Packing 72 Hour Kits and don’t forget the ammunition.
Given recent world events and the Prophet’s words concerning preparedness, I was not surprised to find myself in a combined Priesthood and Relief Society meeting yesterday discussing emergencies and 72 hour kits. It was a general rehash of things we have all heard before and I was drowsing comfortably on the back row until one comment woke me from my navel contemplation. The comment is paraphrased as: “We all saw what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Rita. In times of crisis, the first thing that goes is law and order. I think we should include a sidearm and plenty of ammunition in our 72 hour kits.”
There were a few things which occurred to me in the train wreck that was the discussion following that comment. First, is it a given that in times of disaster law and order will break down? I happened to be in Oklahoma City during two disasters (the Oklahoma City Bombing and a mile wide F5+ tornado which stayed on the ground approximately 6 hours and tore through parts of our ward and stake), and in both cases, there was not one case of looting or a breakdown in civilization. Granted, these disasters were limited in scope and area and may not be comparable cases. I do remember that my father was told by the police in Van Nuys California to go ahead and get out his rifle and have it ready in case the Watts Riots of the 60’s spilled over into our neighborhood. In fact he was told to make sure that any bodies “at least fall across the doorway” so that self-defense could be invoked.
An additional question comes to mind: Is a firearm appropriate for a 72 hour kit? I happen to know that carrying such would be in violation of the law in most states. Is protecting ourselves and our canned wheat with deadly force going to contribute to law and order? Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with firearms. My father still has his rifle in his closet (although the deadliest thing it has done in 25 years was falling on my mother’s toe and breaking it). I have hunted and am fairly adept with a gun. However, my wife and I have chosen not to have a firearm in our home. We feel that the danger to our children and each other is greater than the protection it may provide. I do, however, have a sword collection and I feel just dandy about that. The basic question remains: to pack heat or not in an emergency…
Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.
Comment by Anon — 11/21/2005 @ 3:10 pm
In the unlikely event someone wants to steal your inedible weevil-infested wheat, you and your wife can play Ammon with your sword collection.
Comment by NFlanders — 11/21/2005 @ 3:39 pm
While I personally don’t think I would have to defend myself with a gun, I think it would be useful for hunting if I ran out of food. While tracking down food with a sword sounds appealing, I would rather just shoot it. 🙂
Comment by Ian M. Cook — 11/21/2005 @ 4:28 pm
Well, first of all, we must be clear that there is no religious imperative to own firearms. As see it, this boils down to a completely secular debate about the right to bear arms.
I have no particular moral qualm with those that choose to own firearms. That said, New Orleans is a great example of over-hype. The vast majority of rumors about widespread violence were exaggerated. Moreover, the people that would have had food and water prepared, most likely were not in those areas where desperate people were. The needy congregated to havens that offered the prospect of institutional help. I don’t see the anarchic widespread violence as much as pathetic thirst, hunger and non-violent criminality.
I can’t imagine that a firearm in the 72 hour kit would be as important as the same weight in water. Moreover, I think I would be afraid of people in survivor-mode, especially if they are packing heat. I would think that you would want to minimize the amount of firearms in a culturally chaotic situation.
Comment by J. Stapley — 11/21/2005 @ 4:30 pm
A firearm, behind water, is the most important thing to have in a 72hour kit.
Bottom Line: If you can’t protect yourself and your kit, then there’s no use in having a kit.
The other most significant thing you can have in a 72hour kit is a neighborhood plan. Nobody can stay up 24 hours straight for more than a few days. And you’re wife is going to be busy enough with the kids, etc. You need a neighborhood plan, where those neighbors who wish to participate, have a plan on setting up a rotating watchguard system, pooling and sharing resources plan, and a talent assessment (who’s the doctor, nurse, carpenter, hunter, mechanic, etc.) There’s strength in numbers: USE IT.
Comment by Speaking Up — 11/21/2005 @ 5:13 pm
Basically, what we have here is the old question of human nature. Hobbes felt that human nature was such that a government was needed in order to mitigate the nature of man to do unto one another. In true anarchy, will society devolve into packs of gun toting, mad max look alikes?
Are guns really necessary for self defense? Or for self offense?
Comment by Craig — 11/21/2005 @ 5:43 pm
A gun in a 72 hour kit is to protect you against the actions of the government – You do realize, don’t you, that under a declared emergency the “Executive Orders” kick in and hoarding (having food storage) for over 3 (or was it 7) days is illegal?
http://millennium-ark.net/News_Files/Exec.Orders/EO.10998.html
Comment by Anon — 11/21/2005 @ 8:41 pm
Actually, executive orders 10997 through 11005 which assigned various emergency powers to different cabinet secretaries and bureaucracies in the case of a nationally declared emergency were amended by executive orders 11522, 11556, 11745, 11921, 11953, 12038, 12046, 12107, 12148, and 12608 and finally revoked by executive order 12656 in 1988. This executive order was further amended by executive orders 13074, 13228 (which transfers authority to the newly created department of Homeland Security), and 13286. EO 12656
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/EO12656.htm
assigns emergency preparedness responsibility to the various department and agencies but does not contain limits to food storage.
Comment by Craig — 11/21/2005 @ 10:33 pm
Whoa, thanks for that sweet rebuttal, Craig.
Comment by J. Stapley — 11/21/2005 @ 11:03 pm
We’ve stocked up on ammunition. I am buying my kids things like crank radios and shake flashlights and sterno stoves and compasses for Christmas this year.
Comment by annegb — 11/21/2005 @ 11:12 pm
you and your wife can play Ammon with your sword collection.
You’ve discovered my secret ( cf http://adrr.com/sword/ )
Need to read some REH. For the most part, a firearm causes you to do foolish things. Not always, but often.
Though hunting with a sword … I suspect the rabbits are safe from me.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — 11/22/2005 @ 6:57 am
I have recently read a book entitled Lucifers Hammer. It is a book about a comet that strikes the earth and causes basically world-wide natural disaster. The actions of the characters of the book seemed true to life and appeared to be played out in recent local disasters on a much smaller less permanent scale. The type of biblical future events leading up to the millenium are scary. After reading this book there is no way I would want to be without a gun in that kind of scenario.
So, do we follow the example of captain Moroni and agressively defend ourselves, or the people of Ammon and allow ourselves to be possibly killed. Both BofM examples are positive examples – right?
Comment by OOOOT — 11/22/2005 @ 8:42 am
Great, great book. Actually the first thing I thought of when the tsunami hit Asia.
Comment by jjohnsen — 11/22/2005 @ 8:58 am
Well Lucifer’s Hammer, while a great book, isn’t exactly the best model for the kind of disasters we likely will expect. Neither is The Stand nor White Plague. They are all great books of disasters and the turmoil afterwards. But I think it all depends upon where you live.
I think having a gun is typically a good thing, if only to teach gun safety and respect to your children. The mixed messages from Hollywood really need to be countered. (i.e. the “all guns are bad” message mixed with the “let’s show how irresponsible with guns our heros can be.”)
Comment by Clark Goble — 11/22/2005 @ 1:24 pm
I would not have a gun under any circumstances I can immagine because I could not actually use it. I could never shoot someone, even if they stole my precious 72 hour kit. Imagine being someplace like the New Orleans convention center (crowded and everyone agitated)–are you ready to have your gun and ammunition used against you, or anyone else there? I am not. Many guns kept in the home for security get useed against the owner during insecurity. Sure, you can say “That wouldn’t happen to me” but it might.
I wonder if this isn’t a peculairly American, maybe North American, debate. Most places in the world, people are less comfortable with private gun ownership, and in my heart, I am with them. Saints in other places are no less prepared, no less secure, for not even considering guns. Personally, I feel that if our Church leadership were something other than western American males, they would have discouraged gun ownership and other potentially fatal hobbies long ago.
Comment by ESO — 11/22/2005 @ 2:07 pm
I don’t think anyone should have a gun who isn’t prepared to learn to use it safely. If you can’t have one in a responsible fashion you shouldn’t have one. Having said that though I think the vast majority of fears over having a gun are vastly exaggerated.
Comment by Clark Goble — 11/22/2005 @ 4:48 pm
Clark,
I agree. However, when it comes to risk assesment you must weigh the potential benefits from the costs. A member of the church from a different ward in my junior high school was killed accidentally because he was playing with a gun. He knew he could not be hurt because he was using blanks. Unfortunately, the wad was sufficient to enter his crainium when he held it against his temple.
I know that this was an isolated case and responsible gun owners take precautions to make sure children do not have access to firearms. I do not have a problem with owning firearms. My wife and I (she is the better shot by the way) have discussed the possibility of obtaining a firearm. In our case we have decided that the potential costs outweigh the potential benefit in our case.
However, the same reasoning was used when looking for a house. We did not want a pool because of the potential danger (we had two small children). We ended up finding a home that just happened to have a pool and it was our saving grace during the hot Oklahoma summers. In that case I was glad to be wrong.
Comment by Craig — 11/22/2005 @ 5:42 pm
Nobody can stay up 24 hours straight for more than a few days. And you’re wife is going to be busy enough with the kids, etc.
At least the Proclamation will still be in effect in the event of a national emergency.
I recently taught a lesson on food storage, etc., and some of the responses surprised me. When I mentioned 72 hour kits, the response was very negative from some, and one person said “We have not been counceled by the Prophet to prepare 72, hour kits, but food storage is a commandment”. I asked if we needed to be counceled on matters that were common sense.
Someone else said a one year supply of food storage was in effect “an 8,760 hour kit”, and they would rather have that than a 72 hour kit. I asked what good it would do them if their 8,760 hr kit was 12 feet underwater?
Someone else said that the events in NO showed that a 72 hr kits were ineffective because it took much longer than 72 hrs for help to arrive. I said that my assumption behind 72 hr kits and food storage was that help wasn’t comming….and may never come.
But not one single person in the class mentioned a firearm. Why? Because we were all Canadians, and we are taught from birth that good law abiding citizens have no use for evil guns which are used primarily to take lives rather than protect liberty.
Personally I fall on the side of gun ownership as a necessary means of defense.
Comment by Talon — 11/22/2005 @ 6:09 pm
ESO (#15):
The willingness to use a force if necessary to protect the lives and liberty of yourself and family goes back a long way. Captain Moroni was a great example of this. This has less to do with western american male bias and more to do with being a resposible provider/protector and citizen in a free society. I have a dificult time understanding how a parent could stand by passively while their wife and children were starving or about to be killed if they could have done something about it. I don’t think Captain Moroni (one of my heros) would have had much patience with this attitude. Nephi also cut off Labans head. Some things are worth killing for.
Comment by OOOOT — 11/23/2005 @ 8:49 am
Preparation is a good thing, it’s plain common sense. But firearms?
I do not personally own a gun. I believe that toown a gun, one must be prepared to KILL another human being with it. That is why guns were invented. Either to kill animals for food or to kill people in times of war or for other reasons. This to me isn’t about “protection”, it’s about owning a leathal weapon. If I owned a gun and someone was intending to do harm to myself or my friends/family. I would not be shooting to wing them, I would be using deadly force, and knowing that the consequences of that deadly force is the termination of someone’s life, of either the aggressor or myself.
Instead I’d prefer to opt for being well prepared foodwise, both 72 and a year’s worth, but to also be prepared to SHARE with others in need, by having extra kits on hand, which is far more christian. Ideally, everyone who is able would have made their own kit and a couple of extras, and there would be no gouging, no crowded desparate emptying of market shelves, no desparate hungry people shooting each other. A much better scenario.
Comment by micki — 11/23/2005 @ 9:44 am
OOOOT (#19)–
I am glad you have found inspiration in the Book of Mormon. Personally, I am more interested in following the Gospel of Christ than the practices of others. This may sound very Primaryish, but would Jesus use a gun? Can’t imagine so (even though he has other powers, he obviously did not view self-protection as a primary goal).
You can justify ANY behavior by a piece of scripture, but I think it is important to step back and look at the Gospel teachings as a whole.
Micki–I love your attitude and I am going to steal your idea about having extras–that is very smart and Christlike.
Comment by ESO — 11/23/2005 @ 11:45 am
Would Jesus use a gun? I believe that under certain conditions he would.
Would he use a whip to drive money changers from the temple?
Would he cause the Red Sea to fall upon the Egyptians?
Would he command the Isrealites to kill everything as they moved into the promised land?
Would he instruct Nephi to cut off Labans head?
And other examples that could be given.
On the other hand….
Would he allow women and children to be thrown into a firey furnace while Alma and Amulek looked on to allow an eternal judgement to come upon those whoe were doing the killing?
Would he protect the stripling warriors in battle when their parents refused to take up arms to defend themselves?
etc., etc. Yes you can justify many actions from the scriptures. Sometimes God says thou shalt not kill, sometimes he says thou shalt utterly destroy. That is what is so great about living in a free country, and having free agency – you have options. Just because I own guns and know how to use them, and would be willing to use them if the spirit dictates does not mean that I would. I hope I would never face that situation. I certainly am not saying that the prophet should say that we should include guns in out emergency preparations. In fact I think he should not give that counsel. On the other hand, I do not think he should (or will) counsel anyone not to. I do not feel that there really is a right or a wrong here as long as there is a choice available. I believe the real danger comes in trying to force an absolute extreme position on issues like this.
Comment by OOOOT — 11/23/2005 @ 12:56 pm
And oh yea, Would Jesus use a gun? Well, who ultimately destryed Sodom and Gumorah?
Comment by OOOOT — 11/23/2005 @ 1:12 pm
Like I said in a previous post, I think having a Gun in a desperate times may come in more useful if you ran out of food and needed to hunt for more, not necisarily to protect yourself.
I don’t see anything wrong with that. It would be really difficult for me to shoot someone, but shooting animals wouldn’t be too hard.
I own a rifle and I don’t plan on shooting anyone, but wouldn’t have any problem shooting an animal.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — 11/23/2005 @ 1:19 pm
Actually OOOOT, I believe you are conflating Jesus as the condescension of God and our exemplar with God the Almighty. We are to emulate the mortal Jesus as having the perfect mortal life, no? Jesus never used lethal force. Issued mercy not judgement. Jesus, our examplar, did not destroy Sodom.
Comment by J. Stapley — 11/23/2005 @ 1:44 pm
Justin, I understand your point, but I’m not sure we can separate our the pre-mortal Christ from the mortal Christ that easy. It’s interesting that there are scriptures like Matt 10:34 where the mortal Jesus says, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
I think the danger comes when we have the hubris to believe that we can make decisions equal with God in terms of violence. I think that frequently God lets us, but would much, much prefer that we proclaim peace. I think there are many lesson on this in the D&C and church history.
Comment by Clark Goble — 11/23/2005 @ 2:43 pm
Wait a minute. Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. The same individual. Do we not worhip the Lord, both pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is Perfect? Am I not supposed to try to become like God Almighty?
So, perhaps Jesus did not use lethal force during his mortal probation. Good for him. I hope I never need to either. This does not mean that he never would have regardless of the circumstances. His death was part of the plan and needed to happen. Sometimes we are supposed to die. That is why we must follow the spirit in what we do.
So Sodom and Gumorah were destroyed. There was a flood in Noahs time. The wicked will be destryed by fire prior to the Millenium. How many wicked people will be destroyed by ‘the Godhead’ during the history of the world? Into the millions? Is this according to some higher law or higher order than the mortal Christ? Again, there have been prophets of the Lord that were instructed through the spirit or through revelation/commandment to use lethal force. Are we not to emulate them as well?
I also feel that if it were just me, I would not use lethal force either. But it is not just me. There may be a time when I need to use lethal force in order to defend my country, our freedom of worship, my wife or my children.
My comments on this thread are based mostly on large scale, long term total disasters. Not a bad thunderstorm, or temporary unemployement.
Comment by OOOOT — 11/23/2005 @ 2:49 pm
I see that no one rose to my oblique reference to human nature. The question remains, in the absence of government, must society devolve into chaos? Isnt this the real question we are asking in reference to firearms?
Comment by Craig — 11/23/2005 @ 5:03 pm
I’d say the answer is yes, Craig, or else they merely recreate government in which case one can not speak of its absence.
Comment by Clark Goble — 11/23/2005 @ 6:45 pm
I think that, often, not always, in the absense of Government, some people will devolve into anarchy. I think that shortly therafter governments will be formed/reformed. I think it’s in that short period of anarchy that you would need to worry about those few people that might wish to cause you harm.
I think that the majority of us will not resort to anarchy.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — 11/25/2005 @ 1:12 am
I think there is a certain amount of chaos even with government. Police are busy, prisons are full. It would be much worse without it.
Comment by OOOOT — 11/25/2005 @ 8:38 am
So If that is the case, then the need for a firearm to protect yourself and your family is only needed during those times of anarchy when government breaks down?
What about the famous Jefferson quote that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots. Many have taken this quote to mean that those patriots would be spilling their blood in opposition to government.
Comment by Craig — 11/25/2005 @ 9:41 am
Of course not (#32). Potentially armed citizens may be one of the best methods for preventing government from breaking down/overstepping. Besides, once the tragedy hits, it may be to late to obtain what you may feel that you need. It is part of what emergency preparedness is all about.
Comment by OOOOT — 11/25/2005 @ 11:52 am
Reference comments 22-27
I dont think Jesus would need a gun…ZOT!
Comment by Craig — 11/25/2005 @ 6:07 pm
In any prolonged survival/apocalyptic situation the average thug will get very hungry/thirsty. If the word is out that you may have food,water,etc., (and it will get out by your actions if nothing else)they will come.
NO-ONE, will take these life sustaining supplies from my wife,children,or myself, against our will. If they choose to pay the ultimate sacrifice for their behaviour, so be it, it was their choice. I truly hope it would not come to this, but I will do my best, rather than do nothing, to protect my family. I will be more than willing to share with others, but it will be our choice to do so.
A firearm is not just defensive, but will an invaluable tool in hunting, to provide aditional food to supliment your stored foods. If properly stored, your children will be safe. Teach them how to safely use them at an apropriate age so they are not overly curious about them and can learn respect for them. Swords are great,(really), but a thugs rusty pistol has you beat.
Must we be reminded that, God helps he who helps himself. Good luck.
Comment by inactive — 12/3/2005 @ 11:05 am
(In response to #1-35)
Personally I think that it takes a person who is either (a) very callous, or (b) very ignorant about the world we live in, to suggest that firearms ownership, or at least access to a firearm, would be a bad thing under the circumstances we live in today, whether we find ourselves in an emergency situation or not.
The Second Amendment does not protect our right to keep and bear arms for hunting or sporting purposes (though that is a nice side-effect). It protects our right because sometimes government does overstep its bounds if not kept in check. “Government” does not need to refer to the “government” that we vote on and support. It can also refer to the “governments of men” such as gangs, etc.
Personally, I think it irresponsible for a father, husband, neighbor, etc. (just including every able man here), who is able to own a firearm, not to own one. To do so is to attempt to relegate that person’s human responsibility to protect the sanctity or life around him from the affects or murderers, rapists, etc. This argument should never be about someone robbing you or your food, though that may happen (hey, with a firearm you at least get to have a chance at making it your choice). This argument should be about what that robber may decide to turn into when they see your beautiful wife, daughter, neighbor girl down the street, etc. Is life such that we can not protect the sanctity of it?
You don’t know how to use a firearm? There are many who will gladly show you and teach you.
You don’t know how you would store it with children in the house? There are many ways, and people have been doing it since firearms where invented.
You think a sword is better? Keep thinking that when you’re 20 feet away from someone with a firearm pointed at your daughter’s temple telling you to put down your sword or he’ll rape her anyway.
You think a firearm wouldn’t do you any good except to hunt extra food? Do you really want to find out if that’s the only time a firearm just “might” come in handy?
Come on people! The arguments and discussions that I just read on here are taught to us be a liberal media and government that doesn’t want us to have any control and/or say in our own future and what will happen to us.
Would Jesus use a firearm? Well, maybe not if he has (and obviously he does… just ask those of Sodom) the ZOT power (as one poster put it). Well, if I had the ZOT power, I wouldn’t bother with firearms either, but since I don’t I want access to whatever I can get my hands on that will protect my family best, and frankly right now that’s a firearm (along with righteous living, the Priesthood, etc., but definitely including a firearm).
Am I worried about someone stealing my food, water, fuel, clothing, etc.? No. Otherwise I would never leave the house, even to attend church. What I am concerned about is that someday I may be faced with a situation of watching my wife (daughter, neighborhood girl, etc.) being tortured, raped, murdered in front of my eyes and not being able to do anything about it, where with a little preparation I could have stopped it.
I don’t believe that it would be God’s will, and I couldn’t live with myself being such a lousy protector. Could you?
At least give yourself the choice at that vital moment. If you are willing to sacrifice protection of your food, water, fuel, clothing, etc. then you have necessarily weakened protection of every other area of your preparedness to some degree.
Personally, yes, I have decided that I can pull that trigger if/when the time comes. There may be some of those times that I choose not to.
Some people even venture to say that they wish that all firearms, even from bad men, could be removed from this world. I say that is (a) impossible now, and (b) a bad idea. Before firearms were invented it was just the biggest bully that got his way or the biggest gang of bullies, etc. I wouldn’t want to go back to those odds.
Okay, now I’m just rambling. Can’t decide which side of the debate I’m on? Let me know. I’ll tell you. 😉
Comment by Scott Bishop — 1/8/2006 @ 11:04 pm
You know, Scott, we in America would think that an unlikely scenario, while many people in other countries have lived that particular nightmare.
However, we are speaking in hypotheticals, which is way easier than experience.
Personally, I would think, have the gun on hand and loaded and be prepared to share with my neighbors. Even if it meant death to my family. I couldn’t feed my children when there are starving children next door. Now, rape, that’s another story. If someone were threatening to rape my daughter, I would find a weapon.
Comment by annegb — 1/9/2006 @ 9:02 am
It seems that so far the discussion here has come down to killing vs. sharing, and I think this paints a false dichotomy. The rape scenario is another thing entirely. I think most of us would be willing to do whatever it tok to defend our familie from that kind of attack, but I’m not sure how big of a threat that would be in most emergency situations–perhaps I’m naive.
As far as protecting my food, a few thoughts:
1st–It would be hard to carry what my family and I need to go 72 hours. I can’t imagine carrying enough that I’d have enough to hand out to everyone I meet. I agree that food storage is to be shared. I know of a woman who got teased about her year’s supply until a hurricane hit and she fed much of the neighborhood for a week.
2nd–I can’t believe that the guy who comes to you with a gun to steal your family’s food supply is going to share in return–even if you are carrying twice what you need. The person in that situation is going to take what they can get. I don’t see why that person should live and my family should die. For me this has always been the difficulty with pacifism, though it has its allure–while might doesn’t make right, what if only the evil were willing to use force?
3rd–I’m not as sure about this one, but does the parable of the ten virgins have applicability here? If I’ve prepared, does that not entitle me at all to the fruits of my preparation? If not, then what we are saying is that preparation can never be effective. I can say, hey, I have enough resources to provide that in an emergency my family will survive long enough to get out. So does my neighbor. But he doesn’t prepare. Instead, he takes my supplies when the disaster strikes. Hardly seems just. On the other hand I would say that I would have a hard time watching someone starve that was asking me, peacefully, for my aid, even if that meant my family suffered. On the other other hand, when does the principle of preparation take hold and when does the principle of mercy apply. I don’t think it’s as simple as it might seem.
I would like to have the gun, though; the bad guys will have them. I want the ability to make that complicated decision when it comes up.
Scott,
Everything is an opportunity to pull a trigger. I hope you do decide not to sometimes, or I’ll never come to your place for dinner. 😉
Comment by Steve H — 1/9/2006 @ 11:45 am
I must say that I get a little disheartened when I hear folks, especially ladies, state categorically and usually defiantly that they will never own firearms,don’t like them,could never use one defensively and that others should think just like they do.
Firearms are tools. They serve a relatively narrow spectrum of tasks, but they are tools none the less. Like any piece of mechanical equipment, their utility increases when the user keeps them in good repair and is knowledgable in their function and use. They are inanimate objects, not magical talismen.
While the media has done much to “demonize” firearms, no implement, be it a pistol,a hammer, a shovel or a waffle iron is capable of acting like a “demon.” Those individuals who commit crimes or recklessly endanger the lives of others are the real issue. Individuals are human beings, who may choose right or wrong, and who may decide to do dangerous things. Sometimes this includes using some type of tool (like a gun) to a bad end. Sometimes they get together, in gangs or even armies, and leverage their effectiveness. Modern societies have delegated a large portion of the function which deals with these people to various law enforcement (“police”) and military organizations. However, like any critical task, the individual, as a Citizen, still retains a key role. Public safety agencies (at least in the United States) do not have a legal duty to protect individuals from criminals. They may deter crime, solve some after the fact and intervene in a few, but the fact remains that if you are confronted with a determined law breaker that is threatening you or your property, you will likely be on your own for at least a short period of time.
Now graft the situation outlined above onto an emrgency situation. It is likely that the crime deterence, intervention and investigation functions of the “police” will be hampered and diminished to a significant degree, perhaps totally. In this scenario, the individual, or perhaps family or congregation must assume the self-defense function as there is no organization capable of accepting this usually delegated function; whether we like it or not.
There is also a spiritual dimension to this problem that I do not see addressed very often. Heads of Household,be they men or women,are expected to “provide” for their families. That function must include the provision of a safe living environment, to the best of their abilities. Everybody’s situation is different, but I trully doubt that the Lord thinks mouthing phrases heard in the popular media like “the threat is overrated,” “guns are too dangerous to have around,” etc is sufficient study and deliberation on this critical subject. If all things are of a spiritual nature to the Lord, do you honestly think he gives us a pass on the well-being and physical safety of our loved ones?
Perhaps the real question becomes “In an emergency,would you rather be surrounded by people who are familiar with and competent in the use of safety equipment, be it a gun, a two way radio or a first aid kit, or those who are afraid of it?”
Comment by DB — 3/3/2006 @ 2:09 pm
Well reasoned and stated!
Although you must have never seen my waffle Iron. If anything qualifies for demonization it does!
Comment by Craig — 3/3/2006 @ 2:13 pm
WWJS: Who Would Jesus Shoot?
Comment by Bob — 3/23/2006 @ 3:06 pm
I remember being a recent convert in the 70’s and my father got started collecting food storage. Among this collection arouse the debate of fire arms, he and his brother had. I personally am greatful that he didn’t fall into that way of thinking. My feeling has been that they were speaking out of fear. We all know where that comes from.
The Lord takes care of those who take care of themselves yes! So, get yourself prepared in ALWAYS and if you feel prompted to prepare in that way it would be fine, but if you are making that decision do to fear, that would be wrong!
Comment by K. A. Peterson — 3/26/2006 @ 11:53 pm
I’m sorry, I don’t need a weapon to defend my 72 hour kit. Wal-mart would be the first target in such an emergency and by the time they got through raiding the wal-marts my 72 hour kit would be depleted.
Comment by Rob — 11/3/2006 @ 12:49 pm