Gun owners - 3rd party defense of JW?

by asleif_dufansdottir 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  asleif_dufansdottir

  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.

  That's why I split it up between JWs you knew and JWs you didn't.

  However, as was pointed out in another 'gun' discussion on this board, the Society technically frowns on armed self-defense. I was wondering if people thought that the 'average JW' you didn't know was more likely to be anti-gun...

  *** w98 12/15 pp. 22-23 When Armed Robbers Strike ***

  Some people desperately seek security by arming themselves with guns. Christians, though, take seriously the words of Jesus, who said: “Those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) God’s people have ‘beaten their swords into plowshares’ and do not buy guns to protect themselves from robbery or assault.—Micah 4:3.

  What about arranging for armed security guards? While this would be a matter for personal decision, remember that such an arrangement puts the gun in the hands of someone else. What would an employer expect of the guards if a robber came along? Would he expect the guards to shoot the thief if necessary to protect the people and possessions that were being guarded?

  The stand that Christians take in rejecting magic and weapons as tools of protection may seem foolish in the eyes of those who do not know God. The Bible, however, assures us: “He that is trusting in Jehovah will be protected.” (Proverbs 29:25) While Jehovah protects his people as a whole, he does not intervene in every case to shield his servants from robbery. Job was outstandingly faithful, yet God allowed marauders to plunder Job’s livestock, with loss of life to the attendants. (Job 1:14, 15, 17) God also permitted the apostle Paul to experience “dangers from highwaymen.” (2 Corinthians 11:26) Nonetheless, God teaches his servants to live by principles that reduce the risk of robbery. He also equips them with knowledge that helps them to react to robbery attempts in ways that will reduce the likelihood of injury.
• 

  asleif_dufansdottir

  Rats! Hit enter too soon...

  I also meant to say that, for me personally as a woman, the mysogynistic attitudes of many JWs, especially dealing with a woman's right to fight back against an abuser or attacker (whether he's a family member or stranger), plays into this. I would not doubt that there are JWs who would thank a man for intervening but would be horrified if a woman dared to fight back against a man...
• 

  justsomedude

  That's why I split it up between JWs you knew and JWs you didn't.

  Fair enough.. In terms of people that I didnt know, on average I would suspect that they would not object to force being used on their behalf as long as they didnt have to use it themselves. Your average witness probably would not object to the police using force on their behalf, nor would they object to their own country having a military as long as they didnt have to get their own hands dirty.

  I think the real distress in their conscience would come from them having to shoot someone personally, not having someone shot to protect them. Just my 2 cents.
• 

  Justice-One

  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?

  Tuff question. I would have a real hard time not coming to the defense of anyone in "fear of great bodily harm or death," but if it were a JW? Hmmmmmmm, I would be tempted to find the nearest chair, sit down and watch.

  In all seriousness, there are even some famous "Gun-Nuts" that have said they would not risk coming to a strangers aid. I know that Clint Smith the owner of Thunder Ranch has said this. Personally I'm not sure I agree with him.
• 

  HappyDad

  You started out by saying.....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.

  
  Evidence and facts please............but you claimed "YOU HEARD" Heard from where and what?

  Better yet......................Don't even make such assertions if you can't back it up Dont be an ASS by making statements you can't back up. OK?

  HappyDad..........of the proud concealed weapons and personal protection class.
• 

  SixofNine

  I may or may not go find references for you, Happy Dad, as I said, it's something I heard just today (in a radio interview with an author "A Well Regulated Militia", I think was the title). You are of course welcome to go looking yourself, the research practice will be good for you, and hey, maybe you'll be able to catch me in an error, or force me to get supporting evidence.

  I'm curious though, of two things: A) why would you doubt it given how religious so many people were back then? and b) why would it get your back up? You make it sound as if it somehow rocks your world's foundations.
• 

  RichieRich

  Ok, in my state, unless you want to be sitting in a jail for a long time, its best to only use a concealed weapon in defense when you feel YOUR life is in danger. Now, if my friends life was in danger, or a family members, i would not hesitate to dispatch a round.

  but for a third party I know nothing about, JW or not, I might draw my weapon, but would not be very likely to fire.

  I'm not much for this cocked and locked carry though. I'd have the hammer down on a full chamber on a single action pistol, so to shoot I would have to cock the hammer. That way, no mistakes could be made by myself or the third party witnesses.

  and since witnesses dont really party, wouldn't it be more of a "third gathering"?
• 

  katiekitten

  I read a story in the Miami Herald about a sniper in some town in America this week. Apparently the sale of hand guns has gone up since the snipers activities.

  This just shows how dumb gun owners can be.

  Since when did anybody SEE a sniper AND have enough time to shoot back??? DUH.

  Owning a gun for self defence is a false security IMO. A criminal is way more likely to be able to use a gun, WAY more motivated to use it (cos hes desperate, probably, for money or drugs or money for drugs) and way less likely to feel a human inhibition about causing fatal damage to another human being.

  Im glad there is no culture of owning guns where I live, because I can only think that more guns = more shootings = more injuries
• 

  TD

  I believe Asleif is speaking strictly within the context of Arizona law. (I hope she will correct me if I'm wrong.)

  In AZ. a third party may employ the threat of lethal force and if the circumstances warrant, actually follow through with that threat to prevent:

  1. Murder

  2. Rape

  3. Kidnap

  As Asleif said, the potential for personal liability if you err is unbelievable. It is not advisable for a third party to insert themselves in any situation (Beyond calling the police, of course) unless it is especially clear cut and egregious.

  Six --Makes sense to me. There were a number of Christian sects active in the 18th century that were pacifist and their influence was much stronger at the time
• 

  Bstndance

  My JW mom used to use her gun to defend her JW neighbor against Rattlesnakes that used to curl up like a doormat and scare the poor old woman. Now that my mom lives away from that type of nature, she doesn't own any.