Armed citizens

[vern_humphrey]

Well, you’ve kind of re-constructed my argument there to make a point and mis-represented me in the process. I’m clearly saying that I could not, and would not deny anyone anything, after all, God gave us all the freedom to choose. Who am I to remove that right?

Then the case is closed. We have a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

I am saying that as a Catholic Christian, I think we should leave law enforcement to the assigned authorities and concentrate on loving our neighbour as Jesus taught us.

And who says we bear arms for law enforcement purposes?

We bear them for self-defense – which is different.

I think we would achieve more if we did that and I think others would see we are followers of Christ- it would be demonstrated for all to see through our love.

Peace.

So standing around helpless while people are being murdered around us shows other people we are followers of Christ?

 

[FightingFat]

During the past quarter century I have held dozens of guns in my hands hundreds (if not, thousands of times) and I never killed anyone nor did I even attempt to kill anyone. As a matter of fact, I never even shot anyone or even had a desire to shoot anyone. Thus, based on a quarter century of personal experience, I have to strong disagree with your statement.

You’d also have to admit that it’s pretty pointless you owning a gun then isn’t it?

Neither does FAILING to fulfill our GRAVE DUTY to protect ourselves from harm “compute” with our “Catholic Programming”.

Have I failed? Nope.

 

[FightingFat]

So standing around helpless while people are being murdered around us shows other people we are followers of Christ?

Well I would suggest remonstration would better demonstrate it than shooting them, which seems to be your only desire.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Equally honours? I’d never heard of him until I came here and had him thrown at me in a debate like this one.

Just because you are not knowledgeable in that aspect of church history, does not lessen the fact that the Catholic Church OFFICIALLY recognizes him as a SAINT – i.e., “equally honors”.

 

[mgrobertson79]

I am saying that as a Catholic Christian, I think we should leave law enforcement to the assigned authorities and concentrate on loving our neighbor as Jesus taught us.

We aren’t trying to enforce any laws. Forget about laws for a minute. We are only trying to prepare to defend ourselves from an unjust aggressor. Jesus didn’t teach us to sacrifice our family to criminals so the criminals could live. This is exactly what you are saying. My own life may not be worth much, but that of my family is. I do truly love my neighbor, but you cross the line when you come at me with a knife or gun. I also love the Church and will submit to the authority given her by Christ. It is this authority we see in the Catechism when it says;

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.

Also the Baltimore Catechism states;

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?

A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1.** In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives**;
2. In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it;
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson33.htm

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well I would suggest remonstration would better demonstrate it than shooting them,

So you would have stood there and remonstrated with
Cho as he was shooting everyone around you?

which seems to be your only desire.

Ascribing desires like that is against the rules.

 

[FightingFat]

We aren’t trying to enforce any laws. Forget about laws for a minute. We are only trying to prepare to defend ourselves from an unjust aggressor. Jesus didn’t teach us to sacrifice our family to criminals so the criminals could live. This is exactly what you are saying. My own life may not be worth much, but that of my family is. I do truly love my neighbor, but you cross the line when you come at me with a knife or gun. I also love the Church and will submit to the authority given her by Christ.

To me this sounds like when you’re arguing with a pro-abortionist and they say “what about if the mother was raped, or the child is conceived through incest”

How would we answer those allegations?

 

[FightingFat]

So you would have stood there and remonstrated with
Cho as he was shooting everyone around you?

Well, for all your guns, no one stopped him did they?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I own a Sig P229 .40 S&W

Do you carry that concealed? I have the 229 DAK SAS and I can only effectively conceal it during the winter months. The rest of the time I carry the 239 DAK SAS – also in .40S&W

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, for all your guns, no one stopped him did they?

Thank you for making my point for me.

No one stopped him because no one had a gun – other than the murderer. Despite the fact that Virginians can carry guns off campus, they cannot carry on-campus.

The university violated their civil rights – and they died.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You’d also have to admit that it’s pretty pointless you owning a gun then isn’t it?

Is it pointless to wear a seatbelt if you have never been in a car accident? Is it pointless to have fire insurance if you’ve never had a fire? Is it pointless to lock your doors if you have never been robbed?

Have I failed? Nope.

If you are placed to the test and are found lacking and if that were not the case if you been armed with a firearm, then, yes you WILL HAVE failed in your Catholic DUTY.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’m also a bit of martial artist, I’m more than capable of defending myself and others. I am prepared to do all that is necessary in defence of my family and of my neighbour-- and I have done so. I don’t carry a gun and I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to do so.

And if you encounter someone who is bigger, stronger, faster, better trained and/or out-numbered, what will you do then?

 

[Black_Jaque]

And if you encounter someone who is bigger, stronger, faster, better trained and/or out-numbered, what will you do then?

We ought to be cautious about this line of reasoning since it can escalate to whether we are remiss in our duties by merely carrying a pistol when perhaps we ought to have been carrying a carbine. And so forth.

This falls under prudential judgement. Carrying a weapon has a cost. There is the cost of the time needed to practice with it. There is the monetary cost itself. All of which is time and money that could have been spent elsewhere. If a man considers the odds of his ever needing a firearm to be so low that the risk of spending the limited resources on one is worse then that’s prudential judgement. Rather than spending the time at the range practicing and the money on the gun and ammo, he can spend it in the soup kitchens.

That doesn’t mean that if a guy elects to purchase a gun he is being imprudent. He may find therapeutic benefits in blasting pop cans, hunting. He may also find that his schedule and finances can afford a firearm without cutting into his time and donations to the community soup kitchens.

Frankly, if a guy believes that owning a gun will turn him into a murderous lunatic, he is probably excersizing prudence by not purchasing a gun. However, for those of us with the discipline to control our emotions in spite of possessing deadly force, don’t infringe on our rights…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Frankly, if a guy believes that owning a gun will turn him into a murderous lunatic, he is probably excersizing prudence by not purchasing a gun. …

Far be it from us to dispute his assessment of his own mental problems.

 

[rstegeman]

Part of the problem with this argument is that we are focusing too much on guns, which are just instruments of their owners. The intentions of the owners of ANY instrument is what we should be focused on. FightingFat, you said that you are trained in martial arts (depending on the style, the only real use of it is for violence whether defensively or offensively). Now I know that martial arts are taught to be used only defensively, however, anyone trained in them could so choose to use them aggressively and with that training, could easily deal a lethal blow. You can pick your poison - knives, guns, clubs, martial arts, anything and it all comes down to intentions. There is NO difference. And just because people argue for ownership of guns, does NOT necessarily mean that they are hell-bent on shooting people.

Also, I think that the inherent problems in non-verbal forums are leading to some rather heated discussions in here. Some things that we write with a certain tone and meaning might be mis-interpreted by the reader. Now, I’m only stating my perception here, not saying what you are actually intending, but you say that you are not denying anyone’s right to choose if they want to own a gun but that you won’t because it doesn’t mesh with your Catholic beliefs. The way that you have been saying it comes accross as we all have free will so if we choose to own a gun, so be it, but by doing so, it makes us less faithful to the Church in doing so. This might not have been your intent, but I think that many here are interpreting it this way.

As for other arguments I’ve seen here. I don’t understand why it is okay for law enforcement or the military to possess and use firearms, but not the rest of the population. When we are judged by Jesus, is going to ignore an injury or killing due to firearms simply because the person was wearing a badge or uniform and condemn others simply because they weren’t? Or is he going to look into each person’s heart and determine their true intentions and judge them based on that?

Pardon my miscellaneous ramblings. I was typing my stream of consciousness there

 

[vern_humphrey]

Part of the problem with this argument is that we are focusing too much on guns, which are just instruments of their owners. The intentions of the owners of ANY instrument is what we should be focused on. FightingFat, you said that you are trained in martial arts (depending on the style, the only real use of it is for violence whether defensively or offensively). Now I know that martial arts are taught to be used only defensively, however, anyone trained in them could so choose to use them aggressively and with that training, could easily deal a lethal blow.

How can it be Catholic to train to beat and brutalize other people?

 

[mgrobertson79]

How can it be Catholic to train to beat and brutalize other people?

We don’t train with the intention of hurting or killing, we train with the intention of protecting ourselves and our families. Have you ever heard of the theory of double effect. One is intended the other is not. What is intended here is to preserve ones own life. The unintended or accidental effect here is the injury or death of the **UNJUST **aggressor. This seems to skip through peoples logic, they want to make law abiding citizens out to be the bad guy because they want to live. There are some instances where lethal force is not justified, but if your life is in danger it is.

BTW, Vern, This isn’t directed at you, but at anyone who would use the argument of training or equipping oneself for defense.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thomas Paine was a Quaker and a pacifist. Here’s what he had to say on the matter:

“I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly argue with all the world to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation, but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

We don’t train with the intention of hurting or killing, we train with the intention of protecting ourselves and our families.

Fighting Fat, himself has said that the only purpose of guns is to kill. That being the case, he must admit the only purpose of his training in martial arts is to beat and brutalize people.

Have you ever heard of the theory of double effect. One is intended the other is not. What is intended here is to preserve ones own life. The unintended or accidental effect here is the injury or death of the **UNJUST **aggressor. This seems to skip through peoples logic, they want to make law abiding citizens out to be the bad guy because they want to live. There are some instances where lethal force is not justified, but if your life is in danger it is.

I am well aware of the Church’s position on self-defense, and of the law. That’s why I carry a .45.

But Fighting Fat, himself has said that the only purpose of guns is to kill. That being the case, he must admit the only purpose of his training in martial arts is to beat and brutalize people.

BTW, Vern, This isn’t directed at you, but at anyone who who use the argument of training or equipping oneself for defense.

I know just such a person.

 

[jc-servant]

---

To mg - Ah, I have heard of pepper spray before, just never heard it called “mace” - maybe that term is not popular in Australia. Besides, I’m not a woman, so not as likely to carry pepper spray. What do you mean I ahve a sheltered life, though? Just because I live in the suburbs not the urban blight?

Actually mace and pepper spray are not the same thing. Mace or tear gas are earlier formulations designed to irritate the senses. The earlier formulations usually don’t work on people high on drugs because they don’t feel the irritation. (They also don’t feel a good whack with a baton, but that is another story.)

Tear gas is supposed to make the eyes run and cause trouble breathing. However, in reality a certain percentage of the population is totally immune to reactions from these types of agents. I found out when I was in police training that I’m one of the lucky few. I set off a crowd suppressant sized tear gas bomb and ran around in the cloud breathing deeply with absolutely no reaction. Other officers were choking and crying from a smaller round set off at some distance.

Pepper spray is an “inflammatory” agent that actually causes tissues to swell. It swells your tissues and makes your eyes run and swell shut even if you are too high on drugs to feel it. It can also cause severe respiratory distress resulting (rarely) in death if someone has a pre-existing medical condition such as severe asthma that has already reduced their lung capacity.

Any of these agents only work if you hit the target and they won’t stop a person with a weapon from actually getting you if they are already close by. I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but I’m darn sure trained and armed even though I’m now a lawyer. In fact with the recent increase in crazy kidnappings of regular folks in my area, I’m going for my concealed carry permit later this year.