Passivism/ Martyrdom vs. duty to defend oneself

[budgie2]

Where does Jesus instruct his followers to purchase weapons? Regarding an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, this is the teaching of the Old Testament. Christ’s teaching was “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” and “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” If you are following “an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” this is the Jewish religion and pre-Christian. Christ came to institute a new covenant with his people and we cannot follow Judaism word for word. The Old Testament is BC or Before Christ and the New Testament is AD or Anno Domini. Only Christ will save us. It is the Church’s belief that the Jews could not enter heaven and were suspended in limbo before Christ died and rose from the dead. We will not purely be saved by the Old Testament although Christ also says to live according to the ten commandments. We also need to know the book of Genesis which teaches us we were made in the image of God, male and female, and instructed to go, multiply and fill the Earth. The Bible is out of date. Why not try a pocket Catechism?

 

[Newbie2]

The problem with Sir Knight’s interpretation is that he seems to be, in his interpretation, making us who do not wish for whatever reasons to bear arms, guilty of a grave sin.

Now most commonly, grave sin is used to describe mortal sin. Perhaps therin lies the confusion. pnewton and I have challenged the assertion that not carrying a weapon is sinful, let alone a mortal sin. So, Sir Knight, now you’re saying that grave sin=venial sin? Or does Grave sin=Mortal sin. I’m unclear. If it’s a mortal sin, it’s always a mortal sin. Carrying a weapon isn’t conditional, as being a sin of omission as you claim.

Sir Knight has provided no credible references to back up that not carrying a weapon is sinful. If we had a duty to do so, why has not the Vatican mandated that very thing?

That military, law enforcement and personal protection folks, like those that guard the Holy Father carry makes sense. But Joe Average like me, who lives in an affluent area and who’s police department are busy giving out failure to signal before making a lane change and rolling stop tickets simply do not need a weapon to defend ourselves.

Oh, and by the way, isn’t a machine gun better defense than a handgun? Shouldn’t we all be wearing Kevlar and helmets. Sir Knight claims we need to do everything we can to protect ourselves.

I agree that there are those who live in violent areas and may need such defense. It’s beyond ludicris to extrapolate that we all are mandated by the Lord to carry a weapon.

Why do not all priest, deacons, and religious have marching orders to carry? I see nothing in the rule of St. Benedict to carry. Why not, Sir Knight? Every detail of the liturgy is spelled out. Why is imposing a requirement to carry a weapon not mandated for clergy? They’ve taken vows of obedience. Are they all, save a few, guilty of Grave sin?

In fact, let’s explore the Kevlar vest option for a moment. Arguably, it offers equivalent or superior personal protection to carrying a weapon. After all, you cannot stop a bullet with a gun. Yes, of course, you cannot stop a bad guy with a vest, but I’m speaking of personal protection of one’s life. So, does the Pope wear a Kevlar vest? Vatican officials? Priests, Deacons, Religious? Does Sir Knight wear a Kevlar vest? Why did Jesus not command we wear armor? (Physical armor, not Spiritual ) Why doesn’t the CCC say we need to wear armor? Seems like a safer option. There is no chance of a child playing with a Kevlar or ceramic vest to kill another child if it goes off accidentally. One with bad aim cannot kill an innocent bystander with a Kevlar vest.

What say ye, Sir Knight. Are you sinning by not wearing a Kevlar vest?

 

[pnewton]

Why do not all priest, deacons, and religious have marching orders to carry? I see nothing in the rule of St. Benedict to carry.

Judges usually carry a firearm with them on the bench. If there was any sort of Church precept like is being proposed, then the obvious first person ordered to carry at Mass would be the celebrant.

On the other hand, maybe there is a purpose for the vestments.

 

[Newbie2]

Gives a whole new meaning to “Underarmor”.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Where does Jesus instruct his followers to purchase weapons?

Have you been READING this thread or do you just comment? I refer you to Luke 22:36-38 where Jesus commanded His followers to purchase a sword if they did not have one? The “sword” [Greek: maxairan] is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals.

Regarding an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, this is the teaching of the Old Testament. Christ’s teaching was “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” and “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” If you are following “an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” this is the Jewish religion and pre-Christian. Christ came to institute a new covenant with his people and we cannot follow Judaism word for word. The Old Testament is BC or Before Christ and the New Testament is AD or Anno Domini. Only Christ will save us. It is the Church’s belief that the Jews could not enter heaven and were suspended in limbo before Christ died and rose from the dead. We will not purely be saved by the Old Testament although Christ also says to live according to the ten commandments. We also need to know the book of Genesis which teaches us we were made in the image of God, male and female, and instructed to go, multiply and fill the Earth.

Well, if you take the time to actually read the NT, you’ll see that Jesus that He did not come to abolish the Old Law but to fulfill it and in regards to “an eye for an eye”, I addressed this for you earlier but will do so again …
Jesus was always in PERFECT agreement with His heavenly Father in ALL things. If the Father instructed people to give measure for measure (as in your “eye for an eye” example) and Jesus instructed differently, then He would NOT have been in perfect agreement with His Father, would He?

Measure for measure and turning the other cheek are two different teachings and are in disagreement with each other UNLESS there is something overlooked in that teaching. Because He was constantly watched by the Romans, Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading.

You need to keep in mind a couple of things - one, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different. Two, the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers.

In Roman times, conduct between citizens and conquered peoples was often strictly formalized and controlled in many small ways. As such, a Roman citizen or soldier could chastise a slave or non-citizen, and the slave could not retaliate - that would be mutiny, and punishable by death.

A slave or servant was chastised with a slap on the face with the open hand. This was an insulting blow, delivered to an inferior person or an animal. A non-citizen could be beaten by a citizen as much as desired with the open hand, and had no recourse. Defending themselves would mean death. A blow with the back of the hand or a closed fist, however, was a fighting blow - one delivered between equals, and one to which anyone, even a slave could respond.

Try it with someone. Have a friend pretend to slap you and you immediately step forward offering the other cheek. Look at what will happen based on the positions that both of you are in. Your friend will have three choices: (1) He can take a step back and slap you again with the open hand but that will cause him to lose face because a non-Roman made him back up. (2) He can strike you with the back of the hand but that will be viewed as a challenge to fight because he hit you with his knuckles freeing you to retaliate without fear of being condemned to death for mutiny. (3) Or, he can walk away making his point with only one slap instead of slapping you repeatedly as often happened.

Jesus taught his followers a practical way to avoid being slapped around by the Romans as was frequently the case if you study the history from that area and time period.

The Bible is out of date. Why not try a pocket Catechism?

The bible is out of date? Oh boy! I’m not going to waste my time going over basics. And as far as trying a pocket Catechism … why don’t you follow your own advise and start with Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, SubSection 1, Heading 2, Paragraphs 2263-2265.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The problem with Sir Knight’s interpretation is that he seems to be, in his interpretation, making us who do not wish for whatever reasons to bear arms, guilty of a grave sin.

Now most commonly, grave sin is used to describe mortal sin. Perhaps therin lies the confusion. pnewton and I have challenged the assertion that not carrying a weapon is sinful, let alone a mortal sin. So, Sir Knight, now you’re saying that grave sin=venial sin? Or does Grave sin=Mortal sin. I’m unclear. If it’s a mortal sin, it’s always a mortal sin. Carrying a weapon isn’t conditional, as being a sin of omission as you claim.

Sir Knight has provided no credible references to back up that not carrying a weapon is sinful. If we had a duty to do so, why has not the Vatican mandated that very thing?

That military, law enforcement and personal protection folks, like those that guard the Holy Father carry makes sense. But Joe Average like me, who lives in an affluent area and who’s police department are busy giving out failure to signal before making a lane change and rolling stop tickets simply do not need a weapon to defend ourselves.

Oh, and by the way, isn’t a machine gun better defense than a handgun? Shouldn’t we all be wearing Kevlar and helmets. Sir Knight claims we need to do everything we can to protect ourselves.

I agree that there are those who live in violent areas and may need such defense. It’s beyond ludicris to extrapolate that we all are mandated by the Lord to carry a weapon.

Why do not all priest, deacons, and religious have marching orders to carry? I see nothing in the rule of St. Benedict to carry. Why not, Sir Knight? Every detail of the liturgy is spelled out. Why is imposing a requirement to carry a weapon not mandated for clergy? They’ve taken vows of obedience. Are they all, save a few, guilty of Grave sin?

In fact, let’s explore the Kevlar vest option for a moment. Arguably, it offers equivalent or superior personal protection to carrying a weapon. After all, you cannot stop a bullet with a gun. Yes, of course, you cannot stop a bad guy with a vest, but I’m speaking of personal protection of one’s life. So, does the Pope wear a Kevlar vest? Vatican officials? Priests, Deacons, Religious? Does Sir Knight wear a Kevlar vest? Why did Jesus not command we wear armor? (Physical armor, not Spiritual ) Why doesn’t the CCC say we need to wear armor? Seems like a safer option. There is no chance of a child playing with a Kevlar or ceramic vest to kill another child if it goes off accidentally. One with bad aim cannot kill an innocent bystander with a Kevlar vest.

What say ye, Sir Knight. Are you sinning by not wearing a Kevlar vest?

Your entire post is a strawman agruement but I can play the same game. The Pope is protected by ARMED guards. His life is protected by FIREARM. Using YOUR logic, we should also be protected by a FIREARM and if we can not afford to hire an armed bodyguard, then we should be carrying one ourselves.

And your comments regarding venial sin, grave sin, mortal sin, etc.; clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of Catholic Church teaching – which, I guess, explains why you are so off-base in regards to this self-defense issue. A grave sin is a mortal sin if done with full knowledge and complete consent. If it is not done with full knowledge and complete consent, then it is a venial sin.

Nowhere will you find the Church declaring something as a mortal sin except as a conditional; but it does declare things which are grave sins.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Judges usually carry a firearm with them on the bench. If there was any sort of Church precept like is being proposed, then the obvious first person ordered to carry at Mass would be the celebrant.

Gee, our Monsignor DOES carry a concealed firearm DURING Mass. I even asked him what the Church’s official position was with regards to self-defense and received this reply …

I refer your correspondent to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the value of human life and the legitimacy of self-defense, particularly paragraphs 2263-2267. This is the OFFICIAL and BINDING teaching of the Church and explicitly recognizes self-defense as not only a right, but a moral duty to God. If anyone tries to say that this is not authentic Catholic teaching, please refer them to Pope John Paul II’s Introduction to the Catechism, where he specifically states that it is an authoritative source for Catholic norms. There is no doubt about this point, and those who try to insinuate that there is doubt are themselves in conflict with Catholic teaching. Period.

Note that he says “self-defense is not only a right, but a moral duty to God**”** – he is understanding the passage in the same manner that I did (actually, I got my understanding from him) … we have a grave duty to protect others and since we are duty bound to take greater care of ourselves than of others, we have a duty to protect ourselves.

How does one fulfill a GRAVE duty? With the best means possible! Otherwise, it can not be a grave duty. If you know of a duty, then you not only need to execute it but you must also prepare for it by taking whatever steps might be required.

That is what I am saying. That is what is required us of and if you disagree with it, then you are in conflict with Catholic teaching. Period. That said, I am now bowing out of this thread for I see nothing further to be gained by continuing it.

 

[pnewton]

Gee, our Monsignor DOES carry a concealed firearm DURING Mass. I even asked him what the Church’s official position was with regards to self-defense and received this reply …

I refer your correspondent to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the value of human life and the legitimacy of self-defense, particularly paragraphs 2263-2267. This is the OFFICIAL and BINDING teaching of the Church and explicitly recognizes self-defense as not only a right, but a moral duty to God. If anyone tries to say that this is not authentic Catholic teaching, please refer them to Pope John Paul II’s Introduction to the Catechism, where he specifically states that it is an authoritative source for Catholic norms. There is no doubt about this point, and those who try to insinuate that there is doubt are themselves in conflict with Catholic teaching. Period.

Note that he says “self-defense is not only a right, but a moral duty to God**”** – he is understanding the passage in the same manner that I did (actually, I got my understanding from him) …

Well, then by the same token I can ignore your priest because my priest understands English a little better and can actually understand the Catechism. If the CCC says a “right”, that is what is meant. We can not simple use duty instead. When it says something can be a duty, then that is what is meant, not that it is a duty. If you are him or anyone can show where the Church teaches this idea, I’ll buy it. Until then, I would recommend he take his own advice, assuming that was what was said.

As the authoritative teaching for Church norms, one simply can not add to it, change the words or make authoritative syllogism founded on faulty logic.

 

[Newbie2]

Your entire post is a strawman agruement but I can play the same game. The Pope is protected by ARMED guards. His life is protected by FIREARM. Using YOUR logic, we should also be protected by a FIREARM and if we can not afford to hire an armed bodyguard, then we should be carrying one ourselves.

What??? I never suggested or implies such a thing. How do you get from what I wrote to that? My assertion is that we are under no obligation to carry a firearm to protect ourselves. I NEVER asserted that one should be compelled by Jesus so-called “command to arm yourself” as you seem to, or that the CCC compels us to protect ourselves the best we can i.e. carry a weapon, as you also seem to.

And your comments regarding venial sin, grave sin, mortal sin, etc.; clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of Catholic Church teaching – which, I guess, explains why you are so off-base in regards to this self-defense issue. A grave sin is a mortal sin if done with full knowledge and complete consent. If it is not done with full knowledge and complete consent, then it is a venial sin.

No, it clearly demonstrates that I didn’t understand your claim about grave sin. So I ask YOU again…not carrying a weapon (obviously done with consent, as it is the default position in this discussion, otherwise one would carry and with full knowledge…one couldn’t be carrying a weapon without knowing it)…so is me not carrying, since I know what you claim to be the Church teaching on this subject…a mortal sin or not?

Nowhere will you find the Church declaring something as a mortal sin except as a conditional; but it does declare things which are grave sins.

Yes, I agree that some sins are considered grave, but you just wrote yourself that Mortal sins were conditional upon three things (and I agree), namely, Grave matter, full consent and knowledge of their gravity. I wasn’t quite sure from your posts, and am not quite sure yet whether or not you think not carrying a firearm, if one can afford one, knows it is grave matter not to do so, and consents to do so is a mortal sin.

I noticed you completely avoided my discussion about wearing Kevlar. Haven’t thought of an answer yet or don’t you have any thoughts on it? Or is this too a ‘strawman’ argument?

So, I’ll ask again. Kevlar vests save lives, and offer protection to one’s life. You claim that we should do everything we can to protect our lives, since Jesus commanded so and the CCC mandates it. So do you wear a Kevlar vest, do you make your kids wear one? If not, why not? If failing to carry a firearm is sinful, how can failing to wear a Kevlar vest not be sinful as well, using your 2 main criteria?

 

[melensdad]

Let me help you play catch up. I do not disagree one iota with anything you have said. It is very sound. The issue here is that Sir Knight is adamently insistent that anyone who does not agree with him and act as he does is committing mortal sin. I have a serious problem with this huge expansion and condemnation of all who seek peace even at the expense of one’s life.

And I have problem resorted to violence more than anyone here to defend others. In many situations, I do have a grave duty to defend myself and others. Yet I do not go armed.

Well I am not sure that I disagree with Sir Knight, at least not in principle. We do have a grave duty to protect innocent life. We do have a grave duty to defend ourselves. How we choose to do that may be the part that is challenging each of us here.

Some folks in this thread mistakenly choose a path of pacifist action, and further mistakenly relate it to martyrdom. That is a dual error and very faulty logic.

Now Sir Knight seems to be the opposite end of the spectrum and makes a pretty solid case that carrying a handgun is the logical way to insure that we meet our obligation to defending the innocent, and ourselves. I do not disagree with his logic, but I might submit that it is conditional logic.

As Sir Knight has repeatedly stated “a duty needs to be both prepared for and executed with the best means possible” this is a sound and reasoned thought. It is, however, still conditional upon many circumstances. For those living in high crime areas, even perhaps medium crime areas, then one would be hard pressed to suggest that his statements are incorrect. In fact in those circumstances they seem to be very logical. But so it should be noted that bars on the windows and double or triple locks on the doors also seem to be logical conclusions.

For someone out in the country where there is no effective police presence, but where there is essentially no violent crime (at least statistically) then perhaps a shotgun in the house ready to go and a gun in the car would be sufficient to meet the obligations.

BUT while I offer up some conditional inferences to suggest that carrying a gun may be situational,** I’d also like to very strongly note that many people walk around without any situational awareness of their true risk and mistakingly ignore their ‘grave duty’ and moral obligations.** Many walk around with the “can’t happen here” or “can’t happen to me” sort of attitude and then when it does happen to them, that is when their little self-centered world crumbles. It can happen anywhere and to anyone. Some things are more likely. Each of us must make rational and well reasoned choices. I fear, however, that many people do NOT make well reasoned choices and simply take the*** NO NO NO NOT ME ***sort of attitude.

While I am not a fan of the current crop of tiny 380 pocket handguns because I consider them underpowered compared to my 45acp, I do wonder how many lives those little guns have saved. At roughly 12 to 14 ounces and smaller than a wallet, they have become the fastest selling guns in the stores, often on long backorder status. Those little guns are being carried by more and more well reasoned thinking citizens BECAUSE of all the things that Sir Knight is talking about. BECAUSE we are obligated to protect ourselves. I hear stories regularly of people who prevented assault (and possibly worse) by simply pulling out those little guns. Most of the time there is no need to fire the gun. The bad guys simply back away and choose easier prey.

So with the technology today to make these small, high quality, personal defense guns, and with the ability to carry them legally in 48 states (and easily in about 45 states) it does seem like a logical conclusion to support Sir Knight’s position within the framework of the CCC and other examples from our Church teachings.

 

[melensdad]

So, I’ll ask again. Kevlar vests save lives, and offer protection to one’s life. You claim that we should do everything we can to protect our lives, since Jesus commanded so and the CCC mandates it. So do you wear a Kevlar vest, do you make your kids wear one? If not, why not? If failing to carry a firearm is sinful, how can failing to wear a Kevlar vest not be sinful as well, using your 2 main criteria?

I’m going to have to suggest your logic is actually faulty in your argument. While it may be true that a Kevlar vest can protect us DURING THE ATTACK, it actually does nothing to PREVENT THE ATTACK. We are mandated to protect the innocent and that should be properly interpreted as standing up for them to protect them.

Further, if I am wearing a vest, it will not protect me at all from a knife attack. If my child is wearing a vest, it will not protect her from a knife attack. Further, if I am wearing a vest, it will not really help me to protect you from an attack. And realize that I am bound under moral obligation to help protect you if you are innocently attacked.

The handgun can be used PROACTIVELY to PREVENT the incident from occurring, most frequently without a shot being fired. A vest cannot do that. However if an incident DOES OCCUR then the vest cannot be used in any way other than passively. So let’s take a reasonable scenario. 3 misguided youths confront you when you leave a nice restaurant with your spouse. None has a gun. One has a club. One has no weapon. One has a knife. How does your vest protect your innocent spouse? How does your spouse’s vest help to protect you? Neither vest is going to offer any protection against the knife, the club or the fist. You can’t run as one of you is wearing high heel shoes. You can’t out power them because they are younger, bigger and stronger.

What little logic you are trying to use in this discussion is seriously flawed.

 

[melensdad]

Well, then by the same token I can ignore your priest because my priest understands English a little better and can actually understand the Catechism. If the CCC says a “right”, that is what is meant. We can not simple use duty instead. When it says something can be a duty, then that is what is meant, not that it is a duty. If you are him or anyone can show where the Church teaches this idea, I’ll buy it. Until then, I would recommend he take his own advice, assuming that was what was said.

As the authoritative teaching for Church norms, one simply can not add to it, change the words or make authoritative syllogism founded on faulty logic.

To the highlighted point I would agree. Something that “can” be a duty is not necessarily a duty.

However, other areas of the teaching tend to indicate where our duties lie. As a father we are bound to protect our families. Would that not be a duty? Of course it is. The CCC also says if you are responsible for others then it is your duty so that would reinforce the parental duty, it also establishes the duty for property owners to protect their guests (guards at banks and malls), employers to protect their employees (security measures at businesses), and the government to protect its citizens (civil police).

Those external security measures do not remove your personal obligations, however. Your obligations stay with you as part of your faith, you cannot turn them over to others and still uphold your duty properly.

 

[Newbie2]

Well I am not sure that I disagree with Sir Knight, at least not in principle. We do have a grave duty to protect innocent life. We do have a grave duty to defend ourselves. How we choose to do that may be the part that is challenging each of us here.

Some folks in this thread mistakenly choose a path of pacifist action, and further mistakenly relate it to martyrdom. That is a dual error and very faulty logic.

Now Sir Knight seems to be the opposite end of the spectrum and makes a pretty solid case that carrying a handgun is the logical way to insure that we meet our obligation to defending the innocent, and ourselves. I do not disagree with his logic, but I might submit that it is conditional logic.

As Sir Knight has repeatedly stated “a duty needs to be both prepared for and executed with the best means possible” this is a sound and reasoned thought. It is, however, still conditional upon many circumstances. For those living in high crime areas, even perhaps medium crime areas, then one would be hard pressed to suggest that his statements are incorrect. In fact in those circumstances they seem to be very logical. But so it should be noted that bars on the windows and double or triple locks on the doors also seem to be logical conclusions.

Good point.

For someone out in the country where there is no effective police presence, but where there is essentially no violent crime (at least statistically) then perhaps a shotgun in the house ready to go and a gun in the car would be sufficient to meet the obligations.

BUT while I offer up some conditional inferences to suggest that carrying a gun may be situational,** I’d also like to very strongly note that many people walk around without any situational awareness of their true risk and mistakingly ignore their ‘grave duty’ and moral obligations.** Many walk around with the “can’t happen here” or “can’t happen to me” sort of attitude and then when it does happen to them, that is when their little self-centered world crumbles. It can happen anywhere and to anyone. Some things are more likely. Each of us must make rational and well reasoned choices. I fear, however, that many people do NOT make well reasoned choices and simply take the*** NO NO NO NOT ME ***sort of attitude.

I agree to some point. But where do we draw the line between paranoia at one extreme and “naive-ativity” at the other. I’ve lived here 17 years and we have not had one single violent criminal episode in my city in my time here. Not one. Yes, I’m lucky. Yes it could happen, and probably will at some time. Nobody can justify me carrying a weapon to protect myself in my neck of the woods. We don’t even have deadbolts on the doors. (Yes, we shold probably get them, I know)

But I do go on occasion into Detroit, to the seminary, to a Red Wings (GO WINGS!) game. Should I carry then? I keep a sharp eye out, and am aware of that these areas are not as safe as my hometown. I’m not naive, but at the same time I feel that I cannot eliminate all risk of violence in my life simply by carrying a firearm.

While I am not a fan of the current crop of tiny 380 pocket handguns because I consider them underpowered compared to my 45acp, I do wonder how many lives those little guns have saved. At roughly 12 to 14 ounces and smaller than a wallet, they have become the fastest selling guns in the stores, often on long backorder status. Those little guns are being carried by more and more well reasoned thinking citizens BECAUSE of all the things that Sir Knight is talking about. BECAUSE we are obligated to protect ourselves. I hear stories regularly of people who prevented assault (and possibly worse) by simply pulling out those little guns. Most of the time there is no need to fire the gun. The bad guys simply back away and choose easier prey.

So with the technology today to make these small, high quality, personal defense guns, and with the ability to carry them legally in 48 states (and easily in about 45 states) it does seem like a logical conclusion to support Sir Knight’s position within the framework of the CCC and other examples from our Church teachings.

I would question this conclusion. Are the folks that are carrying these peashooters:

1. Well reasoned? As you said, these things are mostly effective as a deterrent. One might as well carry a fake or unloaded .45, no?
2. Carrying because of an **obligation **to defend themselves or a fear of violence?

I would question if statistically, “the bad guys back away and choose easier prey”. I don’t know the answer to this, but one has to wonder if someone is pointing a loaded weapon at you, are they more or less likely to shoot you if you try to pull out your gun. Yes, granted, if they are unarmed and you pull out your weapon, it makes sense that they will take off.

Otherwise, a good post. Seems like your conclusion, melensdad, is that we are not under an obligation to carry as Sir Knight seems to believe, rather in some circumstances it’s not a bad idea. With this, I would agree.

I’m disappointed that nobody has discussed the Kevlar vest option, particularly Sir Knight.

 

[melensdad]

I would question this conclusion. Are the folks that are carrying these peashooters:

1. Well reasoned? As you said, these things are mostly effective as a deterrent. One might as well carry a fake or unloaded .45, no?

No, please re-read what I wrote. I did not say MOST EFFECTIVE as a deterrent. So while they can be very effective in many cases they are useless if unloaded. In those cases where you need to use the gun for its intended purposes but can’t then you not only don’t have an effective weapon, but when the attack is over and you’ve been beaten or killed, you have also now armed a criminal with a new unloaded gun (or at least died because you were brandishing a toy).

Again, what little logic you are trying to employ is, at best faulty.

Realize that a 380 is not a peashooter, as you also mistakenly claim. Please do not underestimate the ability of the bullet, despite the fact that it is being fired out of a small, lightweight gun. I carry a 45acp because they don’t make a 46, but that is what I have most of my shooting life practicing with and am comfortable with. I’ve trained with the guns for literally decades. But any rational individual, facing a diminuative 380 pocket pistol would likely wet himself and run screaming like a little girl if it would prevent him getting shot with that gun!

1. Carrying because of an **obligation **to defend themselves or a fear of violence?

I am not judging the intent. It is not my job to do so.

I would question if statistically, “the bad guys back away and choose easier prey”. I don’t know the answer to this, but one has to wonder if someone is pointing a loaded weapon at you, are they more or less likely to shoot you if you try to pull out your gun. Yes, granted, if they are unarmed and you pull out your weapon, it makes sense that they will take off.

Well you may question whatever you want but there have been several studies that provide plenty of evidence to support what I wrote and to indicate that guns are used more often to prevent crime than to commit it.

Otherwise, a good post. Seems like your conclusion, melensdad, is that we are not under an obligation to carry as Sir Knight seems to believe, rather in some circumstances it’s not a bad idea. With this, I would agree.

You are SEMI-CORRECT in your assessment. I do not believe that EVERYONE is obligated to carry a gun. I do believe, however, that MANY MORE THAN REALIZE are obligated to take very positive steps to protect life. This includes carrying a gun. And you are trying to indicate that I am in general disagreement with Sir Knight and in general agreement with you, but that again is faulty logic.

I’m disappointed that nobody has discussed the Kevlar vest option, particularly Sir Knight.

Excuse me? I completely destroyed that concept. Please scroll up and read all 3 of my posts. Specifically Post #130.

 

[Newbie2]

I’m going to have to suggest your logic is actually faulty in your argument. While it may be true that a Kevlar vest can protect us DURING THE ATTACK, it actually does nothing to PREVENT THE ATTACK. We are mandated to protect the innocent and that should be properly interpreted as standing up for them to protect them.

Further, if I am wearing a vest, it will not protect me at all from a knife attack.

Really? Not at all, eh? A quick Google search suggests otherwise. youtube.com/watch?v=okBYea6ZweA

If my child is wearing a vest, it will not protect her from a knife attack. Further, if I am wearing a vest, it will not really help me to protect you from an attack. And realize that I am bound under moral obligation to help protect you if you are innocently attacked.

The handgun can be used PROACTIVELY to PREVENT the incident from occurring, most frequently without a shot being fired. A vest cannot do that. However if an incident DOES OCCUR then the vest cannot be used in any way other than passively.

Right. I never said anything to the contrary. This discussion is about protecting one’s life, and a vest can help do that. Disagree? If we are under moral obligation to do everything we can to protect ourselves, is not failing to use a vest a failure to do everything we can to protect ourselves? Let’s look at the other side. A gun cannot stop a bullet when fired at you. I bring up the vest to debunk the argument that we are under the penalty of sin to do everything we can to defend ourselves, not to compare it to a gun.

So let’s take a reasonable scenario. 3 misguided youths confront you when you leave a nice restaurant with your spouse. None has a gun. One has a club. One has no weapon. One has a knife. How does your vest protect your innocent spouse? How does your spouse’s vest help to protect you? Neither vest is going to offer any protection against the knife, the club or the fist. You can’t run as one of you is wearing high heel shoes. You can’t out power them because they are younger, bigger and stronger.

My spouse kicks off her shoes. We run back to the restaurant. Sure, you can construct such a scenario, but let’s go further. One of them has a gun pointed at you. So what then? Your gun won’t help you much will it, unless you walk out into the parking lot already holding it. You reach for it and it’s “reasonable” to conclude that you’re going to get shot before you can pull out your gun, release the safety, point it at the offender and get a shot off.

Look, I’m not debating that guns cannot be useful or saying that guns do not have their place in legitimate self-defense. I’m arguing against the notion that we are under obligation to do everything we can to protect ourselves, under penalty of sin i.e. we are obligated to carry a weapon…and I’m using the example of using a vest to debunk this notion.

See above and also:
securitydirect.co.uk/acatalog/Lightweight_Anti_Stab_Vest__16367.html

This would seem to suggest that you are mistaken. But my point is not to compare vests to guns, rather challenge the assertion that we are obligated under the penalty of sin to do everything we can to protect ourselves.

Perhaps I should state it differently: Why, if such an obligation exists, does this obligation not extend to wearing a vest PLUS carrying a gun? I’m sure you will agree that using both are better than either alone.

What little logic you are trying to use in this discussion is seriously flawed.

Oops. Missed this post.

So…the question remains unanswered:

If we are under obligation, under penalty of sin, to do everything in our power to protect ourselves, why would we be obligated to carry a guy, as Sir Knight suggests and not wear a protective vest? We could go further and suggest that one is obligated to drive a car with bullet-proof glass, be required to take martial arts training, etc, but I use the vest as a “reasonable” self-protection device.

 

[Newbie2]

No, please re-read what I wrote. I did not say MOST EFFECTIVE as a deterrent. So while they can be very effective in many cases they are useless if unloaded. In those cases where you need to use the gun for its intended purposes but can’t then you not only don’t have an effective weapon, but when the attack is over and you’ve been beaten or killed, you have also now armed a criminal with a new unloaded gun (or at least died because you were brandishing a toy).

That’s true. I didn’t mean to ***suggest ***that one carry a toy, only that one might be effective as a deterrant. As we would probably agree, if one carries a gun and expects it to be effective in actually defending one’s self, it needs to be loaded and the user needs to be willing to use it.

Again, what little logic you are trying to employ is, at best faulty.

I disagree.

Realize that a 380 is not a peashooter, as you also mistakenly claim. Please do not underestimate the ability of the bullet, despite the fact that it is being fired out of a small, lightweight gun. I carry a 45acp because they don’t make a 46, but that is what I have most of my shooting life practicing with and am comfortable with. I’ve trained with the guns for literally decades. But any rational individual, facing a diminuative 380 pocket pistol would likely wet himself and run screaming like a little girl if it would prevent him getting shot with that gun!

Compared to a .45, a .357 magnum or a .44 magnum it is a peashooter. An effective peashooter, but comparitively so. That was my only point.

I am not judging the intent. It is not my job to do so.

No, but I bring it up as a matter of this discussion. Would you agree that there is a difference in thinking that one is under obligation of sin vs. being fearful?

Well you may question whatever you want but there have been several studies that provide plenty of evidence to support what I wrote and to indicate that guns are used more often to prevent crime than to commit it.

I don’t doubt that. But it begs the question of how effective a deterrant a gun is. Under certain circumstances, pulling a gun will more than likely result in one getting shot. Disagree?

You are SEMI-CORRECT in your assessment. I do not believe that EVERYONE is obligated to carry a gun. I do believe, however, that MANY MORE THAN REALIZE are obligated to take very positive steps to protect life. This includes carrying a gun.

In certain circumstances, yes, I agree.

And you are trying to indicate that I am in general disagreement with Sir Knight and in general agreement with you, but that again is faulty logic.

No, I’m not quite sure where you are in agreement or disagreement. If you do not believe that everyone is obligated to carry, it would seem you are in disagreement with Sir Knight, at least on that point. Agree?

Excuse me? I completely destroyed that concept. Please scroll up and read all 3 of my posts. Specifically Post #130.

Yes, my bad. I missed it, and addressed it in my last post.

These last couple post seemed to have crossed in the mail.

I’ll repeat and amend:

"So…the question remains unanswered by Sir Knight (melensdad has addressed this, to some extent):

If we are under obligation, under penalty of sin, to do everything in our power to protect ourselves, why would we be obligated to carry a guy, as Sir Knight suggests and not wear a protective vest? We could go further and suggest that one is obligated to drive a car with bullet-proof glass, be required to take martial arts training, etc, but I use the vest as a “reasonable” self-protection device. "

 

[melensdad]

Newbie2, now you are being very selective and picky in your arguments and you are CHANGING THEM to suit your needs which is really pretty disingenuous. Further it deviates from the core of the topic.

But I will play your little game anyway.

The vest MAY prevent SOME injury from slashing cuts but will not stop a plunging knife. There are actually very specialized vests used by prison guards that are designed to prevent knife attacks from succeeding but those are very different from the typical bullet resistant vests used by police officers.

Further, you now are claiming you didn’t say anything to the contrary when I brought up the fact that vests do not prevent attacks. Again, slick little diversion and deflection. The CCC indicates we are to protect others, you suggested the use of vests, now you are backing away from the vests and claiming that they don’t protect. How convoluted do you want to make your argument?

I won’t bother to even address some of the other silly points about your spouse kicking off her shoes and running away, those things may not ever be possible. You can construct every sort of circular argument you wish, but in the face of reality and logic they all tend to fail miserably.

Oops. Missed this post.

So…the question remains unanswered:

If we are under obligation, under penalty of sin, to do everything in our power to protect ourselves, why would we be obligated to carry a guy, as Sir Knight suggests and not wear a protective vest? We could go further and suggest that one is obligated to drive a car with bullet-proof glass, be required to take martial arts training, etc, but I use the vest as a “reasonable” self-protection device.

Taken to logical extremes then yes we should all use all possible safeguards available to us and our families but again you are misunderstanding the concepts of passive and active and the role that each plays when it comes to protection. Further, not everyone has the funds to buy a $100,000 armored vehicle, not all of us are physically capable of fighting back with martial arts because of diseases like arthritis, etc. A gun, on the other hand, is, for most, well within our ability to be both good stewards with our money* (something the Church requires of us)* and is within the ability to be used by most people, even people with physical disabilities* (like myself), and is effective when needed to protect innocent life that is other than our own (something the vest cannot do).*

It seems that your only intent here is to argue but not to do so with either common sense or logic. You have strayed into minutia and choose to pick apart others rather than to deal with the overall logic put forth. Your circular and convoluted arguments do not hold up to logical examination.

 

[pnewton]

We do have a grave duty to defend ourselves.

That is not in the Catechism. It is a conclusion reached, which may or may not be accurate.

However, other areas of the teaching tend to indicate where our duties lie. As a father we are bound to protect our families. Would that not be a duty? Of course it is. The CCC also says if you are responsible for others then it is your duty so that would reinforce the parental duty, it also establishes the duty for property owners to protect their guests (guards at banks and malls), employers to protect their employees (security measures at businesses), and the government to protect its citizens (civil police).

These are good examles of where one’s duty can lie. This may or may not involve firearms, though. A parent may decide access to firearms are a greater danger than criminals in the night. This is a question of prudence and the right to such a decision must be maintained. Likewise, a store may decide unarmed security is of greater safety than armed. Many malls employee unarmed security.

Let me throw out a scenario to demonstrate some of these issues - the old shooter in the Church. A person who carried a concealed weapon, like myself, is attempting to shoot the person who started shooting wildly into crowds at the Church. directly behing the gunman is my family. One missed shot already struck on family member. I have no clear shot on the gunman but am five yards from the other CCL person who fired the shot. Does my obligation as a parent compel me to shoot this parishoner to prevent him from harming my family further?

 

[Newbie2]

Newbie2, now you are being very selective and picky in your arguments and you are CHANGING THEM to suit your needs which is really pretty disingenuous. Further it deviates from the core of the topic.

But I will play your little game anyway.

The vest MAY prevent SOME injury from slashing cuts but will not stop a plunging knife. There are actually very specialized vests used by prison guards that are designed to prevent knife attacks from succeeding but those are very different from the typical bullet resistant vests used by police officers.

This is what you wrote: “Further, if I am wearing a vest, it will not protect me ***at all ***from a knife attack.” My emphasis.

Further, you now are claiming you didn’t say anything to the contrary when I brought up the fact that vests do not prevent attacks. Again, slick little diversion and deflection. The CCC indicates we are to protect others, you suggested the use of vests, now you are backing away from the vests and claiming that they don’t protect. How convoluted do you want to make your argument?

OK, I’ll be plain. Vests are not a deterrant. I’m not backing away from the fact that they offer some protection. Clear?

I won’t bother to even address some of the other silly points about your spouse kicking off her shoes and running away, those things may not ever be possible. You can construct every sort of circular argument you wish, but in the face of reality and logic they all tend to fail miserably.

No need to get testy. I think we agree on principle more than you think.

Taken to logical extremes then yes we should all use all possible safeguards available to us and our families but again you are misunderstanding the concepts of passive and active and the role that each plays when it comes to protection. Further, not everyone has the funds to buy a $100,000 armored vehicle, not all of us are physically capable of fighting back with martial arts because of diseases like arthritis, etc. A gun, on the other hand, is, for most, well within our ability to be both good stewards with our money* (something the Church requires of us)* and is within the ability to be used by most people, even people with physical disabilities* (like myself), and is effective when needed to protect innocent life that is other than our own (something the vest cannot do).*

I agree, to some extent. But what about a gun plus a vest? Better protection yet. no?

It seems that your only intent here is to argue but not to do so with either common sense or logic. You have strayed into minutia and choose to pick apart others rather than to deal with the overall logic put forth. Your circular and convoluted arguments do not hold up to logical examination.

Do you not see where we are in agreement?

 

[melensdad]

Thank you for your replies, they seem to prove so many of my points about your posts.