Gun owners - 3rd party defense of JW?

by asleif_dufansdottir 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  asleif_dufansdottir

  My CCW instructor was not very encouraging about 3rd party defense by a CCW holder. He said that it was not only risky because too often you (the CCW holder) don't know the whole story and you could make a big mistake. In addition, there's the risk that you could act in defense of a stranger, only to find out the stranger is horrified by you having a gun, and could say something to the cops that screws you over (even if you've acted within the bounds of the law).

  Given that the society's published attitude about guns as defense, is that Christians "reject magic and weapons as tools of protection," how willing would you be to act in defense of a JW that a) you didn't know [you saw them being attacked on the street] or b) you did know?
• 

  earthtone

  Whats a CCW instructor?
• 

  SixofNine

  Slightly o/t, but I did hear something fascinating today. When the 2nd amendment was being drawn up, the draft of it included language that made provisions for religious objection... in other words, there where enough people back then who believed owning weapons was wrong according to their spiritual beliefs, that they wanted to make sure the amendment did not try and force guns on concientious objectors.
• 

  DannyBloem

  I do not really get your story,

  but I would not thread a witness differently then any other person, when having to defend him/her.
  Being a witness does not make someone not woth resquing or inferior. Just having a difference in opinion on somethings....

  I would not easily defend someone I do not know if there would be much risk involved. And then of course I am not a gun owner (I am not a criminal or a hunter)

  Danny
• 

  justsomedude

  I've spent a lot of time thinking on this one as Im a CCW holder myself. Realistically the best thing you can do in a situation where you dont know the whole story is to be a good citizen and just keep your eyes and ears open so you can relate the situation to the police.

  In practice, I dont know how I would respond since every situation has its variables that must be considered. I can tell you this however, I would never hesitate to act in the event that the third party was a family member or loved one. In that case, their safety out weighs the potential legal problems.

  JSD
• 

  justsomedude

  Whats a CCW instructor?

  BTW, CCW is Carry Concealed Weapon.
• 

  Wordly Andre

  I don't have a CCW but I do have several guns at home for defense only, I would not hesitate to drop a hammer on some idiot breaking into my house, now if I was at home and lived next door to a JW, it would have to depend on the situation of course but I would have to say it would take a lot for me to get involved and break out my guns, just thinking of all the head ache afterwards with civil actions against you, and even if it was helping someone else there could be possibility of criminal case against you by over zealous police. I think it would have to be something like children or elderly were in a life or death struggle, sounds mean but I don’t want to loose all I have for someone who considers me dead already.
• 

  asleif_dufansdottir

  Sorry. I figured my "target audience" for the question would know...I didn't think about the rest of y'all ;)

  CCW is a permit to carry a concealed weapon (it's known by different acronyms in different US states). Depending on the state, you need a permit to carry things like knives in addition to handguns.

  In my state, I can legally act in defense of a third party. If, for instance, a family member, friend or complete stranger is being attacked by a group or a mugger with a weapon or whatever, I am legally in the clear if I use my concealed weapon in their defense. If the situation is life threatening (there are guidelines for this), I can act in another's defense just as I can act in defense of my own life.

  First of all, you have to know that the 'scruffy attacker' is not, for instance, an undercover cop, or that the 'victim' is actually a victim. This is why you're usually better of just being a good witness and not intervening.

  Once that's covered, if you actually do act (or, for that matter, if they are a witness[used here in the non-JW sense] to you acting in your *own* defense), it is possible that, once the sh*t has hit the fan and they're not in danger anymore (the bad guy runs off after he sees your gun or is on the ground bleeding or whatever), the victim that you've just saved (or the witness who saw you act in your own defense) can turn around and freak out on you for drawing, or even having, a gun. Even if you were completely justified, according to legal guidelines, statements that they make to the police can get you in serious trouble. Worst case, an anti-gun 'witness' can make it sound like you were in the wrong.

  So, knowing that the Society's stance on armed self-defense is that it's wrong, a person might be taking a bigger risk coming to the aid of a JW than they would a member of the general public.

  It's just sort of a philosophical conversation...
• 

  asleif_dufansdottir

  (I am not a criminal or a hunter)

  Neither am I. I am a gun owner and enjoy target shooting.

  I'm not anti hunting, I enjoy eating deer, etc, but since we no longer have access to a farm on which to hunt (and live in a small home with no place for a freezer), hunting for food is not economically viable.

  I also believe in a woman's right to the best self-defense possible.
• 

  justsomedude

  So, knowing that the Society's stance on armed self-defense is that it's wrong, a person might be taking a bigger risk coming to the aid of a JW than they would a member of the general public.

  It depends really. I was a witness and had a huge collection of guns (and carried) and some of the people that I went shooting with were witnesses. Its a mixed bag just like most other groups of people.