Steve Pinkerton Attacks Christian Self Defenders

[oljames3]

Steve Pinkerton, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio, published an unabashed attack on those who accept the responsibility of their own protection. His article has been reposted at least twice. The mSA and SF Gate articles allow comments, it seems.

Sections of Pinkerton's article seem to support our right to self defense:

The idea of the gun-toting preacher thus showcases the power of individual self-assertion, while also often emphasizing the importance of protecting and preserving a wider community.

However, his last line reveals his true agenda and opinion:

– and that God is on the side of those who would take the law into their own hands when necessary.

Original posting:
http://theconversation.com/why-american ... hers-98816

mySA (San Antonio):
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/artic ... 046036.php

SFGate (San Francisdo):
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Why ... 046036.php

[Archery1]

I thought is was more middle of the road. Did not see the attack. "The idea of the gun-toting preacher thus showcases the power of individual self-assertion, while also often emphasizing the importance of protecting and preserving a wider community."

[Abraham]

please elaborate - I have no idea what you're trying to get across....

[Middle Age Russ]

I too don't see an attack on Christian Self-defenders in the article. It seems fairly well balanced to me other than couching self-defense -- or in the case of preachers defense of self and their flocks -- as vigilante justice in the theme of Hollywood movies. Art imitates and sometimes helps inform life. Many movies -- like many plays, operas, etc... -- are artistic tales with a moral component. We see "bad guys" and "good guys" in these stories and most often the "good guy" wins, which may indeed be due to acting as a vigilante. The thing about those of us who choose to daily carry a side-arm is this. We aren't out there looking to do harm to anyone, or to act as vigilantes, but we hope to be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones against a violent attacker. I can argue that the article doesn't explore the reasoning behind why folks choose to arm themselves, but that doesn't make the article an attack, at least in my mind, on those of us who do.

[Abraham]

Middle Age Russ,

Thanks for the clarifying post.

[dlh]

"Taking the law into your own hands" can mean different things. Many state penal statutes (including Texas) specifically allow folks to defend themselves. Hence, they are not going outside the law nor are they "vigilantes."

If he simply means folks won't wait until the police get there then fine---we all know when seconds count the police are just minutes away.

[bblhd672]

Steve Pinkerton, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio, published an unabashed attack on those who accept the responsibility of their own protection. His article has been reposted at least twice. The mSA and SF Gate articles allow comments, it seems.

Sections of Pinkerton's article seem to support our right to self defense:

The idea of the gun-toting preacher thus showcases the power of individual self-assertion, while also often emphasizing the importance of protecting and preserving a wider community.

However, his last line reveals his true agenda and opinion:

– and that God is on the side of those who would take the law into their own hands when necessary.

Original posting:
http://theconversation.com/why-american ... hers-98816

mySA (San Antonio):
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/artic ... 046036.php

SFGate (San Francisdo):
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Why ... 046036.php

An academic attacking Christianity and guns? Using the entertainment industry's music, movies and television shows as evidence? Shocking!
Just another leftist academic trying to take away your guns and freedom.

[oljames3]

My thoughts on Pinkerton's article comprise two main point; negative portrayal of Christian pastors and stigmatizing self defenders as "...those who would take the law into their own hands when necessary."

In the first section of his article, Mr. Pinkerton conflates murder with legal self defense and defense of others.

In the 'With a Bible and a gun' section, he presents only negative examples; Jesse Custer, the protagonist of the popular AMC TV series “Preacher,” and the " the decades long clashes between (mostly Catholic) Irish nationalists and (mostly Protestant) British loyalists."

In the A Christian country section, Mr. Pinkerton, presents pastors who have been in trouble with the law. We know that DPS data show that Texas who hold an LTC are far less likely to be convicted of a crime that the general population. Mr. Pinkerton talks about "...a lone hero to save the rest of us when our institutions fail to." but does so in the context of "... Americans’ interest in vigilante justice … ."

In the Righteousness and retribution section, continues to conflate "vigilante justice" with self defense and defense of others. He continues to present negative examples of fictional preachers rather with no positive examples of factual ones. He continues to refer to self defenders and defenders of others as vigilantes; "Where other vigilantes might appeal to their own, individual codes of justice, the preacher figure carries the authority to discharge God’s justice. His vengeance carries always the suggestion that it’s divinely inspired." His mention of the NRA is less than flattering; " - not to mention the NRA’s contention that only “a good guy with a gun” can stop a bad guy with one."

And finally, his last paragraph presents the image a fanatical vigilante; "With a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other, the avenging preacher confirms the view that true justice cannot be enforced by institutions alone – and that God is on the side of those who would take the law into their own hands when necessary."

As a discussion of literature, this article has merit. However, since Mr. Pinkerton starts the article with a discussion of actual events, it seems to me that the article should be taken as a factual discussion.

[oljames3]

"Taking the law into your own hands" can mean different things. Many state penal statutes (including Texas) specifically allow folks to defend themselves. Hence, they are not going outside the law nor are they "vigilantes."

If he simply means folks won't wait until the police get there then fine---we all know when seconds count the police are just minutes away.

Words and phrases can have differing shades of meaning, especially in English. However "take the law into own hands" seems to have an overwhelmingly negative connotation. For example http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/take%20 ... wn%20hands.

[Middle Age Russ]

OLJAMES3, I believe that I understand where you are coming from. Words do indeed have meanings. I could be giving the writer more credit than he deserves and he could indeed be attacking those who'd defend themselves. On the other hand, my perception of vigilantism is perhaps nuanced to recognize that in certain times and places it may be necessary and correct -- and I therefore may have a more neutral stance toward that word and concept than some readers. Don't get me wrong -- I am all for letting the Justice system work where possible, and vigilantism should never be the answer if there is opportunity to let the laws and Justice system work. To me, the phrase "taking the law into their own hands when necessary" isn't a bad definition of self-defense in a society formed by rule of law. I am certainly a proponent of self-defense, and don't see the phraseology as particularly stigmatizing.