Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/

Shooting Back - by Charl van Wyk
http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4455		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  ryanj [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Shooting Back - by Charl van Wyk
I found this very interesting. I may even buy the book.

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1960

What would you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and starting attacking your friends with automatic weapons in the middle of a worship service?

Would you be prepared to defend yourself and other innocents?

Would you be justified in doing so?

Is it time for Americans to consider such once-unthinkable possibilities?

There is one man in the world who can address these questions with first-hand experience.

His name is Charl van Wyck – a South African who was faced with just such a shocking scenario.

In "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense," van Wyk makes a biblical, Christian case for individuals arming themselves with guns, and does so more persuasively than perhaps any other author because he found himself in a church attacked by terrorists.

"Grenades were exploding in flashes of light. Pews shattered under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air," he recalls of the July 25, 1993, St. James Church Massacre. "An automatic assault rifle was being fired and was fast ripping the pews -- and whoever, whatever was in its trajectory -- to pieces. We were being attacked!"

But van Wyk was not defenseless that day. Had he been unarmed like the other congregants, the slaughter would have been much worse.

"Instinctively, I knelt down behind the bench in front of me and pulled out my .38 special snub-nosed revolver, which I always carried with me," he writes in "Shooting Back," a book being published for the first time in America next month by WND Books. "I would have felt undressed without it. Many people could not understand why I would carry a firearm into a church service, but I argued that this was a particularly dangerous time in South Africa."

During that Sunday evening service, the terrorists, wielding AK-47s and grenades, killed 11 and wounded 58. But the fact that one man – van Wyk – fired back, wounding one of the attackers and driving the others away.

Those killed that day were:

• Guy Cooper Javens

• Richard Oliver O'Kill

• Gerhard Dennis Harker

• Wesley Alfonso Harker

• Denise Gordon

• Mirtle Joan Smith

• Marita Ackerman

• Andrey Kayl

• Karamjin Oleg

• Varaksa Velentin

• Pavel Valuet

The last four were Russian seamen attending the service as part of a church outreach program. Another Russian seaman, Dmitri Makogon, lost both legs and an arm in the attack.

Using his personal and high-profile story as a launch-pad, van Wyk wrote "Shooting Back" – which instantly became a South African bestseller, as well as a bestseller for WND, which imported thousands of copies of the original book for sale online to audiences in the U.S. and around the world.

But it was always a challenge maintaining supplies to meet the demand.

This is the first time this book, previously published in South Africa, has been widely available in the U.S. and elsewhere.

"I am honored to be a part of this historic undertaking – the republishing of this classic work in the United States," said Joseph Farah, founder of WND Books and editor and chief executive officer of WND. "We have been working on this for more than three years. Now everyone can read this amazing and important story, which has applications in terror-stricken America and for Christians and Jews throughout the world."

Far from being just a reliving of the tragedy of the St. James Church Massacre, "Shooting Back" is a thorough examination of the whole issue of armed self-defense from a Christian perspective.

It deals with burning questions that plague all conscience-driven people:

• Should we carry arms?

• When is it appropriate to defend ourselves and our families?

• What can we do when our freedom to carry arms is legislated away from us?

Using the Bible as his guidepost, van Wyk makes the case that Christians not only have the right but the duty to defend themselves and other innocents from such aggression.

What's the lesson?

“As Van Wyk’s experience illustrates, no place is totally safe — not even a church," explains Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who wrote the forward to the book. "The notion that declaring an area to be gun-free, will keep criminals from maliciously using guns is ludicrous. Any law that makes self-defense illegal or impractical is an illegitimate law, because such a law ultimately subjects people to the criminal element. I hope that Charl van Wyk’s book will help turn the tide. South Africans – and people everywhere – need to refuse to support any laws that leave them defenseless against murderers, robbers, rapists and arsonists."

But this amazing true story doesn't end there. It's also about redemption and reconciliation. Several of the church members who were injured or who lost family members in the attacks, as well as van Wyk, later met with and forgave some of their repentant attackers.
Author:  hammAR [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
You should not think about buying the book, you should definitely buy the book...
then read it!

If you don't have it, you should also get Joel's book..........

.
Author:  ryanj [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have Joel's book. Great Book :!:
Author:  cobb [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
So does Luke 11:21 and 22:36 refer to this in your opinion?
Author:  e5usmc [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
cobb wrote:
So does Luke 11:21 and 22:36 refer to this in your opinion?


11:21, taken in context, no... Is not Satan the 'strong man' in this parable?

22:36, kinda - alludes more to a "spiritual" sword...

IANAT(heologian)

edit for grammar
Author:  thurianknight [ Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:25 am ]
Post subject: 
e5usmc wrote:
cobb wrote:
So does Luke 11:21 and 22:36 refer to this in your opinion?


11:21, taken in context, no... Is not Satan the 'strong man' in this parable?

22:36, kinda - eludes more to a "spiritual" sword...

IANAT(heologian)


With regard to 22:36, there are two main interpretations, one of which is the idea of carrying a real sword for self defense and defense of others. I fall into that camp.

I'm not a theologian either, but I do have a BA in Biblical languages... for whatever that's worth.

Regardless of that particular scriptural text, there are plenty of examples in the Bible of people standing up in defense of others, and even in defense of themselves. The Bible does NOT teach that we must be pacifists, but it does teach that we must always control our anger, and direct our violence at the proper targets: those who would do violence to others.

One could interpret the Golden Rule to include the idea that we should defend the helpless, just as we would want to be defended if we were helpless ourselves. Again, I would fall into that camp.

Let me be clear on one point. I am NOT advocating being a vigilante or super-hero wannabe. I am advocating being prepared to defend myself, my loved ones, and maybe, possibly even a stranger ... *if* the situation is clear enough to determine what is actually going on, and if I think I can actually help, rather than hinder, the situation. We've been over this many times on this forum, and I've gleaned a lot of good advice about being cautious in such a situation -- advice which I will gladly take.

TK
Author:  lumbering.buffalo [ Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:47 am ]
Post subject:  I think so.
I voted yes, but with some reservation.

Unlike Thurian Knight there are instances where I believe Christians are not to use self-defense. That instance is when he or she participates in what we call witnessing. This can be going door-to-door in a neighborhood or halfway around the world in Asia (this is called missions). Christians are to rely on God (Luke 10:1-16).

The other instance is when the government in power chooses to arrest the Christian for practicing the faith. Every government is put into power by God (Romans 13.1, Daniel 2:21). However, Christians are answerable to God first and foremost (Acts 4:1-23, specifically verses 19-20). When the government chooses to usurp its authority and put itself ahead of God the Christian is still respect its authority and wait upon God to punish it (Daniel 2:21). Looking at early church history, especially the time of persecution you do not find the Christians resisting, but submitting. Willing to endure torture and death rather than deny their Lord and Savior.

Do I carry at church? I have. Do I have reservation about doing it? Yes, but I’m not sure if its because I think its wrong or because I’m afraid I might be exposed and have to answer to fellow church goers who definitely believe its wrong.

I definitely don’t have all the answers. I’m going to get the book and do some additional study as well.
Author:  ryanj [ Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
lumbering.buffalo wrote:
...especially the time of persecution you do not find the Christians resisting, but submitting...


I mostly agree, but I would like to point out that persecution of the christian church is still very much active in many parts of the world today.

I would say it is very hard to be a good witness to people if you are willing to harm them if your life is threatened by them.

At the same time, if I could defend myself against an attacker in my home using a gun, I probably would.
Author:  thurianknight [ Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
ryanj wrote:
I would say it is very hard to be a good witness to people if you are willing to harm them if your life is threatened by them.


You might need to define "be a good witness". I'm sure not everyone will agree, and this is one of many areas where Christians can, in good conscience, disagree. As a different example, one person occasionally drinks alcohol and sees no problem with that, as it shows we (Christians) have the freedom to do as we see fit, within reason, as long as we keep it under control. Another chooses not to drink at all, and believes that such behavior sets a better example for those who do not believe. Both have settled the matter in their hearts, in good conscience. Both beliefs probably have some validity.

One Christian might believe that 100% pacifism is the way to go, showing by example that being willing to die for another, even in the context of a simple mugging or burglary, is the best witness of Christ. Another Christian believes that being willing to die for his faith is one thing, but allowing someone to kill him as part of a simple mugging is another matter entirely -- in fact, <opinion type=inflammatory> that Christian might say that to let someone kill you in the context of a mugging is not much different than suicide, except you are letting someone else pull the trigger</opinion>.

ryanj wrote:
At the same time, if I could defend myself against an attacker in my home using a gun, I probably would.


One thing I really struggled with before I got a handgun and a carry permit -- and it has to do with the above point about "being a good witness" -- is the reason why I would be willing to fight for my life and kill another in self defense. For me, it wasn't enough to simply "want to live" -- that may be crazy, but there it is -- it just wasn't a good enough justification for me. Here is what it came down to, for me: I could not, in good conscience, let someone take my life, simply because my wife depends on my income. I am the primary breadwinner in my household, and if I were to leave my wife a widow, she would have a real struggle making ends meet. I could not leave her in such a situation, not without a fight at least. And after I realized that, the decision was really easy. I do it for her.

If you want a Biblical reference to back up my reasoning, just look up all the places where it talks about "helping the widows". I'd rather not leave my wife a widow, period.

TK
Author:  Dave Matheny [ Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
I am also not a theologian, but I understand that "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. In both Greek and Hebrew, the word is "murder."

Killing in self-defense is not murder. "Self defense" means what it sounds like, and naturally does not include being in the middle of a killing spree and shooting somebody who is trying to stop you.

And I'm convinced that coming to the aid of a family member or any other innocent person would come under the same heading as self-defense.
Author:  ryanj [ Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dave Matheny wrote:
I am also not a theologian, but I understand that "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. In both Greek and Hebrew, the word is "murder."

Killing in self-defense is not murder. "Self defense" means what it sounds like, and naturally does not include being in the middle of a killing spree and shooting somebody who is trying to stop you.

And I'm convinced that coming to the aid of a family member or any other innocent person would come under the same heading as self-defense.


Thank you for simplifying this discussion. I ardently agree. :)
Author:  Dave Matheny [ Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
ryanj wrote:
Dave Matheny wrote:
I am also not a theologian, but I understand that "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. In both Greek and Hebrew, the word is "murder."

Killing in self-defense is not murder. "Self defense" means what it sounds like, and naturally does not include being in the middle of a killing spree and shooting somebody who is trying to stop you.

And I'm convinced that coming to the aid of a family member or any other innocent person would come under the same heading as self-defense.


Thank you for simplifying this discussion. I ardently agree. :)


Thanks!

I will add, though, that anybody who thinks that the average person who has to kill somebody in self defense will be untroubled by it afterwards is just flat-out wrong.

I don't speak from personal experience, but Massad Ayoob, among others, has detailed the terrible emotional consequences of perfectly justified shootings, even police shootings where there was no question of legitimacy.

Ironically, in American Handgunner magazine about a year ago, Ayoob was writing about all the emotional stuff that one cop went through after shooting somebody, while that blowhard Clint Smith went on about how it would never bother him a bit. In the same issue, as I recall.
Author:  Pat [ Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
From the Roman Catholic encyclopedia:

In art St. Michael is represented as an angelic warrior, fully armed with helmet, sword, and shield (often the shield bears the Latin inscription: Quis ut Deus), standing over the dragon, whom he sometimes pierces with a lance.
Author:  Dave Matheny [ Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Pat wrote:
From the Roman Catholic encyclopedia:

In art St. Michael is represented as an angelic warrior, fully armed with helmet, sword, and shield (often the shield bears the Latin inscription: Quis ut Deus), standing over the dragon, whom he sometimes pierces with a lance.


Quite a coincidence you should mention that. As an illustrator, I've been working on a study of St. Michael the Archangel (. . .defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil . . .) It goes slowly. I would put it on here ifit existed anwhere on the net, so I could link to it, but it doesn't, so that's that for now.
Author:  A Brit in MN [ Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Here's a geezer with a dragon

http://www.travelwithachallenge.com/Ima ... George.jpg

http://www.fantasyarts.net/dragons/drag ... george.jpg

http://www.galeon.com/allmusic/caratula ... rontal.jpg
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

http://people.umass.edu/petersen/orig%2 ... l_0351.JPG

http://people.bu.edu/jindrel/graphics/N ... George.gif
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/