, Mexico and Chicago should be some of the safest places to be. What stupidity - and people still believe gun control is necessary. Now, a quote from Hilaire Belloc "It is a nice question whether ignorance or stupidity play the greater role in human affairs." I wonder how bloomberg would answer that one.

John wrote, "This sounds crazy to me, and borne of fear. Own a gun if you really want, but don't try to advocate for it on theological grounds" John, please refer to Esther 8:11-12: "The king’s edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate the armed men of any nationality or province who might attack them and their women and children, and to plunder the property of their enemies.The day appointed for the Jews to do this in all the provinces of King Xerxes was the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar." Also see Esther 9:5-10: "The Jews struck down all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them, and they did what they pleased to those who hated them. In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men. They also killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha, Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha, Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai and Vaizatha, the ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews. But they did not lay their hands on the plunder." To me, these passages sounds like pretty strong theological grounds for being armed for the purpose of self-defense.

This is a dangerous world. But we need not live in a world of fear. Christ is not the author of fear. Our lives are in His hands. Is He trustworthy or not? Of course we should take reasonable precautions. But where are the limits.

That said I'm still up in the air about guns used for recreation. It seems the Devil may be involved in this spirit of confusion where Christian are not are where to draw the line when it comes to weapons. I have read some of the posts and many are unsure.

Sarah, Great article, thanks so much! As a fellow female runner, mostly in the early morning, I'm finding myself wishing there were a way to talk with you further about your strategies that you can't mention in public for fear of rendering them useless.

Dear author. Your article appears well intended. I'm not sure more access to weapons (by anybody) really leads to a safer society as a whole. The more Christians buy guns (demand), the more are made (supply) and the more are floating around to be used recklessly and could end up on the street. The ills in this world are only increasing. I don't think creating a weapons arsenal at home (preparing for war) to deal with these attacks on the Christian faithful is the right idea.

Some people have stated that they would have taken out the Aurora shooter if they had a gun. But let's be realistic here what would be more confusing than multiple shooters (assuming several people brought their guns) going at it at once in a dark crowded theater with mass panic around. The death toll would have been many times higher.

Karen, I am a women who own two handguns named “Thelma” and “Louise.” (Do men name their guns?) I don’t carry them with me for protection, but I enjoy the occasional target practice. I often struggle with whether I would actually use the guns to protect myself. I agree with many of the commenters that there is a lot in the New Testament that supports an ethic of non-violence regardless of the situation. However, a big part of me has not yet been able to resolve the tension between wanting to follow Jesus in this and the very strong belief that there are some things in this world that are—literally—worth fighting for.. Would I have used “Thelma” (my favorite) to take out the Aurora shooter? The Columbine shooters? The man who killed 5 Amish schoolgirls 20 miles from my house? Yes. In a New York minute. Am I confident that as a Christian it’s the right thing to do? No. I’m still conflicted about that. It's an admittedly weird tension to know that I would willingly lay down my life for Jesus, but turn around and use violence to fight evil perpetrated against the innocent. But at least I'm honest about it.

Gottlieb you should get a book called The God Who Risks by John Sanders - very interesting read! Though I do not agree with everything said it makes some good points - I am sure you will disagree with most of it! But maybe you might pick up a bit or two about God not being a puppet master and us His puppets in case that is the line of thought behind some of your understanding - it may not be! Just because God knows what is going to happen does not mean He made it so. God didn't make the devil fall. And neither did He want the devil to fall. Those two things we know for sure. Yet the devil did fall. Just as God may not want some to die before they should yet I am sure many do by our own actions. Such as abortions as one example. We always thwart God's plan for their lives when we abort each and every single one. 43 million plus a year. And same when we may kill an adult for God says He wants everyone to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus and I believe Him when He says everyone.

Alan, the idea that we can thwart God's plan for an individual is preposterous and unbiblical. Your example of killing someone who is trying to rape or murder us, and thus sending that individual to hell, when he might have been meant to be saved is just plain wrong.In Psalm 139 for instance, it says that God knows exactly how many days we will live on earth. Nothing comes as a surprise to God, He is omniscient. God isn't pacing the halls of heaven hoping that little Johnny on earth will "make a decision for Christ" before he dies is false theology. There is also a difference between killing and murdering. Murder is the taking of another's life and killing is as in an army and fighting a war or protecting ourselves from someone trying to murder us. There were many just wars, such as WW2, to stop Hitler. Jesus never spoke against the soldiers in a way as to say that what they were doing (being in the military) was wrong. He did not say anything like "All soldiers should lay down their arms". God used military forces in the Old Testament, and He cannot contradict Himself. Psalm 139 (all of it) is a great psalm, describing how God knows everything about us and how there is no way of escaping His eye. Here is just a small portion of the psalm: "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; ***And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me,*** When as yet there was not one of them."

Alan I do agree for the most part with what you have said - imagine God sending a missionary to some natives many years ago and on arriving the natives attack so the missionary shoots them all! totally not what God would have wanted.... But then lets go to the other extreme - if a man was lining children up along a wall each day and shooting 50-100 just because he wanted to - would you let him continue? If he could not be captured and imprisoned (say he was protected by that countries laws) and you had a chance to kill him to protect the children - would you? Much like the Nazi reign - in a war as such as that - was it right or wrong for some to protect the innocent by shooting the Nazi who would kill anyone on any given day just because they felt like it? Do we let the war lords in Africa keep killing and capturing children? Or do we fight them? I don't have the answer 100% but I do believe in protection of innocents. How that plays out in any particular individual circumstance I do not know... In the OT God does instruct some armies to regain what was stolen from them (their families and belongings) which involved fighting and there is also the story of Moses and the Egyptian Pharaoh where God took the first born so that His people could be released. But each circumstance is different. I in no way agree with the death penalty. But if force is the last option to protect innocent people from death I am not totally sure God would say not to personally though I am open to learning more and or being wrong. A missionary on the other hand has laid their life down and trust in God no matter what happens and some are called to be martyrs. Like I said earlier it is different from protecting innocents to saving yourself. What is the story of the young girl in an American Highschool who was shot and before hand she said something about Jesus to them before she was shot? That is a warrior for Christ. But every Christian needs to know that God is for them, not against them, and will protect them, or help them through an event, is not far or distant and if evil does win they are in God's arms even in death. I don't think personally we can say it is wrong or right to protect ourselves/others - I think each circumstance is different. And each circumstance has its own answer. For even Jesus is coming back on a white horse, for even judgement one day will fall on earth and there will be a war. When God says enough is enough. Maybe I think the answer rests in prayer. We do not use this form of protection which is Armour as much as we should. And really it is the best defence and armour we have. We are so not as vigilant in it as we should be. Those who face death daily certainly are and would see the hand of God in their lives daily. They would learn to trust God as their protector but that also involves listening to and obeying Him. Through prayer God would/does provide the right response. Wondering personally I would pray (as I kind of did in the two examples I gave in a post above). I would protect myself in pushing them away etc but I do not think I could or would kill someone. Unless they were going to kill innocent people and I had no other choice of just restraining them etc. But that is just me - I am open to being wrong and God showing me that I am. PS and if you think what I am saying to just pray is naive - look at what the missionaries in (and out of!) the bible did and do.... if you do not believe God in His own Word what can you believe? Why would he tell us to if we were not to and to do something different? This is how God tells us to protect ourselves Ephesians 6:10-18 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the ...

Thanks, Kevin. I appreciate your balanced response and understanding tone. You are right about the seriousness with which I have and continue to treat these matters.

N.B.: Again, I'm not saying you came to your decision lightly or that you should treat personal safety with a naive "let go and let God" mentality. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't buy a handgun unless you're fully prepared to take a human life. From what you shared of your situation (you're physically able, aware of your surroundings, and a resident of an area that has an active police force), I don't see how such drastic measures are warranted.

John, just google australia and gun ban, and you'll dozens and dozens of articles on the significant increase in crime since the gun ban in Australia. Perhaps your newspapers don't tell people the results of the gun ban, but if you research it, you'll see that the increase is very significant. As for the US, obama even admitted a couple of years ago that he was working on gun control "under the radar". But please research what has happened recently, obama doesn't let the Constitution get in his way when he wants to accomplish one of his goals. His oath to uphold it is meaningless. There are many articles to check out how hilary clinton has been working with the UN to ban all guns. In Ron Paul's newsletter the article titled "Wednesday, Obama Took First major step to ban all firearms in the United States" May 16, 2012. In this article, Ron Paul refers to a Reuters article that you can also read. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. On Wednesday, Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nationsand individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed. "

"Some might say I should simply give up my love of the outdoors and running (which I’ve enjoyed since I began running cross-country in Junior High), join a gym, maybe, or drive 20 miles one way into the city to run in a more populous area. But surrendering my freedom and giving in to evil so willingly doesn’t seem like the call of the Christian either." I'm sorry, this seems more like an argument from the basis of convenience than anything like a "Christian calling." Implicit in the practice of carrying a lethal weapon is the willingness to use it. If you're not willing to use it, it's essentially a dangerous and expensive security blanket, belying your assertion that you trust God for your well-being. If you are willing to use it, then (based on what you wrote here, anyway) you're implying that you are willing to kill another human being for the ability to go running in an area of your choosing. I'm not saying that you actually WANT to do that or that the thought has even crossed your mind, but that doesn't really change the upshot of your actions. I guess I just don't see how (1) being able to shoot somebody = not "giving in to evil" and (2) pepper spray, cell phones, self-defense knowledge, and other basic safety precautions are insufficient for the kinds of dangers you're facing.

So to those advocating nonviolence and trust in God, what should a woman about to be or being assaulted by a man do? And what should she not do? And please back these specifics up with scripture. I am seriously asking because I have faced some similar situations as described here but not an actual assault. Of course, like most, I have known women who have been assaulted, too, Christian and not.

Alan, amen! Hard thoughts, but full of trust, love and truth. Thank you.

It is telling but not surprising that an article about guns and trust in providence fails to interact with the Bible. It is telling because the lack of biblical support strongly suggests that the position and worldview in this particular topic is not biblical. It is not surprising because the Bible and especially the New Testament will be of no help to someone seeking justification for using deadly violence to protect themselves or their family. I have experience a home invasion by an armed man and shots were fired by him. As such, my take of the issue is not merely theoretical. We often forget that Paul and first century Christians experienced ten times more insecurity and violence than what we face in our daily lives (see 2 Cor 11:23-27). Don’t we find strange that there is not a single instance of violence by a believer being approved in the whole New Testament? People will often claim that it is the duty of the believer to protect himself/herself and his/her family by all means necessary. This is the equivalent of the “biblical“ saying “"God helps those who help themselves". What they have in common is that they sounds biblical for the non-initiated ( aka biblically illiterate) but they are not found in the Bible and do not represent a biblical imperative. If it was so, thousands and thousands of Christians in the early church would have taken up arms to protect themselves and their families. However, they stood up for Christ even until death (keep in mind that the lions and the roman soldiers did not spare the little ones). We also deceive ourselves if we believe that we can use guns to protect ourselves from would be rapist but quietly lay down the same weapons if the attackers inform us that they want to harm us and our families because of our faith. In truth, the same survival instinct that caused you to reach for a shotgun to kill the thief with will also lead you to do the same to the persecutor of your faith, why? Because you value your life and that of your family above all and this overrides everything else. However, if we love our enemies (the Bible did not say that attackers are beyond our love), shouldn’t we value their lives more than ours. Especially since a rightly placed shot sends them to hell and that all she wrote. The teaching of the New Testament beginning in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5) and ending with the widespread and ultimate persecutions of Revelation never shows Christians using violence and much less deadly violence to protect their lives or that of loved ones. The examples of the early church in the first three centuries confirm that they took Jesus’ words literally as they wrote extensively about it (about not resisting the one that is evil, loving one’s enemy, and not using swords) and eschewed all violence even to the point of martyrdom. The current pro-gun movement among evangelicals in the USA does not find its sources in the Bible but in American culture which is worldly culture. Trusting that God can protect us is something else when you do not rely on a shotgun in your hands. I believe like Daniel’s friends that God is able to protect me and that even if He chooses not to, I will still praise Him (Daniel 3:17-18) because I am an alien in this earth and life here is not my most prized possession or my ultimate goal.

Re reference above to any increased in crime rates in Australia after tighter gun control. It must be a in a very different dimension to where I live, not aware of such a national problem. Reductions in violent crime would be more possible here by closing the pubs and night clubs in earlier. We have not had too many "Port Arthur's" since tighter gun control. Note some of the armed robberies re drugs. Time to reconsider things there, shades of prohibition is it not? Also mental health services need improvement as do ours..

Okay I guess they were pretty much front on attacks but not on myself and not with a gun!

I tend to agree with you Randy - people also forget to remember that there is power in the name of Jesus and rebuking wrong spirits in the name of Jesus was done again and again in the gospels.... though I have never had to in such a strong front on attack. THOUGH I have called out to Jesus to help where a life was in danger and was given quickly a quick solution to help stop an attack. Another time when my mother was going to possibly be bashed I raised my hands to the person and spoke sternly - you wont touch my mother. I should have added in Jesus name but I am Christian so my words had power. The person went to get my mother - they couldn't touch her! They threw a phone out of her hand by touching the phone, their hands where around her face, their face was 1cm from her face screaming in her face and yelling abusive words but they could not and did not touch her. They did throw me against a wall after I spoke to them and said you are not touching my mother - and I got scratches and bleed from that - but they were angry as a bull and did not touch her. People forget to use the authority we have in Christ to easily. It is practiced and needs to be learned as well. Typing this rushed so sorry if some sentences arent that great etc - don't have time to proof read!

Karen writes "surrendering my freedom and giving in to evil so willingly doesn't seem like the call of the Christian..." But it seems to me that carrying a gun is hardily the call of someone who has commited their life to following Christ. Instead it means that you're ready to kill another human being. You're willing to break one of the ten commandments before even trying other methods of ensuring your safety while running. (Such as running with a friend, finding a more populated area among others.) And, lets face reality, guns often end up harming or killing innocent by-standers as well. Are you willing to accept that risk? It also seems that if you have to carry a gun you've already given up quite a bit of freedom. You've given into fear and adopted the solutions of the world -- violence is the only way to deal with violence. I certainly understand and appreciate the fear and danger that women alone can face in the world. But that doesn't mean you have to give into those fears.

I have lived in Oakland, CA for 42 years, not exactly a gun free community. Neither my wife or I have ever been threatened with a gun. I have never owned a gun, and do not ever intend to. If ever I was held up with a gun, a would give the bad guy whatever he wanted. If he shot me anyway, oh well. I could just as easily in Oakland get run over by a truck. I have had two traffic accidents in my 42 years in Oakland, fortunately not seriously, but from what I have observed on the freeways around here they are much more dangerous than the "mean streets". I use common sense and don't go certain places at certain times, but I think having a gun would give me a false sense of security, which I do not need.

Well-done Karen. As with anything in life (cars, kitchen knives, jackhammers and chain saws), those who own guns should be responsible to use them and work to keep their families safe. But arguments that there are more gun accidents in homes with guns are ridiculous. Many gun owners live in areas where there is higher crime automatically putting them at a higher risk. Most auto deaths happen to people who ride in cars too. I lost a cousin to murder from someone who entered her apartment and killed her. I've had to think through long and hard whether or not it would have been just for her as a Christian to take out her murderer if she could have. My conclusion is that in most circumstances that would be the right thing to do.

I had a concealed carry permit for years. I have only had to use my weapon once, on four pitbulls that were stocking my children day after day, becoming more aggressive until they attack two of my sons. I have also had my home broken into, and use my weapon until the police arrive and arrested the intruder. People say a lot about what they would and would not do in any given situation, but until you are in it and live through it, you really don't know how you will react. When your in a situation that you have to protect other, it is different from just proctecting yourself. When I worked at a 7-11 and someone threaten to job me, I was ok, if they did anything else it would have been ok because I knew were I was going. When I had kids however, I have a responsiblity to God to raise them, and protect them. I have never been fearful to have guns in the home, they just need to be handled correctly and with respect. It might have also help that my dad always went hunting, and is currently the state champion for heavey shooting for the over 70 class, and my step-father was a master marksman and held the world record in shooting for several years. Gun control is being able to hit your mark everytime. My step-father could hit 40 round, in 40 seconds from a 45 in a hole the size of a dime. The motto in our house is "unless you can shoot accurately and hit your target every time, don't shoot." I am like a lot of you who read the artical, is she, or is she not pro life and pro gun, there was proition taken either way. For ladies that do not wish to carry- try either bear spray or wasp spray. Both will spay about 10-30 and sting the eyes long enongh for you to call for help or to run away and get help. Either way the person will want to have mild medical attention afterwards.

Dianna, I'm uncomfortable with the whole thing, too. I'm certainly not trying to pose a perfect or one-size-fits all solution. I do know that most acts of violence against women are not perpetrated by strangers and admit that although all of the men I've encountered in running who've harrassed me, offered rides, masturbated while watching me, or even scared me unintentionally were strangers, none of them has raped me. The strategies you offer are excellent. While it is part of my strategy to not reveal publicly in detail what of the many protections/tools/stragetiges I use when and under what circumstances, etc., I will say what makes me FEEL safest (and probably makes me in fact the safest) is being in constant communication with loved ones by text/phone. (Then, of course, I remember the story of the woman who was abducted during her phone call .... Oy!) Thanks for adding meaningfully to the conversation. If I had a perfect or even better answer, I'd surely give it.

@dianna--I don't think it's fair to say KSP is describing a *false* narrative about rape. You are right that it is certainly not the prevalent one, and carrying a handgun while one is out and about is unlikely to stop the majority of assaults. But still, I'm sure many of us have had to deal with creepers on lonely roads--it's scary! To call it "false" invalidates a very common female experience--perhaps more common than rape itself?

K, another thing for us to keep in mind is that the U.S. Constitution, as fine a document as it is, is not Scripture. The Bible and the Second Amendment sometimes seem to get conflated in these discussions so that it becomes difficult to distinguish between a person's affirmance of God's word and their reliance on the Constitution. (Thus leading to a type of gun "worship" as you ably pointed out.) The right to keep and bear arms is not the gospel, and the gospel is not a blueprint for a democratic republic to operate under a federal form of government. Cheers, Tim

One person commenting said that Obama is trying to take away our right to bear arms. That's not possible because of the 2nd Amendment. This person also said that Obama has banned tens of thousands of guns, but then gave no supporting evidence. I have no problem with gun ownership, but I do have a problem with gun worship. I think in the Christian community, this is a holdover from the days of Falwell and Robertson. Just as there are reasonable limits on the 1st Amendment (can't give away state secrets, etc.), there should be reasonable limits on the 2nd Amendment.

@LaVonne: I can't disagree with any of your points. I do have to say, however, that having had one person close to me kill himself with a gun and another kill himself with his car through carbon monoxide poisoning, consideration of that particular point (an important one to be sure) holds little weight in formulating my final views on gun ownership. Of course, I grew up in a rural, hunting environment where guns and respect for guns were part of life. Today, being and less and less inclined to eat food that comes from the industrial farming industray, guns are even more central to my rural lifestyle as we seek to be more humane, self-sustaining, and better, kinder stewards. That's a bit of the broader picture that the post really couldn't get into.

"What about you? What self-defense strategies do you or the women in your life employ?" Trusting in Jesus no matter what happens. Praying to Him each and every day for His protection and safety. Listening to the Holy Spirit. Fellow-shipping with Him daily. Knowing the power In His Word. But also using the commonsense He gave us. I could (but so can anyone - so I won't!) look up so many stories of Christian women who God either - spoke to in dangerous situations of what to do, gave angels to so intruders thought other people were there or provided miraculous escapes or ways out. Also how many times has He protected us and we may have not known? At the end of the day Jesus is my greatest protection (I'm not saying if you keep a gun is right or wrong - that is between you and Him - I do not know... I know I have personally never felt like I needed a gun but I do not live where some people live and their life is not my life etc so I do not know.....) But (regardless if you do or don't own a gun) if anyone does feel unsafe....... why? (Again not saying you shouldn't protect yourself, again that is between you and Him) Do you not believe God can and does take care of you and trust Him even until death? And even if death were to occur? Reminds me of the verse - "Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." This does not mean it is okay to walk down a dark alley at 12 midnight with no one around! and to not use your commonsense! But it does mean knowing whatever circumstance I find myself in to know God is with me and I can trust In Him regardless of what happens. As a Christian you should never feel unsafe.... regardless of what situation you find yourself in. God sends some missionaries into the most violent of places. If you feel unsafe you need to spend more time getting closer to and knowing Jesus and listening to Him. This doesn't mean we don't use our common sense and walk through the middle of a war field BUT it does mean trusting Jesus day to day in what He has called us to do and being where He has called us to be. Yet again I am not saying the author doesn't do this or to not own a gun - I do not know. That is between you/them and Him. Just saying how I protect myself and feel safe is through Trusting Jesus regardless. God says do not be afraid for He is our greatest protection. BUT we must abide in Him through fellowship (prayer, reading His Word and worship) so we can listen to Him and be strong. Some verses that are encouraging and some contain some of my favourite verses; For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. 2 Timothy 1:7 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. John 14:27 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. John 16:33 1 Peter 5:6-7 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety upon Him, because He cares for you. Matthew 10:29-30 - "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Ephesians 6:11-13 - Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Psalm 27:1-3 - The LORD is my light and my salvation; Whom shall ...

Karen, I'm uncomfortable with this. For one, I simply don't understand the justification of carrying a weapon capable of committing a lethal act, when things like self-defense training, a ku-baton, or pepper spray would do just as well (I say this as a woman who carries mace). Secondly, I dislike that it paints a picture reinforcing the myth that rapists are strangers out there which, statistically, simply isn't true. Most rapes happen in a woman's home, committed by someone well known to them. Additionally, the branding of a lethal weapon (as opposed to pepper spray or self-defense) in the event of a stranger rape is more likely to escalate the conflict, rather than stop it. Being able to use one's gun safely in such a circumstance depends on a number of factors, so while you might FEEL more protected when you carry it, you're actually putting yourself at greater risk (what if said would-be rapist wrestled the gun away from you? Now you've just handed him a weapon). I think the most disturbing thing though is that reinforcement of the narrative of rape as something that happens to women who haven't taken the right precautions, and is committed by strangers in dark alleys (or on lonely roads when you're out on a run), which is simply, statistically, not the case. It's a false narrative, and I really hate to see Christian women perpetuating it, especially in an argument for the use of lethal force.

Great post. "The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it." Prov. 27:12 If I had the experiences you've had while running, I'd consider packing heat, too, even though I am not in favor of everyone running around with a pistol in their pocket.

1 - I believe in the right to keep a bear arms (and for that matter, politicians who at least acknowledge the constitution...) 2 - I personally do not own a gun and don't plan to and 3 - one of the main things I have struggled with when thinking about this issue (as a woman on her own) is that in a situation where it came down to me or an attacker, the scenario could very much look like this: If I was to die, I know that I am going to spend eternity with Jesus; If the attacker dies, while I have no idea as to their salvation, I can take it under pretty good assumption that they would spend eternity in hell. So that's what I can't get past right now when thinking about this topic. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong. I really am just bouncing thoughts around.

The phrase which the author uses to justify using a gun on an assailant is: "But while as a Christian I try to cultivate my willingness to lay down my life for the sake of the gospel or for the life of another, I don’t believe I’m supposed to risk my life for a would-be rapist. To me, being pro-life means protecting my own life, too." No scriptural reference is given for this. The phrase which I hope would guide us as Christians is from Matthew 5: "Do not resist an evil person." Our life on earth is not the highest value; God's word is. Not carrying a gun to wound or kill someone who is trying to hurt us is not in the category of tempting God, I don't think. Better to be killed or hurt than to kill or hurt another. Leave it to God.

This sounds crazy to me, and borne of fear. Own a gun if you really want, but don't try to advocate for it on theological grounds. I grew up in a third world country as the son of missionaries, one of the most dangerous countries in the world, and we never had or felt the need for guns for self defense. We encourted riots, coups, mudslides and deadly diseases, and threats of violence with some regularity.I can't imagine what damage it would have done to our witness for people to know we were willing to use deadly force against others. Why a Christian would choose thislethal option and tout it as in line with a high view of the sanctity of life when pepper spray, tazers and other options are readily available is just beyond me.

I have been assaulted, and it was not enough to persuade me to want to buy a handgun. I've always found it interesting in talking to my friends and acquaintances from countries that many Americans consider "dangerous" that they consider our country frightening because so many of us own guns.

It sounds like nobody has actually been assaulted or robbed. I've been in 3 armed robberies, and missed another one by 5 minutes. My profession? A pharmacist. In the first robbery, I was bound and gagged and had a gun pointed at my face from about 2 inches away. In the 2nd robbery, one of the robbers took the other pharmacist to the drug cabinet where Dilaudid, etc were stored, and while that was going on, the other robber had me lie on the floor while he was squatting with a gun pointed at my head with his hand shaking in fear. They got their goods and took off. They were impossible to identify since they wore ski masks. In the third robbery, fortunately I was working with a WW2 veteran and he immediately sensed something was wrong when the guy walked in the door. Don kept a handgun on the pharmacy counter because he had something like 40 robberies or break-ins. Then, sure enough, the robber walked past the cash register and back to the drug counter, and was about to hand Don the drug list he wanted, and Don had the gun in his hand, and shot the robber in the stomach. The man managed to get back to his car, drove about a block away, and then the police came. I could have been killed in any of those robberies, and I'm thankful that Don shot the robber. Many police came by afterwards to offer Don their personal guns and their congratulations until he got his gun back after the trial. If anyone had tried to use pepper spray against someone with a handgun in their hand, lots of luck. All the pepper spray will do is infuriate the robber and get yourself killed. It's ridiculous and stupid to use pepper spray if someone has a gun pointed at you. It's like comparing a BB gun to an atomic bomb, and a sure-fire way to get yourself killed. Like most things, you don't know what it's like unless it happens to you personally. It's the only times that I thought for sure that I would die, and of course I was praying. I would have no trouble using a handgun like Don did if I was working anymore, but I no longer work. It was probably 50-50 each time if I would be killed or not. I have the right to protect myself when my life is threatened. And we don't need more laws about guns. Obama has already banned tens of thousands of guns, and is working hard to take away our right to owning a gun as we speak. And what would happen would be the same as what happened in Australia afterwards, their crime rate skyrocketed. Criminals don't turn in THEIR guns naturally. Guns can even be made. There is a town in the US where it is required to own a handgun, and they have the lowest rate of crime than any other town. You rarely hear the many times that homeowners have saved the lives of their family because they were armed. It's a right that we have in this country.

There is no argument for universal pacifism. The argument is for whether you will defend your life, or whether you'll be a parasite on those who have to defend it, or whether you'll be a victim. To refuse to oppose evil is to enable it. To refuse to oppose evil is to become evil. We had a situation here in New Zealand where two teenage girls broke into the house of an elderly teacher and beat him to death. In another situation a couple were set upon by a gang of thugs and beaten with steel bars. In another a man went to the aid of a woman being assaulted by her partner, and was stabbed in the chest. Most of us do not have the time or physical condition to become a master martial artist, and even then getting to close quarters with someone who is bigger, faster, and stronger (which almost all men are to women) is going to get you hurt at the very least. Forget the movies, most women would break their wrists if they tried to emulate Angelina Jolie. A gun is an equalizer. It doesn't matter how big or strong an assailant is, a bullet in the right place will stop their attack. Also forget the movies and just winging the attacker. If you have to shoot, aim for the centre of the body. There's less chance of missing. If someone is acting badly enough that you have to draw a weapon, they're acting bad enough to die for it. Train regularly, you want shooting to become a matter of muscle memory, not conscious thought. In an attack, with the adrenaline pumping, you won't have time to think.

I see your point, Tim. However, based on my reading on this subject, as well as discussions with gun control advocates, most people who say they are in favor of gun control actually mean some degree of gun prohibition directed at law-abiding citizens. When gun control advocates support legislation to limit people's access to firearms, they are not talking about convicted killers on death row.

An interesting book to read on this subject is "What Would You Do?" by John Howard Yoder, he does a very good job of laying out the arguments of pacifism in a logically straightforward manner. I read it a couple of months ago and really appreciated what he had to say.

One thing though, Julie. Being in favor of gun control is not synonymous with being in favor of gun prohibition. Even the most hardcore gun possession proponent (let's say someone at the far end of the continuum who advocates mandatory gun ownership) would likely agree that a convicted killer on death row should not possess a firearm. It's all gun control of a sort; just depends on where you draw the controlling line. Cheers, Tim

Ironically, the author acknowledges that she is "for gun control," even though she apparently supports her own right to carry a firearm for self-defense. I guess she is hoping that gun control laws will never interfere with her ability to pack heat for her protection. It is my hope that Karen will check out Gary Kleck's study "Guns and Violence." Professor Kleck, one of the nation's leading criminologists, teaches in the Criminology and Criminal Justice Department at Florida State University. His landmark study found that "higher general gun ownership rates reduce homicide rates." If this is true, it would seem that gun control laws would have the opposite effect, as they would make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own guns. http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html For those who don't like the idea of carrying a gun, pepper spray can be a good alternative, but it won't work if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction.

@Rick Kuhn--the sexual assault rate IS closer to 1 in 3, but not all of those are considered rape, or perpetrated against teenage or adult women who have any prayer of protecting themselves. The 1 in 7 number refers to the latter, as I recall.

Pepper spray is a poor option as it requires you to be incredibly close to your assailant. My wife had to run 4 guys off our farm who would not listen to her when she told them to leave (and pepper spray was not going to cut it). Her shotgun did the talking for her, since everyone understands shotgun no matter what their native language. When she counted the odds against her, she quickly become a big proponent of an assault rifle, instead of a 5 shot shotgun. And my understanding was the sexual assault rate for women was close to a 1/3 not 1 in 7- my wife included in a separate incident. She slept for years with a 9mm under her pillow whenever I was gone for Reserve drill. It took part of her with it.

I hope you have taken classes in gun use and gun safety, and I hope you're a really good shot. I also hope that nobody in your household is prone to violence or depression. Because--though your fear of strangers is understandable--you have now made yourself (and anyone who shares your house) much more likely to be the victim of a shooting, accidental or otherwise.* Befriending the police, staying alert, and carrying a cell phone and pepper spray all seem so much safer. *Nobody needs to point out that the NRA has done everything it can to discredit the study that found a 2.7x increase in gun deaths in homes with guns. That's what I would expect the NRA to do. See http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

I have a teenage daughter who is a distance runner and so I share your concern about safety, especially for women. But the idea of a Christ follower carrying lethal force should raise a lot of questions. I think we Americans need to take off our cultural blinders and listen to our Christian brothers and sisters from other cultures who have real trouble with this. We need to question our culture's idols of individualism, the myth of the noble gunslinger, and the almighty Smith and Wesson. Perhaps the solution is pepper spray, running with a partner or starting a running club.

Growing up, I was taught basic physical self-defense--how to slip out of a hold, etc. And I did have occassion to use it once. Every girl/woman should know the basics of how to defend herself, sans pepper spray or guns, if she is threatened or attacked.

For those research types, more on the CO Supreme Court decision: Castle Rock vs. Ganzales (2005)... Supreme Court decision that the police cannot be sued for lack of enforcing restraining order... interpreted that each person is responsible for his/her defense of his/her own family and the police is not ultimately responsible for your wellbeing (can you imagine the lawsuits if the police could be sued for all bad things?) It's a realistic law suit and it reinforced the need for self-protection. Just some legal support for Karen's suggestions above. Jonalyn Fincher

This is where we live, east of Eden. Firearms are scary mainly because they constantly remind us of death. And most women (and men) just don't want to think about it. Karen, I deeply appreciated your post.. thank you for sharing the significance of being responsible to protect our lives and those we love. As the Federal Court ruled in Colorado, the police are not responsible to protect our lives. In the end, we are. We take responsibility, we prepare, we pray and we leave the rest of God. Pepper spray is not enough. It's very good for angering, but it will not stop an armed man intent on attacking you. Even a bullet does not instantly stop a person. The Bourne Identity and James Bond has, unfortunately, informed our beliefs about guns and their power or deadliness more than reality. I've written some on where to get good training, why I believe women should carry, and how to face the real life dangers of being alive and vulnerable on God's good earth. This post written while I was twelve months pregnant and after attending a class on hand gun training and safety. Read it at RubySlippers "When Women Carry" : http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2009/11/when-women-carry-handguns-sergeant-kimberly-munley-and-fort-hood.html Jonalyn Fincher

Crikey. Maybe it's cos I'm British and therefore don't have to consider whether or not to own a gun, but this seems crazy to me! Surely pepper spray is enough?

"Being a pro-life woman means protecting my life, too" Of course the pro-choicers use that reasoning too. Someone may have to die so that another can live.

Who is going to protect you from all the concealed gun carrying "good citizen's" who do not practice good gun safety? I just read about a man who accidentally shot a woman at Walmart and injured her child while reaching for his wallet. Limits on gun carrying should be like limits on driving. I am not afraid of murders running me down with their cars. I am afraid of everyday people being irresponsible, which every day people tend to be. We have licensees to drive, bans on what kinds of cars people can drive (no race cars on the road etc) and speeding limits etc to protect us from everyday people. I am terrified with the rise in gun ownership because we are not as strict with it as we are with driving and we ought to be. Car collisions kill you just as dead whether committed by a criminal speeding from a crime or a soccer mom reaching for her phone, similarly gun shots kill you whether it be a mugger or a random guy at Walmart reaching for his wallet. As a Canadian living in the US I am astonished by this countries acceptance of your high gun deaths. We have less than 1/4th what you do and it all has to do with our strict laws on gun ownership.

I don't like guns, and refuse to have one in my home, even though I live in a rural area populated with bears, bobcats, and the occassional cougar. And I can't imagine carrying a gun, or using one in self-defense. However. I see a HUGE difference between a woman carrying a gun to turn back potential attackers (human or otherwise) on a lonely road, and the (admittedly sexist) stereotype of a man carrying one as an accessory to his "tough guy" image. One in seven American women are raped, so in my mind, that makes a much better argument for physically weaker women to have some sort of "power-equalizer" at their disposal than arguments about whether concealed handguns could have stopped tragic (and comparitavely unusual) massacres. Again, I wouldn't do it, but this article is much more sensible than other articles I have read on the topic.

I can see it is time for me to write my blog on the truly traumatic experience for me accompanying my husband to buy a gun. Still shuddering at the thought.

Karen, one of the things that I love about you is your steadfast refusal to fit into somebody else’s nice little stereotypical pigeonhole. This excellent post is yet one more example. Thank you!

Good points about our various responsibilities as believers, Karen. My wife runs as well; she also carries a cell phone, stays well aware of her surroundings, and takes evasive action when approaching or being approached by something that looks out of the ordinary. Nice job, KSP! Tim P.S. You may remember an article I wrote a while back on lethal self defense. I linked it through my name here.

did you ever consider pepper spray or another less harmful form of defense?

Well said, Karen!

I am confused. Do you carry your gun with you when you jog? How does it keep you safe? I myself have learned to be vigilant since I work in a high crime area. I'm always looking for a way out of potentially difficult situations. But don't be fooled, most robberies at gun point happen to men. Men need to be just as vigilant too!

I will admit, this whole topic/discussion is very foreign to me, as I live in Canada. It would never occur to me to want or need a gun to protect myself. As a Mennonite, I also struggle with how far self defence can go before it becomes sinful - I don't know where that line is.