All Preachers Should Have A Conceal Weapon Permit

[Ukulelemike]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2013‎ ‎7‎:‎57‎:‎23‎, HappyChristian said:

If my pastor felt led to get a concealed carry, I would be no less happy than  I am without it (for all I know, he has one - it matters not to me).  Just because a man or a woman carries a gun does not mean they aren't trusting the Lord.  And that goes for preachers.  I think that might fall under individual liberty and how God leads a particular person. Let's not forget the same person who wrote psalm 91 wrote "Blessed be the LORD my strength [note that he lists God as his strength before he says :] which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me."  David's trust was in the Lord, but he knew how to fight - and was taught so by God.  Hmmm...

 

I daresay that it would be pleasant to watch as people would come in to a church service and mow down women and children with their weapons, wouldn't it?  It's happened before, not here in the US, but it has happened.  We can claim it as a victory, but it really isn't.  There is nothing wrong with defending oneself.  If someone comes into a church intent on harm, it is the responsibility of the men in that  church to protect the women and children.  Until such a time that the laws of the land give permission to the government to raid church services, unwanted harmful interference is still trespassing, just as it is in one's private home.

This is way long since you made this comment, as I haven't looked at the thread in a long time, but I will say we should remember that while David was a man of war, and it was good in that he protected the nation of Israel, BUT he was also disallowed from building God's temple because specifically, he was a man of war that shed much blood. he lost some real spiritual blessings there.

[Critical Mass]

Seems like this issue should be left to Romans 14:4.

[wretched]

1 hour ago, Critical Mass said:

Seems like this issue should be left to Romans 14:4.

Sure buddy, easy for you to say. Godzilla never needed a gun unless he was going up against King Kong.

 

[Critical Mass]

On 11/16/2015, 11:00:09, wretched said:

Sure buddy, easy for you to say. Godzilla never needed a gun unless he was going up against King Kong.

 

ha ha ha... This made my day.

[Salyan]

On 11/12/2015, 10:46:51, Invicta said:

But then you live in a revolutionary lawless society.

Hahaha... 

Joke, guys. Joke.

Seriously, though, Canada is almost as bad as the UK. Except we can still carry pocketknives. What is it with our governments trying to outlaw everything the common citizen could use to protect themselves from everyday assault? They can keep the rocket launchers and automatic weapons (to be honest, the level of firepower generally kept by citizens would not be sufficient to defend themselves should the government choose to turn the army's resources against the citizenry. It's not like a couple hundred years ago where the level of technology of the common person and the army was basically the same (apart from maybe a few cannons - and they used the same black powder that muskets did).

[Invicta]

49 minutes ago, Salyan said:

Hahaha... 

Joke, guys. Joke.

Seriously, though, Canada is almost as bad as the UK. Except we can still carry pocketknives. What is it with our governments trying to outlaw everything the common citizen could use to protect themselves from everyday assault? They can keep the rocket launchers and automatic weapons (to be honest, the level of firepower generally kept by citizens would not be sufficient to defend themselves should the government choose to turn the army's resources against the citizenry. It's not like a couple hundred years ago where the level of technology of the common person and the army was basically the same (apart from maybe a few cannons - and they used the same black powder that muskets did).

You may remember last Friday and yesterday in Paris, where heavily armed militants killed many citizens and planned even worse. Our papers said that that type of attack was not very likely here because that type of arms are not available in that quantity on the black market. as we don't have the open borders that the French have.  But there is still a problem as I see it.  We went to France for the day on Friday, and as we have had to recently we had to go through security,  o the last 6 months or so they swabbed your steering wheel, this time they swabbed our door handles checking for traces of explosives, but coming back from France I have only once had to go through French security and they just looked through the car and that was well over a year ago.

On another matter I saw on France 24 news channel this morning that the Honduras police had arrested 5 Syrians with fake passports trying to get to the USA.  If they had got there they would be ably to get any weapons, I suppose.

 

[Salyan]

And that is why the best way to defend against bad guys is for everyone to be armed. There is no way to stop criminals from being criminals, but disarming the populace ensures that there will be no one around to stop them. (Not saying this will necessarily work for suicide vests - just maybe for the ones that aren't so keen on dying.)

[Invicta]

16 minutes ago, Salyan said:

And that is why the best way to defend against bad guys is for everyone to be armed. There is no way to stop criminals from being criminals, but disarming the populace ensures that there will be no one around to stop them. (Not saying this will necessarily work for suicide vests - just maybe for the ones that aren't so keen on dying.)

Sorry I don't agree.  

[heartstrings]

Criminals will get guns. They don't bother with background checks, licenses, gun-free zones or laws. Ungodly "liberal" politicians aren't concerned with public safety from guns either: guns stand in the way of their power.

[Invicta]

As I have said, you live in a gun culture, we don't.  If someone wants to kill their ex spouse here, they are most likely to burn their house,  Crooks may have knives, but if someone broke into our house he would most likely be unarmed.  

[Ronda]

2 hours ago, Invicta said:

but if someone broke into our house he would most likely be unarmed.

I wonder if those people in France thought the same thing... The civilians that were killed were unarmed, yet their attackers were armed. So if those same types of armed terrorists came to where you live... wouldn't you prefer to be armed as well? I am not saying that it would increase your likelihood of survival if the terrorist had a bomb, but if he/she had a gun, would it not also be prudent to have a gun to defend yourself and family (if the law permitted)? Didn't the people in France also not live in a "gun culture" as your country is also not a "gun culture"? Assuming the armed terrorists won't venture into your neck of the woods? That's what the French people thought as well. 

 

[Invicta]

1 minute ago, Ronda said:

I wonder if those people in France thought the same thing... The civilians that were killed were unarmed, yet their attackers were armed. So if those same types of armed terrorists came to where you live... wouldn't you prefer to be armed as well? I am not saying that it would increase your likelihood of survival if the terrorist had a bomb, but if he/she had a gun, would it not also be prudent to have a gun to defend yourself and family (if the law permitted)? Didn't the people in France also not live in a "gun culture" as your country is also not a "gun culture"? Assuming the armed terrorists won't venture into your neck of the woods? That's what the French people thought as well. 

 I cannot see how anyone in the situation in Paris, if they were armed would have made any difference.  In the January attacks in France, there were two armed police, and they were both killed.

[Colin Stolzer]

These figures are a couple years old because I wasn't able to find any newer ones from the UK.

The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.

"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses.
 

While crime in the U.S. has been steadily going down with the exception of a couple of major U.S. cities that have the strictest gun regulations. While gun ownership has been steadily increasing in the last 6 years.

Invicta,

I think you might be a little niave about the safety of living in a gun free culture...criminals will always have access to firearms because they don't care what the law says, only law abiding people are restricted/constrained by gun laws.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Colin Stolzer

[Alimantado]

Whatever the figures, it's obvious that UK is a violent and criminal country. Every day, people are beaten up, mugged, raped and murdered. And that leaves out domestic violence: spousal abuse, child abuse etc, which are the most common forms of violence of all.

A few things I think about the whole gun debate: firstly I think it's much harder to compare crime rates than just taking each country's own figures, adjusting for population size and putting them side-by-side. Doing that doesn't take into account the possibility of different reporting rates, different definitions of crime (e.g. violent crime) and demographic factors such as urban/rural environment. For example, I can't see how you can come up with meaningful figures by lumping Greater London in with the Scottish Highlands, and ditto for rural vs. city states in USA.

Secondly, firearm controls aren't necessarily just about whether it can be made harder for organised criminals to get guns (I agree that probably doesn't work). A lot of crime is a result of weak minds and escalating circumstances and so there is the question of whether more guns means more people using them in moments of weakness. Of course, this gets into the whole nanny state debate...

Apparently, fatal shootings by police in the USA are off the scale compared to UK (and yes I'm now using figures myself!). In England and Wales, the police shoot dead about 0-6 people per year (so that includes London, but not Northern Ireland!) whereas in US it's over 1,000 a year. UK police don't carry firearms but they can call on them quickly if needed, so why such a huge difference, even accounting for population?

I remember hearing about a case in the US where a young lady was at home alone with her new born baby--her husband had recently died. Someone began breaking down her door, so she got a shot gun and stood behind the door, shouting that if the assailant got in she would shoot. As soon as the door opened, she fired and killed the person. She said afterwards that she thought it better to kill the person than risk having him kill her child and the authorities backed her. I don't see how anyone can argue from a secular standpoint that it would have been better if she hadn't had a gun. And as for what the Lord calls us to do, I struggle to see what the scenario has to do with the call to love our enemies. This wasn't a case of a women getting revenge on an enemy, or setting out to destroy an enemy. To me it's more akin to pulling one's child out of the way of an oncoming vehicle. And if we still say that she should have put the gun away and trusted the Lord to save her via a more direct means if it was His will, how can we justify growing crops or holding down a job instead of relying on the Lord to provide our all our needs directly?

Long ramble--apologies...

 

[Critical Mass]

On 11/19/2015, 7:22:02, Invicta said:

 I cannot see how anyone in the situation in Paris, if they were armed would have made any difference.  In the January attacks in France, there were two armed police, and they were both killed.

What about Charl Van Wyk? He was able to save his whole church from being wiped out  by four men with grenades and assault rifles and all he had a was just a .38 pistol.