An additional question is that of efficacy of laws. In a nation with hundreds of millions of guns, is it tenable for the government to think that greater gun control will result in lesser use. I don't think so. A determined and intelligent attacker, which many of the recent attackers were, would have found illegal means for firearms if they worked hard enough. Someone who can make their own bombs will get their own guns. I'd rather the government be in the position of allowing us to protect ourselves, which they failed to do in Colorado.

Jeremy,

Thanks for the kind comments regarding my previous arguments.

If you're not sure about the ethic of violence in immediate self defense, why are you sure that gun control should be initiated to stop violence? On a practical level, I think a wider ownership and carrying of guns in self defense is the answer, rather than the reverse. I either do now, or have at one time, owned the specific type of gun used in the Colorado massacre up to and including the exact type of Bushmaster AR-15 he used. My reason for having it was both for fun, and I recognized the fact that bad guys often don't come by themselves, and good guys can miss. An AR-15 is an excellent home defense weapon in cases of multiple attackers. It's small, but high velocity caliber can be fitted with ammo that will not penetrate multiple walls, making it a more just weapon to thy neighbor than many other guns. The Remington shotgun is another example. Multiple attackers could be stopped without reloading, yet with birdshot, rounds can be effective but not deadly to nearby neighbors.

Here's a question: is it immoral for the Colorado theater to post a legally binding notice that no one may bring in a legal concealed weapon when no one actually verifies the safety of the theatre? Recent reports say that at least one man rushed the attacker with his body and was gunned down. Isn't it immoral that he was stripped of the legal ability to retain protection of a more likely good outcome? I'm afraid that an overconcern that we not be violent strips our ability to be violent when necessary, as you seem to admit the possibility exists.

Yours Respectfully,

Shayne with a y.

Incidentally, did you know Martin Luther King applied for a concealed carry permit, but was rejected by police? That's right, Mr. Non-Violence had no problem protecting his person or his family. The reason he advocated non-violence was that it would work to create culture change in the main. He didn't think that in the trenches it was always the best course of action.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-an...

OK, fantastic, what about in self defense. Why are governmental uses of force and private ones so intrinsically different?

I agree that the turn the other cheek mantra is in relation to insult rather than violence. That's why I think the kingdom ethic for a general love to one's fellow man doesn't necessarily preclude violence in an immediate, life-threatening situation. The text of Jeremy's post is as follows.

"Amazingly, this teaching instructs that even though there are bad people in the world, bad people who desire to harm the disciples, their admitted badness is no justification for the disciple resisting them, whether actively or passively, violently or nonviolently, legally or illegally.4 Jesus tangibly illustrates this through four examples: a slap on a cheek, suing in law court for the disciples shirt, the Roman military machine enlisting someone to carry the equipment of a soldier, and a request for money or goods.5 In the face of these “violent” acts, Jesus tells the disciples to act counterculturally: a slap was a serious insult in which legal redress could be sought, though Jesus tells the disciples to accept the insult without responding and forego the financial benefit to which he is legally entitled; though someone demands his shirt, he is to give up his rightfully held coat, even at the expense of having nothing to wear; while a Roman prefect might require the legally permitted “mile” from a disciple, she is to accept the imposition and double it; and finally the disciple is to reflect the remarkable generosity of Deut. 15:7-11 to help a fellow Israelite in need.6 With each of these four instructional illustrations, Jesus requires His disciples to live and lean into them, ending with the instruction of enemy-love."

So again, I suggest Jeremy (if not you) is presenting an argument where no foe exists. Almost no one in the self defense world recommends violence based on the attacker being the bad guy who deserves it. Rather violence is the correct action when there isn't an alternative. Further, a firearm is the one thing that can stop a threat of almost any size right now. My firearms trainers would say it's not about killing an attacker. It's about stopping them right now. A shot with a .22 pistol will kill a man eventually, but it probably won't stop them right now. A shock with a stun gun isn't a reliable means either. This is why I think self defense with such a pistol is probably immoral depending on available recourse. Either a defender didn't need to shoot an attacker, or he meant to kill, not stop them. Unfortunately killing a person is a side effect of shooting them in a way that stops them right now. This means a more violent set of arms is needed. A shot with a 9mm pistol round or above in the heart, lungs, throat or head will stop the threat immediately. This is the kind of protection I would like to afford a widow, walking alone on the street. It is such a protection that I think is implied by consistant biblical demands to protect the weak. Removing the power of weak individuals to protect themselves via firearms through law is a really bad idea.

Also, do you really want to argue that violence has no place for us from the Bible? Really? I await Jeremy's further posts to see what he says on the matter, but remember our God is a God who protects his flock with a staff and pursues justice with a sword. It's really easy to show by example, especially in the Old Testament, that violence is the answer sometimes. It's God's own answer in certain circumstances when no other method will do.

Also this "coercive power" you say is out for Christians: isn't it coercive to hold down an attacker while he's trying to kill you, or rape your daughter? Good grief. Be consistent.

Jeremy uses the example of someone slapping you in the face as an example Christ used to talk about violence. If someone slapping you in the face is violence (intended as an insult), then restraining an attacker surely is. Again, I'm saying the statement Jeremy advances is sloppy about actual circumstances that warrant violence. Non-violence has it's place, but it's not absolute. Violence has it's place, but it's not absolute. Gun violence is one of the only ways to "stop a threat now," which is the goal of those who reasonably advocate an armed society. My armed self defense trainers, who included lawyers who have advocated gun rights before the US Supreme Court, advocated firearms to be used in only very limited cases.

It's not an extreme example, and your answer sidesteps the issue of whether violence is ever the right move. It's a very normal example for some people. I was walking home just Friday as a man was mugged by a youth not 200 feet from my front door. Violence is the norm in some places. I would daresay even MLK would have defended his family given the right circumstances. Nonviolence notwithstanding, the statement speaks in straw-man world: “this teaching instructs that even though there are bad people in the world, bad people who desire to harm the disciples, their admitted badness is no justification for the disciple resisting them, whether actively or passively, violently or nonviolently, legally or illegally.”

There clearly is just justification for standing up to to evil violently, and it has to do with immediacy of the threat, reasonable harm, and means you have at your disposal. No one who advocates armed resistance would argue that violence should be used simply because someone is a bad person. Isn't it more just to allow a little old lady, a paraplegic, or me to carry a gun, which will even the odds in a confrontation?

Clarification: my point is not that he should kill the man. He didn't mean to. The point is that sometimes voilent action is needed to rescue another. Would you rather the father reason with the man and non-violently ask to please stop raping his daughter? I'd hope you'd go straight to violence against immediate violence. Let's say you saw an old lady getting beaten up. I hope you wouldn't ask her to be non-violent and seek reconciliation. Stop the attack now, because she could be dead.

I'm happy to allow an individual to choose non-violence when the only person effected is themselves. But there is a Christian duty to violence when you need to protect your wife and children most of the time (there are exceptions for moments of persecution).

In fact, there are laws on the books in some states that say if you don't intervene, you are legally culpable.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-06-12/news/3...

If you were a Christian father, it would be your Christian duty to do something similar to this guy. It is occasionally loving to engage in violence. But circumstances like immediacy of the threat, the severity of probable harm, all play into the law of love, and how it's applied. Love to whom?