Poll: Concealed Weapons among Plain Anabaptists?

[JimFoxvog]

That's criminal and immoral.

BTW, I am unaware of any state in which it is legal to try to kill someone. That's generally considered to be murder.

The only exception would be capital punishment.

Killing people in self-defense is not legally considered murder. Morally, that's debatable.

[Josh]

Here is my new question... I'm sure some of you could help me revise this to be the more correct way of asking this in the gun world...

1. Approximately what percentage of Plain Anabaptists who are packing heat to church would use them on humans to neutralize a threat?

Ernie,

This is an excellent way to ask the question, although I would add “using deadly force” to the end of your question

[Josh]

You seem to misunderstand even the definition of suppressive fire and you don't understand the difference between trying to kill someone or trying to neutralize the threat.

Are you interested in understanding and correcting your misunderstandings or are you vested in them?

In Ken’s world, anyone who gets killed was murdered by a far-right white supremacist extremist. He claims Antifa has never killed anyone, and if someone does die in a violent riot or due to arson, it’s Trump’s fault.

I should add that this isn't personal to Ken. This seems to be a nearly universal view of people who are left of centre. They really do believe this (presumably because of media and political messaging to lead them in that direction) that 100% of violence like riots, looting, and arson is either white supremacists doing it, or else somehow is Trump's fault or shadowy white supremacist organisations who are somehow convincing lots and lots of other people to go loot, riot, and commit arson.

[ragpicker]

That's criminal and immoral.

BTW, I am unaware of any state in which it is legal to try to kill someone. That's generally considered to be murder.

The only exception would be capital punishment.

Killing people in self-defense is not legally considered murder. Morally, that's debatable.

A motive of killing people in self-defense is legally considered murder.

Motive matters.

[Josh]

I strongly question anyone who thinks self-defence is immoral. Whether or not is right for the Christian is a different matter; we are called to be as "lambs led to the slaughter", to "give to whomever asks of you", and to generally lay down our rights.

But the idea that self-defence is immoral and wrong is completely laughable. It means that criminals should have a monopoly on violence. The police can't be everywhere, particularly in the event of a riot. If you don't want people to defend themselves in the events of riots and looting in their town, you're asking for (a) innocent people to get killed and burnt to death when violent rioters set buildings on fire, (b) the police to have to be supplemented with military forces, and ultimately (c) a law-and-order candidate to get elected who will bring about a police state.

Currently, (c) looks very likely. Keep on burning down mattress stores and car dealerships, and antifa virtually ensures this will happen.

[Ken]

This whole discussion about "neutralizing threats" frankly sounds a whole lot like military jargon such as "suppressive fire" where machine guns, bombs, and artillery are used without the direct intent to kill, but rather to "degrade the performance of an enemy force below the level needed to fulfill its mission." and "shape the battlefield"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire

Like any profession, soldiers and law enforcement officers have a lot of jargon to describe what is ultimately using a lethal weapon to kill someone.

Call it whatever you want. The result is the same.

War isn't directly about killing either. It is about attaining tactical and strategic objectives. But a whole lot of people always end up dying.

You seem to misunderstand even the definition of suppressive fire and you don't understand the difference between trying to kill someone or trying to neutralize the threat.

Are you interested in understanding and correcting your misunderstandings or are you vested in them?

I understand the difference completely. I'm just pointing out that the end result is the same.

When the Russians took Berlin at the end of WW2 they used suppressive fire in the form of the largest artillery and rocket bombardment in history. And then they went block by block with tanks and artillery guns aimed horizontally, laying down suppressive fire in advance of their shock troops. And they conducted aerial bombardments with massive fleets of Allied bombers. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of German soldiers and civilians were killed and injured, yet very few deaths were the result of a Russian soldier lining up a German soldier in his sights and pulling the trigger. It was all "suppressive fire".

When the American Marines took Iwo Jima they laid down tremendous amounts of suppressive fire in the form of naval bombardments and later artillery. And by the end of the battle they were advancing across the island bunker by bunker laying down suppressive fire with tank mounted napalm flame throwers to "neutralize the threat" over 18,000 Japanese troops were killed and only about 200 taken prisoner. Most of them were killed using suppressing fire.

Is there some Anabaptist theological distinction between "suppressive fire to neutralize a threat" and "killing?" Because I'm not aware of it.

Both the military and police invent a tremendous amount of jargon to euphemize the use of deadly weapons. It is what it is. I understand why they do it. It makes it easier to rationalize. But it is still killing.

[Josh]

"Neutralise a threat" gets to motive, which is very different from "I want to kill that guy".

"Neutralise a threat" means that your home is being invaded and is someone is threatening to kill your family. The police arrive. The robbers are not obedient to police commands, but instead now threaten to shoot the police, too, unless they leave. The police observe the robbers are armed.

The police will neutralise the threat. The police do not wake up each day, intending to try to kill some guy. To get killed by a cop, you have to first present a threat that puts other people in fear for their lives.

[Ken]

"Neutralise a threat" gets to motive, which is very different from "I want to kill that guy".

"Neutralise a threat" means that your home is being invaded and is someone is threatening to kill your family. The police arrive. The robbers are not obedient to police commands, but instead now threaten to shoot the police, too, unless they leave. The police observe the robbers are armed.

The police will neutralise the threat. The police do not wake up each day, intending to try to kill some guy. To get killed by a cop, you have to first present a threat that puts other people in fear for their lives.

Sure. But you are one of the most doctrinaire biblical literalists who posts here. Can you show us anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus provides a "threat neutralization" exception to the biblical prohibition on killing?

I know the Catholics and many other protestant denominations have built up a "just war" theology in support of war and the use of force. I wasn't aware it was becoming an Anabaptist thing as well. You guys like to talk about a "slippery slope" when it comes to things like LGBT rights. And women in leadership. And a bunch of other topics. But wow, this seems like a much larger one that is much more fundamental to Anabaptist identity than any of those others.

[Josh]

Sure. But you are one of the most doctrinaire biblical literalists who posts here. Can you show us anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus provides a "threat neutralization" exception to the biblical prohibition on killing?

I think followers of Christ shouldn't follow the ways of the world, and I would not take action to "neutralise a threat" if it involved deadly force.

However, I don't think I should project my morals and values onto people who are not followers of Christ. If they don't have the hope of eternal life that I have, how can I expect them not to defend their lives?

More specifically, no reasonable person can claim that self defence is somehow immoral. It is an inherent human right. But as Christians I believe we are called to often lay down our rights. Since we have a hope of eternal life, we can lay down our right to life.

I know the Catholics and many other protestant denominations have built up a "just war" theology in support of war and the use of force. I wasn't aware it was becoming an Anabaptist thing as well. You guys like to talk about a "slippery slope" when it comes to things like LGBT rights. And women in leadership. And a bunch of other topics. But wow, this seems like a much larger one that is much more fundamental to Anabaptist identity than any of those others.

I think you need to take a step back and listen to what I actually say.

You seem very eager to project some kind of caricature onto me. I have said repeatedly I think followers of Christ need to live by a different standard, lay down our rights, and not carry arms. That doesn't mean I think nobody should carry arms, because that is a ridiculous stance to take. I just think Christians shouldn't do so.

[JimFoxvog]

I have said repeatedly I think followers of Christ need to live by a different standard, lay down our rights, and not carry arms. That doesn't mean I think nobody should carry arms, because that is a ridiculous stance to take. I just think Christians shouldn't do so.

Do you believe that everyone is called to become a follower of Christ? I do. I think part of repentance is turning away from our acceptance of killing or "neutralizing a threat".