You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Opinion about weapons?
- Thread starter Stepinac
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
AlNg
Guest
That is what I have been told by an American police officer.And killing the guy brings no police action, but wounding him will likely bring civil suit?
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, we are lawsuit crazy. At least traps are forbidden. There really is not danger shooting a burglar, most of the time. The criteria is whether the home-owner is in fear of his life. I assure you, having someone break into your house, and not run when he knows you are awake, evokes fear. The one exception might be if he was on his way out. Even if he was carrying out your laptop, you cannot shoot him to protect your property.That’s notable. Your saying the mere presence is enough to presume a threat to life? Is it the same in all States? And killing the guy brings no police action, but wounding him will likely bring civil suit?
The only difference between killing and wounding is who gets to sue you, and for how much. If you kill someone, and were in the wrong, the family can still sue. If you injure someone, and were in fear of your life, there is no grounds for suit.
Last edited:
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
I meant Catholics as a whole are not pacifists. Meaning, it’s not a requirement or tenet of Catholicism.Some Catholics are pacifists.
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
God gave humanity the power of reason to use dialogue & compromise, which are weapons for the protection & preservation of all life.
If or when dialogue & compromise fails, then god will protect or at least lead to an outcome that was desired by god. Material weapons are tools made by humanity to tame their surroundings & environment & for some reason they extend to include killing others, in the name of self defense.
As for nations & governments that wield arms through the manufacturing of armies, navies & air forces, then we as individuals must always ask to never use its power to attack as a form of defense.
If or when dialogue & compromise fails, then god will protect or at least lead to an outcome that was desired by god. Material weapons are tools made by humanity to tame their surroundings & environment & for some reason they extend to include killing others, in the name of self defense.
As for nations & governments that wield arms through the manufacturing of armies, navies & air forces, then we as individuals must always ask to never use its power to attack as a form of defense.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I thought that most Catholics followed Jesus who said: " Blessed are the peacemakers , for they will be called children of God."I meant Catholics as a whole are not pacifists. Meaning, it’s not a requirement or tenet of Catholicism.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Pacifism and making peace are two related, but separate concepts. Pacifism is an absolute. Peace is and ideal that is always desirable, sometimes attainable.
There is a time for everything…a time for war, a time for peace. Ecclesiastes 3
Think Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill.
There is a time for everything…a time for war, a time for peace. Ecclesiastes 3
Think Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Not necessarily.Pacifism is an absolute.
M
Montrose
Guest
Jesus did not tell people to remain defenseless.I thought that most Catholics followed Jesus who said: " Blessed are the peacemakers , for they will be called children of God."
Luke 22:39 36
He said to them, “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.”
P
pnewton
Guest
Well, if the definition is changed, then there is no conflict between pacifism and legitimate self-defense.Not necessarily.
A
AlNg
Guest
It is true that there are some who will follow absolute pacifism. The Jehovah’s Witnesses advocate something pretty close to that.Well, if the definition is changed, then there is no conflict between pacifism and legitimate self-defense.
But I think there are different levels of pacifism, no? And you are blessed if you seek, make and establish peace? BTW, do Catholics follow the words of Jesus as we read:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
P
pnewton
Guest
Of course, but with the proper context. That is why we believe the Church is needed as interpreter. Jesus also said a man must hate his father. The context above is in Roman occupation where the soldiers were allowed to do certain things, but were also limited. They could grab any citizen to lug his gear for him, but only for one mile, or example, hence the saying, “go the extra mile.”BTW, do Catholics follow the words of Jesus as we read:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
Last edited:
J
JanR
Guest
In the court case I mentioned, where the judge told the unfortunate homeowners they should have killed the intruder, but who instead only wounded him and got sued by that same intruder, that intruder had crawled through their bedroom window at night. The couple was sleeping right there. Of course, they felt they were in imminent danger! But, because they failed to kill the intruder when they shot him, he was able to get a judgment against them, and they were the rest of their lives paying it off.
Totally unjust, in my opinion!
Yes, one has to kill the intruder, or possibly be killed. If one only wounds, the intruder can legally retaliate and sue big time.
Totally unjust, in my opinion!
Yes, one has to kill the intruder, or possibly be killed. If one only wounds, the intruder can legally retaliate and sue big time.
A
AlNg
Guest
Is this how the American justice system works to punish the victim and let the criminal go free?In the court case I mentioned, where the judge told the unfortunate homeowners they should have killed the intruder, but who instead only wounded him and got sued by that same intruder, that intruder had crawled through their bedroom window at night. The couple was sleeping right there. Of course, they felt they were in imminent danger! But, because they failed to kill the intruder when they shot him, he was able to get a judgment against them, and they were the rest of their lives paying it off.
Totally unjust, in my opinion!
Yes, one has to kill the intruder, or possibly be killed. If one only wounds, the intruder can legally retaliate and sue big time.
J
JanR
Guest
Would you feel differently if someone were to burst into your home and threaten to shoot you, your spouse, your children, or worse yet, start immediately shooting at you/them? Do you realistically believe you would be able to talk them out of it?Material weapons are tools made by humanity to tame their surroundings & environment & for some reason they extend to include killing others, in the name of self defense.
Self-defense is a basic right, and when it comes to one’s family, it’s a duty to protect them, as well.
Obviously, you have never been faced with a life-threatening situation involving a weapon. Otherwise, you would understand how the real world works.
J
JanR
Guest
Sadly, yes. This is often the case.
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Not at all, but just because someone is wanting to kill me or my loved ones, does not give me the reason to want to kill them & reach for a weapon that most likely willDo you realistically believe you would be able to talk them out of it?
I simply trust in gods plan for me & my loved ones, what ever that may be, for better or worse. Just because we live in world full of maniacs doesn’t mean I have to use the same tactics as them. I am a pacifist & even though a pencil could be used as a lethal weapon it has so many other positive uses, could we say the same about firearms?Self-defense is a basic right, and when it comes to one’s family, it’s a duty to protect them, as well.
Self defense is one thing, but certainly a gun is intended to kill, and yes it may not always extinguish life but chances are, it most likely will.
Last edited:
J
JanR
Guest
Then, I wish you the best, and hope you’re never in the situation I have described.
A
Athanasiy
Guest
I recently read a book by David Nott, - War Doctor.
The author worked as a surgeon in war-torn hot spots - Africa, Syria.
David Nott continues to advise military surgeons through seminars and has established his own foundation, that really saves lives.
There are episodes in the book, through which you understand how dangerous it is when the weapon goes to a crowd of brutalized teenagers, or when irresponsible authorities cynically pointing the weapons at the most defenseless, and what are the dire consequences of this.
It seems to me that even in the most desperate circumstances there should be military dignity, honor and nobility.
If military prowess has these qualities, then it can be like life-saving surgery.
The author worked as a surgeon in war-torn hot spots - Africa, Syria.
David Nott continues to advise military surgeons through seminars and has established his own foundation, that really saves lives.
There are episodes in the book, through which you understand how dangerous it is when the weapon goes to a crowd of brutalized teenagers, or when irresponsible authorities cynically pointing the weapons at the most defenseless, and what are the dire consequences of this.
It seems to me that even in the most desperate circumstances there should be military dignity, honor and nobility.
If military prowess has these qualities, then it can be like life-saving surgery.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
To make peace does not require one to be a a pacifist. By the way, your remark should be directed at “Most Christians…” as I think all Christians would claim to follow Jesus.I thought that most Catholics followed Jesus who said: " Blessed are the peacemakers , for they will be called children of God."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.