Gun use can be morally necessary

[fide]

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.”<St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art>

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.<St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art>

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.

2320 The murder of a human being is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator.
2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Does anyone doubt this? I’ve never really run across Catholics who were complete pacifists, although I’m sure some exist somewhere.

 

[JerryZ]

The important thing to remember is that in the Bible GOD’s commandment is very clear as to the intention of not committing murder against an innocent.
While killing another human being while definitively not something to take up lightly can be lawful due to extreme circumstances. War, aggression etc.

As for guns, well in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus said this:

Luke 22:35 “When I sent you without money or provisions or shoes, did you lack anything?”
Luke 22:36 And they said, “Nothing.” Then he said to them: “But now, let whoever has money take it, and likewise with provisions. And whoever does not have these, let him sell his coat and buy a sword.
Back then was sword, today perhaps a glock.

 

[PJH_74]

I don’t really disagree with the idea of self-defense. I am however a bit concerned about the upticks towards rationalizing more forms of lethal self-defense in an era that has seen lethal crime recede to levels not seen in 60 years or more.

This Catechism, to my reading, is somewhat vague. But it seems, to me, to take a strong stand that using as little force as necessary is a moral obligation. To my reading, this puts “stand your ground” type laws a the fringe or over the line set by the Catechism. E.g. shoot first and justify later is not moral.

 

[Anrakyr]

shoot first and justify later is not moral.

That sadly is often the case. What happened to the mentally of rather letting a guilty man go free then risk imprisoning one innocent?

I feel what’s often the case is some people sit at home waiting for that one exception so they can lock and load liked they waited their whole life for.

I really get a “can I shoot them now?” Vibe from some gun enthusiasm.

 

[Emeraldlady]

The point that the US sees differently to the rest of the Christian world is in regards to what constitute ‘moderate’ defense and what constitutes an ‘intention to kill’.

This is Aquinas extended passage on legitimate self defense.

“Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (II-II:43:3; I-II:12:1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.” (ST II II 64 7)

Most interpret the fact of having a gun for self defense as the most extreme measure of defense as is legitmate to those commissioned to serve the common good ie police, soldiers. It doesn’t really rate as a ‘moderate’ measure. There are no measures more extreme.

The other point is the ‘intention’ to kill fundamental to the design of a gun. Aquinas says it is the right alone of those commissioned to serve the common good, to ‘intend’ to kill in defense. Because of the nature of their commission, even if they may kill in self defense it is still referred to the common good which they are out there serving. Personal gun ownership comes with zero responsibility to defend anyone but oneself. Someone might choose out of altruism to use it to defend others but there is no duty or obligation to do so. There is no mandatory need for defense training or for tactical training in diffusing a situation before killing.

Hence, the prohibition on private gun ownership specifically for self defense. It can’t be justified in the majority of interpretations.

 

[PJH_74]

I feel what’s often the case is some people sit at home waiting for that one exception so they can lock and load liked they waited their whole life for.

I look at it this way, there is nothing that I own that is worth shooting over…and the reality is most criminals don’t want to be detected. I can see some reason for people like 24 hours convenience store owners to have a gun. However bullet proof glass and timed safes are very likely more effective.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

I really get a “can I shoot them now?” Vibe from some gun enthusiasm.

This is sadly true. If you go to a gun range or post on a gun forum you’ll definitely encounter people who seem to hope someone breaks in at night so they can finally live out their call of duty fantasies.

 

[po18guy]

Another popcorn thread, in which progressives who label themselves as “moderates” decry anything and everything to do with guns, but have no opinion on heart disease, cancer, falls in the bathroom, knives, clubs, rocks, blunt objects, etc.

Consider: Drunk driving deaths (never mind injuries) run about 17,000 or so per year. Gun homicides are about 11,000 (in which self-defense is included!). So, which is the crisis, according to the pre-programmed media? Guns. Not the traffic deaths of innocent children each and every day. Not repeat criminals and gangsters. Guns.

Which is the crisis according to the hoplophobes? “Ah, let 17,000 a year die in cars - we accept that. We just don’t want anyone shot.” Guns again.

What is it about an armed and free nation that so irritates the progressive left? Well, considering their failed coup in the presidential election, do we really want to disarm ourselves in the face of such a blatant, arrogant and condescending power grab?

Applying William of Ockham’s razor to this problem, we see that the easiest way to reduce crime is to control criminals.

We have Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) - not “Mothers Against Driving” They understand that vehicles have lawful, legitimate purposes and that criminal misuse of vehicles is the problem.

Not so much with the anti-gun crowd. They just hate guns - hoplophobia. Phobias are treatable, but one must first admit that there is a problem.

 

[MPat]

Most interpret the fact of having a gun for self defense as the most extreme measure of defense as is legitmate to those commissioned to serve the common good ie police, soldiers. It doesn’t really rate as a ‘moderate’ measure. There are no measures more extreme.

Who exactly is that “most”? Can you provide some bibliographic records to confirm that it is not just your opinion?

The other point is the ‘intention’ to kill fundamental to the design of a gun.

As opposed to the design of the sword?

At least at the first sight, it seems to be pretty obvious that having a gun for self-defence is compatible with, for example, intending only to threaten the aggressor. If you think a lot of theologians have a different opinion, perhaps you should give bibliographic records, and many of them…

For example, “Catholic encyclopedia” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm) writes things like “A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him.”.

 

[fide]

Personal gun ownership comes with zero responsibility to defend anyone but oneself.

Do you really believe this? Consider the Command, “Love your neighbor as yourself” and the answer Jesus gave to the question “Who is my neighbor” was the story of the “Good Samaritan” -
(Lk 10:25-37). If you see anyone in need, grave need, a person who is lacking the ability to protect or defend or save himself - and you have with you the means and the ability to help that person - is it not your obligation to do so? Is it not your obligation (assuming that you yourself are not more weak and vulnerable than the other victim) to try to rescue the weak, the vulnerable, the defenseless when they are being gravely threatened by the strong and the ruthless?

Are we responsible for the care of the stranger only if he is not going to be killed? If he is going to be killed, we should pass by on the other side, and leave his fate in the hands of his attacker?

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

nother popcorn thread, in which progressives who label themselves as “moderates” decry anything and everything to do with guns, but have no opinion on heart disease, cancer, falls in the bathroom, knives, clubs, rocks, blunt objects, etc

Who is doing this?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Is there a question here?

 

[po18guy]

Be patient, just be patient.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I feel what’s often the case is some people sit at home waiting for that one exception so they can lock and load liked they waited their whole life for.

Any responsible shooter hopes he or she will never have to shoot anything other than targets, or wildlife if they hunt.

 

[po18guy]

Anrakyr:

I feel what’s often the case is some people sit at home waiting for that one exception so they can lock and load liked they waited their whole life for.

Any responsible shooter hopes he or she will never have to shoot anything other than targets, or wildlife if they hunt.

31 years of badge and gun. I never had to shoot anyone. Had hundreds of occasions where it would have been justified, but the Lord graciously spared me that trauma.

 

[po18guy]

Oh, I am subject to ridicule daily. Which ridiculous notion are you singling out?

 

[fide]

Thanks for your comments, but could you define “popcorn thread” for me? I’m grateful that my computer click-and see-definition could translate “hoplophobia” for me - “fear of guns/weapons” - I never heard of that before. “Popcorn thread” turned up only the “food” meaning, however. What does it mean to you?

 

[PJH_74]

Oh, I am subject to ridicule daily. Which ridiculous notion are you singling out?

My friend, I’m not sure what popcorn show you were alluding to. Pretty much everyone so far has been sticking to the original post which is how does the use of lethal self defense (usually involving a gun)? It would be a disservice to the point of this thread to devolve into what-about-ism. The cause of various deaths has its own set of circumstances. Some relate to everyday tasks, some are risks inherent to life, some are from negligence, etc. You also must consider per-cap-ita rates and opportunities for a death to happen. Throwing out raw numbers means little.

So can we please just have a discussion about the original topic? This is not about US politics, it is about a church Catechism and what it says. It is not about gun ownership, it is about applying lethal force. This could be a sword, knife, dagger, nunchucks, brass knuckles, concrete shoes, punching, martial arts, etc. Please comment if you have an opinion supported by the meaning of church teaching on this topic.

 

[Beryllos]

For example, “Catholic encyclopedia” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm) writes things like “A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him.”

That quoted fragment by itself is wrong, and the entire passage (Defense of Property) is recklessly vague as to the criteria for lethal defense of property. One can envision few circumstances where a theft can be considered life threatening, for example, if someone steals your horse in the middle of the desert. There is certainly nothing in my possession that is worth the life even of a thief.