P
PeteZaHut
Guest
Does anyone know of any church document that goes into the subject of killing in self-defense more in depth than the catechism? specifically involving the use of firearms?
- Status
S
Sheeniac
Guest
I don’t off-hand, but I would have to ask why the method of self-defense (i.e. firearm) would matter.
P
PeteZaHut
Guest
The reason I’m wondering about firearms is because I think guns kind of bring a new aspect to the morality of self-defense. If someone invades your home and enters your bedroom, you may not know for sure whether that person is trying to kill you, but if you hesitate to shoot your gun, the other person might shoot first. Do you have to wait until you are SURE that your life is in danger? Even if you have decided if your life is in danger, can you shoot to kill? If I shoot someone in the leg, there is a possibility that he will still be capable of shooting back at me.
T
Timbothefiveth
Guest
If you’re going to get a gun, take a class, and preferably one that focuses on self-defense instead of hunting.
Next, you’ll need to decide whether you want to be able to carry the gun with you or have it ready when you’re driving, or if you’ll keep it at the house. If you want to take it with you, you’ll need to get a license. This will vary from state to state. In 2 states they do not allow you to carry a gun, and in 8 others the government can deny you the license, and often will. To take it with you you’ll need a handgun, if you will just leave it at the house I would also consider a shotgun. Check whether your state will allow you to carry a gun.
However, it doesn’t work like the movies show it. Police officers are trained to shoot more than once because one bullet won’t always stop someone. There was one case where an officer had to shoot someone more than 20 times.
Next, you’ll need to decide whether you want to be able to carry the gun with you or have it ready when you’re driving, or if you’ll keep it at the house. If you want to take it with you, you’ll need to get a license. This will vary from state to state. In 2 states they do not allow you to carry a gun, and in 8 others the government can deny you the license, and often will. To take it with you you’ll need a handgun, if you will just leave it at the house I would also consider a shotgun. Check whether your state will allow you to carry a gun.
I think it’s morally okay though I’m not sure. However, the current theory for self-defense shootings is “shoot to stop”. That means you shoot the attacker with the goal of stopping the attack immediately, generally near the heart or lungs. Once you are certain the attacker is no longer a threat, you can’t keep shooting.
However, it doesn’t work like the movies show it. Police officers are trained to shoot more than once because one bullet won’t always stop someone. There was one case where an officer had to shoot someone more than 20 times.
I think he’d be concerned about any lethal force weapon, just that firearms are the most effective.
S
StCsDavid
Guest
Here’s what Thomas Aquinas said on the matter of self-defense:
But in him who defends himself, it may be without sin, or it may sometimes involve a venial sin, or sometimes a mortal sin; and this depends on his intention and on his manner of defending himself. For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin, and one cannot say properly that there is strife on his part. But if, on the other hand, his self-defense be inspired by vengeance and hatred, it is always a sin. It is a venial sin, if a slight movement of hatred or vengeance obtrude itself, or if he does not much exceed moderation in defending himself: but it is a mortal sin if he makes for his assailant with the fixed intention of killing him, or inflicting grievous harm on him.
Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica II-II 41, 1a
So it comes down to intent and moderation. If one is to exercise proper moderation using a handgun as a form of self defense, then, IMHO, one is morally obligated to receive the proper training to use this weapon and how to best discern when deadly force is required.
Summa Theologica II-II 41, 1a
So it comes down to intent and moderation. If one is to exercise proper moderation using a handgun as a form of self defense, then, IMHO, one is morally obligated to receive the proper training to use this weapon and how to best discern when deadly force is required.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
If you honestly believe that you or another innocent individual is in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury, you may use deadly force to stop the threat and incur no sin. Not only do you have a “right” to protect yourself and others, but an actual “duty” to do so. Specifically, church teaching calls it a “grave duty” – which means that the failure to do so would be a grave sin of omission.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
D
Disciple96
Guest
About the specific use of firearms, I don’t know. But life issues, such as killing in self-defense, are covered in the Gospel of Life. Have you tried there?
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/evtext.htm
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
In all honesty, no, I don’t. However, when I was taking my Confirmation class a couple years ago, my teacher told us that self-defense is okay-- so long as it is “fair and square,” meaning: If somebody’s attacker is using a knife, then, so may you. If they use a gun, so can you. If they attack with their hands, you may not use anything superior to that… I hope that made sense. 
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
That is incorrect because it does not take into account the “disparity of force” - is the situation that allows the law-abiding citizen to shoot what appears to be an unarmed man. In this concept, it is recognizes that the power of the attacker to kill or cripple with “body weapons,” fists or feet, may be so great vis-a-vis the defender’s stature and ability that this disparity of physical force becomes the aggressor’s deadly weapon.
If the attacker is a black belt or a professional fighter and known to you as such at the time, he possesses disparity of force. So does an unarmed male violently attacking an unarmed female. So does a gang, and as few as two unarmed assailants can give grounds for justifiable homicide if they attack ferociously enough. However, once all but one have been turned back or neutralized, the sole survivor is no longer a member of a gang and may no longer be shot – at least, not for that reason.
A sound and healthy person viciously attacking a cripple, or a strong young man attacking a weak old person, also create disparity of force.
“Opportunity” means the aggressor is capable of immediately employing his deadly ability in terms of distance, obstacles, etc. Although it is not widely known, the average man, from a standing start, can close 21 feet and sink a knife into a human target in less than 1.5 seconds. A man trained in disarming and standing within reach will almost certainly gain control of the gun before you can pull the trigger, even if they start aimed and ready. An old soldier’s rule: Action beats reaction.
“Jeopardy,” means that the aggressor is acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that the aggressor’s intent was to kill or cripple. When a customer pulls from his kit bag a gun he wants your store to buy, he has ability and opportunity, but your salesman does not shoot the customer in self defense because the customer has not acted in a manner that implies jeopardy.
Conversely, if a maniac walks into your gun shop and screams at you, “I’ll kill you” as he makes an obvious drawing movement toward his hip, jeopardy exists and you or your salesman are justified in firing. If it turns out the man was only bluffing and had no weapon, the law holds that the shooting was still justifiable; the attacker acted in such a way as to create, in your reasonable and prudent minds, the belief that he was armed and about to kill you.
The use of deadly force should always be a last resort. Although one is not legally required to flee an intruder in one’s own home, on the street, many states have a requirement to retreat before using deadly force against an assailant. Even so, the wording of these “retreat requirements” is generally such that one is expected to retreat only if he or she may do so in a manner which is safe to them and to other innocent persons.
If the attacker is a black belt or a professional fighter and known to you as such at the time, he possesses disparity of force. So does an unarmed male violently attacking an unarmed female. So does a gang, and as few as two unarmed assailants can give grounds for justifiable homicide if they attack ferociously enough. However, once all but one have been turned back or neutralized, the sole survivor is no longer a member of a gang and may no longer be shot – at least, not for that reason.
A sound and healthy person viciously attacking a cripple, or a strong young man attacking a weak old person, also create disparity of force.
“Opportunity” means the aggressor is capable of immediately employing his deadly ability in terms of distance, obstacles, etc. Although it is not widely known, the average man, from a standing start, can close 21 feet and sink a knife into a human target in less than 1.5 seconds. A man trained in disarming and standing within reach will almost certainly gain control of the gun before you can pull the trigger, even if they start aimed and ready. An old soldier’s rule: Action beats reaction.
“Jeopardy,” means that the aggressor is acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that the aggressor’s intent was to kill or cripple. When a customer pulls from his kit bag a gun he wants your store to buy, he has ability and opportunity, but your salesman does not shoot the customer in self defense because the customer has not acted in a manner that implies jeopardy.
Conversely, if a maniac walks into your gun shop and screams at you, “I’ll kill you” as he makes an obvious drawing movement toward his hip, jeopardy exists and you or your salesman are justified in firing. If it turns out the man was only bluffing and had no weapon, the law holds that the shooting was still justifiable; the attacker acted in such a way as to create, in your reasonable and prudent minds, the belief that he was armed and about to kill you.
The use of deadly force should always be a last resort. Although one is not legally required to flee an intruder in one’s own home, on the street, many states have a requirement to retreat before using deadly force against an assailant. Even so, the wording of these “retreat requirements” is generally such that one is expected to retreat only if he or she may do so in a manner which is safe to them and to other innocent persons.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
Ridiculous.In all honesty, no, I don’t. However, when I was taking my Confirmation class a couple years ago, my teacher told us that self-defense is okay-- so long as it is “fair and square,” meaning: If somebody’s attacker is using a knife, then, so may you. If they use a gun, so can you. If they attack with their hands, you may not use anything superior to that… I hope that made sense.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
I agree with Sir Knight, but to put a personal spin on it… I took a martial art for 1.5 years, while not a long time, it was certainly more focused than any self-defense class.
If someone thinks you can take on a knife fight and win, or hand to hand - esp being a woman fighting off a man, that person is a fool. I wouldn’t even bet on a woman fighting a man off if she had a knife. These fighting styles are MUCH harder than they look.
And what if it’s a woman with a kid who was endangered? The first thing a criminal is going to do is grab the kid as leverage.
That sort of foolish. ignorant advice infuriates me.
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
“fair & square” is the key. The hands of a black belt in the martial arts are not the same hands of someone without that knownledge. The hands of a 200 pound man are not the same hands of a 100 pound woman. The hands of a 165-pound 20 year old stoned out on drugs are not the same hands as that of a 165-pound 50 year old trying to protect his family.
Since you do not know what your attacker is capable of, you assume the worst for THAT situation. If you left your door open by mistake and an 80-year woman walked in by accident and starts screaming that you are in her house and comes at you with an umbrealla, you don’t take a gun and shoot her.
That is what “fair & square” and “disparity of force” are all about.
Since you do not know what your attacker is capable of, you assume the worst for THAT situation. If you left your door open by mistake and an 80-year woman walked in by accident and starts screaming that you are in her house and comes at you with an umbrealla, you don’t take a gun and shoot her.
That is what “fair & square” and “disparity of force” are all about.
B
Brendan
Guest
Pope John Paul II - Evangelium Vitae
Council of Trent (on the 5th Commandment)
- Status