Catholics and Firearms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rand2410
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think they meant that the dog would protect them in the physical sense. I believe they meant that the dog barking would give them warning that someone was approaching the house.
Exactly right. It boils down to early warning coupled with situational awareness and it does not even have to be a break in. Many would be home invaders will case your house to see if you sleep with a window open or the sliding glass door unlocked and may never get close enough to trip security lights or perimeter alarms but if your dog is all growling and ears perked up at oh-dark-thirty in the AM that alone may drive the bad guys off to another less secured abode.
 
What I wrote …I wrote. It is my honest opinion for you to take or …just as well…to leave. I was hoping that I might be able to clear up a couple of common misconceptions but I think I was not counting on causing a controversy with another expert. I will simply put my tail between my legs and leave this alone by deferring to your enthusiastic disagreement. I should have warned you before you put so much energy into your post…I simply don’t care about philosophy…I simply know what I had to learn. Have a nice day!😃
Here’s the deal:

You put forth a “what if” situation which basically put forth no solution to the problem you brought to attention. You further tried to back up this claim, both originally, and in response to my gripe about the mentality of it, by flapping around your credentials for credibility. OK, fine. However, when badges, credentials, or authority on a subject are flashed, solutions are expected.

Example:
You, being the long time police veteran that you are, are asked to give a seminar on surveillance and arrest techniques for a Bounty Hunting/Private Investigative service. This is not atypical for retired Law Enforcement specialists to do, i.e. act as consultants. Say these people are opening up shop in reaction to a new Homeland Security regulation which puts such things as illegal immigrant apprehension, warrant service, etc into the realm of contracting.

Any firm worth its salt will look at experts in the field and area, you being one. They will have said expert give some regional/local advice, as part of the reason they hired you is so they don’t have to pay some analyst extra money for an intelligence report on historical crime trends. Again, in this scenario, this is not out of the question. We’re what if’ing, right?

So as part of their curriculum on the area, you delve into historical trends in the area on use of weapons in certain crimes. You realize that in most daytime crimes, knives are often used by criminals instead of guns; interviews of suspects over the years have revealed a trend of doing this for lighter legal sentences if caught, ease of stashing, etc. So, the likelihood is that anyone acting on a burglary or anything else for which they’ve been hired to assist in stopping, is they might be stabbed instead of shot. You tell them this. These guys say, “well, what do you recommend as far as reacting to this variable? Our vests are set up for more undercover type stuff, just soft armor, and that’s easily defeated by blades and other pointy, hard objects.”

I’m not a genius LE guy, but I’d recommend utilizing hard plates in a system and style of their choice when at all possible. Solution. Easy.

Putting forth your “what if”, it would have had much more weight and bearing if you’d just said:
Solution:
“So, examining the statistics of day-time crimes in terms of home invasion and burglary, it would be prudent to retain your firearm in a safe when you are not in the home, provided you are not legally able to carry it on your person. As an LEO for # of years, this has resulted in fewer thefts of firearms kept for defensive purposes, as evident in trends of comparative inventory of residential property during investigations of similar crimes and circumstances.” (Or some equally professional sounding bit of wordiness to say: Get a safe and this likely won’t happen)

No need to get all defensive about how awesome you are because you carried a weapon in your career. Frankly, most cops are an absolute danger with a firearm due to departmental budgeting and the lack of real trigger time. Those who really make an effort to stay sharp are the minority.

And you have a nice day too, Sir. 🙂
 
If they cross my threshold and weren’t invited in, I’m using deadly force because they obviously took that possibility into consideration when they entered the residence, and deemed their nefarious plans worth the risk, thus leading me to believe the plan to, as at least a last means, use deadly force as well. In other words, I’m not gonna sit down with the miscreant and ask his feelings, what elitist mechanization him to this life of unfortunate crime, if he’d like me to testify on his behalf about how he was soooo apologetic for breaking into my residence, or any other manner of liberal nonsense. End up as the news story of the day if you want, but if it’s gotta happen, I’d like to be the one saying “no comment” as a body bag, not containing me or mine, is wheeled out of the front door.

However, I live in a free state where I am not obligated to vacate my own premises. For some others, that may be different. For some others, that may be irrelevant when some multiple-strikes violent felon is in their house.

Breaking and entering = dead.
Contrary to Catholic teaching, which allows for the minimal force necessary to stop an aggressor.
Are you being tongue-in-cheek? A person breaking into your home while you and/or your family are there is not there mistakenly. The threshold of my home is the point of no return.

In Texas it’s your property line. 😃 That was tongue-in-cheek. I think…
In light of the above post “Breaking and entering = dead”, nope, I was not being tongue in cheek. Just wanted to know if the poster was thinking such is an acceptable moral position to take as a Catholic.
Are you willing to risk your family on a “what if”? Breaking into an occupied home is proof of evil intent.
Evil intent=? Stealing? Yeah, probably. Wanting to cause harm to the occupants? Not necessarily.

When I was a lad, there was a rash of night thefts in our neighborhood. Apparently, the thief found a way to get in through sliding glass doors, take his loot, and leave undetected…at night, when people were sleeping. From my room, I could see his shadow when he tried to sneak into our house one night. Lucky we had a dog who barked and scared him away.

So Mr. “Breaking and entering=dead” would have killed a common thief on purpose? Not even close to Catholic moral teaching.
 
Contrary to Catholic teaching, which allows for the minimal force necessary to stop an aggressor.

Prove it, and I’ll prove you wrong in context. Per 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.
 
#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.
 
The post below was provided by mdkirkbride:

To Newbie2 - It would seem that the RCC has addressed the OP quite effectively.

*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.

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
Reply With Quote*
 
*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.

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
Reply With Quote
I can honestly say reading the Catechism for the first time was quite an eye opener for me, this is partly why. It really does do a good job of both explaining what and why.

Though I am usually armed to the teeth I’m solidly convinced the gun is the absolute **last **line of defense.

Far better to avoid trouble altogether, try and run from it, talk your way out of it, give it some money(I’m young so I rarely carry more than a few dollars in cash, I’d rather fork over 20 bucks than get stuck answering questions all night), punch it, and then, if none of those are an option, resign yourself to shooting trouble. 🤷
 
Yes, you may own and use firearms for self defense. The Catechism allows for self-defense, and so does scripture.

*“If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die: he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood. But if he did this when the sun is risen, he hath committed murder, and he shall die. If he have not wherewith to make restitution for the theft, he shall be sold.” * **Exodus 22:2-3 **

*“But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.” * Luke 22:36

The sword is not to be used for revenge, only for self defense and protection. You can’t live by the sword, as criminals do for example.

*“Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done?” * Matthew 26:52-54

While Christ told Peter to “put your sword in its place” He clearly did not say get rid of it. Jesus did not contradict Himself from a few hours earlier in Luke 22:36.

Owning firearms for protection and self defense for yourself and your family is allowed.
Fantastic quote from Jesus to Peter. I never made the connection. What a great tidbit. God love you.

Travis Dover
Catholic1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top