Another good reason to own a gun — although you already have plenty of good reasons — is that it provides you with an opportunity to take crash course in practical theology. And of course I have in mind the critical differences between the old and new covenants.
There are certain falsehoods about the relationship between the testaments that are very easy to pick up. For example, the God of the Old Testament was a God of __________. If you didn’t fill in wrath, then you must have been squirming around during your catechism classes. This is in contrast with the God of the New Testament, who is a God of _____________. That’s right, class, the right answer is supposed to be love.
Except that God is extraordinarily loving in the Old Testament (Ps. 136), and His wrath burns more fiercely in the New Testament than anywhere else (Rev. 19:3).
Another error — and the one we are considering here — is that God provided His people with temporal and tangible blessings in the Old Testament, and with spiritual blessings in the New. This what is supposed to account for the fact that God’s people in the Old Testament were warlike (Ps. 144:1) and His people in the New spurn carnal weapons for weapons far more powerful and far more spiritual in the New (2 Cor. 10:4).
Now the thing we must assert, in the strongest possible terms, is that there are times when God’s people — Christians — must fight like wildcats and other time when we must go like lambs to the slaughter. These two “times” are not Old Covenant times and New Covenant times. When deciding what to do, the believer must ask what moment he is in, not what millennium he is in.
And here is why:
When it comes to this subject, and all points of the compass related to it, we need to make the 11th chapter of Hebrews our special study. What did the great men and women of faith in the Old Testament confess? That they were “strangers and pilgrims on earth” (Heb. 11:13). All of them did this, not just the martyrs. The warriors and martyrs both did this.
How did this faith work out for them? For some, it resulted in martyrdom and for others it resulted in spectacular victories.
“And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise” (Heb. 11:32–39).
Look at all the “carnal” victories up through verse 35, and then look at all the “spiritual” victories in verse 36 and following. And of course, a moment’s reflection should reveal to us that all these victories were obtained by faith, and the two different kinds of victory had nothing whatever to do with which covenantal aeon they were living in.
And then reflect on the fact that all of these victories, not just some of them, are set before us as models for imitation (Heb. 12:1). We are to run our race with David in the stands, the man who won great battles with his faith, and with Isaiah in the stands, who was sawn in two for his faith. This calls for moral and ethical discernment on the part of the saints. But it takes no discernment at all to find out if you are living A.D. or B.C. To think that any covenant era provides us with a simple, easy-to-use ethic on violence, where one size fits all, is to do radical injustice to the teaching of Scripture.
So bring it back to gun ownership. This is why the siege of Leiden was a noble Christian endeavor on the part of the defenders, and why the non-resistance of Latimer and Ridley was a noble Christian martyrdom. God’s church has both warriors and contemplatives, fighters and lovers. Not only do we have them now, we have always had them. What we are to do depends on the circumstances, not on the calendar.
In the Old Covenant, Jeremiah was a patriot for telling the inhabitants of Jerusalem that they must not fight the Babylonians. In the Old Covenant, Nehemiah was a patriot for having his men work on the wall of that same city with a weapon on one hand and a tool on the other. By way of contrast, the modern militarist and the modern pacifist have this one thing in common, and it is a very significant shared sentiment. They are both in the hunt for easy answers.
So if you have a gun in your home, you should store it safely, and pick up your Bible. And why? You are a Christian who is done with easy answers.
Jesus had a lot to say about violence to Moses.
Did Jesus have anything to say about violence?
Well, he didn’t talk about it while he was purging the temple (either time).
And of course when calling Himself Faithful and True, He really means just figuratively: “Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.”
And about that tatoo: “…on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”
Like your first paragraph. But please don’t call it a tatoo, which God designated a sin. A metaphor about a name being on him is just to communicate a point.
Mr Roberts, could you please specifically show me where God designates tattoos to be a sin. I am not baiting you but am quite sincere.
Lev 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Thanks
Leviticus 19:27 gives some rather specific commands on haircuts. “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.” Does this rule as well apply to us? There are many different rules dispersed throughout Leviticus 19 that modern Christians do not observe. I am sure there could be a difference between the command not to get a tattoo, and not to round off the hair on your temples; but what is the difference? edit: Is it even possible that we are not allowed to cut our sideburns off, and that Leviticus 19:27 does… Read more »
Yeah, I’m sure it got rubbed off immediately after John finished writing its description down.
Well, the Nobleman who “went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return.” did say: “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.”
Maybe we need to define violence. Is self-defense violence? I don’t believe so — violence is the use of force for personal satisfaction, not the willingness to use necessary means to protect life.
Mrs. Dunsworth,
I think that violence is best understood as being similar to an inert substance that has no morality attached or intrinsic to it. It therefore only possesses the morality that is lent to it by the circumstances of use. It “becomes” evil when used for evil, and good when used for good.
I think that is wrong. I think violence is a pejorative term.
Physical force, I think, is the inert substance. Violence is the use of physical force for gain.
It’s perhaps a quibble, but that seems to me to be closer to the historic and biblical use of the word. A search on violent and violence in an online concordance definitely leans that way, though it could be a translation issue.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=violence&qs_version=NKJV
There is also the more metaphorical use of the word violent, such as “violent thunderstorm,” but I think that’s a different sense of the word from human violence.
At this point I am willing to concede that you have some ground to stand on, although it seems to have been for some time synonymous with force:
violence (n.) late 13c., “physical force used to inflict injury or damage,” from Anglo-French and Old French violence (13c.), from Latin violentia “vehemence, impetuosity,” from violentus “vehement, forcible,” probably related to violare (see violation). Weakened sense of “improper treatment” is attested from 1590s.
In the sense of being a “violation”, yes, I will agree with your definition. I have historically used it as a synonym for force.
“Violence is the use of physical force for gain.” “Violence” can also involve no physical force at all. Women often have a special talent for this more passive form of violence. Seems rather violent to me to engage in something like gossip or soul murder or assorted forms of bullying? Then there is the more passive form of alleged “benevolent violence” often used by the state, were we aren’t going to actually physically attack you for not paying taxes, we just quietly set the threat of prison and armed swat teams on the table and let you chose whether or… Read more »
That’s violence only metaphorically. It’s wicked and hurtful, but it’s not violence.
I think it is important that words retain their usual definitions, or none of us can know what the other is talking about. However, I think that some behavior is such a deliberate inducement to violence that it muddies the definition. I am thinking in particular of “mad dogging” where a gangbanger stares with such hostility and malevolence that it is considered “unmanly” for the recipient not to respond violently. It can be an extremely serious provocation in my gang-infested neighborhood. By the way, I tried mad dogging my daughter and she merely burst out laughing.
One’s frame of reference creates a certain perspective. One may think that owning an 80 foot ocean-capable cruiser as having a big boat. The Captain of, let say CVN-76, would not think so.
When it comes to violence, words are not thought of as being of much substance by those who have encountered the tangible form.
“When it comes to violence, words are not thought of as being of much substance by those who have encountered the tangible form.”
I suspect that one who has been subjected to false accusations and is now sitting in prison might disagree with your declaration that words don’t have much substance.
We live in a world today where looking at someone in a threatening manner is perceived as an assault, an act of violence, whereas falsely reporting them to various authorities is not. To me that suggests that something is wrong with our definitions of violence.
That means *some people’s* definitions of violence is wrong. You have an odd habit of picking wrong things people do and believe and calling it “we,” as though the participants in the conversation do the same things., when generally, your targets are off somewhere else and not “we” at all.
I believe you are the one who declared, “That’s violence only metaphorically. It’s wicked and hurtful, but it’s not violence?” It also seems as if RFB is conceding your point.
So as to my alleged habit of supposedly picking “targets who are off somewhere else,” I believe I am right here, in the present moment, perhaps not “targeting” either one of you so to speak, but certainly suggesting that your particular definition of violence is really rather narrow.
Neither RFB nor I ever suggested that we agree that looking in someone in a threatening manner is an act of violence, so I have no idea what you mean. I stand by the statement that words are not violence, though they can be dangerously hurtful. It does not follow that I agree with those who think that looking at someone is an assault. So any “we” who is guilty of that particular inconsistency is not in the room.
As usual you are simply being argumentative and attempting to contradict anything I say, without even bothering to try to listen to what I am actually saying. Also, you tend to project a whole lot of preconceived notions onto others. Color me completely unimpressed with your capacity for discussion.
Bad ideas do have physical implications . The fall, the cross and other slanders for example.
Physical and verbal assaults are made of different materials, but they are still both assaults.
“We” creatures have likely sown and suffered both. Even if we are graced with being good at fending off assaults , the assault is still wrong!
There is physical aggression.
Then there is relational aggression.
Everyone is capable of both.
Some women go with relational aggression because physical aggression is not available to them.
I agree with you that some cruel behavior can be as destructive to the recipient as violence. I would probably rather someone smack me one time than ruin my reputation, gaslight me, or write awful things about me on bathroom walls (not that the latter would be believable). But I think it is important to be precise about definitions, or we end up with a word like “abuse”–which can mean so many things that it no longer really means anything. When I was seeing lawyers and counselors when my marriage broke up, I was amazed at how they kept pushing… Read more »
The Hebrew word most often rendered as “violence” does seem to have a strong negative connotation. However, I don’t think there is any inherent negative connotation to the English word violent, or violence. It describes raw force with potentially damaging or destructive effects. I think this fits many of God’s actions, as well as Jesus cleansing the temple. It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Dunsworth! A momentous occasion is upon us. We disagree about something!
Violence CAN be as you described, but by definition it doesn’t involve gain. I disagree wholeheartedly that violence is pejorative. I also disagree that (in English anyway) the historical meaning was pejorative.
When my family is in danger I will wreak great violence upon the source. I may gain their safety, but if I fail, I will still have been violent.
A minor issue to disagree about to be sure.
I basically understand what you’re saying, and I think I agree; however, I’m fed up with our opponents’ penchant for saying things like violence, discrimination, and prejudice are objective evils. NO!!! A violent reaction by someone trying to hurt your child is GOOD; the ability to discriminate between good and evil is wonderful!, etc.
It may sound like I’m quibbling, but I think we’ve ceded waaaaay too much to these folks!
I don’t think it’s a concession; if I did, I would agree with you. I think it is a legitimate and necessary way to distinguish between violence, and things like protecting your children. The words violence and violent are almost 100% used in a negative context in scripture, whereas scripture obviously doesn’t decry force as such. God hates violence; He does not hate force. Even if we quibble over the words, there has to be a way to say that God hates those who use force against others for harm, but loves the use of force to uphold justice and… Read more »
We’re in essential agreement; however, Edmund Burke used “prejudice” in a very positive way, and not the way the popular culture normally does!
Also, BTW, I enjoy tracking your comments and responses and have learned a good deal from them! Thanks!
Jane, thank you for your language work. “violence” in our era does carry multiple connotations. We have the glorious violence of a dog-fight football game vs the horrific violence of a mugger mauling an innocent or the horrific violence of an actual dog-fight.
This is a wonderful distinction you have raised. thank you.
Doug quoted two scriptures, one from the Psalms, and one from Revelation, so those are among the things that Jesus has to say about it.
But Psalms is so Old Testamenty…I mean, do you really think that we should invite Phinehas to the afterglow session…
You mean when he is stomping his enemies’ dead bodies to fill an overflowing wine press as high as horses bridles? Yeah I think he said some stuff about it.
When Jesus says that His judges will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming in the cloud of heaven (Mark 14:62), He is quoting Daniel 7, where said Son of Man kills, destroys, and burns. To insinuate that Jesus was totally against violence is to 1) commit the error of Marcion, and 2) ignore Jesus’ own statements.
Thanks, Pr. Wilson; Lord knows, we need more discussions like this, because . . . I’m fed up with the (seeming?) inconsistency of those in the church who will celebrate our freedoms and liberties, revere men like Washington who led an army of individuals to fight with GUNS for said liberty, the Black Robed Regiment of preachers who declaimed against King George and Parliament for their tyrannical violation of the British Constitution against us, Pastor Peter Muhlenberg, who, upon completing his sermon, removed his vestments and to reveal the uniform of a Virginia officer, and have “Support the Troops” on… Read more »
Mr. Dubh, I am no pacifist. Nonetheless, it is futile to suggest that Christian men (who else would have the shared foundational principles) resist anything when a large (and perhaps the greatest number, but I try to avoid “most” or “many” as descriptive terms) percentage of them still are unwilling to accept their personal responsibility to educate their children. (And this is just one example.) What would happen in the U.S. (hypothetically) if every Christian family removed their children from the government schools tomorrow. When one speaks of resistance, think closer to everyday issues. And, quite frankly, that is not… Read more »
Actually, the last name is “Smith”; the middle name is David, rendered “Daithi” in Irish. The “Dubh” means dark (or black), so “Dark David” would be the translation. When I had more hair, it was indeed black. Alas, what’s left is mostly grey! Okay, end of the tedious voyage into my personal geekdom! We actually agree! Again, I’m not suggesting we all grab our AR 15s and immediately march back to Lexington Common – as you suggest, there are a great many things we should do (and should have done previously) that don’t require any weaponry at all! BUT I’d… Read more »
Only and inasmuch as an aircraft obeys the laws of aerodynamics does it have the “right” to fly. From my admittedly narrow field of view, I think that modern American evangelical Christianity men have lost an understanding of duty and possess small interest in their own self-education. Chest-beating is not the suggested demeanor; more like: “The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.” (Charles George Gordon, By Sir William Francis Butler) Some Irish… Read more »
Go raibh maith agat! (Thank you very much!)
That quote from Gordon is damning, but oh so true!
That is one of the best quotes I’ve heard in a long time. Thanks RFB.
An bhfuil Gaeilge agat?
“Another good reason to own a gun — although you already have plenty of
good reasons — is that it provides you with an opportunity to take crash
course in practical theology”
I don’t wish to disagree or to discourage anyone from owing guns, but I have to say, not being armed and having someone hold a gun to your head is a much faster crash course in practical theology.
I’m assuming that Wilson’s point wasn’t optimize the potential for fast theological growth regardless of whether someone needed to murdered to achieve it, but rather to point out that there was a theological fringe benefit to thinking through the responsibilities of gun ownership.
And if you were armed and someone was holding a gun to your head, what would you then do? Stick your hand into whatever was concealing it and pull it out of the holster and point it at your enemy and pull the trigger really really quickly before his finger brushed the trigger? And you really think that would be your best option at that point? My guess is that presenting a gun when someone is already training a gun on you is probably one of the better ways to get the initial gun to fire. Unless the initial person… Read more »
“And if you were armed and someone was holding a gun to your head, what would you then do?”
If the gun is to your head taking the gun away is a viable option.
And not extremely difficult if sufficiently trained. Career criminals routinely train to disarm LEO’s.
Firearms are designed as “stand-off” systems, and therefore contact shooting technique is seldom used unless the confrontation has devolved into grappling.
Makes sense. It seems to me the value of a firearm for self defense is to preclude gun-to-head, knife-to-throat type scenarios in the first place. If the situation has already developed into that then perhaps Jonathan has a point about reaching for your CCW not being the move most likely to keep you alive. Would you agree?
For the most part, yes. It is axiomatic that action beats reaction. That is why a potential assailant with a firearm in hand can easily raise said firearm and shoot before someone with a firearm already pointed at the assailant can pull the trigger. The actions required to disarm a person at the distances you mentioned would of course be known and well developed. Since, as previously discussed, the nature of the weapon system does not require said proximity absent a need to enact physical custody, it is better to think of the paradigm akin to radiation, with distance and… Read more »
Oh, I agree. But isn’t that an option that is easier if you’re not reaching for your own gun first?
Naturally, but I’d expect you to argue that you shouldn’t reach for your gun later either.
Yes, of course, it was just a really odd example to use because it was one of the most obvious cases for which you don’t need a gun to stop a so-called “bad guy with a gun”.
I think you knocked down two strawmen (or, at least, very silly men with theology so poor it would never enter into these blogs), and simply ignored the much stronger arguments. No, of course “God was a God of wrath in the OT, a God of love in the NT” is a ridiculous statement. I can’t think of having heard that from a practicing Christian – I’m sure some must be about, but they’re not around here. No, of course “God gave tangible benefits in the Old Testament but spiritual benefits in the new” is a ridiculous statement. I’d never… Read more »
p.s. – I own guns and love using them. So does Preston Sprinkle, for that matter. I don’t think that anyone is seriously arguing against gun ownership, and to pretend that it’s the issue at stake is kind of tossing in yet another strawman.
What people are arguing against is the enthusiastic support for killing with guns the very neighbors and enemies whom we are called to love.
“What people are arguing against is the enthusiastic support for killing with guns…” Yes, and I am one of those objectors, if by enthusiastic support you mean enthusiasm at the idea of being given an excuse. Some people apparently are, and if that’s what you’re talking about we’re in agreement. Or do you mean any degree of willingness to consider the possibility as an option, ever? That might be your stance, and okay then, whether I agree or not, but don’t accuse everyone who might say they could see doing it of being eager is all I’m asking.
Could you embellish on WHY you LOVE using your guns? Caps aren’t here to be a jerk, just to be specific. ;)
Two reasons, and I’m not even sure which one comes first. 1) They’re a simply amazing little tool, and I’m very good at employing them. It’s incredible to have something in your hands that you can consistently holes with a 2″ grouping a hundred yards away. Or make a bottle explode at an even greater distance – even better. I am very competent with rifle sights, and moderately competent with pistols with sights (more from natural talent than practice – I’ve had 100x more experience with rifles than pistols), but what I absolutely love is scoped rifles. Taking into account… Read more »
“No, of course “God gave tangible benefits in the Old Testament but
spiritual benefits in the new” is a ridiculous statement. I’d never
heard that one at all.”
FWIW, that view is quite common, even among many Reformed people who would not object to the use of guns for protection and self-defense.
Do you mean something like this then? “Jesus didn’t say to give up your wealth and possessions – he just meant it spiritually!” “Jesus didn’t say to turn the other cheek – he just meant it spiritually!” “Jesus didn’t say to literally take up your cross and be willing to give up your life – he just meant it spiritually!” “Jesus didn’t say to practically love your enemies – he just meant it spiritually!” “Jesus didn’t really mean you have to choose service rather than power over others – he just meant it spiritually!” “Jesus didn’t mean that you really… Read more »
No, I don’t mean that. Some of your examples are rather silly — practically loving your enemies, serving people, etc., are still spiritual acts. I meant that the quoted statement by Wilson is literally believed by many Reformed teachers. They think that any time God was talking about actual physical realities in the OT, there’s a deeper spiritual meaning and the physical component vanishes. Not that there’s “less to obey” because of that, but that the physical outcomes of various causes that are described in the OT, no longer hold true in the NT era. The *only* benefits we derive… Read more »
Why would we never be required to specifically imitate these acts of faith?
Excellent.
Pastor Wilson, will you address that the pro-CCP statistics you posted earlier were clearly a lie? The “no-carry states have violent crime 11% higher” claim was a claim that could only be made by literally not including any of the the low-crime no-carry states in the calculation, which even the website you copy-and-pasted the claim from admitted. The Texas forcible rape numbers have been posted by myself, and Timothy posted both the raw numbers and the rates. They show absolutely nothing whatsoever like what you claimed they did – in fact, the rate of rapes was dropping much faster BEFORE… Read more »
I replied on the 93% 500% thing in the other thread .
I will update this comment with that comment when it appears on the side-bar.
On your other two points, did you derive that yourself? or did you copy the rebuttal from another site?
I replied in full to your other comment. In fact, I now know more about what’s wrong with the #2 claim than I did before. Seeing that, you probably shouldn’t update this comment, otherwise you’ll just be saying something wrong twice. No, I haven’t seen any rebuttal for any of these points on any other site. When I looked up the claims, they were just repeated on a bunch of pro-gun sites and I didn’t see them addressed on any anti-gun ones. However, I was able to track what seemed to be the site Pastor Wilson used (because is had… Read more »
Jonathan, I would direct you to Clayton Cramer as a vetted source for firearm information. His research has been granted sufficient accuracy for SCOTUS usage, and was very important in two major cases: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742. He is currently working on another research paper as we speak regarding “claims that guns increase murder”. Just a few of his initial numbers: “The correlation between U.S. murder rates and NICS background checks/100,000 people from 1999-2014 is -0.93. Interestingly gun sales per 100,000 Americans doubled from 0.033 in 1999 to 0.066… Read more »
I read some of the articles – interestingly, Clayton Cramer argues that fear of Blacks (and sometimes Mexicans) is the underlying basis of gun control laws, not only in Confederate history but even up through the assault weapons ban of the 1990s. That’s interesting because some people have tried to press the same fear of black and/or Mexican violence in these comment wars. Generally, though, his articles seem historical in nature and have little to know statistical analysis. His article on concealed carry, which includes that cherry-picked Florida number that Pastor Wilson quoted, just “analyzes” state-by-state CCP laws without any… Read more »
That paper is still in-progress: “He is currently working on another research paper…”
Okay. By the way, just like clockwork, Timothy used the fear of Black men to argue for the need for concealed carry AGAIN. “Black males commit the majority of gun crimes. Those three “states” cities within them are notoriously high-crime. Hawaii and Rhode-island do not have the large urban concentration of young black males that commit the overwhelming number of gun crimes. Let’s go further. I bet you dollars to donuts that the impetus for concealed carry is to defend oneself against men like that.” Note: #1: The lie to start off – Timothy’s claim that Black males commit the… Read more »
I wrote: The 93% faster and 500% faster describes an acceleration. I.e. the second derivative of the function. I.e. we have a “rate of change” vs a “change in the rate of change”. You wrote: No, Timothy, that’s obviously not what they’re claiming at all. No one would make such a ridiculous claim with those numbers – there’s absolutely no way to do that with those numbers and you would never analyze that data with any function that could come remotely close to doing what you want it to do anyway Who is they? Where is the raw data? Where… Read more »
gunfacts doesn’t have that claim because Pastor WIlson made it up. He changed the claim to be something very different from the original claim. But gunfacts.info does not have the original data for the percentages they used anyway – I had to figure those out myself. They just cite “Bureau of Justice Statistics” for their numbers. Their original claim is based on the fallacy of focusing on low-change years. For instance, imagine that two boys are tending to grow 0.5 inches a year. However, one year one boy only grows 0.05 inches, while the other boy grows 0.1 inches. The… Read more »
“Look, the second boy grew 200% faster that year than the first boy!”
ignoring that the growth in both cases was nearly zero, and at any rate
the first boy made up for it right away the next year.
Yes, that is a mathematical fact. It is not a lie.
But if you cited that year, ignored what happened the next year, and then claimed, “Look, boy 2 drinks coffee and grew 200% faster in that year than boy 1”, without noting that both boys barely grew at all that year and boy 1 more than made up for the it next year, you would be cherry-picking the data and playing with the numbers in such a way that claims of deception would definitely be warranted. And that only goes for the gunfacts claim. Pastor Wilson’s claim is different, and is NOT supported in any way. I’m done arguing statistics… Read more »
Jonathan becomes increasingly insolent toward Wilson, but I’m afraid his objections are the result of him going in a direction that Wilson wasn’t going in the first place. Jonathan seems to think that Wilson is out to prove that gun ownership is the sole cause of lowered violent crime. Wilson never offered such an argument. Wilson certainly believes there is an obvious distinction in the criminal’s mind between a well-armed victim, and a gun free zone, but Wilson nowhere discounts other factors involved in reduced violent crime rates. Wilson asks, “What happens to violent crime rates when concealed carry laws… Read more »
1. You ignore that Pastor Wilson’s Texas stat and “states that ban concealed carry” stat are still both 100% false, not merely misleading. You don’t appear to care about untruth if it’s on your own side. 2. Both Texas’s rape rate and Florida’s murder rate were both going down steeply for multiple years before CCP were introduced. So to show that they continued to go down somewhat after CCP was introduced and imply that proves something about CCP is nonsensical. 3. You are misrepresenting mine and Pastor Wilson’s disagreement. I never claimed that Pastor Wilson “is out to prove that… Read more »
Pastor Wilson,
This series of posts has been wonderful. Thank you for tackling the issue.
This is great stuff Pastor Wilson. Please keep it going. We (the Church) absolutely must be clear on our understanding of this principle and this helps people like me. Doubts create hesitation. We can’t afford to hesitate in the coming decades.
Read the original definition of genocide. It was coined by a man named Lempkin
Raphael Lemkin