Wayne Grudem explains what the Bible says about self-defense

Reformed Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem speaks on the Bible and the right of self-defense.

About Wayne Grudem:

Grudem holds a BA from Harvard University, a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. In 2001, Grudem became Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary. Prior to that, he had taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he was chairman of the department of Biblical and Systematic Theology.

Grudem served on the committee overseeing the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and in 1999 he was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He is a co-founder and past president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. He is the author of, among other books, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, which advocates a Calvinistic soteriology, the verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the body-soul dichotomy in the nature of man, and the complementarian (rather than egalitarian) view of gender equality.

The MP3 file is here.

Topics:

• what about turning the other cheek? doesn’t that undermine self-defense?
• what does Jesus say about the right to self-defense in the New Testament
• did Jesus’ disciples carry swords for protection during his ministry?
• why did Jesus tell his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords?
• what about Jesus stopping Peter from using force during Jesus’ arrest?
• shouldn’t we rely on police instead of our own personal weapons?
• what about brandishing a handgun vs actually trying to shoot someone?
• what are violent crime rates in pro-gun USA and in the anti-gun UK?
• does outlawing guns cause violent crime to increase or decrease?
• do academic studies show that gun control decreases crime?
• do academic studies show that concealed carry laws decreases crime?
• what do academic studies show about defensive handgun usage?
• do many children die from guns in the home compared to other causes?
• doesn’t the US Constitution limit the usage of guns to the army and police?
• what did the Founding Fathers believe about lawful ownership of firearms?
• What should be the goal of someone who uses a weapon in self-defense?

This is a good example of applying the Bible to real life. We need more of that!

Related posts

• Wayne Grudem explains what the Bible says about parents and schools
• Wayne Grudem explains what the Bible says about self-defense
• Wayne Grudem explains what the Bible says about capital punishment
• Christian professor of economics discusses capitalism, socialism and the Bible
• How I got interested in the relationship between Christianity and economics
• First Things reviews Jay Richards’ Money, Greed and God
• Ron Nash explains what should Christians believe about social justice

Filed under: Podcasts, Bible, Bible Study, Christ, Christianity, Church, Concealed Carry, Constitution, Crime, Crime Rates, God, Gun Ban, Gun Laws, Guns, Handgun, Jesus, John Lott, Self-Defense, Sermon, Swords, Theology, UK, USA, Violent Crime, Violent Crime Rates, Wayne Grudem

Massachusetts man facing multiple charges for shooting a bear on his property

From the libertarian Reason magazine (with links to news media stories).

Excerpt:

Richard Ahlstrand, of Auburn, Massachusetts, faces criminal charges after encountering a bear in his back yard and shooting the damned thing to avoid being mauled or eaten. Specifically, as noted at Reason 24/7, he’s charged with “illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failure to secure a firearm.” All of these charges, once translated from Massachusetts to American, seem to stack up to outrage that Ahlstrand didn’t make his yard completely inhospitable to animals that are rarely seen in the area, and then investigated a suspicious noise with a weapon in hand rather than cower under the bed. Worst of all, he actually defended himself when he encountered danger.

[...]In both the Telegram and CBS articles, “authorities” are quoted as saying they don’t think the bear was a threat to people. I suppose it’s possible that the black bears in Massachusetts are a kinder, gentler breed than the one that mauled a man near Payson, Arizona, last June. Or the one that tore up a woman in the same area in May. And then there was the bear that did a job on a woman near Pinetop …

When I see stories like this, the first thing that I think is that my role as a protector has been criminalized by the state. Suppose that I owned property and had a family and a bear wandered onto my property and threatened my family. The environmentally-friendly authorities think that I should let the bear eat my family, or at least sit still and hope that he doesn’t. Is it reasonable to have a family if you can’t protect them? What kind of incentive are these tree-hugging leftists offering men to get married when men know perfectly well that the state prefers them to watch their family be mauled by a bear rather allow that man to shoot that bear?

Filed under: News, Bear, Defense, Environmentalism, Gun Control, Guns, Home, Home Defense, Male, Men, Protector, Self-Defense, Shotgun

Thomas Sowell: Guns can be used defensively to save lives

Economist Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell’s latest column is up at National Review. If you’ve ever read any of Dr. John Lott’s books, you’ll know that his central argument is that allowing law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms has a net positive effect, when compared with restricting or banning gun ownership. How could that be? What good effect could there be to allowing people to own guns? Well, that’s what Tom Sowell – a former pistol marksmanship instructor – is going to explain to us in his article.

Excerpt:

We all know that guns can cost lives because the media repeat this message endlessly, as if we could not figure it out for ourselves. But even someone who reads newspapers regularly and watches numerous television newscasts may never learn that guns also save lives — much less see any hard facts comparing how many lives are lost and how many are saved.

But that trade-off is the real issue — not the Second Amendment or the National Rifle Association, which so many in the media obsess about. If guns cost more lives than they save, we can always repeal the Second Amendment. But if guns save more lives than they cost, we need to know that, instead of spending time demonizing the National Rifle Association.

The defensive use of guns is usually either not discussed at all in the media or else is depicted as if it means bullets flying in all directions, like the gunfight at the O.K. Corral. But most defensive uses of guns do not involve actually pulling the trigger.

If someone comes at you with a knife and you point a gun at him, he is very unlikely to keep coming and far more likely to head in the other direction, perhaps in some haste, if he has a brain in his head. Only if he is an idiot are you likely to have to pull the trigger — and if an idiot with a knife is coming after you, you had better have a trigger to pull.

Surveys of American gun owners have found that 4 to 6 percent reported using a gun in self-defense within the previous five years. That is not a very high percentage but, in a country with 300 million people, that works out to hundreds of thousands of defensive uses of guns per year.

Yet we almost never hear about these hundreds of thousands of defensive uses of guns from the media, which will report the killing of a dozen people endlessly around the clock. The murder of a dozen innocent people is unquestionably a human tragedy. But that is no excuse for reacting blindly by preventing hundreds of thousands of other people from defending themselves against meeting the same fate.

Although most defensive uses of guns do not involve actually shooting, nevertheless, the total number of criminals killed by armed private citizens runs into the thousands per year. A gun can also come in handy if a pit bull or some other dangerous animal is after you or your child.

 

This is an important article that expresses the central argument for allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families from criminals.

It’s worth noting that both Thomas Sowell and John Lott are economists, and economists use quantitative methods to evaluate policies. It would be great if everyone who talked about policies like gun legislation argued from logic and evidence, like economists do. We need to ask what effects and incentives are created for all groups of people when policies are adopted. And that’s what economists do.

Filed under: Commentary, Crime, Deterrence, Firearms, Gun Control, Guns, Self-Defense, Thomas Sowell, Tom Sowell

21-year-old man uses legally owned firearm to defend family from three criminals

From KHOU Houston.

Excerpt:

A 21-year-old man sprang into action to protect his family Thursday night when three suspects barged into their northwest Harris County home.

The young man was home with his mother and father in the 3900 block of Brook Garden when the armed men forced their way into the house around 8 p.m., according to Harris County Sheriff’s deputies.

The family was in the middle of baking a cake, when there was a knock at the door.

“I see a young boy and I think it is a friend of my son so I open it a little bit,” the father explained. “These guys push and out comes two more, they push me on the ground.”

After the father was down, the suspects went after the mother. That is when the son ran and got his dad’s gun. He opened fire and hit one of the suspects, who died in the back bedroom. The other two suspects fled the scene.

[...]Neighbors said the son was just doing what he had to do.

“People can’t go breaking into people’s homes and not expect some sort of consequence,” said Harry Moulder.

No charges were expected to be filed against the homeowner’s son.

Another day, another defensive gun use by a law abiding citizen to thwart a crime. When I read stories like this one, I ask myself this question: what’s the liberal alternative resolution to this scenario? They just want the law abiding people to submit to the criminals. The liberal alternative is to let the three people in the home die at the hands of criminals.

Don’t believe me?

Take a look at this list of recommendations for victims of rape, which was put out by a liberal university.

Look:

1. Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
2. Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
3. Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
4. Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
5. If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
6. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
7. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
8. Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
9. Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
10. Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

That’s the best campus leftists can do for law-abiding victims of crime. Pee on yourself and maybe your rapist will go away. But you can’t own a gun, because guns scare criminals with their loud noises.

Related posts

• Woman raped at gunpoint in “gun free zone” on university campus
• Man uses firearm to defend home and 2-year-old son from criminals
• Great grandmother fires at mugger with legally-owned, legally-carried handgun
• Man who doesn’t believe in guns thanks gun owners for protecting him from burglar
• Man shoots robbery suspect to protect his 2-year-old son
• Woman uses gun to defend herself and her children from home intruder
• 12-year-old girl shoots home intruder in the shoulder with legally owned firearm
• Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
• 14-year old boy uses parents’ handgun to deter armed intruder
• Woman defends herself from intruder using legally-owned firearm
• Recently widowed mother uses legally owned gun to defend her child
• Pregnant woman uses her shotgun to scare burglars out of her home

Filed under: News, Concealed Carry, Crime, Criminal, Defensive Gun Use, Defensive Handgun Use, Gun, Gun Ban, Gun Control, Guns, Handgun, Home, Home Defense, Home Invasion, Protect, Protector, Self-Defense

Woman raped at gunpoint in “gun free zone” on university campus

CNS News reports.

Excerpt:

Recently, Revealing Politics released a video of Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar arguing that college women don’t need guns to prevent rape because they can use whistles, “safe zones”, and call boxes instead. His theory behind this was that just because women feel they’re going to be raped, doesn’t mean it’s actually going to happen.

On Wednesday, NRA News Radio Host Cam Edwards interviewed Amanda Collins, a woman who was raped at the University of Nevada at gun point in a gun free zone. The brave woman responds to the comments made by Rep. Joe Salazar.

“It is so frustrating. I wish I could sit down with each one of these policy makers and have a face-to-face conversation with them and tell them my story, especially the representative out of Colorado who made the comment that he did on Friday – I have it in front of me. He said, ‘It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have whistles.’ And, I can just go through and argue each one of those statements with the experience that I had.

“For one, all of these are just sentiments that give a false sense of security. In my experience, I know that. The university that I attended, the University of Nevada, Reno, they didn’t have any call boxes the night that I was attacked, they afterwards they installed them. I can tell you that a call box above my head while I was straddled on the parking garage floor being brutally raped wouldn’t have helped me one bit. The safe zones? Well I was in a safe zone and my attacker didn’t care,” said Collins.

Edwards asks, “What do you mean you were in a safe zone?”

“The campuses are designated as a safe zone, or as I take it, a gun free zone. All it does is ensure the perpetrator that they are going to be unmatched when they pick a victim”, Collins responds.

“You were attacked in what would be considered a safe zone, I’m assuming. You were within sight of the campus police department.”

“Right. I’m going to share something this afternoon that I haven’t shared before, and that is that knowing that I could see the police cruisers less than 50 feet away from me where from where I was being attacked- the moment I saw those cruisers I knew no one was coming for me”, she replied.

Here’s Dr. John R. Lott to explain why gun-free zones should really be called “helpless victim zones”.

Excerpt:

Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, most of whose countries have much tougher gun laws than the United States, has experienced many of the worst multiple-victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns.

Look at recent history. Where have the worst K–12 school shootings occurred? Nearly all of them in Europe. The very worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany, in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second-worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, where 16 kindergartners and their teacher were killed. The third-worst, with 15 dead, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth-worst was in the U.S. — Columbine High School in 1999, leaving 13 dead. The fifth-worst, with eleven murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.

It may be a surprise to those who believe in gun control that Germany was home to three of the five worst attacks. Though not quite as tight as the U.K.’s regulations, Germany’s gun-control laws are some of the most restrictive in Europe. German gun licenses are valid for only three years, and to obtain one, the person must demonstrate such hard-to-define characteristics as trustworthiness, and must also convince authorities that he needs a gun. This is on top of prohibitions on gun ownership for those with mental disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, violent or aggressive tendencies, or felony convictions.

The phenomenon is not limited to school attacks. Multiple-victim public shootings in general appear to be at least as common in Western Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun-free zones — places where guns in the hands of civilians are outlawed.

Dr. Lott then lists about two dozen incidents – all occurring in gun free zones. The only reliable way to defend yourself against a criminal is to defend yourself yourself. The only people who oppose self-defense are the people who think that only criminals should have guns – not law-abiding citizens. Gun control supporters don’t care if law-abiding people are raped, killed, robbed or tortured. They are more concerned about criminals – they don’t want the criminals to be scared or hurt when they are raping, stealing and killing their law-abiding victims.

Filed under: News, Amanda Collins, Call Box, Campus, Crime, Criminal, Gun, Gun Ban, Gun Control, Gun-Free Zone, Joe Salazar, Rape, Safe Zone, Self-Defense, University of Nevada, Victim, Women