Armed citizens

[DanteAlighieri]

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

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

Vern, this is COMPLETELY false! You are smarter than this absurd nonsense!

Owning a weapon is NOT a moral obligation! I have not “assented to the death of the innocent” by not arming myself, and you know it.

Another gaping hole in your line of reasoning is the escalation factor: merely having a gun is not enough to guarantee that you’ll save anybody – especially if you are outgunned. Got a 9? What if he has two? Or a shotgun? Or an Uzi? What if he’s a better shot than you are?

Owning a gun guarantees protection for nobody, and it certainly is not a moral obligation, no matter how warped one’s reading of the CCC.

Peace,
Dante

EDIT:

Let’s not forget that our duty to protect ourselves and others is in no way greater than our duty to be charitable.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

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:

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

Peace,
Dante

Dante,

Please. I have a license to carry and I obtained it for purposes of self defense. I’ve gone through training and am a pretty good shot. Yet, I have no intention of shooting anybody. I also have no intention of being a victim if I can prevent it.

Your words

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

concern me greatly, your logic escapes me. Are you suggesting that people should not be prepared to defend themselves? How can you put the responsibility for the death of the aggressor on the aggressors intended victim? I can’t follow that logic string at all.

Only once in my life have I had to brandish a gun to discourage some aggessors bent on doing me harm, and I was darn glad I had one. When the aggressors saw that I was armed, they decided (thank God) to leave.

Iowa Mike[SIGN] Praise God and Pass the Ammunition[/SIGN]

 

[FightingFat]

I think it was a good post Dante- I am incredulous at the way the CCC and similar teaching on self defense is bandied around here as a mandate for gun ownership and a license to shoot people! Craziness!

 

[mgrobertson79]

Dante,

Please. I have a license to carry and I obtained it for purposes of self defense. I’ve gone through training and am a pretty good shot. Yet, I have no intention of shooting anybody. I also have no intention of being a victim if I can prevent it.

Your words concern me greatly, your logic escapes me. Are you suggesting that people should not be prepared to defend themselves? How can you put the responsibility for the death of the aggressor on the aggressors intended victim? I can’t follow that logic string at all.

Only once in my life have I had to brandish a gun to discourage some aggessors bent on doing me harm, and I was darn glad I had one. When the aggressors saw that I was armed, they decided (thank God) to leave.

Iowa Mike[SIGN] Praise God and Pass the Ammunition[/SIGN]

Pope John Paul II said in one of his encyclicals that if the aggressor died while a person was defending themself the aggressor alone was responsible for his death. How can anyone think to know better than this great man who will soon(we hope) be declared a saint.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Pope John Paul II said in one of his encyclicals that if the aggressor died while a person was defending themself the aggressor alone was responsible for his death. How can anyone think to know better than this great man who will soon(we hope) be declared a saint.

The CCC also says that the death of the agressor ought to be “unintended”, and JPII did not say otherwise – nor do I.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Vern, this is COMPLETELY false! You are smarter than this absurd nonsense!

Owning a weapon is NOT a moral obligation! I have not “assented to the death of the innocent” by not arming myself, and you know it.

Another gaping hole in your line of reasoning is the escalation factor: merely having a gun is not enough to guarantee that you’ll save anybody – especially if you are outgunned. Got a 9? What if he has two? Or a shotgun? Or an Uzi? What if he’s a better shot than you are?

Owning a gun guarantees protection for nobody, and it certainly is not a moral obligation, no matter how warped one’s reading of the CCC.

Peace,
Dante

EDIT:

Let’s not forget that our duty to protect ourselves and others is in no way greater than our duty to be charitable.

Dante,

And in no way is it less! There is simply nothing wrong with owning a gun and using it to defend ones life or the life of a loved one (even a complete stranger).

Iowa Mike

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Dante,

Please. I have a license to carry and I obtained it for purposes of self defense. I’ve gone through training and am a pretty good shot. Yet, I have no intention of shooting anybody. I also have no intention of being a victim if I can prevent it.

Your words concern me greatly, your logic escapes me. Are you suggesting that people should not be prepared to defend themselves? How can you put the responsibility for the death of the aggressor on the aggressors intended victim? I can’t follow that logic string at all.

Only once in my life have I had to brandish a gun to discourage some aggessors bent on doing me harm, and I was darn glad I had one. When the aggressors saw that I was armed, they decided (thank God) to leave.

So, when you brandished that gun, did you aim at their chests? Their heads? Were you to have shot them, what are the odds that they would have died, given where they’d have been hit?

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."

What part of this are you unsure about?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Pope John Paul II said in one of his encyclicals that if the aggressor died while a person was defending themself the aggressor alone was responsible for his death. How can anyone think to know better than this great man who will soon(we hope) be declared a saint.

I totally agree.

Iowa Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, this is COMPLETELY false! You are smarter than this absurd nonsense!

A hissy fit is no substitute for facts or logic. You have had your own argument turned back on you and you’re upset.

Owning a weapon is NOT a moral obligation! I have not “assented to the death of the innocent” by not arming myself, and you know it.

You have most assuredly not taken positive steps to carry out your duty to defend yourself and others around you.

Another gaping hole in your line of reasoning is the escalation factor: merely having a gun is not enough to guarantee that you’ll save anybody – especially if you are outgunned. Got a 9? What if he has two? Or a shotgun? Or an Uzi? What if he’s a better shot than you are?

Ah, the old “Your solution isn’t perfect – so my solution (which doesn’t work at all) is better” ploy.

If we follow that logic, we shouldn’t have seatbelts or airbags in our cars – because they can’t guarentee everybody will be saved.

Owning a gun guarantees protection for nobody, and it certainly is not a moral obligation, no matter how warped one’s reading of the CCC.

Ah, the old “guarentee” ploy. We can’t have smoke detectors in our homes because they don’t guarentee everyone will get out in case of a fire.

We can’t have defibulators in public places because they don’t guarentee everyone will survive a heart attack.

Let’s not forget that our duty to protect ourselves and others is in no way greater than our duty to be charitable.

It isn’t? Human life is not a greater value?

 

[mgrobertson79]

The CCC also says that the death of the agressor ought to be “unintended”, and JPII did not say otherwise – nor do I.

Peace,
Dante

You may want to think again before spouting off like that. This makes you look bad. We DO have a right to self defense and if the aggressor is killed, it is on him, though culpability is not up to us to decide do to mental and spiritual issues.

CCC

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.[65]

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]

Evangelium vitae

1. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. 43 There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

Moreover, “legitimate defence 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”.44 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 action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. 45

 

[Iowa_Mike]

So, when you brandished that gun, did you aim at their chests? Their heads? Were you to have shot them, what are the odds that they would have died, given where they’d have been hit?

What part of this are you unsure about?

Peace,
Dante

Dante,

Self defense courses teach you to shoot to the chest because there is less chance of missing the target. I didn’t have to point the gun, I only had to show that I had one. At the time I was intent on preserving my life. Would I have shot them…oh yea, but only as a last resort. If they got killed it would have been their responsiblity not mine. See Mgrobertson’ comment below:

Pope John Paul II said in one of his encyclicals that if the aggressor died while a person was defending themself the aggressor alone was responsible for his death. How can anyone think to know better than this great man who will soon(we hope) be declared a saint.

What part of that do you disagree with?

Iowa Mike

 

[rstegeman]

The CCC also says that the death of the agressor ought to be “unintended”, and JPII did not say otherwise – nor do I.

Peace,
Dante

Just because one owns a gun, does not mean that ever intends on using it or even if used, that it’s intent is to kill. If you are using a gun for self defense, or any other weapon for that matter, your intent should be only to stop what is happening, nothing more. If the agressor dies as a result and you were truly intending on just stopping the person, then you are not culpable. However, if you intended on dealing a death blow, then you are. It is all in your intentions, as with anything.

To think that if a person owns a gun for self defense, that he is willing to kill is ludicrous. For one, I know many people that have guns that never load them. Their intentions are to bluff the aggressor. If you are willing to say that about guns, you have to apply the same logic to knives, bats, clubs, and hands and feet (for anyone trained in hand to hand combat or martial arts).

For the record, I do not own a gun (or have one) and probably never will. But I haven’t gotten the sense from anyone on this thread that owns guns, that they are manipulating the canon code to justify killing. Their arguments have all been based on self defense and STOPPING the agressor. Just remember that Jesus will know what your true intentions were, good or bad.

 

[Flopfoot]

A person with a gun is not automatically intending to kill - he may be intending to have the means to protect himself and others quickly and effectively (and if anything else happens while he’s doing this protection, such as the death of the attacker, that was not the intended result).

A person using a gun similarly may be intending to protect himself and others quickly and efficiently. The injury or death of the attacker is just the unavoidable side effect of an act that was clearly intended defensively.

You may own a gun, load a gun, and pray to never have to fire it. But if anything ever needs protecting, at least you have the gun with you. Heck, I’m from Australia (there are no guns here) and I can fig this out.

 

[bilop]

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

One escapes culpability b/c one does not intend to kill, only to stop the assault.

If someone is attacking you (or someone else) with a knife, or an axe or a gun, pretty much the only way you have to stop them is to shoot until they desist in their hostile action (if you don’t have a gun, you are basically helpless).

You don’t intend to kill, you intend to stop the assault. Death is the unintended (thought forseeable) consequence. Just like removing a diseased womb to save a woman’s life may lead to the death of a baby, but it is not abortion b/c that is not what is intended.

God Bless.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

One escapes culpability b/c one does not intend to kill, only to stop the assault.

If someone is attacking you (or someone else) with a knife, or an axe or a gun, pretty much the only way you have to stop them is to shoot until they desist in their hostile action (if you don’t have a gun, you are basically helpless).

You don’t intend to kill, you intend to stop the assault. Death is the unintended (thought forseeable) consequence. Just like removing a diseased womb to save a woman’s life may lead to the death of a baby, but it is not abortion b/c that is not what is intended.

God Bless.

I appreciate this answer, though I disagree with your premise.

Vern Humphrey,

I am not going to argue with you – not only do we disagree, but you clearly have no concept of logical debate.

To plug your own word into someone else’s sentence does not equate using their logic against them – to belittle them as having a “hissy fit” does not reduce the logical superiority of their claim to yours.

Have fun, and try not to get hurt.

To the rest, I must say that I respectfully disagree: owning a gun strikes me (and, yes, I agree that this is based on my opinion) as inappropriate.

I am not going to back this up here, because (as I said) it’s mostly based on my conscience and my personal worldview.

But don’t dare tell me I have a moral obligation to own a gun, as Vern has said – that is not just absurd; it’s offensive.

Peace,
Dante

 

[vern_humphrey]

I appreciate this answer, though I disagree with your premise.

Vern Humphrey,

I am not going to argue with you – not only do we disagree, but you clearly have no concept of logical debate.

My, aren’t we being nasty and unchristian.

To plug your own word into someone else’s sentence does not equate using their logic against them –

Actually, it does – if your algorythm is valid with your words, it must be valid with mine.

If I follow your argument, when you say “2 + 2 = 4” you’re right – but no one else can say “2 + 3 = 5.”

to belittle them as having a “hissy fit” does not reduce the logical superiority of their claim to yours.

If your claim was “superior” you would not have needed to have a hissy fit.

To the rest, I must say that I respectfully disagree: owning a gun strikes me (and, yes, I agree that this is based on my opinion) as inappropriate.

And despite your pretense, no one is trying to force you to own a gun. All we ask is that you not attack our rights.

I am not going to back this up here, because (as I said) it’s mostly based on my conscience and my personal worldview.

But don’t dare tell me I have a moral obligation to own a gun, as Vern has said – that is not just absurd; it’s offensive.

Peace,
Dante

When did I tell you you had a “moral obligation” to own a gun? That’s a pretext on your part.

 

[mgrobertson79]

I appreciate this answer, though I disagree with your premise.

Vern Humphrey,

I am not going to argue with you – not only do we disagree, but you clearly have no concept of logical debate.

To plug your own word into someone else’s sentence does not equate using their logic against them – to belittle them as having a “hissy fit” does not reduce the logical superiority of their claim to yours.

Have fun, and try not to get hurt.

To the rest, I must say that I respectfully disagree: owning a gun strikes me (and, yes, I agree that this is based on my opinion) as inappropriate.

I am not going to back this up here, because (as I said) it’s mostly based on my conscience and my personal worldview.

But don’t dare tell me I have a moral obligation to own a gun, as Vern has said – that is not just absurd; it’s offensive.

Peace,
Dante

In that case don’t you dare to tell the rest of us we can’t[own a gun]. The defense of myself and my family is obviously of no concern to you. Just pray that the decisions you make are the right ones as will the rest of us. If I shoot a man in self defense and he dies, I will only feel sorry in that the man attacked me. I will not be sorry that I killed him as it was justified and as such not murder. The 5th commandment is against murder, not justified killing. This is the problem with the liberal, sissy society we live in today. We are expected to subject ourselves to the whims of the criminals because while defending ourselves those same criminals may lose their life. Sorry, I don’t think so.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Why do I keep getting drawn into these threads? I don’t know.

I have a fundamental difference of opinion with you, and respectfully, I decline to answer these threads because I’m starting to get upset by the way some are addressing me.

Peace,
Dante

 

[mgrobertson79]

Why do I keep getting drawn into these threads? I don’t know.

I have a fundamental difference of opinion with you, and respectfully, I decline to answer these threads because I’m starting to get upset by the way some are addressing me.

Peace,
Dante

This is what get me, people get offended when their own tone is used back at them. When everyone else’s views differ and they can’t stand that. That is ok, I think you knew this is how it would turn out and entered the conversation anyway. I’m sorry if your feelings are hurt, but as adults we should be able to deal with that. As for the difference of opinion, you are entitled to that. However, you are not entitled to expect everyone else to change their’s. When words like “How dare you” are used in a sentence they are generally taken offense to. No one here has tried to change your opinion. We have only stated ours and the reasons for them. Those reasons based on the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are a few Saints, St. Benedict and St. Francis, etc, who encourage non-violence. I can understand why you would have this opinion and I commend you for it, if for the right reasons. I however believe if you have children or others in your care that their defense comes before any personal beliefs. If they are harmed on your watch, that is on you. I don’t believe anyone here has any malice in their hearts against you, only the difference of opinion. If anything was said hurtful by me, I am truly sorry.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why do I keep getting drawn into these threads? I don’t know.

I have a fundamental difference of opinion with you, and respectfully, I decline to answer these threads because I’m starting to get upset by the way some are addressing me.

Peace,
Dante

Here are some hints:

1. 
   *]Debate in good faith, and give others the courtesy of assuming they debate in good faith.
   
   *]Do not ascribe malice to people who disagree with you.
   
   *]Do not try to recast other people’s arguments – this is called the “strawman” approach.
   
   *]Do not try to hold a position that has been overturned – a good example would be continuing to argue that self-defense is somehow immoral when the Catechism clearly says the opposite.