The morality of the use of weapons in self-defense

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In either case if deadly force is used to stop a particular act of violence or home invasion, the action is not immoral.

Handguns by design are meant to kill. And it’s for this reason that law enforcement doesn’t shoot to “wound”. There are other less lethal options to use to try and stop an individual.

I don’t know if the laws are the same across all states, but in my state, deadly force can be used to stop a rape. Even if the rapist has no intention of killing their victim.

You can also use deadly force to stop a home invasion. Even if the intruder had no intentions of killing the occupants.

So it comes down to the actual crime and the weapon being used by the victim to stop said crime.
 
otjm said:
And you have watched too many Rambo movies… a LAW might be small enough to be wielded in a house. A bazooka isn’t. And neither is likely to be in the possession of a citizen.
Click to expand...
The idea was to explain a concept, not create a realistic scenario. I selected a bazooka because of the certainty of death to make the point that even when one knows the aggressor will die as a result of the action, the action is legitimate, because the death even though inevitable is an undesired consequence, and not the motivation.
 
o_mlly said:
Since the child is not an aggressor, the principle of self-defense cannot justify the act. We must look to other principles, e.g., direct vs. indirect acts, proximate vs. remote effects, self-preservation, and proportion.
Click to expand...
The principle of double effect justifies both actions.
Cirdan_XII said:
But didn’t Jesus actually rebuke Peter for drawing his sword?
Click to expand...
For Our Lord rebuked Peter not because a just defense is unlawful, but because he wished not so much to defend himself or Our Lord, as to avenge the injury done to Our Lord, although he himself had no official authority. (St Bellarmine, De Laicis)
 
Last edited:
Its so different all over the world.
In some places it is very safe and to be armed is insane and criminal, in other places its not safe to go even outside of guarded downtown, because you can be killed, or robbed.
If society has a problems with poverty,enequality, the problems with alkoholism,drugs,or war zones,post-war zones(where possible there are some people who are psychologically traumatized)then frequently its also dangerous when too many weapons in the hands of civilians.
 
Last edited:
Cirdan_XII said:
But didn’t Jesus actually rebuke Peter for drawing his sword?

So we can’t exactly derive any model behavior from Peter in this instance.

Also, Jesus himself did not do anything in self defence during his arrest or passion. Not the littlest thing. Not once.
Click to expand...
The proper use of self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. In Luke 22:36, Jesus tells His remaining disciples, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Jesus knew that now was the time when His followers would be threatened, and He upheld their right to self-defense. Just a short time later, Jesus is arrested, and Peter takes a sword and cuts off someone’s ear. Jesus rebukes Peter for that act (verses 49–51). Why? In his zeal to defend the Lord, Peter was standing in the way of God’s will. Jesus had told His disciples multiple times that He must be arrested, put on trial, and die (e.g., Matthew 17:22–23). In other words, Peter acted unwisely in that situation. We must have wisdom regarding when to fight and when not to.

Exodus 22 gives some clues about God’s attitude toward self-defense: “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed…” (Exodus 22:2–3)
 
Cirdan_XII said:
But didn’t Jesus actually rebuke Peter for drawing his sword?
Click to expand...
He did; but the Church doe not engage in proof texting, but is rather, contextualist. Had Peter used the sword, he would have possibly set in motion a mini battle; Christ was engaged in the beginning of his passion, and did not need/want that to be set “off track”. In other words, the betrayal by Judas was set in motion and it needed to play itself out, and that did not include Peter coming to his physical defense.

Thus it is set in a context and not a random statement against the use of a weapon in self defense.
 
Last edited:
That was intended as a bit of teasing. Maybe I should have inserted an emoticon. 😄
 
Montrose said:
It seems then that the US is the only unsafe developed country.
Click to expand...
Some places are actually quite safe. States with an open carry law are safer than states with strict gun control laws.
 
Athanasiy said:
Its so different all over the world.
In some places it is very safe and to be armed is insane and criminal, in other places its not safe to go even outside of guarded downtown, because you can be killed, or robbed.
If society has a problems with poverty,enequality, the problems with alkoholism,drugs,or war zones,post-war zones(where possible there are some people who are psychologically traumatized)then frequently its also dangerous when too many weapons in the hands of civilians.
Click to expand...
The purpose is the same though, which is to protect people. Prohibiting firearms in certain countries is a kind of preventative medicine to stop a gun culture from ever developing, which in many places has been successful, although once a gun culture has already developed it is unfortunately very challenging to undo it, which is the situation the entire New World has been stuck in for the past 400 years. Even Canada is relatively violent for being as developed as it is.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
The principle of double effect justifies both actions.
Click to expand...
On its own the principle of the double effect (PDE) justifies the direct killing of an unjust aggressor in a lethal attack. The PDE does not justify the direct killing of an innocent. The death of an innocent can only be moral if indirect. (Another thread needed.)
 
Last edited:
Yes, in Western European countries, even illegal possession of weapons can be imprisoned.
Even if trends begin with the identification of weapons and violence, measures are taken, for example - stop and search measures, when police might stop suspicious people by checking them out.
 
Crusader13 said:
I don’t know if the laws are the same across all states, but in my state, deadly force can be used to stop a rape. Even if the rapist has no intention of killing their victim.

You can also use deadly force to stop a home invasion. Even if the intruder had no intentions of killing the occupants.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, in situations like that (and also kidnapping, at least in some places), deadly force is allowed because once the assailant(s) have you in their power, you no longer have any control over whether they keep you alive or not. Sure, it may not be their intention, but you don’t know that.
 
The USCCB seems to support gun control, but they aren’t unanimous on it. Defending yourself is a God given right, and, may even be your duty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top