Catholic Church's stance on gun ownership

[Kielbasi]

That makes sense.

Of course no one should be required to surrender their property to a criminal if they don’t wish to, and if the criminal assaults the victim with a firearm or other deadly weapon to try and persuade the victim to surrender the property, deadly force is more than justified.

In other words if someone with a gun or knife demands money, the people have every right to refuse. And if the criminal comes at them with the weapon, the victim has every right to defend themselves with any means at their disposal.

 

[Julianna]

Very telling that you have such a cavalier attitude in regards to matters of life and death.

I think I need to put in context for you. I was quoting a movie.

youtube.com/watch?v=o6-Snl4a1RI

 

[Pro_Domina]

I didn’t know that bilingual was a language.

That is from a beer comercial called “I am Canadian.”

It is real funny.

youtube.com/watch?v=BRI-A3vakVg

 

[Pro_Domina]

Also it can be argued in court that a knife is a lethal threat at 30’ because of the short amout of time in which that distance can be covered, thus justifying lethal force within any room of your house basically.

This being a Catholic forum, we should also consider the morality of shooting a guy.

We can only equal the force, not surpass it.

If a guy breaks in and I point the gun and tell him to stop and he does or runs away, I can’t shoot the guy.

Now if the guy pulls out a weapon, I have every right to kill him because objectively, he has every intent to use it.

I will at least leave him crying for mommy.

Now there are other things to consider.

If Mike Tyson robs your house and he comes at you even without a weapon, I at least got to shoot him in the leg because I know that if engage him in a fight I am done.

 

[Brendan]

This being a Catholic forum, we should also consider the morality of shooting a guy.

We can only equal the force, not surpass it…

No, in Catholic Moral Theology, we are allowed to use potential lethal force to render the attacker incapable of continuing the attack.

That does not mean that if an attacker has a baseball bat and we have a shotgun, that we cannot use the shotgun to defend ourselves.

 

[Brendan]

Why don’t you actually read my posts. I already stated in an earlier post what people in Europe do. Nobody is allowed to carry weapons of any kind and where shotguns are allowed for hunting they are forbidden to be used for self protection. A man in England was jailed for using his shotgun and shooting someone who broke into his property.

People in Europe are not paranoid and do not live in fear like many Americans appear to do from the comments in this thread.
Its simply commonsense. At home ensure doors and windows are locked in the evenings and maybe also have an alarm. When out avoid areas known for violence.

Yes, I do read your posts, and I am aware of the regulations in many of the EU countries ( but your statement is not true for all of the EU, let alone all of Europe.)

My question still stands, what type of defense against an attacker do you propose that will satisify your moral obligations under Church doctrine until the arrival of the police.

As far as ‘living in fear’, I don’t live in fear of a house fire, but I both have fire insurance and practice fire drills with my family, especially the children. Possessing and practicing with my firearm is really no different, it is a type of insurance against a fatal attack against my family.

Your attitude on firearms strikes me as being very similar to a person who refuses install fire alarms and to practice fire drills because their city has a fire department and the fire department will rescue them in case there is a fire.

It is certainly true that the fire department will do their best to arrive in a timely fashion, but it would be better if you did something to save your life yourself until then.

 

[thistle]

Yes, I do read your posts, and I am aware of the regulations in many of the EU countries ( but your statement is not true for all of the EU, let alone all of Europe.)

My question still stands, what type of defense against an attacker do you propose that will satisify your moral obligations under Church doctrine until the arrival of the police.

As far as ‘living in fear’, I don’t live in fear of a house fire, but I both have fire insurance and practice fire drills with my family, especially the children. Possessing and practicing with my firearm is really no different, it is a type of insurance against a fatal attack against my family.

Your attitude on firearms strikes me as being very similar to a person who refuses install fire alarms and to practice fire drills because their city has a fire department and the fire department will rescue them in case there is a fire.

It is certainly true that the fire department will do their best to arrive in a timely fashion, but it would be better if you did something to save your life yourself until then.

Are you BLIND? Haven’t you read my posts? It is irrelevant what I think of firearms. Whether I am for or against them makes no difference. They are banned as a means of self protection in the EU. Licences to own a gun for hunting is not a licence to self defend using these guns. That is also against the law.
Defence when out of the home is very simple. Run or if not possible do what can be done physically to restrain an attacker while your family can get away.
At home lock doors and windows at night. If an intruder gets in same thing. Try to get family out of the house to safety and if no choice physically face the intruder to allow my family to get away.
I also trust in our Lord.

 

[Brendan]

Are you BLIND?

No.

Haven’t you read my posts?

Yes

It is irrelevant what I think of firearms. Whether I am for or against them makes no difference. They are banned as a means of self protection in the EU.

Fine, they are legal here ( and I would work to getting your laws more in tune with the Church’s teachings. Having civil law correspond to the Moral Law is always a good thing )

Licences to own a gun for hunting is not a licence to self defend using these guns. That is also against the law.

Defence when out of the home is very simple. Run or if not possible do what can be done physically to restrain an attacker while your family can get away.

Do you consider yourself to be more physically fit and more capable of close combat that any attacker you meet. ?

At home lock doors and windows at night. If an intruder gets in same thing. Try to get family out of the house to safety and if no choice physically face the intruder to allow my family to get away.
I also trust in our Lord.

Trusting in the Lord is a good thing. David trusted in the Lord, but also carried a sling

Also, would you rather obey the law and not use a hunting arm to defend yourself, even if it meant your possible death.

Ask your family if attacked and you had to face off the attacker so they could escape, would they rather you face possible prison, or possible death?

 

[thistle]

No.

Yes

Fine, they are legal here ( and I would work to getting your laws more in tune with the Church’s teachings. Having civil law correspond to the Moral Law is always a good thing )

Defence when out of the home is very simple. Run or if not possible do what can be done physically to restrain an attacker while your family can get away.

Do you consider yourself to be more physically fit and more capable of close combat that any attacker you meet. ?

Trusting in the Lord is a good thing. David trusted in the Lord, but also carried a sling

Also, would you rather obey the law and not use a hunting arm to defend yourself, even if it meant your possible death.

Ask your family if attacked and you had to face off the attacker so they could escape, would they rather you face possible prison, or possible death?

**
Well now. I have told you more than once what would be done by me and others in countries where weapons for self defence are banned. If you think that everyone would be granted a hunting licence just so they can have a gun then you are sadly mistaken. Guns owners are a miniscule percentage of the population and it is extremely difficult to get such a licence even for those can justify it.
I’m still waiting for you or any of the others to come up with some brilliant alternatives to weapons for self defence.**

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well now. I have told you more than once what would be done by me and others in countries where weapons for self defence are banned. If you think that everyone would be granted a hunting licence just so they can have a gun then you are sadly mistaken. Guns owners are a miniscule percentage of the population and it is extremely difficult to get such a licence even for those can justify it.
I’m still waiting for you or any of the others to come up with some brilliant alternatives to weapons for self defence.

That has already been answered – " … work to getting your laws more in tune with the Church’s teachings – having civil law correspond to the Moral Law is always a good thing … "

 

[Sir_Knight]

Go and give the sheriff a high five after you kill someone for trying to steal your precious stamp collection and why not go to the dead guys funeral and remind the family what a scum bag he was.

No wonder the U.S. is so messed up…it really is a violence, every man to himself kind of society…isn’t it?

Class.

So you plan on shooting the teenager who tries to seal your DVD player?

When lethal force, which could result in death or serious injury, is used; death or serious injury must be at risk. The CCC spells this out very clearly.

 

[DJJG]

*I live in New York State and a permit is required to own a pistol - in order to get a permit one nee three references, and these references have to fill out a questionaire that the county send them. I asked my pastor to be one of my references, and he took it very seriously. He first interviewed me, then he did fill out the questionaire and gave me a recomendation. Knowing Father, I know he would not have given me the recomendation if it wasn,t okay. *
**

 

[Sir_Knight]

When applying for my license to carry concealed weapons, I also went to my pastor for a reference. Being a gun owner himself and also having a concealed weapons license, he knew of the great responsibility that this involved and also took the time to talk to me before hand.

By the way, I’m presently licensed to carry a concealed firearm in 31 states.

 

[Pro_Domina]

No, in Catholic Moral Theology, we are allowed to use potential lethal force to render the attacker incapable of continuing the attack.

That does not mean that if an attacker has a baseball bat and we have a shotgun, that we cannot use the shotgun to defend ourselves.

A bat is potentially lethal. A fist, unless it is Mike Tyson’s isn’t.

Read up my post. I explained with examples.

Equaling means to reach the level that the aggresor has set.

He pulls a weapon out, you can only conclude he would use it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

At least not to kill. ( I got a pretty good accuracy.)

Two Points:

1. 
   *]If you are shooting, it is because you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury and you shoot to cause the most damage possible in order to stop the treat. If you do not do that, it will then be argued that you were not really in fear of your life and therefore not justified in firing your weapon.
   
   *] Once a bullet enters the body, all bets are off. I’ve seen reports where somebody took three .45ACPs to the chest and lived while another guy got shot in the leg with a .22LR and died in a matter of minutes because the bullet hit an arteriry [sp]

 

[thistle]

That has already been answered – " … work to getting your laws more in tune with the Church’s teachings – having civil law correspond to the Moral Law is always a good thing … "

In other words you have no answer other than weapons. Wow! That’s really civilised!

 

[Brendan]

In other words you have no answer other than weapons. Wow! That’s really civilised!

Self defense has many aspects, as you mentioned, locking doors and alarm systems are a good start.

But a locked door does you little good when the intruder is inside, or you happen to be attacked while outside your domicile.

We look at crime prevention very similar to fire prevention.

Yes, you keep paper away from open flame, install smoke alarms and develop escape plans. You mentioned similar actions in relation to crime prevention.

But I prefer to own a fire extinguisher as well. After all, only a fool would believe that just because you have take some precautions and installed alarms, that a fire is now impossible.

Likewise with a firearm. It serves the same purpose as a fire extinguisher does with fire, it removes the threat and allows a defense until the appropriate government authority arrives.

Now imagine being on a board where people from other countries are telling you how they are prohibited from owning fire extingishers, and they feel safe because they have smoke alarms and fire departments. And that if a fire actually occured, they would attempt to physically confront the fire by stomping on it in order to buy time for their family to escape.

And you have some of them ( not you, deo gratias) stating that owning a fire extinguisher is a sign that you live in fear of fire, rather than how most rational people would view it; as taking steps to reduce the threat posed by the very small actual risk of a fire.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Two Points:

1. 
   *]If you are shooting, it is because you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury and you shoot to cause the most damage possible in order to stop the treat. If you do not do that, it will then be argued that you were not really in fear of your life and therefore not justified in firing your weapon.
   
   *] Once a bullet enters the body, all bets are off. I’ve seen reports where somebody took three .45ACPs to the chest and lived while another guy got shot in the leg with a .22LR and died in a matter of minutes because the bullet hit an arteriry [sp]

1. 
   And I will argue that he had all the capabilities to kill me and demonstrated his intent to do so, and I had the ability to safely disable him so I did.
   
   And I know about .22s killing off silly shots. A shot in the arm can use the bone to channel the bullet into the heart or lungs.

 

[Sir_Knight]

And I will argue that he had all the capabilities to kill me and demonstrated his intent to do so, and I had the ability to safely disable him so I did.

You would have a hard time staying out of jail with that defense in most states because the criteria is NOT whether someone has the capacity to do so but whether you FELT that your life was in IMMEDIATE danger. It will be successfully argued by most DA that the fact that you did not shoot to kill demonstrated that you were NOT in fear of your life being in IMMEDIATE danger because someone who felt that their life was in immediate danger would not shoot to wound.

And, if you did not feel that your life was in immediate danger, then you were not justified in using deadly force in the first place.

EDITTED TO ADD: I see that you are from Rome. I guess the laws are different over there but in America, it would work in the manner that I outlined above.

 

[thistle]

Self defense has many aspects, as you mentioned, locking doors and alarm systems are a good start.

But a locked door does you little good when the intruder is inside, or you happen to be attacked while outside your domicile.

We look at crime prevention very similar to fire prevention.

Yes, you keep paper away from open flame, install smoke alarms and develop escape plans. You mentioned similar actions in relation to crime prevention.

But I prefer to own a fire extinguisher as well. After all, only a fool would believe that just because you have take some precautions and installed alarms, that a fire is now impossible.

Likewise with a firearm. It serves the same purpose as a fire extinguisher does with fire, it removes the threat and allows a defense until the appropriate government authority arrives.

Now imagine being on a board where people from other countries are telling you how they are prohibited from owning fire extingishers, and they feel safe because they have smoke alarms and fire departments. And that if a fire actually occured, they would attempt to physically confront the fire by stomping on it in order to buy time for their family to escape.

And you have some of them ( not you, deo gratias) stating that owning a fire extinguisher is a sign that you live in fear of fire, rather than how most rational people would view it; as taking steps to reduce the threat posed by the very small actual risk of a fire.

Forget about fire extinguishers. People die every day in fires despite fire precaustions.

Why can’t you answer my question directly. In most countries weapons for self defence are BANNED. I keep asking you what the alternative is in such countries but you still have not given me a response to that. It all comes back to weapons for you (unless I’m picking you up wrong).
WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE TO WEAPONS?