Morality of Non lethal Weapons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Starwynd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Starwynd said:
This article on the military issuing paint ball guns for non lethal weapons has got me to wondering does the Church has an official stance on the use of non-lethal weapons such as this one, as well as the use of tasers and stun guns?

The article is here:

blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/paintball-gun-o.html
Click to expand...
As the use of deadly force is allowed by the Church for self defence and defence of others why would there be a problem with non-lethal weapons??
 
I didn’t say anything about a problem, i was just curious as to what the teachings were on this subject, that’s all.
 
The Catholic Church supports the use of non-lethal weapons if they are sufficient to defend & protect people’s safety from aggressors.

From CCC 2267
…‘If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
…"”

God Bless,

Chris
 
I am not sure that your question has been answered.

Paint ball guns are not going to be a defense in almost any circumstance against an unjust aggressor - e.g. a purse snatcher, a burglar, a robber, or a rapist. Relying on what is essentially a toy is not a means of adequate defense against someone who intends or appears to intend physical harm.

As to the use of paintball guns in “games of war”, the morality is going to be more complex, as it will not focus solely on the paintball gun, but more on the reasoning and purpose of the game.
 
otjm said:
I am not sure that your question has been answered.

Paint ball guns are not going to be a defense in almost any circumstance against an unjust aggressor - e.g. a purse snatcher, a burglar, a robber, or a rapist. Relying on what is essentially a toy is not a means of adequate defense against someone who intends or appears to intend physical harm.
Click to expand...
Hi otjm,

The OP asked about all non-lethal weapons, not just the one mentioned in the article.

Again, the Church supports & encourages the use of any means that can sufficiently protect & defend people without resorting to killing.

The article is worth reading, as the “paint ball gun” described in it is far more powerful (by 2-3 times!) than the typical paint ball marker that can be found in the local sporting goods store.

Non-lethal weapons are not all designed for the same situations.

The gun mentioned in the article is not designed for, or meant to be used in, personal self-defense situations such as the ones you describe, but for “non-lethal crowd & riot control” situations which indiscriminately threaten injury & death to both the participants & the authorities.

Regards,

Chris
 
The military style of the paintball gun is a non-lethal weapon. While the impact of the paintball might be painful enough to deter somebody, its principal effect is “marking” an individual for identification later (as an instigator, rock thrower, weapon holder, etc.). They are used in that capacity in detention operations.
 
jkatpc said:
The military style of the paintball gun is a non-lethal weapon. While the impact of the paintball might be painful enough to deter somebody, its principal effect is “marking” an individual for identification later (as an instigator, rock thrower, weapon holder, etc.). They are used in that capacity in detention operations.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, that’s what they were orginally developed for – they were used by ranchers to mark cattle – sell the ones with red marks, cut out the ones with blue marks for doctoring, keep the green ones and so on.

Their use games came later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top