Armed citizens

[FightingFat]

Did I say, “blowing him away?” No, I didn’t, so don’t construct an arguement to suit your cause.

OK, Can you show me where Jesus said “if a man rapes and murders your wife, shoot him with a gun”?

Catholicism doesn’t not reconcile itself with violence. Quite the opposite in fact!

 

[vern_humphrey]

OK, Can you show me where Jesus said “if a man rapes and murders your wife, shoot him with a gun”?

Can you show me where Jesus discusses airplanes, electricity, nuclear power and automobiles?

Catholicism doesn’t not reconcile itself with violence. Quite the opposite in fact!

“Doesn’t not?” A double negative? That would mean “Catholicism** does** reconcile itself with violence” according to the rules of English grammar.

And, in point of fact, it does. From the Catechism:

**Legitimate defense **

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

(My emphasis)

Now, you can twist and turn all you like, but right there in black and white is the Church’s position on the use of deadly force in self-defense.

 

[b_justb]

vern humphrey:

Can you show me where Jesus discusses airplanes, electricity, nuclear power and automobiles?

You forgot to mention Global Warming. Sorry I couldn’t resist.

Since this is the Social Justice forum and we’re on about the VT shootings. If there had been another person on the campus near the incidents that had a fire arm could he have used it to prevent the further loss of live? I think it’s safe to say, Yes, that could have happened. And by doing so would those actions be just? Yes, they would since they would have gone to save lives even if the VT shooter had been shot and even killed (“blown away” even?). Well then, how can it be said that citizens carrying weapons for self defense is wrong and is some how antithetical to Catholicism? That just doesn’t add up. Everyone spouting Jesus’, “turn the other check” always forget that a few pages later in the same Gospel story where Jesus asks if the Apostles have swords and to make sure they have them handy. We have to look at all of what Jesus said and taught not just a slice we like because it fits our own political agenda.

In case the readers are wondering about my political agenda. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the NRA. I do not own any firearms.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Vern,

Boy, I wonder where the “non-violent” folks who claim that THE proper Catholic response is ALWAYS non-violence are now? All I can hear is the crickets chirping.

 

[FightingFat]

Well I’m right here, and I just can’t believe how different the attitude displayed here is to the attitude I hold. Really, it amazes me! And you guys talk about the sanctity of life with regard to abortion as militantly as you brandish your deadly weapons (for legitimate- Church sanction self defence, of course).

 

[drafdog]

Jaque,
Apparently you missed posting #17.

Matthew

PS: And to continue on that posting, I saw to it that the professional credentials of the person were pulled so that the workplace would no longer provide a continuous supply of potential victims.

I much prefer the Big Stick of the Law to private retribution.

 

[Melvin]

Actually, the last time this happened (rape), I saw to it that the person was incarcerated. This, because it was a conviction on a “first offense,” set a legal precident in the jurisdiction.
I disuaded some of my friends from organizing “baseball bat parties” to deal with the issue.

I repeat: violence is not a solution to violence.

Matthew

You’re right of course, Matthew…And, following your logic, we should not have resisted Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. After all, it was definitely not the “violence” of a vigorous Allied prosecution of the war against those tyrants that kept them from finally imposing their rule and barbarism on the rest of the world, was it?

By the way, I hope the victim of the rape you cite was not murdered…and isn’t it interesting that incarceration of the perpetrator neither prevented the rape nor the potential (or actual) murder of the victim that might have ensued.

It always amazes me how those who argue against the right of self-defense seem to want to make the choice for the rest of us as to whether or not we will be victims.

Thank God that in a (more or less) free society, we have the right to make that choice for ourselves.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well I’m right here, and I just can’t believe how different the attitude displayed here is to the attitude I hold. Really, it amazes me! And you guys talk about the sanctity of life with regard to abortion as militantly as you brandish your deadly weapons (for legitimate- Church sanction self defence, of course).

I was rolling on the floor laughing about this part of your post:

I just can’t believe how different the attitude displayed here is to the attitude I hold.

The Catechism is wrong, you’re right, eh?

 

[Brendan]

Well I’m right here, and I just can’t believe how different the attitude displayed here is to the attitude I hold. Really, it amazes me! And you guys talk about the sanctity of life with regard to abortion as militantly as you brandish your deadly weapons (for legitimate- Church sanction self defence, of course).

It puts us in the same company as Pope John Paul.

EVANGELIUM VITAE

“…legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.”

Note that John Paul wrote these words in the very Encyclical on the sanctity of life. If John Paul recognizes that a death in defense of one’s life ( or in the lives of those under ones care) is in line with Catholic teaching on the Sanctity of Life, why can’t you?

I just can’t believe how different the attitude displayed here is to the attitude I hold.

Perhaps you should change the attitude you hold to be more in line with Church teaching on the subject.

 

[Black_Jaque]

FightingFat,

(for legitimate- Church sanction self defence, of course).

Exactly. If it’s OK by the Church it’s OK by me. So why do you have such a problem with it? Do you dissent from Church teaching?

Drafdog,

Yes I read #17 and I didn’t find anything in it that pertained to Church teaching. Aparently you don’t understand the difference between retribution and defense. Retribution is a punishment given AFTER the crime is committed. No gun supporter is in favor of using guns for retribution. Defense is an action done to prevent a crime BEFORE it happens.

You mistakenly focused on the action of the villain raping a man’s wife - that’s not the point. The point is, after the villain has already proven to you his malicious intent, and is now about to commit a second rape, do you stand by passively?

OF COURSE, just because you have a gun doesn’t mean that you have to draw it and fire it. You may find that another means is a safer option. The gun would be used as a last resort, for those situations where help will not arrive soon enough.

Do you understand the concept of being in “a tight spot?” The Big Stick of Law is a good tool, but it is slow and cumbersome. The Big Stick of Law is rendered useless when a man with a knife stands between you and your phone.

 

[rstegeman]

Actually, the last time this happened (rape), I saw to it that the person was incarcerated. This, because it was a conviction on a “first offense,” set a legal precident in the jurisdiction.
I disuaded some of my friends from organizing “baseball bat parties” to deal with the issue.

I repeat: violence is not a solution to violence.

Matthew

You are talking about violence in terms of revenge and that is definitely NOT condoned by the Church. However, if during the rape or just prior to, if you or your friends hit the rapist with a baseball bat with the INTENTIONS of stopping the person (or shot him with same intention) and that person died from the blow, it would not be considered sinful. It all has to do with the intention.
Your intent must be to stop or prevent the harmful act.

As with all things with the Catholic Church, there is more than just scripture to guide us. Even with scripture, we must bow to the Church’s guidance for the proper interpretation. Otherwise, we become nothing more than so many of the latest protestant “denominations” that interpret it to suit their needs and if differing needs occur, a new congregation is born.

If we act in accordance with the Church’s teaching, we know that we have Scripture, tradition, history, etc. to back our actions.

 

[drafdog]

I think that I can see now what Jaque’s position is. Jaque belongs to the “Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!” school.

I repeat: violence is not the solution to violence. The lamentable events at Virginia Tech differ little from any other violation of the human person. The idea that rape is off the subject is absurd.

One poster thought that I meant that we should not have opposed Hitler and his ilk. The German people failed to oppose Hitler in the prescribed fashion: via the ballot. That is the correct and approved method of handling such people. Use the legal and political tools of society. That I used the law and civil authority to handle a problem was certainly in accordance with Church teaching, however the use of violence is always problematic.

I did say that the person who attacked my family was incarcerated. I also mentioned that access to further victims was permanently cut off by removing the professional credentials of the perpetrator. The person can no longer hold a job of any sort in that profession. That put 28 years of education and profession development into the trash bin. I also provided further information that helped put the person in jail a second time on a prior offence.

Immediacy of effect may look to be the best criterion, but I prefer law. There is never any question in my mind that the morally correct action has been taken.

Matthew

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think that I can see now what Jaque’s position is. Jaque belongs to the “Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!” school.

What a nasty, unchristian comment to make.

I repeat: violence is not the solution to violence. The lamentable events at Virginia Tech differ little from any other violation of the human person. The idea that rape is off the subject is absurd.

One poster thought that I meant that we should not have opposed Hitler and his ilk. The German people failed to oppose Hitler in the prescribed fashion: via the ballot.

History is not your strong suite, is it?

The Nazis got where they were through the use of force – they had armed, uniformed “stormtroopers” in the streets and used intimidation and violence on a grand scale to gain control of Germany.

And in any case, what was the rest of the world to do – surrender to the Nazis saying, “Well, the German people failed to oppose Hitler in the prescribed fashion: via the ballot, and violence is not the solution to violence?”

That is the correct and approved method of handling such people. Use the legal and political tools of society. That I used the law and civil authority to handle a problem was certainly in accordance with Church teaching, however the use of violence is always problematic.

At Virginia Tech, one killer did for thirty-two unarmed people. They were somehow unable to vote him out of the building. The “legal and political tools of society” didn’t work for them.

I did say that the person who attacked my family was incarcerated. I also mentioned that access to further victims was permanently cut off by removing the professional credentials of the perpetrator. The person can no longer hold a job of any sort in that profession. That put 28 years of education and profession development into the trash bin. I also provided further information that helped put the person in jail a second time on a prior offence.

Immediacy of effect may look to be the best criterion, but I prefer law. There is never any question in my mind that the morally correct action has been taken.

Matthew

So it’s your opinion that the dead at Virginia Tech could afford to wait? That they needed no “immediacy of effect” when facing death? That their death is only a temporary inconvenience to them?

 

[mary_bobo]

I’m confused by my own grammar quoted back to me!

NRA DOES or DOES NOT believe mentally ill people should be allowed to own guns?

The ACLU opposes certain forms of gun control?

My head hurts.

Sorry if I was not clear. The NRA does NOT believe that mentally ill people should be allowed to own guns. If we did not have so many privacy laws (ACLU) more info as to mentally disturbed people would be available to those who sell guns.

 

[rstegeman]

I think that I can see now what Jaque’s position is. Jaque belongs to the “Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!” school.

I repeat: violence is not the solution to violence. The lamentable events at Virginia Tech differ little from any other violation of the human person. The idea that rape is off the subject is absurd.

One poster thought that I meant that we should not have opposed Hitler and his ilk. The German people failed to oppose Hitler in the prescribed fashion: via the ballot. That is the correct and approved method of handling such people. Use the legal and political tools of society. That I used the law and civil authority to handle a problem was certainly in accordance with Church teaching, however the use of violence is always problematic.

I did say that the person who attacked my family was incarcerated. I also mentioned that access to further victims was permanently cut off by removing the professional credentials of the perpetrator. The person can no longer hold a job of any sort in that profession. That put 28 years of education and profession development into the trash bin. I also provided further information that helped put the person in jail a second time on a prior offence.

Immediacy of effect may look to be the best criterion, but I prefer law. There is never any question in my mind that the morally correct action has been taken.

Matthew

Again, your “actions” took place AFTER the fact. You could easily make the argument that your judgement against that person helped incarcerate him. Yet as Christians, we are not to judge. We are to forgive. Your comments would not lead one to believe that you were forgiving.

As for Hitler and violence, are we to assume that your position would have been that the Allied forces not fight at all? That being the case, we wouldn’t have to worry about relations with the Jewish people because there would be none left, and he would have done the same to Catholics. According to you, there is no such thing as a “just war”.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Sorry if I was not clear. The NRA does NOT believe that mentally ill people should be allowed to own guns. If we did not have so many privacy laws (ACLU) more info as to mentally disturbed people would be available to those who sell guns.

This is a little OT, but what if Drafdog is the one put in charge of determining who is mentally ill and who isn’t. It appears that he’s pretty close to diagnosing me. Just food for thought.

 

[Black_Jaque]

I repeat: violence is not the solution to violence.

Do you understand the difference between defense and retribution?

Do you see the difference in how gun ownership is applied to defense but should not be used in retribution?

Two simple questions, can you answer them?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Re: Opening fire on police stations and military bases

Obviously you have not followed the reports from Northern Ireland regarding attacks on police and British Army posts. Or reports from Iraq. Fanatics and other nuts just don’t care.

The people who engage in random shooting are not looking for power; they are deranged persons and the only way to keep the random nuts from killing the less crazy portion of the population is to keep the guns out of their hands in the first place. The NRA will want my head for that but it will work.
As for armed citizens opening fire on someone with a gun, can you imagine the number of innocent bystanders who will be hit by such a fusilage? Not everyone is a marksman. In the midst of such a scene, someone is certain to mistake who the real target is and the whole business will end up making VA Tech look like a Sunday walk in the park.

Matthew

Of course this is twisted logic. What if’s don’t make an arugument. I lived in Ireland for many years and you simply cannot compare the political situation in Norther Ireland or Iraq with gun control in the USA…it’s like comparing birds and helicopters.

In Sourthern Ireland there is no violence of the kind that you depict. In Northern Ireland there has been an on-going political struggle that has spawned violence on both sides. In addition IRA violence was directed at the police and British Military, not college students.

By the way…it is illegal to own guns in Northern Ireland…but it doesn’t stop sectarian fighters from both sides obtaining and using guns, explosives, etc. In the Republic, the only people who have guns are criminals and they use them to commit armed robberies, murders etc.

So if you can hypothosize so can I:

You said “As for armed citizens opening fire on someone with a gun, can you imagine the number of innocent bystanders who will be hit by such a fusilage? Not everyone is a marksman. In the midst of such a scene, someone is certain to mistake who the real target is and the whole business will end up making VA Tech look like a Sunday walk in the park.” The VA killer murdered his victims at close range.

My reply: “The outcome of the slaughter in VT might have been reduced or prevented altogether if some ‘licensed’ gun carriers were around to stop him.”

Statistics in the States with right to carry laws don’t support your concerns about innocent people being slaughtered.

Iowa Mike

 

[DanteAlighieri]

This is getting ridiculous, guys.

Yes, the Church acknowledges one’s right and duty to personally defend oneself and those in one’s care.

Yes, the Church acnowledges the right and duty of the state to protect its people from agression.

Yes, the Church acknowledges that war is just in some cases.

No, the Church does not allow or disallow gun ownership by Catholics. However, her teachings on the sanctity of life should be instructive beyond how we deal with the unborn and the infirm. I contend that, in owning a weapon, one is affirming one’s willingness to kill.

Here is the problem: in the CCC quotes that have been thrown about here, the general idea is this: if one takes an aggressor’s life while defending oneself, one is not morally culpable for that death – but the death may not be the intended result:

The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

How does one escape culpability if, long in advance, one has already willingly assented to the death of the aggressor?

Peace,
Dante

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is getting ridiculous, guys.

Yes, the Church acknowledges one’s right and duty to personally defend oneself and those in one’s care.

Yes, the Church acnowledges the right and duty of the state to protect its people from agression.

Yes, the Church acknowledges that war is just in some cases.

No, the Church does not allow or disallow gun ownership by Catholics. However, her teachings on the sanctity of life should be instructive beyond how we deal with the unborn and the infirm. I contend that, in owning a weapon, one is affirming one’s willingness to kill.

And in not owning a weapon, one is affirming one’s unwillingness to do one’s duty.

Here is the problem: in the CCC quotes that have been thrown about here, the general idea is this: if one takes an aggressor’s life while defending oneself, one is not morally culpable for that death – **but the death may not be the intended **result:

How does one escape culpability if, long in advance, one has already willingly assented to the death of the aggressor?

Peace,
Dante

How does one escape culpability if, long in advance, one has already willingly assented to the death of the innocent?