Guns for self defense - Martin Luther King lady's ad

[CaptFun]

I don’t own a gun.

I have fired some … in fun. We called it plinking. Go out to the desert. Fire at distant tin cans or the designated target of choice. Make a campfire. Have a meal. Go home.

But they make me nervous.

This lady and this ad have changed me a bit.

http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/black-woman-nra.jpg

“I’m a good person. I never bothered anybody.

But I can’t afford a nice house in a safe neighborhood. I live in a government high-rise.

“Gangbangers and drug dealers walk down our halls every day. My neighbors and I were scared. We called the police. But they can’t keep us safe.

Some of us are too afraid to even leave our apartments.

But the housing authority told me, if bought a gun to protect myself, they’d throw me to the streets.

If I’m not free because of my address today. What makes you think you’ll be free tomorrow?”

“I marched behind Martin Luther King at Selma. I know my rights. Now I have my gun.

I am the National Rifle Association of America and I’m freedom’s safest place.

youtube.com/watch?v=U-6dWsQMkDE

Once I stayed overnight at a friends’ place (he was an LA fireman and not at home so he left me notes all over his house with how to lock up etc.).

The last note I got was possibly a prank to disturb my sleep (which WORKED).

On the pillow of the guest bed was a cryptic note: If you NEED it … there’s a loaded gun in the dresser drawer next to your bed).

That night a big cat (I later found) jumped onto his rock roof from off the low lying hillside. It sounded like (and were) FOOTSTEPS. The motion light on the porch went ON! A large shadow went by.

I found myself standing in the hallway in my underwear clutching the pistol that seemed to implore:

Shoot me! SHOOOOOT MEEEEE!

I didn’t. Soon I saw the big cat and figured things out. Did not get to sleep that night anyhow.

Still this ad has me rethinking things per gun ownership.

Where OTHER people are concerned anyhow.

Hope that dear old lady got that SHOOT ME gun in fact.

 

[Neal76]

I understand MLK owned A LOT of guns, and not for shooting skeet, either.

 

[po18guy]

Defense of innocent life is defined in the catechism as a grave duty both to self and others (CCC2263-2265).

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.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.

Don’t want/like guns? Don’t buy one. Simple.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Everyone thinks the person who carries is a bit weird…until something goes bump in the night…

Seriously though, this woman’s story is a good reflection of how our government feels about the safety of its citizens. There’s a reason the founding fathers wrote we all have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (i.e. private property), which are human, rather than Governmentally endowed rights.

 

[Memaw]

Defense of innocent life is defined in the catechism as a grave duty both to self and others (CCC2263-2265).

Don’t want/like guns? Don’t buy one. Simple.

Anyone can learn to handle a gun Safely, if they want to. After someone tried to break into my home, the POLICE called and explained to me IN DETAIL, how I should get a gun, register it and learn how to use it in times of grave danger. I didn’t tell them that I grew up with guns and knew all about that! So don’t tell me the police don’t want us to be able to protect ourselves! My family on both sides are hunters, even the girls in the family know how to correctly handle a gun. Some have carry permits. I grew up competing with my brothers so I’m a pretty good shot. ALL are law abiding people and NRA members. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Bonnie]

The police can’t be everywhere, and they certainly can’t be at your side right before you are mugged or attacked. Their job is to find the culprit. The only one responsible for protecting you is you. Unless you are rich enough to hire a bodyguard.

 

[CaptFun]

Defense of innocent life is defined in the catechism as a grave duty both to self and others (CCC2263-2265).

Don’t want/like guns? Don’t buy one. Simple.

Thanks for posting the Catechism definition for self-defense and double-effect, etc. A little other-worldly wisdom to guide us rather elevates this thread’s comparatively pedestrian beginnings.

The lady in the ad (as far as we know from just this information) has not shot anyone.

She feels she has the right to have a tool that will allow her to feel safe. And maybe BE safer, as the “unjust aggressors” would be the gang bangers etc. who were making some of the old people afraid to leave their apartments for fear of … .

This minute ad is well crafted. The line about the government high rise threatening to throw this elderly tenant out if she had a gun was stunning. You can even sympathize with that group not wanting guns (or MORE guns) in the area – and admit that yes, there ARE second amendment rights … and denying a citizen those rights precisely when they need them most might flip an “intended good” into an unintended “evil”.

Her matter of fact presentation has me “not worried” that she will misbehave with her weapon any time soon. Meanwhile “Granny has a gun” might just make her high rise neighborhood a little safer.

The caveat being that one day one of those gang bangers (or a drug addict in need of quick cash) might try to take that gun from her apartment if her vigilance wanes.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

The police can’t be everywhere, and they certainly can’t be at your side right before you are mugged or attacked.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Defense of innocent life is defined in the catechism as a grave duty both to self and others (CCC2263-2265).

The first two paragraphs allow the use of self-defense by lethal means. Only the 3rd paragraph says anything about when it is required. Let’s look at that 3rd paragraph again.
*Legitimate defense
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.
*
Who is required to use self-defense? “one who is responsible for the lives of others”. This is further clarified by the last sentence, where such people are described as "those who legitimately hold authority ", where they exercise their responsibility on behalf of “the civil community entrusted to their responsibility”. What does that describe? The police. This says the police have a duty to protect the community. It does not say that every citizen has duty to buy a gun in case a situation pops up where he might use it.

I don’t think the catechism mandates that everyone get a gun. In some circumstances, it might become morally required that someone get a gun. If one can reasonably expect that his life or the life of those close to him will be threatened, prudence dictates that he should take appropriate precautions, which might including procuring a weapon. But that is predicated on a “reasonable expectation” of a threat. For many people, their circumstance does not justify a reasonable expectation of such a threat. For them, getting a weapon for self-defense is totally optional. And in many cases, the possession of such a weapon presents more of a threat than the supposed threats it is intended to combat.

 

[2_RollinStoned]

The caveat being that one day one of those gang bangers (or a drug addict in need of quick cash) might try to take that gun from her apartment if her vigilance wanes.

She doesn’t sound like someone who’d fall for that. Most NRA are better trained and aware than that so I don’t see it as an issue.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Anything over about 15 seconds is too long to do more than write the report and begin an investigation. The people in that Minnesota mall attack didn’t have minutes…They got incredibly lucky.

The first two paragraphs allow the use of self-defense by lethal means. Only the 3rd paragraph says anything about when it is required. Let’s look at that 3rd paragraph again.
Legitimate defense

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.

Who is required to use self-defense? “one who is responsible for the lives of others”. This is further clarified by the last sentence, where such people are described as "those who legitimately hold authority ", where they exercise their responsibility on behalf of “the civil community entrusted to their responsibility”. What does that describe? The police. This says the police have a duty to protect the community. It does not say that every citizen has duty to buy a gun in case a situation pops up where he might use it.

*“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.” Thomas Jefferson *

I don’t think the catechism mandates that everyone get a gun. In some circumstances, it might become morally required that someone get a gun. If one can reasonably expect that his life or the life of those close to him will be threatened, prudence dictates that he should take appropriate precautions, which might including procuring a weapon. But that is predicated on a “reasonable expectation” of a threat. For many people, their circumstance does not justify a reasonable expectation of such a threat. For them, getting a weapon for self-defense is totally optional. And in many cases, the possession of such a weapon presents more of a threat than the supposed threats it is intended to combat.

Correct, and no one is saying that it is any kind of mandate. That said, the government has declared this national preparedness month and we even have the following from recent news.

Americans must develop better “situational awareness.” Too many Americans have their faces buried in Smartphone apps and games.

When you are out in public take a moment to see what’s around you. foxnews.com/opinion/2016/…ce-terror.html

 

[LeafByNiggle]

*“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.” Thomas Jefferson *.

That may be what Thomas Jefferson said, but it is not what the catechism says. My comment was specifically in response to the citation of those paragraphs of the catechism to explain what they meant. It is clear that the catechism makes a distinction between a legitimate authority and a self-appointed vigilante.

But even taking what Jefferson said and considering it for a moment, the comment by Jefferson does not say what you are hoping it says. Saying that “every citizen should be a soldier” could simply mean that every citizen should offer his service in the military by submitting to that lawful authority.

 

[faithsmind]

OP post #1 was absolutely hysterical.

The first two paragraphs allow the use of self-defense by lethal means. Only the 3rd paragraph says anything about when it is required. Let’s look at that 3rd paragraph again.
Legitimate defense
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.

Who is required to use self-defense? “one who is responsible for the lives of others”. This is further clarified by the last sentence, where such people are described as "those who legitimately hold authority ", where they exercise their responsibility on behalf of “the civil community entrusted to their responsibility”. What does that describe? The police. This says the police have a duty to protect the community. It does not say that every citizen has duty to buy a gun in case a situation pops up where he might use it.

I don’t think the catechism mandates that everyone get a gun. In some circumstances, it might become morally required that someone get a gun. If one can reasonably expect that his life or the life of those close to him will be threatened, prudence dictates that he should take appropriate precautions, which might including procuring a weapon. But that is predicated on a “reasonable expectation” of a threat. For many people, their circumstance does not justify a reasonable expectation of such a threat. For them, getting a weapon for self-defense is totally optional. And in many cases, the possession of such a weapon presents more of a threat than the supposed threats it is intended to combat.

I agree, here. I, myself do not own a gun because I have three young, precocious sons who would do some serious damage. I leave the gun possession to my three brothers who are educated in its use and enjoy handling them. Which is quite reassuring to me, because any government can become corrupt and threaten the welfare of its citizens.

 

[BobCatholic]

The first two paragraphs allow the use of self-defense by lethal means. Only the 3rd paragraph says anything about when it is required. Let’s look at that 3rd paragraph again.
Legitimate defense
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.

Who is required to use self-defense? “one who is responsible for the lives of others”. This is further clarified by the last sentence, where such people are described as "those who legitimately hold authority ",

That is such a stretch.

You missed a key word in that last sentence. Pay close attention.

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.

Notice the ALSO. This is “in addition” to the people who have “responsible for the lives of others” In other words, they are a second group who have the same responsibility for the lives of others - but have the right to use arms to protect other people in the civil community.

Tell me, is a parent responsible for the lives of others, namely their children? Per your ignoring one word, you’re saying they don’t count. They, per your reasoning, cannot use arms to protect their family from evil people.

Does a police officer have responsibility for your children? For your family? No. So they can’t be the only people who have this right of using arms.

I as a civilian do not have an obligation nor right to go around my neighborhood armed and going around protecting my neighbors. The police have this obligation, and that’s what the catechism is showing here. I’m not a cop, nor should I play one on TV. This is not my responsibility. This is their responsibility.

The police, in addition to having the same right as others to have arms to protect themselves and the lives under their responsibility (i.e. their family) also have that same right extended to their duty to protect others as cops.

Self defense is a fundamental human right.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is such a stretch.

You missed a key word in that last sentence. Pay close attention.

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.

Notice the ALSO. This is “in addition” to the people who have “responsible for the lives of others” In other words, they are a second group who have the same responsibility for the lives of others - but have the right to use arms to protect other people in the civil community.

Tell me, is a parent responsible for the lives of others, namely their children? Per your ignoring one word, you’re saying they don’t count. They, per your reasoning, cannot use arms to protect their family from evil people.

Does a police officer have responsibility for your children? For your family? No. So they can’t be the only people who have this right of using arms.

I as a civilian do not have an obligation nor right to go around my neighborhood armed and going around protecting my neighbors. The police have this obligation, and that’s what the catechism is showing here. I’m not a cop, nor should I play one on TV. This is not my responsibility. This is their responsibility.

The police, in addition to having the same right as others to have arms to protect themselves and the lives under their responsibility (i.e. their family) also have that same right extended to their duty to protect others as cops.

Self defense is a fundamental human right.

If you read the last paragraph of my post you quoted - the one you cut off - you will see that I do not deny the human right of self defense, nor do I deny the right of a person to use a gun in that self-defense.

What I do deny is the stretching of this principle to imply that everyone has a right, if not a duty, to have a gun in every circumstance, as I explained in that cut-off paragraph, which I will not repeat here.

 

[BobCatholic]

What I do deny is the stretching of this principle to imply that everyone has a right, if not a duty, to have a gun in every circumstance, as I explained in that cut-off paragraph, which I will not repeat here.

If a person has a family, yes, they have a duty to protect that family, and have a gun. A husband has the responsibility for his wife’s life, and his childrens’ lives. Same thing for the wife. Both should lock and load.

 

[Brendan]

.
[/INDENT]

Who is required to use self-defense? “one who is responsible for the lives of others”. This is further clarified by the last sentence, where such people are described as "those who legitimately hold authority ", where they exercise their responsibility on behalf of “the civil community entrusted to their responsibility”. What does that describe? The police. .

No, Pope John Paul II clarified that in Evangelicum Vitae 55

legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State

Parents or Spouses are responsible for the life of their children or their spouse, and are certainly required for the common good of the family. Police, as representatives of the State are responsible for the good of the State, and thus are also included.

But it is not exclusive to the State.

We can see that again in “those who legitimately hold authority”. Is the authority that parents have over their children illegitmate? Do they not have authority?. If they do have authority, and that authority is legitmate, then the duty of defense is present.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, Pope John Paul II clarified that in Evangelicum Vitae 55

Parents or Spouses are responsible for the life of their children or their spouse, and are certainly required for the common good of the family. Police, as representatives of the State are responsible for the good of the State, and thus are also included.

But it is not exclusive to the State.

We can see that again in “those who legitimately hold authority”. Is the authority that parents have over their children illegitimate? Do they not have authority?. If they do have authority, and that authority is legitimate, then the duty of defense is present.

In post #9 I did explain that in some cases it might be morally necessary for a citizen to procure a gun for the defense of his family or himself. But I also explained that this responsibility is predicated on a reasonable expectation of a threat. For the vast majority of people, the threat posed by having a gun in the house outweighs the imagined threat for which the gun was procured.

 

[Brendan]

In post #9 I did explain that in some cases it might be morally necessary for a citizen to procure a gun for the defense of his family or himself. But I also explained that this responsibility is predicated on a reasonable expectation of a threat.

The reasonable expectation being more so than having a fire extinguisher implies the expectation of having a fire.

For the vast majority of people, the threat posed by having a gun in the house outweighs the imagined threat for which the gun was procured.

I disagree.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The reasonable expectation being more so than having a fire extinguisher implies the expectation of having a fire.

The cost and the risk of having a fire extinguisher is so much less than the risk of having a gun that the threshold of “reasonable expectation” is quite a bit different. Also the risk of having a fire is greater than the risk of needing a gun. Same analysis, but different quantitatively.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I disagree.

Let me see if I can present some evidence. According to this, there were about 760 unintentional deaths (accidents) with guns per year just prior to 2010. Even according to this generally pro-gun site,
*Gun carrying, private citizens who used firearms to stop criminal attacks saved at least 283 potential victims in a period between July 2014 and July 2015, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis.
*
And that is just “attacks”. Not all of those 283 attacks would necessarily have resulted in a death. Some of them might have been just a robbery. But even assuming that every one of those 283 uses of a gun saved a life, it still doesn’t equal the 760 deaths due to gun accidents. And if we count suicides in addition to accidents, we find the same article implies that there are 18,000 deaths. Of course not all of those suicides would have been prevented if a gun were not handy. Some of them would have found other ways to kill themselves. But we must add at least some of the 18,000 suicides at the feet of civilian gun ownership.

So it is hard to see how you are going to come up with stats that show having guns saves more lives than it takes.