E
ExCatholicGuy
Guest
Maybe you should give some thoguht to where you choose to live or take your family. If you’ve had to use a gun twice to protect them, it might be prudent to get them into a safer environment.
- Status
T
triumphguy
Guest
The moral grey area for me is in the actual self defence.
The Church says we can use self defence, but I do not think the Church would say we should use deadly force as the default.
In order to use a gun safely in a self defence situation I really need to take the body mass shot. I can’t shoot to maim, or injure, or scare. I have to shoot to kill.
The moral grey area is precisely that there is no grey area with a gun.
If I pull a gun and aim it at a person I had better shoot to kill without a moment’s hesitation.
Therefore, there are going to be situations where my response in a self defence situation where I rely on a gun for defence is not proportional to the threat.
Now I know many will say that if someone breaks into my house I will treat them as if they intend to rape and kill my wife and kids, and I will therefore have a moral right to kill them before they rape and kill my wife and kids. What if it’s a homeless kid looking for shelter?
Also, like a previous member wrote, you either kill or do not shoot. Either you were at risk of losing your life or not. I’ve been told by police friends that you need to empty the mag into the front of the intruder so that you can say you were so scared that you blacked out and when you came-to the intruder is lying dead at your feet without you remembering a thing (this is in Canada).
Is it just me or does anyone else see the moral dilemma here?
Relying on pulling a gun in self defence forces me to use an action which may not be proportional to the threat, and therefore I may illegally and unethically kill someone.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6…
except we are all going to be judged by The One after we’ve inevitably been carried by 6.
Any thoughts?
BTW I own 3 rifles and I target shoot with handguns so I’m not anti-gun ownership.
The Church says we can use self defence, but I do not think the Church would say we should use deadly force as the default.
In order to use a gun safely in a self defence situation I really need to take the body mass shot. I can’t shoot to maim, or injure, or scare. I have to shoot to kill.
The moral grey area is precisely that there is no grey area with a gun.
If I pull a gun and aim it at a person I had better shoot to kill without a moment’s hesitation.
Therefore, there are going to be situations where my response in a self defence situation where I rely on a gun for defence is not proportional to the threat.
Now I know many will say that if someone breaks into my house I will treat them as if they intend to rape and kill my wife and kids, and I will therefore have a moral right to kill them before they rape and kill my wife and kids. What if it’s a homeless kid looking for shelter?
Also, like a previous member wrote, you either kill or do not shoot. Either you were at risk of losing your life or not. I’ve been told by police friends that you need to empty the mag into the front of the intruder so that you can say you were so scared that you blacked out and when you came-to the intruder is lying dead at your feet without you remembering a thing (this is in Canada).
Is it just me or does anyone else see the moral dilemma here?
Relying on pulling a gun in self defence forces me to use an action which may not be proportional to the threat, and therefore I may illegally and unethically kill someone.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6…
except we are all going to be judged by The One after we’ve inevitably been carried by 6.
Any thoughts?
BTW I own 3 rifles and I target shoot with handguns so I’m not anti-gun ownership.
W
white_sheep
Guest
I have also defended myself with guns twice, both times in pretty nice places. Both times the bad guys came to me. It had nothing to do with where I was or what I was doing.
Unlike someone mentioned before, it is actually not very rare for someone to defend themselves with guns in the U.S., it happens over a million times a year.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
Like the old saying goes: “Its better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six” !
G
GEddie
Guest
Ah, but everybody will face the six one day, and then Purgatory…Like the old saying goes: “Its better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six” !
E
ExCatholicGuy
Guest
I’d really like to know the specifics in those cases - I hear numbers like that thrown around a lot, but I have to wonder about the circumstances. I can’t help thinking there’s often more to the story.
D
Dominique1234
Guest
Makes sense. How do you know if deadly force should be used? I guess it depends on the situation. Like if a homeless person in the dead of winter is seeking shelter… either he dies of cold or from a bullet because of intrusion? Where does one draw the line? Is there any type of training for people concerning sketchy situations etc ? And mostly ARE people trained or can they just get a gun and do what they want with it? I know in Canada laws are more strict than in the US. I now live in the US but from Canada, so I sort of know both. I’m not a citizen but a permanent resident and have a gun to hunt only. Not allowed a conceal and carry permit. But I don’t know what kind of training people go through in the US.
Can you get me info on that please? It would help me quite a bit.
Thanks
B
buffalo
Guest
Use of force is a judgement call. For trained professionals I believe the rule of thumb is meet force with equal force. For a citizen however, the situation is not trained for and the possibility of misjudgement has to be considered.
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
I’ve thought about this many times and I agree; there’s a lot of grey area there. So many things must be taken into account. Even if you are justified, you still may not be able to shoot because of innocent people around.
I always figured that any normal person would run if they break into a house and see a gun pointed at them. If some stupid kids decided to just see if they could break into my house at night and I point an AR at them, they’ll probably run and I’d let them go. They mean me no harm at that point. If the intruder does not run away but instead comes toward me, reaches into his pocket, or does anything else that is threatening, it’s time to start shooting. Very difficult situation to predict or to prepare for ahead of time. If I had the money, I’d take a carbine class or two that covers home defense stuff. Good training can never hurt.
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
Sorry, I didn’t see your post when I was responding. My response to triumphguy probably covers most of it.
Most, if not all states require somebody to go through a training course on when to shoot and when not to shoot in order to get a concealed handgun license. Some do not require a license for open carry. I believe Alaska does not require a license for either open or concealed, but I would have to double check. The courses usually cover the various legal aspects of self defense, some range time for target practice, etc.
There is no training requirement for simply owning or purchasing a gun, but most of the folks I shoot with have gotten some training on their own. Courses like these are very popular. Personally, I would like to go through a rifle/carbine class that focuses on home defense, but these are expensive.
Knowing when to shoot and when not to is simple, yet difficult. The rule is that you never shoot unless you are in fear for your life, or someone else’s. Determining whether that is the case or not is a judgement call. The bad guy’s stance, expression, demeanor, whether he is armed or unarmed, etc. all play a role in this. There is a mindset that bad guys have that is difficult for us to understand.
The first post of this thread on another board I frequent is a very interesting take on the criminal mindset by a retired police officer. It’s too long to post here, so I have to provide just a link.
ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1285487_Street_robberies_and_you___The_Basics.html
T
tabycat
Guest
Like Pres. Reagan was shot? Maybe he should have been in a ‘nicer place’. Or maybe Lincon should have spent the evening at the White House, not at Ford’s. There is no such thing as a ‘safer environoment’ as the White House, but even there is the chance of some one pulling an illegel gun (or other weapon) out and using it. ::doh2:
E
ExCatholicGuy
Guest
A high-profile public figure is hardly comparable to the average person in terms of their risk of being attacked. While no environment is 100% safe, a review of crime statistics will show that one can dramatically reduce one’s chances of being a victim of violent crime by living in an area where such crimes are less frequent. That is probably much more effective then carrying a concealed weapon, because the weapon can only used (either fired or brandished) when an assault is in progress, or at least imminent. The attacker gets to make the first move, and accordingly has an advantage.
Removing yourself and your family from the criminal’s preferred hunting grounds, while perhaps less satisfying to one’s vestigial frontier ethos or “make my day” fantasies, would be far more effective in enhancing personal safety.
W
white_sheep
Guest
Specifics in which cases? If you mean the million times per year, the numbers in that range are often actually higher, I think 1.5-2 million. They are from surveys conducted.
If you mean my cases, well, one is a long story, but the other basically some guys got mad because my tires spun a little and threw gravel at them, they cornered us(me and a friend, I was 16), and 4 men came after us with tire irons and pipes.
J
JK8619
Guest
Guns are good.
A small minority of people misuse them.
I’m happy to see that most people here know the truth.
A small minority of people misuse them.
I’m happy to see that most people here know the truth.
S
superamazingman
Guest
What a wonderfully simple way to put it!Guns are good.
A small minority of people misuse them.
I’m happy to see that most people here know the truth.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I respectfully disagree.Guns are good.
A small minority of people misuse them.
I’m happy to see that most people here know the truth.
A car can be driven through a group of kids at a bus stop, or it can be used to transport someone to work, or an injured person to a hospital.
A bag of fertilizer can be used to make a bomb and blow up a building, or it can be used to grow something beautiful like a flower, a tree to provide shade, or crops to feed the hungry.
An airplane can be used to carry out unthinkable acts of terrorism but can also be used to bring medical supplies to those in need, as a means of travel to unite families, or a way for our Holy Father to travel the world to shepherd his flock.
The human body can be used to violate another human being in the act of rape or for disordered desires such as homosexual sex and pre-marital sex, or it can be used to share the experience of God’s creation in the coming together of husband and wife in the marital embrace.
High explosives can be used to kill innocents in a suicide bombing or they can be used to mine minerals which are used in commercial endeavors such as medical technology, or to create routes for roads and trains to unite a country and make travel easier.
Knowledge can be used to further inherent evil such as cloning or germ warfare, or it can be used to develop medical treatments, to help us understand the nature and beauty of God’s creation, and to develop clean sources of energy.
So it is also with a firearm, which can indeed be used for evil purposes, but can also be used to defend the innocent or weak, to provide food, and to liberate the oppressed.
Guns are simply a mechanical object and have no inherent good or evil. It is the people who wield them which determine their morality. Its well past time to stop focusing on the means and to start focusing on the person.
Peace,
T
triumphguy
Guest
Let’s be honest though:
If I drove my motorbike or car with a picture of a human target on the front I would most likely be pulled over.
However when I go target shooting, this is what the default targets look like:
http://www.targetprinter.com/images/mansmallthumb.jpg
If I drove my motorbike or car with a picture of a human target on the front I would most likely be pulled over.
However when I go target shooting, this is what the default targets look like:
http://www.targetprinter.com/images/mansmallthumb.jpg
J
jwinch2
Guest
That’s not the “default” target by any means. It is a choice of a target, nothing more. https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/i...u8sgwNq51im7nsAdRDp-2fT5m1So_QN02xz90Gl2TlyaA
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/i...MAcJQ_k1k-YoKemlxYW2cLyduQ8PQCeYYqV6d3wAYZNsA
Even if it were the default, that doesn’t mean that people plan to go around shooting others.
https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/i...MKmmOODN1RNhCfLBn78InTJre5rO7AkMWg5KgHa7H2xX5
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/i...ah7TD37ZcaaSGYhkXkOCKAnS9XSlwjc8OqDF0bPZu86ZQ
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/i...Eg9Xzs9ZhZThgvFkAAzEK4y88EiPxagxp3jXYtrP_a9qA
Unless of course you believe in Zombies, Darth Vader, Freddie Kruger, or Aliens.
S
superamazingman
Guest
I’m not sure where you’re getting that “default” target. When I’ve gone shooting, they are like Jwinch’s targets.
Anyways, if you want to use the gun for self defense, what is wrong with a human shaped target? Not to be flippant, but honestly, that’s what you’ll be shooting at.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Not me. I’m after bigger game. Godzilla’s days are numbered.
- Status