Poll: Concealed Weapons among Plain Anabaptists?

[aussieandy]

On the ultra conservative end, weapons are never used for self-defence. Probably the only time to conceal weapons I've heard of that might be legit, is if you're walking through national parks with bears in them, etc. I fear wordly influences are contaminating those who are more exposed to wordly influences (the less traditional side of the spectrum so probably many on this forum). Whilst I personally fall under those coming from wordly influences to the ultra conservative viewpoint, I see now the merits of 'staying purist' which is why I feel the ultra conservative groups may be correct in keeping such tight restrictions on their congregations. Radical non-conformity means you don't carry weapons of such nature let alone have your spirit have ANY desire to use them.

[ragpicker]

I owe you breakfast next time you're in the area.

I'm not worried about who pays, but I'd love to do breakfast or coffee with you.

[Josh]

On the ultra conservative end, weapons are never used for self-defence. Probably the only time to conceal weapons I've heard of that might be legit, is if you're walking through national parks with bears in them, etc. I fear wordly influences are contaminating those who are more exposed to wordly influences (the less traditional side of the spectrum so probably many on this forum). Whilst I personally fall under those coming from wordly influences to the ultra conservative viewpoint, I see now the merits of 'staying purist' which is why I feel the ultra conservative groups may be correct in keeping such tight restrictions on their congregations. Radical non-conformity means you don't carry weapons of such nature let alone have your spirit have ANY desire to use them.

aussieandy,

That's an excellent explanation of the ultra-conservative viewpoint, and one that I wish the barely-conservatives here who are bemoaning the loss of nonresistance would pay a bit more attention to, instead of dismissing how foolish ultra-conservatives are because they wear white shirts to church and "you can't prove in the Bible that Christians have to do that".

[Ernie]

On the ultra conservative end, weapons are never used for self-defense.

I have not heard anyone in this thread say that any of the other more moderate or progressive groups are using weapons for self-defense, or whether they would use it in the "right" situation. So I am reserving judgment on the moderate and progressive-conservatives until I get answers to some of my questions in the OP.

As far as I know, nobody has answered these questions yet regarding those who carry guns to church in plain churches.

1. I assume that anyone who carries a concealed weapon to church would use it on people if they felt it was necessary? (my assumption may not be correct based on what I have read so far on this thread.
2. Might some carry it as a status symbol, or for personal identity, or for pride reasons?
3. Might some carry it all the time as part of getting dressed in the morning? (like some carry a pocket knife or pliers)
4. Are there people who would use a handgun only for firing a warning shot but would not actually use it on a person?
5. Would some shoot to kill people or only shoot to maim?

I don't believe that non-resistant Christians should be carrying concealed handguns to church. But motive and intent do factor in, I understand.

[steve-in-kville]

4. Are there people who would use a handgun only for firing a warning shot but would not actually use it on a person?
5. Would some shoot to kill people or only shoot to maim?

Not to derail the thread, but those two are unrealistic. Anyone who has had training will tell you that the weapon doesn't clear the holster unless you have intentions of pulling the trigger. And there is no "maiming." Training has you aim for center mass.

[ragpicker]

only shoot to maim?

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.

[Josh]

On the ultra conservative end, weapons are never used for self-defense.

I have not heard anyone in this thread say that any of the other more moderate or progressive groups are using weapons for self-defense, or whether they would use it in the "right" situation. So I am reserving judgment on the moderate and progressive-conservatives until I get answers to some of my questions in the OP.

Most people I know doing this are in theological-conservative (CMC), fundamental-conservative (BMA or ADC), moderate-conservative (Mid-West), and for just one only, an independent intermediate-conservative Mennonite church.

This entirely a thing that the moderate- and fundamental/progressive-conservatives own.

As far as I know, nobody has answered these questions yet regarding those who carry guns to church in plain churches.

1. I assume that anyone who carries a concealed weapon to church would use it on people if they felt it was necessary? (my assumption may not be correct based on what I have read so far on this thread.

There is another class of people who have a permit for legal reasons so they can do things (in Ohio) like have a firearm without having to have the ammunition stored in a container in a separate compartment of the car. (My opinion is nonresistant Christians shouldn't hold a "License to Carry a Concealed Handgun", even if it offers other, beneficial legal privileges.) I think such people are not planning to use their firearm on other people for self defence purposes.

2. Might some carry it as a status symbol, or for personal identity, or for pride reasons?

I'm not sure how a concealed firearm is a "status symbol". The whole point is it's concealed. Nobody knows about it.

There is certainly an identity of concealed carriers. They lobby for relevant laws, they conduct safety classes with one another, and they try to vote as a bloc. They also take efforts to ensure concealed carry stays both safe and legal.

3. Might some carry it all the time as part of getting dressed in the morning? (like some carry a pocket knife or pliers)

When I carried a gun, I did this. Most other people who engage in "everday carry" do too.

4. Are there people who would use a handgun only for firing a warning shot but would not actually use it on a person?

Shooting a warning shot is considering brandishing and is also illegal, and firing a gun into the air means a bullet ends up landing somewhere random - possibly killing someone. Someone a few years ago fired a gun into the air in Ohio and it landed on a buggy a few miles away and killed a 15 year old Amish girl.

5. Would some shoot to kill people or only shoot to maim?

[/quote]

This is illegal and considered the same thing as attempting to kill someone. People who don't know a lot about firearms or relevant laws often think you can "shoot to maim". Guns are lethal weapons.

Non-lethal weapons would include things like pepper spray or a Taser.

[Josh]

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.

[Ambassador]

4. Are there people who would use a handgun only for firing a warning shot but would not actually use it on a person?


When the 5 missionaries were killed in Ecuador, they fired warning shots into the air yet did not in any way harm anyone that I'm aware of.
Obviously this is so different than most of us would ever face and is a bunny trail, but is that ok for a non resistant Christian. I'm not sure I feel comfortable with it and yet I know enough to not be too judgmental in cases like that.

[steve-in-kville]

I wonder if we're not over thinking things here. Not that its a bad thing....