Arminian jerks and knee-jerks

I’m going to comment on this post:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/07/21/the-aurora-debacle/

In the wake of the disaster at the Cineplex in Aurora Colorado it really is time for us to rethink entirely our gun (and ammo) control laws. Colorado has one of the most lax gun control laws in the country, in fact in the world.

I do not think it is any accident that both the Columbine killings and the Aurora killings took place in Colorado, which, as I have said, has some of the most lax gun control laws anywhere.

i) But BW3 is a pacifist. For instance:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/10/lessons-from-amish-power-of-pacifism.html

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/10/lessons-from-amish-power-of-pacifism.html?showComment=1160330820000#c116033085469966678

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/07/21/the-aurora-debacle/comment-page-1/#comment-9404

So, in principle, he doesn’t even think the police should have guns. But if private citizens don’t have guns, or the police, or the FBI, or US soldiers, then by process of elimination, it’s only the criminal element that's packing heat.

Mind you, BW3 waffles a bit on this issue, but that illustrates his inability to stay consistent with his pacifist principles.

So he’s not laying his cards on the table. This isn’t about assault rifles or gun control. This is about total unilateral disarmament.

ii) Moreover, from what we’ve been told thus far, the shooter is a brilliant science student. Given his high IQ and scientific training, it seems to me that gun laws would be ineffective against someone like him. Someone that smart and knowledgeable can surely figure out a way to get around the law. Indeed, he might well enjoy the challenge. Someone that smart and knowledgeable could build his own weaponry.

He seems to be a Unabomber type. A brilliant sociopath. Laws can't stop a criminal genius. They are much too clever.

This illogic is dazzling. First of all, guns aren’t pencils. I’ve never heard of death by pencil. We don’t need pencil control laws because they are not that dangerous.

Although this is a side issue, as a matter of fact it doesn’t take much imagination to appreciate how a sharpened pencil could be a deadly weapon. Just plunge it into someone’s neck (e.g. carotid artery) and see what happens.

Being shot by a gun is another matter. The more dangerous the object the more legal control of it is necessary.

It’s true that guns are more dangerous than pencils. But that cuts both ways. They can be used for defense as well as offense. Guns are the greater leveler. What about a woman who carries a revolver in her purse (or on her nightstand) to protect herself against her stalker ex boyfriend?

There is a reason you can’t by a heat-seeking missile at Wal-Mart. The point is that guns can even accidentally be the instruments of death…. like when a child picks up a loaded gun left around in a home and shoots his sister.

A kitchen is a very dangerous place for kids. Lots of hazardous cutlery. Not to mention the blender, Cuisinart, oven, stove, tea kettle, garbage disposal, or cleaning agents under the sink. 

THE BIG ISSUE IS THAT THE GUN CONTROL LAW MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FEAR BASED THINKING. Fear of what might happen if I don’t have a gun.

If you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood, you have good reason to fear what might happen in case you don’t have a gun. Not everyone can afford to live in a gated community with private security on call 24/7.

Likewise, BW3’s own reactionary position is driven by fear. Fear of what might happen if guns fall into the wrong hands.

I am entirely with you on that Zalo. It hardly makes much sense. The problem runs deep, and is partly caused by: 1) the superficial Biblical understanding of many Christians, and the even more superficial understanding of Jesus’ core teachings and their implications, and 2) the syncretism or sad amalgamation of American values with Christian values, as if there was never any contradiction or tension between the two. BW3

Let’s compare that claim with this man’s résumé:

Bob Hubbard joined the NPTS faculty in 1995 after teaching at Denver Seminary from 1976-1995. He served as an active duty chaplain in the U.S. Navy for four years and chaplain in the U.S. Naval Reserve from 1974 to 2000. He is author of The Book of Ruth: New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 1988), which received the Christianity Today Critics Choice Award as the best commentary of 1989. He is also author and co-author of numerous other books and serves as general editor of several commentary series.

http://www.northpark.edu/Seminary/Academics/Seminary-Faculty.aspx

Professor Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. has served North Park Theological Seminary as Professor of Biblical Literature since 1995. Previously he taught at Denver Seminary in Colorado. He is a graduate of Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary, and Claremont Graduate University (Ph.D.). He holds ordination in the Evangelical Free Church of America and is a retired chaplain in the Naval Reserve. He is author of The Book of Ruth (NICOT; Eerdmans, 1988) and co-authored Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Word; 2nd. ed., 2004) with William Klein and Craig Blomberg. He currently is general editor of the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans). His work on the Book of Joshua for the NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan) will appear in April, 2009.

http://www.workingpreacher.org/contributor_detail.aspx?author_id=143

I guess Prof. Hubbard must have a superficial understanding of the Bible,