• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

How to be Christlike: Why I'm a Violent, Gun Toting Prepper

The Revolting Man

Moderator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
So some of you know that I am very interested in things likes guns, prepping, the Militia and pretty comfortable with the idea of the practical application thereof.

Some of this stems from my upbringing and formative years spend as on of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children. Some of it come from being a little silly and high strung, some of it comes from Torah observance and lot of it comes from having children and grandchildren in a world where increasingly everyone seems to want to drive trucks through crowds of Christmas shoppers or shoot up their political opponents. Don't hate me 'cause I'm a playa, hate the game.

So the discussion started to come up in another thread about how that fits in to a Christian worldview. I quickly decided to move the conversation to another thread rather than derail @steve and his discussion of end times matters (although there is a clear connection between the two topics).

The initial question concerns Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter pulled out a sword and hacked the ear off of somebody. Jesus defused the situation, healed the ear (can you believer the guy still arrested Him after that?) and made a statement about using a sword.

I am under the impression that Jesus was more than okay with weapons carry, and thus by implication weapons use in certain situations, but it opens an entire debate about the proper attitude of Christians in these matters. Does faith require us to not defend ourselves (turn the other cheek)? To not store food? Are we allowed to be proactive and dynamic? No one would suggest we're to be weak and passive but where is the line?

Obviously I am being a little lazy by not taking a stand and presenting my whole case up front. But I knew if I waited until I had the whole think laid out and ready to go that it would never happen. I'm just going to start the conversation and see where we go.
 
Just a quick note.
As I believe @Cap said, context.
In that particular situation, resistance was truly futile and if they went the sword route they were all going to die.

Side note: consider the cutting off of the ear, this isn’t surgery, he was attacking the guy with a sword. My guess is that he hit the skull on the side as the Roman moved and peeled the side of his head off, including the ear. The guy’s shoulder is probably where the sword stopped.
Yeshua put a mess back together, he didn’t just stick an ear back on.
 
One thing I will say at this point is that I support the second amendment. I do believe this country is safer because there are those that are passionate about this type of protection. People operate in different levels of faith, and I'm glad that there are those that can stand up to them in that arena. (Not questioning anyone's faith here, just a statement about the way the secular world is) I don't have any desire to carry a gun. I do believe in faith over force. But I also believe in governments over lawlessness. God has different methods of discipline to manage this world, and I'm not going to get in the way of that.

But, I do believe there is s higher purpose and since the Son of God could have called down a legion of angels to his defense, why can't we?
 
Prepping. i.e. food stores, guns, medical supplies, and homestead. These are some of the items and ideas I have been contemplating and working on for over a decade. @Cap mentions faith and that is very important. I was given an idea/vision a few years ago that during a period of really bad times in the future, the hoards of those looking to take what they want would go down the road in front of my house, scavenging and pillaging, and they would not even see it or us. But on the other hand, in the past, our Creator has given His people warning that certain things would happen and there is a great deal of warnings of things to come. I do carry a gun, and have for years. My number one priority is to see my family safe and secure, no matter the cost to me.
 
I believe Jesus is fine with weapons carry. 100% is acceptable based on Luke 22:36.

However if only a fraction of people own swords (roughly 1/5) , that is enough to fulfill the commandment based on Luke 22:38.

This is the part where Peter (clearly a second amendment advocate)

However when it comes to using said swords... Peter was told to put away the very sword he was commanded to bring. Even though he was defending the literal Son of God from an unlawful arrest.

Peter had full knowledge that his Master had done no wrong, and had full knowledge that His Master was expecting an attempt against His life. When the authorities come to cart you away under pretense of enforcing law when they really are just going to execute you for your beliefs and influence: That is more or less the definition of the reason why my gun-happy friends tell me they need guns. And yet it is under these circumstances where Jesus preferred to heal his attacker, alienate his greatest defender, and advocate against violence while knowingly giving himself over to be killed and leaving those who depended upon him to be hurt, lost, and confused. And the servant is not above the master.

Taking the two commands together (buy a sword) (don't choose the sword) I think is just one of those paradoxes that only seem to contradict but taken together tells me something specific.

Something I learned in school is that the moral decisions of the powerless don't mean anything. If I'm flattened because I chose not to defend myself or I'm flattened because I froze up out of fear is a distinction too fine for the observer. One can't be a martyr (witness) if no-one can understand my testimony. And few are the times when one has the ability to say everything on one's mind when it's time to testify with blood. Even Stephen was cut off before he got to the punchline.

To me the point of having the sword is so that it can be known that "Nobody takes my life, but I lay it down of my own accord". Only when you can mount a credible defense does it become significant when you choose not to.

*-*-

Also we are told that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, and that we do not war against flesh and blood. And that we are to love our enemies. And that we are told to turn the other cheek.And that we are not to resist an evil person.

As much as I love my country and my family. (And as prone to violence as I have been) I have never been able to reconcile loving my enemy with "self-defense". Especially since the brand of self defense I was taught almost always involves groin destruction.
(And my Pop would be quick to point out that it's bad practice to do anything but utterly hate your enemy). No sympathy no hesitation etc etc.

I'm forced to consider that there is a dual meaning to being armed. Just like bread is a body and yeast is sin and birds are demons and dogs are gentiles, the sword is the word of God.

*-*-

Also when it comes to the armed or disarmed argument there are lots of conspicuous absences. Rarely does anybody have to sell a cloak to arm themselves, because they never previously responded to the command to do the thing where they went around and preached the kingdom and let God take care of their protection and food.

Also we find that Peter armed himself when Jesus said so, and stopped using the sword when Jesus said so. If Peter went around armed after this point, we are not told. I find it doubtful that whether or not Peter was armed after this point, that he ever pulled it out again.

Also, I find it dissonant that the Bride of Christ thinks it's her business to learn violence. The tastes of many people find a girl with a gun sexy, and that's fine. But those who are Jesus's witnesses are not those who made their enemies eat hot lead, but those who were taken by force and made to give up their lives. "Don't tread on me" is the rallying cry of the serpent. It is better to identify with the bruised heel.
 
I also submit that there are other 'weapons' that can be used, skill, knowledge, experience, wisdom, street smarts, situation awareness.

One doesn't necessarily need a gun to defend ones home.

Matthew 10:16
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
 
I
I was given an idea/vision a few years ago that during a period of really bad times in the future, the hoards of those looking to take what they want would go down the road in front of my house, scavenging and pillaging, and they would not even see it or us.

Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, John Hagee, and the like have done a tremendous effort in scaring most Christian.

But by all means, one should prepare for the future they see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a lot to unpack in @Slumberfreeze 's statement so let's frame the immediate topic even though we all know it's about to go sideways into a ditch in 3..2..1..

Let's restrict ourselves to the subject of weapons ownership and carry for the moment since that seems to be catching everyone's interest and the story of Joseph pretty much makes the food storage debate silly.

So we are starting with the Words of Jesus in Luke 22 and Matthew 26. If we rely solely on Luke's account this would be a very short discussion. In Luke Jesus tells the disciple that after He is gone they are to buy swords. Two of the bootlickers volunteer that they already have swords and I'm sure all of the rest resolved then and there to get them. Jesus affirms the sword carriers and every repairs to the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus is arrested, the disciples ask if they should fight. Peter fights and Jesus stops him but pretty noncommittally if you ask me. Weapons carry and even use seem to be viewed very positively by Jesus.

Matthew does throw us a curve though. Matthew's account adds in a now very famous phrase that Jesus speaks to Peter, "Put your sword back into it's place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." This is a hard statement to reconcile with His earlier command, and it was delivered like a direct command. Any of the disciples who sold their cloak to buy a sword could honestly say that Jesus straight up commanded them to do it. It almost seems like if you don't own a sword you might be in violation of one of Jesus's last teachings. So how do we reconcile this? For me I look to the command first. Obedience always comes first. I can understand later. The command is to carry a sword (obviously I substitute gun for sword. It's not completely unwarranted by the text but I'm not going to argue it here, at least not yet). But what do we do with this phrase in Matthew about dying by the sword. It's not academic for me either. I'm a Marine. I took up the sword. So what should I do with this verse?

For what it's worth, which doesn't seem like much, here is the link to Wikipedia's take on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your_cloak_and_buy_a_sword
 
This is an issue that I see both sides of and respect Christians on both sides. I understand and support the weaponized Christians, but I also understand and respect the non-violent ones like the Amish, etc.
 
Was Yeshua’s statement in Mathew a general principle, or was it simply a directive for that particular situation?
I believe that he was saying, “Stop, guys! If we try to fight in this situation we will all die!”
 
There is a lot to unpack in @Slumberfreeze 's statement so let's frame the immediate topic even though we all know it's about to go sideways into a ditch in 3..2..1..

Let's restrict ourselves to the subject of weapons ownership and carry for the moment since that seems to be catching everyone's interest and the story of Joseph pretty much makes the food storage debate silly.

So we are starting with the Words of Jesus in Luke 22 and Matthew 26. If we rely solely on Luke's account this would be a very short discussion. In Luke Jesus tells the disciple that after He is gone they are to buy swords. Two of the bootlickers volunteer that they already have swords and I'm sure all of the rest resolved then and there to get them. Jesus affirms the sword carriers and every repairs to the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus is arrested, the disciples ask if they should fight. Peter fights and Jesus stops him but pretty noncommittally if you ask me. Weapons carry and even use seem to be viewed very positively by Jesus.

Matthew does throw us a curve though. Matthew's account adds in a now very famous phrase that Jesus speaks to Peter, "Put your sword back into it's place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." This is a hard statement to reconcile with His earlier command, and it was delivered like a direct command. Any of the disciples who sold their cloak to buy a sword could honestly say that Jesus straight up commanded them to do it. It almost seems like if you don't own a sword you might be in violation of one of Jesus's last teachings. So how do we reconcile this? For me I look to the command first. Obedience always comes first. I can understand later. The command is to carry a sword (obviously I substitute gun for sword. It's not completely unwarranted by the text but I'm not going to argue it here, at least not yet). But what do we do with this phrase in Matthew about dying by the sword. It's not academic for me either. I'm a Marine. I took up the sword. So what should I do with this verse?

For what it's worth, which doesn't seem like much, here is the link to Wikipedia's take on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your_cloak_and_buy_a_sword

I believe Wikipedia got this one right. Since Matthew's account easily follows the line of non violence, I can also see the same in Luke.


31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ b ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.



The Son of God is trying to explain how dire the situation is, that they have reached a point of no return, He was going to be taken from them and all hell was getting ready to break lose against them, and He was trying to explain it all in spiritual terms that were set forth from the beginning. He made a statement in regards to faith in the provisions that were provided for them in the past. But now their faith is going to be tested, the sword part was related to the prophecies concerning the current situation they were in, He was getting ready to be ‘numbered with the transgressors’. But, the disciples got carried away with the sword part and the Son of God eventually said, knock it off you idiots, this is serious. (ok, maybe He didn't say, idiots. But, He did probably say, Stop horsing around, I'm sure.)



47While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”

49When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

52Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.”



If the Son of God really wanted to them to fight against a mob that HAD swords and clubs, He surely left them defenseless by telling them that two were enough if He knew perfectly well that TWO were not enough for what was about to happen. I believe that if He had not healed the soldiers ear, they would have been massacred right there on the spot. As a military man, would you really follow a leader who would put your life in jeopardy as He did, unless there was a higher purpose?

We live in a cruel world and there are many physical things we can use to protect ourselves, because building enough faith to trust God enough for us to walk on water takes a life time. We are able use these 'tools' until such time as we don't need them anymore. It is the journey that we each must take. But in the end,

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Believing that He exists seems to be the easy part for Christians, it's the rewards part that we get hung up on, I think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question over when to use the sword is a difficult one. I read this to mean that clearly the sword is allowed in some circumstances, while being discouraged in others. But the line is difficult. We also have the issue of personal protection vs military service (which are simply both different points in the same continuum, it just depends how many people are standing with you wearing swords) - are both allowed/encouraged? Only one? Or neither?

When I look at my own family history, I have great respect for those members of my family who fought in WWI, I hold them in higher esteem than all others.

Nevertheless, from a wider geopolitical perspective, with the benefit of hindsight, I think "what would have happened if the British Empire and America had not joined in at all?". On the Western Front, secular France would have been rapidly defeated by then-Christian Germany, in a matter of weeks, and years of trench warfare and bloodshed would never have occurred. Millions of lives would have been spared. Germany's Christians would have had a greater empire to evangelise within (the Church has always used empires as a tool to move around the world with the Gospel), and France may have even improved as a result. With a strong Germany, Hitler would probably never have emerged, and WWII would not have occurred. Of course that's all speculative, and I'm ignoring the vitally important yet very complex Middle-Eastern and Eastern fronts for simplicity, but I'm just illustrating a point.

From an individual perspective, every man who volunteered to fight in WWI did so because he truly believed he was defending the freedom and safety of his own family and nation. He truly believed that to take up the sword was justified. And he put in unbelievable amounts of work under the most difficult and dangerous of circumstances in order to live this out.

Nevertheless, they may have thought this purely due to the propaganda of the day that made them accept a worldview that was carefully designed to give them emotional reasons to sign up and die, simply for the furtherance of an agenda held by the ruling class of the day, with no benefit to either the Church or individuals.

So when we evaluate this for ourselves, how do we know when we should take up the sword, and when we should desist? I see pacifism as the general theme of Christ's teaching, but with clear allowance for self-defence as outlined by others above. Nevertheless it's very difficult to see when the benefits of self-defence outweigh the benefits of pacifism.

At a personal level, if there's a raving lunatic running at your kids with a knife, the benefit of self-defence is obvious.
If there's a big bloke grabbing your kids and shoving them in his car to abduct them, the benefit of self-defence is still reasonably clear.
But if that same big bloke is wearing a police uniform and is acting on the orders of CPS or some such outfit, the identical self-defence would simply sentence your kids to permanent exile from you (through your long imprisonment or death). And that's often a more likely situation than the others.

The enemies of the Church tend to be government authorities - just as they were for Yeshua. Fighting against them on an individual or community basis is usually futile and will generally make the situation worse, as He indicated in the incident at His arrest. This only changes if you've mustered a large enough army - and then we're getting back into the geopolitical sphere rather than the level of personal self-defence, and bringing in all the even greater disadvantages of large-scale war that are obvious whenever you turn on the news.

So I see the need of having the ability to defend your family - but given the primary threat to the Church usually comes not from individual criminals but from governments, I can see few circumstances where that might actually be profitable short of full-blown civil war. And if it got to that stage the potential damage is so great that the benefit is even more questionable.

It's a tricky one. I can agree with both sides but can't see where best to apply which approach.
 
Last edited:
I thought I'd share this email from my friend Charl. He speaks internationally on the subject and has been able to lead to Christ the leader of the attackers of the church massacre on a Sunday morning which he attended. His book is fascinating and his testimony of how God has used his efforts to help Christians re-think their responsibilities on this topic. I've got another email that actually pictures the aftermath of what that church looked like following the congregation being sprayed with machine gun fire. This took place in South Africa where Charl diligently still labors today among the most squalid of living conditions to reach the children and families.

Charl van Wyk <charl@charlvanwyk.info>
To:Bea
Feb 2 at 3:17 AM
Charl's Mission News
mail

In Touch Mission International,
PO Box 7575, Tempe, AZ 85281
Email: charl@charlvanwyk.info
Web: http://www.charlvanwyk.info
mail
www.facebook.com/authorcharlvanwyk

Donations and Support

Sneak peek at 'Shooting Back Again'

mail


I’m busy working on a sequel to my book ‘Shooting Back’; I thought you might enjoy a sneak peek at ‘Shooting Back Again’:

“Hand me your gun… your wallet… and your cellphone,” said a voice behind me.

It was fifteen years after the St. James Massacre and I was once again called upon to use my firearm in a dangerous situation.

I was at the Reclaiming Africa for Christ Biblical World View Summit near Cape Town with Frontline Fellowship, the mission organization I was working with at the time. The conference in Mizpah was held during June/July 2008. It featured more than a dozen lecturers and numerous films and outreaches.

I had invited a former APLA (Azanian People’s Liberation Army) terrorist to the summit. Sipho had been a Unit Commander in the organization and told me he had come to faith in Christ.

At that time, I was host of a radio show called Salt and Light on Radio Tygerberg in Cape Town. We planned to do a radio show with one of our guest speakers at the summit, Philip Stott, a Creation Scientist.

When Sipho heard I was going into town in the mission pickup truck, he approached me. “I need to get back to the township urgently,” he said.

I was surprised. He was supposed to stay at the summit for the entire time.

“I have a meeting with the PAC leaders,” he insisted. “They are meeting now. They owe me some money and I need to discuss it with them.”

The Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (once known as the Pan Africanist Congress, abbreviated as the PAC) is a South African Black Nationalist movement that is now a political party. It was founded by an Africanist group, led by Robert Sobukwe, which had broken away from the African National Congress (ANC).

“Please give me a ride into town and drop me off at Khayelitsha,” he said. This is a partially informal township 20 miles (30 km) south-east of Cape Town, South Africa

I agreed, and he jumped into the back of the small pickup truck. It was a single cab with a cap (canopy) over the truck bed. We call the small pickup, a 'bakkie' in South Africa. The Creation Scientist joined me in the front and we set off.

Obviously, it was impossible to communicate with someone in the back of the vehicle so before we left, we discussed exactly where Sipho was to be dropped off when we got to Khayelitsha. I told him I wanted to drop him off at the local sports center and then continue from there to the radio station to do the interview. He was happy with that.

As we turned off the National road, Sipho suddenly started shouting out the side window of the truck cap.

“Do a U-turn,” he screamed, pointing. “Do a U-turn now, and let me off over there!”

I was completely taken aback. It was only a few hundred yards from the place we originally agreed on. It wasn’t as if he had to walk a few miles. He needed just to cross the road.

I did the U-turn and stopped for him to jump out of the truck. I also got out and helped to retrieve his bags from the back of the vehicle.

Suddenly, I was aware of someone behind me.

"Hand me your gun... your wallet... and your cellphone," he said.

I spun round. Two men stood there. One of them pointed a pistol in my direction. Subconsciously, I noticed it was not pointed directly at me. I thought afterwards he may have done that to protect himself if he was caught by the police. He could say it went off by accident and he didn’t actually point the weapon at me.

At the same time, I knew if I made any move, he would shoot me immediately.

They body-searched me and found my cellphone, identification document, and my wallet. They also discovered foreign passports belonging to summit participants. I had their passports with me as I had to get them sanctioned by the prison services so they could minister to the inmates later.

They searched me repeatedly for weapons.

“Give us your gun,” they shouted.

“I don’t have a gun,” I lied.

They were convinced I must have one on me and kept searching. Finally, they gave up. Fortunately, they never found the weapon in my ankle holster.

They left the former APLA Unit Commander alone, other than asking for his cellphone. Instead they went straight to the elderly Creation Scientist and harassed him.

“When the door opened,” Philip said later, “I hardly noticed. It was almost as if it had happened in a dream.”

“Give me your cellphone. Now!” said one of the men looking straight at Philip. He later described him as a reasonably tidily dressed man.

“He was not quite as dark as most Africans – probably some racial mixture – and his English was surprisingly good,” Philip said. “Somehow I seemed to be in a trance and couldn’t focus on him or pay attention to what he was saying. My attention was fixed on the gun in his hand – it was in sharp focus and the barrel was pointing at my stomach.”

The conversation went something like this.

“Give me your cell phone.”

“I haven’t got a cell phone with me.”

“Give me your money.”

“I didn’t bring any money with me.”

“Give me your gun.”

“I haven’t got a gun.”

The thug didn’t believe him. He started again on his cycle of demands, searching Philip for whatever he could find.

“Why haven’t you given us your cell phone?” a second thug demanded. He also had a gun.

“I hardly caught a glimpse of it,” Philip said, “before it was pressed against my side. The first thug stopped groping my clothes and the second took over demanding my money, my gun, and my cell phone. I explained once again I just don’t have what they’re asking for. Thug number two seemed to lose patience as the first thug attempted to remove my camera from my jacket. The long barrel of his pistol swung from my stomach to my knees and back again.”

“Give me your cellphone!” Thug number two demanded angrily as he jabbed his gun into Philip’s ribs.

“I felt as though I was in a dream,” recalled Philip. “Could this really be happening? What could I do? I was almost paralyzed as I gestured helplessly with my empty hands.”

Finally, they left him alone and began searching the truck thoroughly, opening the glove box to have a closer look. One of them was standing with his gun facing towards Philip, while the other looked for guns. They were adamant we had a gun and threatened to shoot us if they could not find it.

While their attention was diverted, it gave me the opportunity to pull out my firearm. Crouching down and keeping my head below the bonnet (hood) of the car, I moved around the vehicle and past the driver’s side window on the right with my gun clasped in both hands.

Sipho heard me cock my firearm and took cover on my side of the vehicle. I moved to the front of the pickup and shouted at the thugs. For a split second they were distracted, and I opened fire with my 9mm Heckler and Koch pistol.

Donations and Support
Subscribe
Copyright © 2017 Charl van Wyk, All rights reserved.


Our mailing address is:
PO Box 3887
Durbanville, 7551
South Africa
 
"Hand me your gun... your wallet... and your cellphone," he said.

“I don’t have a gun,” I lied.

They were convinced I must have one on me and kept searching. Finally, they gave up.

Fortunately, they never found the weapon in my ankle holster.

"for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

Consider the quantum possibility of the reality we create around us. What if, he didn't have a gun? Maybe he created the reality of the attack just because he had the gun in the first place to protect himself FROM such an attack, therefore creating his reality.

Quantum theory says that the things we see are a result of the measurements we use to see those things. Because one sees the world as a threat needing a gun to protect themselves could very well be the thing that creates the need for the gun in the first place.
 
Consider the quantum possibility of the reality we create around us. What if, he didn't have a gun? Maybe he created the reality of the attack just because he had the gun in the first place to protect himself FROM such an attack, therefore creating his reality.

This is like saying that it was Charls’ fault that Muslim terrorists invaded their sanctuary on a Sunday morning with grenades and AK 47s killing many because he carried a snub nose 38 special to church.

If this were true, when he fired a couple of rounds at them, it should have resulted in increased bloodshed. The more rounds fired = more rounds must continue to be fired. Instead the reverse was true. One man armed with a 38 special (and 5 rounds) resisted and ran off 5 heavily armed terrorists whose stated goal was a massacre.

The quantum “theory “ above is the most retarded thing I’ve ever heard about this subject.
 
Consider the quantum possibility of the reality we create around us. What if, he didn't have a gun? Maybe he created the reality of the attack just because he had the gun in the first place to protect himself FROM such an attack, therefore creating his reality.

Quantum theory says that the things we see are a result of the measurements we use to see those things. Because one sees the world as a threat needing a gun to protect themselves could very well be the thing that creates the need for the gun in the first place.
On an individual basis, I agree with @Verifyveritas76 that that is completely ridiculous.

However, on a society basis, it can have a lot of truth. If you compare New Zealand and the USA for instance, the overall violent crime rate is quite similar. However gun crime is a far higher proportion of that in the USA. Because guns are more accessible, they are more likely to be the tool of choice for a criminal. In New Zealand, they're more likely to be violent with something other than a gun. This also means that in the USA the need of a gun for personal self defence is far clearer, while in New Zealand it's generally unnecessary - even our police aren't armed (they keep guns in a lock box in the car if needed, but are unarmed by default because in most cases it means that the situations they are in are less likely to spiral out of control).

But that's not something that is changed by one individual carrying or not carrying a gun. Once you're in a society where gun violence is likely, carrying a gun is prudent to reduce gun violence. If you're not in such a society, it may be more prudent not to carry one. Do what is needed in the society around you, don't think that just by your existence following a different paradigm you will magically change society everywhere you go.
 
I realized I was going to deep in this discussion for some here. Disregard.
 
This is like saying that it was Charls’ fault that Muslim terrorists invaded their sanctuary on a Sunday morning with grenades and AK 47s killing many because he carried a snub nose 38 special to church.

If this were true, when he fired a couple of rounds at them, it should have resulted in increased bloodshed. The more rounds fired = more rounds must continue to be fired. Instead the reverse was true. One man armed with a 38 special (and 5 rounds) resisted and ran off 5 heavily armed terrorists whose stated goal was a massacre.

The quantum “theory “ above is the most retarded thing I’ve ever heard about this subject.

I hope you are not calling me retarded?

Sorry if my comments offended you as I assume after rereading @rejoicinghandmaid s post that this individual was a friend of hers and therefore a friend of yours.

I was not at all trying to be impersonal and realize that violence, any kind of violence, reaches deep into those personally involved. My comments are more geared to a higher realm.

However, I wonder were we would be if the martyrs of old would have been packing in their attempts to witness for Christ.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top