It’s not about thinking only of retreating. It is about thinking first about retreating, and then considering other options if that can’t work out.
For Christ, I think it was always first and only about “standing your ground.”
Try Luke 4:29-30.LeafByNiggle:
For Christ, I think it was always first and only about “standing your ground.”
- Rebuke of Peter:
- The temple merchants:
- The high priest’s guard:
Good try but retreat means backing away from the enemy, not passing through their midst. I suppose one could say incorrectly, “the running back retreated through the secondary for his second touchdown.”
see cc 2264 & 2265upant:
Or maybe the person always looking for retreat rather than taking a life is a Christian who is following the Church’s moral doctrine, which is most definitely not “stand your ground.”
Good advice. No one wants to be the cause of injury or death to a human being.
No. Safely escaping (if possible) is simply the safest thing the potential victim can do.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Zounds! That’s hardcore incorrect! Leave the “warning shots” to B westerns and old cop shows. One does not fire their weapon in this context unless it is to neutralize! No “aiming for the legs” either.
Lighten up. How does one escape from their own home? The gun is always the last resort in self-defense. But it remains a resort. Better to only scare than maim.
That is a straw man. Stand your ground versus retreating is about property, not people. Retreat, as I was using it assumes safe retreat, or at least safer retreat.
Do not try to spin this. I was responding to your comment:
That’s hardcore bad and potentially dangerous advice.
You are wrong. More terrible and potentially dangerous advice. Never fire a gun to “scare” someone!
Often the best way to defend your family is to grab them and get the heck out of there.pnewton:
see cc 2264 & 2265upant:
Or maybe the person always looking for retreat rather than taking a life is a Christian who is following the Church’s moral doctrine, which is most definitely not “stand your ground.”
we have a grave duty to defend our family.
SYG was not the point of discussion:
cc 2264 self defense is one moral obligation
a few years ago there was a big case about this. they locked the shooter (defender) up. i don’t remember the outcome. i believe it was a domestic dispute.
unless you define family as the group you are with and if that includes those who can’t retreat… you may have a moral obligation.upant:
Often the best way to defend your family is to grab them and get the heck out of there.pnewton:
see cc 2264 & 2265upant:
Or maybe the person always looking for retreat rather than taking a life is a Christian who is following the Church’s moral doctrine, which is most definitely not “stand your ground.”
we have a grave duty to defend our family.
That’s why I said “often” and not “never.”LeafByNiggle:
unless you define family as the group you are with and if that includes those who can’t retreat… you may have a moral obligation.upant:
Often the best way to defend your family is to grab them and get the heck out of there.pnewton:
see cc 2264 & 2265upant:
Or maybe the person always looking for retreat rather than taking a life is a Christian who is following the Church’s moral doctrine, which is most definitely not “stand your ground.”
we have a grave duty to defend our family.
Anyone who is trained in firearms safety and particularly the defensive use of firearms knows NEVER to fire a “warning shot”, to “aim for a leg” or to brandish a firearm in the hopes of deterring crime. It’s sad how many peoples’ views of personal defense stem from old B westerns and reruns of Charlie’s Angels.