Firearms, theology, and fantasy

September 17, 2008 at 1:38 am (Ph-Government, Ph-Politics)

Posted by Bob Mattes

Lane asked Are Guns Inherently Against Life? in response to Lance Lewis’ post Pro Life and Pro Glock? Lane did an excellent job in his post, as did many of the commenters under it. My purpose here is to address specific statements by Lewis in his post in which I have particular insight. [As I got about half-way through this post, I realized that to answer all of Lewis’ nonsense would take too long. So, I’ve been somewhat selective in what I address. Commenters to Lane’s post have done a nice job with other issues.] Let’s start by laying out the players.

Lance Lewis is apparently a TE in the PCA and pastors Christ Liberation Fellowship in West Philadelphia. He says on his blog that he grew up in West Philly. I see nothing in his blog or website about experience in firearms or what he calls “non-lethal” technologies other than what he may have read in comic books. More on that “non-lethal” term later. Let me just say up front that comic books and Handgun Control, Inc., literature are poor bases for theology.

For those who don’t know about me, you can catch a glimpse on the About page of my blog. What’s not on that page is that I recently retired from the Air Force after 30 years of service. Although a pilot and engineer by training, I developed considerable expertise in small arms from pistols to 20mm sniper rifles to 87mm anti-tank rockets. I’ve been shooting since my teen years, and have taught scores of adults and teens to handle and shoot firearms safely. I’ve traveled around the world sampling small arms of all types with an eye to improving the capabilities available to our troops. I’ve also developed some expertise in “less-lethal” technologies across the engagement spectrum. When I write about these things, I write from a position of considerable knowledge and expertise. Oh, and I was also born and raised in West Philly, so I know the territory quite well. OK, let’s get busy.

Lewis repeats the mantra from Handgun Control, Inc., (now known by the euphemism Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) and the old Lynyrd Skynyrd song “Saturday Night Special” (odd places for a Reformed TE to get his theology):

The handguns manufactured and sold in this country today are designed and built for one purpose and one purpose only; namely the destruction of human life. Thus in my view they have no place and can serve no constructive purpose in a society that strives to value life.

A popular myth amongst firearm confiscation advocates. However, as Lane points out, large numbers of privately-owned pistols and revolvers are used for target/competitive shooting and/or hunting. Target shooting has been my primary use over the years. They are also used for self/home defense, although they aren’t the best tactical choice for most homes (think shotgun w/00 buckshot for home defense, depending on the architecture and layout of your home).

Some 38 states, including Pennsylvania, rightfully permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. In all but one, this requires a criminal background check and proper training. All related studies show that concealed firearm permit holders remain model citizens, not misusing their firearms. (That’s the definition of law-abiding, by the way.) Every time that a new state considers this public safety legislation, the Brady crowd howls that they’ll turn into wild west shootout zones with blood running in the streets. That has never happened in the over 20-year history of must-issue concealed carry, and it never will. What has happened is that violent crime has plummeted in every state that must issue permits to eligible citizens. That makes perfect sense because criminals don’t want to get shot. Studies estimate that citizens use firearms to defend themselves or their families around 2 million times a year. Here’s a website that catalogs some of these occurrences. Most incidents are never reported, though, because shots are never fired and people just want to get on with life. Often just the display of a firearm is enough to put a violent criminal to flight. This answers Lewis’ question:

If the issue is that owning a gun is necessary to protect my family then why stop at just having one gun in my home. Why shouldn’t I arm myself and family in case we’re attacked while out?

We should, Lance. Take personal responsibility for your family’s safety, eh? 1 Tim 5:8 speaks to the provision of physical needs. Surely their physical safety is not excluded.

I’d love to address TE Lewis’ exegesis, but he didn’t offer any. I doubt that he can find any real Biblical support for disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s nothing in the Bible that prohibits the owning or carrying of arms. Quite the contrary, a variety of weapons figure prominently in Biblical narratives with God’s blessing or even at his command. Jesus in Luke 22:36-38 says that we will need them:

36 He said to them, But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that [Acts 1:16]; See ch. 13:33; Matt. 1:22 this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: Cited from Isa. 53:12 And he was numbered with the transgressors. For [John 17:4; 19:30] what is written about me has its fulfillment. 38 And they said, Look, Lord, here are two [ver. 49] swords. And he said to them, [Deut. 3:26; Mark 14:41] It is enough. (ESV) [my bold]

I left the cross-references in the quote for reader study. This comes to a head a few verses later:

49 And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall we strike ver. 38 with the sword? 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus said, No more of this! And he touched his ear and healed him.

Notice that Jesus doesn’t rebuke them for owning or carrying a sword. He only tells them to let events play out to the cross (cf verse 37). Surely this was a teachable moment and if Jesus didn’t want his followers to have weapons, he could have forbidden it as he forbade other things. But he never did. Jesus implicitly acknowledges even the defense of property in Mt 12:29. Yet, Lewis’ supporter Richard Lindberg writes:

I know of no command in Scripture to own a gun (or any other weapon for that matter). It seems to me then that to own one is disobedience to God. I know of no passage that by “good and necessary consequence” would teach me that owning and using a gun is acceptable to God.

Again, no exegesis, just hand-waving assertions. I already showed one passage where Jesus tells his disciples to procure weapons for their defense, so not doing so would be disobedience to God. However, by Mr. Lindberg’s reasoning, we may not own cars, airplanes, iPods, computers, microwave ovens, electric shavers, telephones, toe-nail clippers, lawn mowers, slinkies, etc. Are any of those mentioned in Scripture or derivable by “good and necessary consequence”? This is the reasoning of some Mennonites who live just west of Philadelphia, and why they still use the horse and buggy. I wonder if Mr. Lindberg is that consistent in his reasoning. That’s not Reformed reasoning as Mr. Lindberg asserts. It is definitely Anabaptist, though.

May I introduce TE Lewis and Mr. Lindberg to the Old Testament? Saul killed his thousands and David his ten thousands (1 Sam 18:7). God commanded the elimination of large populations, indeed entire peoples. David did this and was called a man after God’s own heart. War and violence, personal protection, and death appear from Genesis to Revelation. God never forbids the taking of lives in a just cause, and often ordered it. What in God’s character has changed since then? (That’s a trick question.)

The funniest question that TE Lewis asks:

What rights do we enjoy as American citizens that are worth taking someone’s life over?

I am genuinely shocked that a man who ministers in the birthplace of our nation’s freedom can’t answer that question. Has he ever heard of or read the Declaration of Independence? It’s a great read and highly recommended. It explicitly answers Lewis’ question. I simply point the gentle reader to the document. As for TE Lewis, may I suggest that he take up residence in North Korea if rights mean so little to him?

This post is getting long and I need to finish two points. First, TE Lewis’ reading of the 2nd Amendment is fanciful in its incompleteness. There are a number of great references on the writing of the 2nd Amendment, so I won’t duplicate those here. If you’re short of time, just read the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In it, Justice Scalia expertly demolishes TE Lewis’ misunderstandings point by point.

I take particular umbrage at this absurd statement by Lewis:

First, imagine you had a handgun, even a very good one. Do you really think you could take down the average military attack helicopter with it? The second amendment regarding bearing arms was written at a time when the government didn’t have vastly superior weapons than the average citizen. That has changed. The U.S. military now has the weapons and skills to level whole neighborhoods in a matter of hours.

It’s obvious that Lewis knows nothing about the military. 1) We can wipe out whole neighborhoods in milliseconds without going nuclear; and 2) the U.S. military is populated by average citizens, not goose-stepping zombies ready to do the bidding of some despot. Get a grip, man. Some may join with a despot, hence ONE reason (of several) for the 2nd Amendment, but many will oppose them. Citizens must be ready to defend their freedoms by force of arms, but they won’t be alone. Maybe Lewis should change his movie selections.

Lewis:

And this at a time when we and the society knows of the availability of non-lethal weapons to replace the guns we felt so vital to our private security.

What about what Lewis calls “non-lethal” weapons? He lays out some great myths, many from Handgun Control, Inc. Reality, again, is quite different. First, the military no longer uses that term because every weapon that contacts a target has some finite probability of severely injuring or killing that target. So, the military has fallen back to a more correctly descriptive term: “less-lethal”. Having tested a variety of these capabilities, I can tell you that they are not suitable for personal defense. They are designed and mainly useful for dissuading rioters so that the large number of riot-control troops may break up crowds and detain those of interest. Only a few such weapons are available to civilians, so I’ll skip the rest.

Lewis:

For example, the Dept. of Homeland security is working with a company that produces a flashlight that projects a beam of light directly into the eyes causing temporary blindness, disorientation, nausea and even vomiting.

One word, Lance: power. Physics is just so inconvenient for liberals. To get that level of effect out of the laser dazzlers, it takes way more than a flashlight. These puppies are large. Think large rifles or vehicle mounted. DHS will never let civilians own them, either. They’d be great for causing airliners to crash on takeoff or final approach. And if you’re waiting for the Department of Homeland Security to save you, you best just surrender now.

The best medium-range, ballistic less-lethal weapons are all shotgun sized and most fire only one or a few shots. Their purpose is to temporarily dissuade an attacker so that they can be subdued. They do not incapacitate. If your wife used one of these to defend herself and the children, she’s have to be capable of overpowering her attacker while he was momentarily stunned, before he returned to the charge in a few seconds. Perhaps she could beat the attacker with the weapon while he is momentarily stunned. That would be more effective and might actually incapacitate him. Defend against home invasions with multiple attackers? No chance.

The company that’s developed tasers for police departments are now manufacturing and marketing a slightly scaled down model for private use. I’ve even seen a combination flashlight/taser that can be carried around and used to incapacitate a would be attacker.

What about Tasers and other electronic devices? They are extremely short range, civilian models (at this writing) only fire one set of contacts at a time, and are battery operated. They are effective for anywhere from a few seconds to 30 seconds or so. Their effectiveness depends largely on the size of the included battery, as well as the size of the target. Again, what do you do after the effect wears off? Their purpose is short-term incapacitation only to affect an arrest. You cannot run unless you leave the device behind–not a good idea. And they have killed a good number of folks. Less lethal, not non-lethal. (Do we still go to hell if we didn’t MEAN to kill them?) What about flashlight-sized ones? Cute idea, but remember that their effectiveness is directly related to their battery size. Small battery, very little effect. You also need to aim them accurately. Great marketing pitch, but no free lunch.

As for phasers, well, I like SciFi better than most, but phasers on stun just aren’t on the horizon. Sorry, Lance.

Which brings us back to handguns. They are the primary tool for the self-defense of individuals outside the home, and for many, also inside the home. They are effective at short ranges (shot placement is always important). They are easily handled safely and effectively by people of all body sizes, strengths, and most disabilities. They can equalize a physical contest between a large individual, or a number of attackers, and any victim regardless of size, sex, race, etc. (God created all men, Samuel Colt made them equal.)

The sad truth is that the people who would most likely meet with a bad end in a violent attack in TE Lewis’ happy little world are women and the disabled, and of course smaller men. Apparently TE Lewis would prefer the law of the jungle where only the large and strong survive. With proper training and safe handling, which is demonstrated by millions of Americans every single day, firearms are no more dangerous than any other tool in your house. Far less dangerous than your car. Evidence? Literally millions of law-abiding Americans own a variety of firearms and never hurt anyone with them. Astounding! The Brady bunch would have you believe that any handgun will shoot you from inside its drawer while you are sleeping at night.

A bit of personal insight. Effective use of firearms has saved me and/or a loved one several times in my life so far. I did not have to shoot, only produce a weapon without hesitation and with clear intent to fire if needed. That was enough to terminate all the attacks and put the attackers to flight. Had I not been armed, I would probably not be here to write this post and some close to me would have been raped and/or killed. This is not a hypothetical question for me. I take the protection of my loved ones seriously enough to actually do something about it. That’s a charge that God has given to all of us as heads of households.

We Reformed folks believe that we live in a fallen world. Sin is the primary issue, not firearms. Cain killed Able long before firearms came into being. Tens of millions were killed with swords, arrows, knives, rocks, etc., throughout history. In the civilian world, firearms are harmless until a criminal misuses them. The same is true of knives, hammers, chain saws, rocks, cars, bottles, etc. In Lance’s happy little world, we apparently don’t need firearms to equal the odds for victims. In the real, fallen world in which the rest of us live, violent criminals prey upon the weak. That’s basic in Reformed theology.

Lewis:

It’s time for the Christian community to promote the cause of life by laying down our weapons…

So, do we honor God and protect life by offering it freely to be taken by violent criminals as TE Lewis seems to assert? Or do we honor God’s precious gift of life by protecting our lives and those of our families–which God has entrusted to us–from those same violent criminals? Scripture says the latter. Scripture also says that sin is the problem, not anything made by man.

[End of technical material. Read on at your own risk.]

***Deleted in response to wise counsel***

Soli Deo Gloria!
Bob Mattes