Is it okay for Catholics to own firearms so they can protect themselves and their loved ones?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hail_Mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If my husband gives permission then you have my permission as well. We own one gun between us and hope to never need to use it. But I have no problem in using it to protect my loved ones.
 
Guns are not a divine providence of God; weapons are the creation of man. True, weapons themselves do not kill, but that is a fruitless argument. Weapons provide the ability to escalate a situation beyond the point that we can take matters without them. We should never use God to justify our fears.

I have to give praise to God that I have never been in a situation (I travel extensively) were I felt that I wished I had a weapon. I am an avid jogger that has no hesitation to put on my jogging shoes and take a stroll, but I know I have to exercise caution.

However, I understand because I have the luxury of forgetting to lock my windows and doors, does not mean that others don’t carry the concerns to be fortified. I am certain that we have all been in areas where we feel the tension from the surroundings and the need to look over our shoulders.

Therefore, I do not support taking away guns. But I certainly do not support a dystopian society where we all need to carry a weapon. I never had a weapon and I don’t plan to carry one soon.
 
RuthAnne said:
own a gun to shoot and kill and you better believe that I won’t hesitate to use it if ever I need to.
Click to expand...
I find that shocking. And
“RuthAnne said:
Some are made specifically for sport. But I admit, you got me. Guns are made for one reason and one reason only.
Click to expand...

Yes and what sport is that? Killing animals? Or if not replacing the animals with a substitute target.

The gun was designed to kill. Animals and people. A sport has certainly originated from its use- but it was not its intent.

I’d love to see the stats of how many people actually stop a home invasion with a gun. Compared to say accidentally killing themselves or a family member. Or their inhinged child shooting up someone.
 
Cruciferi said:
So we’re knives, arrows, Spears, clubs, swords, and the occasional rock.

Anything can be used as a weapon
Click to expand...
Yes. And I’d happily ban anything made to specifically kill people. Why carry a sword?

I can assume your being facetious with the rock comment. Unless you can remind me when rhe latest mass killing with rocks was.
 
Anyways, criminals do not follow the law. Even if guns were banned through gun control, those criminals could have used other weapons besides guns to kill or endanger the lives of other people. So there can also be that possibility.
 
At this point, there are millions of guns in the US. Even extensive search, seizure, and destruction would only nab a fraction of what exists.

Believe me, when they want to disarm you, they’ll confiscate all the ammunition and stop production.
 
Banning guns in the United States would be an exercise in futility. You think the Mexican cartels are bad now? Wait until they start running illegal guns into the US black market through our wide open border. Guns are illegal in Mexico and it’s an extremely dangerous country, where the corrupt police and criminals are armed to the teeth while the average citizens are completely helpless. No thanks.
 
Cruciferi said:
Believe me, when they want to disarm you, they’ll confiscate all the ammunition and stop production.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what happened with Nazi government in Germany when they killed the Jews during Holocaust. Hitler did disarm the citizens in Germany and had their guns confiscated just so they will not rebel or fight against the Nazi government or stop them from killing the Jews. History does prove this time from time. I also hope history does not repeat itself.
 
What of the nations were governments disarmed citizens successfully? Why do we only have to compare this to nazi germany?

Australian is a fantastic example of strategic gun control.
 
A sparsely populated island nation is much different than the United States. We have a porous 2000 mile border with a violent narco-state to our south. We have massive gang related gun violence in our inner cities. Away from the border and in the vast majority of the country it is every bit as safe as anywhere in the world. Disarming law abiding citizens in the US would be a disaster, and the results would look much more similar to Mexico or Honduras than Australia, Norway, Switzerland or whatever other small country you can think of. Of course disarmament would never work because people would simply not comply, and you’d create tens of millions of criminals overnight.
 
There have been home invasion robberies in Australia. How do you suggest those homeowners defend themselves?

My take is that everyone has the inalienable right to life. but that right is useless without the corollary right to defend that life and the lives of those who cannot defend themselves: the elderly, the infirm, the children … and the unborn.
 
Catholics, I have observed, are very concerned with intent. Some of us unbelievers are more concerned with outcomes. If a Catholic arms themselves to protect their family there is a higher chance that the gun(s) will injure or kill a member of the family than an intruder. So while I know it is ok in terms of Catholic morality, I can say it is absolutely not ok if the safety of your family is the outcome sought.
 
mythbuster1 said:
An example of a just aggressor would be a homeowner firing on an intruder.
Click to expand...
I think you’d have to nuance that a bit. Say the homeowner brandished a weapon and the would-be thief immediately and obviously surrendered with his hands up. Presuming there are no further sudden moves on the part of the thief, and potentially lethal aggression at that point would be unjust. The onus of proof should not be on the homeowner to prove his innocence, like it is in Canada, though.
 
One other aspect to be considered: in the US, the police have no constitutional duty to protect anyone. This has already been decided by the US Supreme Court. So the message from that ruling is no one should count on protection from local law enforcement against imminent danger. In other words, there is no substitute for taking proactive measures to protect one’s own home and loved ones. That is the exercise of the corollary right to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
There have been home invasion robberies in Australia. How do you suggest those homeowners defend themselves?
Click to expand...
Exactly how Australians do it now. Run out of the home and call the police. No one gets killed that way. I’d rather someone rob me than me kill them.
 
The choice isn’t to flee or kill someone. You may not be able to flee. You may have kids in the house. The robber may have other ideas for you and your family. I’d rather have safely stored but easily accessible (to me) firearms to protect my home.
 
ewohdrol said:
Exactly how Australians do it now. Run out of the home and call the police. No one gets killed that way. I’d rather someone rob me than me kill them.
Click to expand...
That’s assuming you can run. Very big assumption. I wouldn’t risk my life on that assumption in the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top