I
Isidore_AK
Guest
john doran:
A lethal blow is usually necessary for self defense. Nothing less will stop most people.
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
A bit of a quibble here. The blow may well be lethal. It may be delivered by means that only a fool would consider non-lethal. But the INTENT is the key – one delivers such a blow intending to STOP an attack, not kill the attacker – even though one may know with a moral certainty the attacker will not survive.
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
vern humphrey:
Oh well, I guess if I ever have to fire a shot in anger, there’s always confession…
I guess its all semantics then. I do ‘intend’ to kill the attacker, because it’s the only way I can be certain he/she/it will be stopped.
Oh well, I guess if I ever have to fire a shot in anger, there’s always confession…
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Look at it like this:
Where do you plan to aim? Center of mass, of course!
How many shots will you fire? I’ll keep shooting until he stops.
What will you do next? If possible, render or call for aid to the fallen attacker.
What will you say on the witness stand when asked “Did you intend to kill this fine young man?”
“No. I only intended to stop him from killing me. Unfortunately his attack was so dangerous and I was in such fear of immediate death at his hands that I was forced to use deadly force. As soon as he stopped his attack, I did everything I could to save his life.”
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Lady Cygnus:
The reason for putting it into Non-Catholic Religions was so that I could see the range of viewpoints across the range of belief systems.
D
Della
Guest
But, defending oneself is not to shot in anger, but out of simple necessity.I guess its all semantics then. I do ‘intend’ to kill the attacker, because it’s the only way I can be certain he/she/it will be stopped.
Oh well, I guess if I ever have to fire a shot in anger, there’s always confession…
And about my other post to which you responded that if you are going to shoot, shoot to kill. If you will reread my post you will see that I never said anything about shooting anyone. I said you should try to restrain the person to keep him from harming you or others.
And there are other ways of rendering a person unable to go on attacking besides shooting to kill. If the opportunity presents itself and you can hit him with something to bring him down, then do that. And if you don’t know how to use a gun or you can’t get to the person to hit him, dial 911 and leave it up to the police.
Another thing you could do is look around to see if anyone else sees the gun at your feet who is gesturing to give it to him. I’d do that before trying to fire myself because I have no training in firearms.
The point to all this is we are not to use deadly force unless it is necessary. If all you intend is to stop someone from hurting yourself and others but you happen to kill him you are not guilty of murder. Any lawyer or judge will tell you that.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Of course the situation is unlikely, unless you live in Iraq. However, you seem to be assuming that the purpose of the question is to debate the ethics of the situation, rather than the actual practise. Would you really go looking for a telephone while he is killing people?
I would say that everything needs to be debated, but that is just me.
How do you restrain someone while they are firing a gun?
That is your inference, not my implication. What I want to know is whether you countenance the possibility of killing one person in order to save others, or whether you think that you would run away to save yourself, or pursue other alternatives. There is a world of possibilities in the scenario, and firing the gun is certainly not the only one.
D
Della
Guest
Originally Posted by Della
I don’t respond to hypothetical questions like this because such questions are of the kind that most people would never have to face. My first reaction would be to dial 911 after securing the gun. After all, most malls have security people who might not know who is the original prep and end up shooting me too. The average citizen usually doesn’t have to take the place of the police or security, so the situation is very unlikely to occur and therefore not a good one for discussing the rights and wrongs of taking human life.
Of course the situation is unlikely, unless you live in Iraq. However, you seem to be assuming that the purpose of the question is to debate the ethics of the situation, rather than the actual practise. Would you really go looking for a telephone while he is killing people?
I carry a cellphone with me at all times. Most people do these days. And I thought you believed that everything should be debated.
Quote:
The Church’s teaching on this is very clear and doesn’t need to be debated.
I would say that everything needs to be debated, but that is just me.
Let’s debate whether running head long into a brick wall at 90 mpr in a car wearing no seatbelt would or wouldn’t be fatal, then. Truly, somethings don’t need to be debated when the best answer is already at hand.
Quote:
First one should try to restrain such a person, if you are the only one there who can do it, secondly if restraining isn’t enough, if he continues to struggle and would continue to do harm to others if he got away, you should only use enough force to make sure that doesn’t happen.
How do you restrain someone while they are firing a gun?
If you are in a position to get to him without his seeing you, you can restrain him, if you are strong enough. I’m not, so I wouldn’t try that, but I’m no good with a gun, either. Would you want me to shoot innocent people by mistake, because that’s the most likely thing that would happen if I had a gun in my hands.
Quote:
Shooting someone to kill ought to be the very last resort, not the first thing you do, as the scenario laid out for us implied.
That is your inference, not my implication. What I want to know is whether you countenance the possibility of killing one person in order to save others, or whether you think that you would run away to save yourself, or pursue other alternatives. There is a world of possibilities in the scenario, and firing the gun is certainly not the only one.
I’m glad you see that one doesn’t not have to shoot to kill if other options are available. But, from the way you worded your scenario, I didn’t get that impression.
I don’t respond to hypothetical questions like this because such questions are of the kind that most people would never have to face. My first reaction would be to dial 911 after securing the gun. After all, most malls have security people who might not know who is the original prep and end up shooting me too. The average citizen usually doesn’t have to take the place of the police or security, so the situation is very unlikely to occur and therefore not a good one for discussing the rights and wrongs of taking human life.
Of course the situation is unlikely, unless you live in Iraq. However, you seem to be assuming that the purpose of the question is to debate the ethics of the situation, rather than the actual practise. Would you really go looking for a telephone while he is killing people?
I carry a cellphone with me at all times. Most people do these days. And I thought you believed that everything should be debated.
Quote:
The Church’s teaching on this is very clear and doesn’t need to be debated.
I would say that everything needs to be debated, but that is just me.
Let’s debate whether running head long into a brick wall at 90 mpr in a car wearing no seatbelt would or wouldn’t be fatal, then. Truly, somethings don’t need to be debated when the best answer is already at hand.
Quote:
First one should try to restrain such a person, if you are the only one there who can do it, secondly if restraining isn’t enough, if he continues to struggle and would continue to do harm to others if he got away, you should only use enough force to make sure that doesn’t happen.
How do you restrain someone while they are firing a gun?
If you are in a position to get to him without his seeing you, you can restrain him, if you are strong enough. I’m not, so I wouldn’t try that, but I’m no good with a gun, either. Would you want me to shoot innocent people by mistake, because that’s the most likely thing that would happen if I had a gun in my hands.
Quote:
Shooting someone to kill ought to be the very last resort, not the first thing you do, as the scenario laid out for us implied.
That is your inference, not my implication. What I want to know is whether you countenance the possibility of killing one person in order to save others, or whether you think that you would run away to save yourself, or pursue other alternatives. There is a world of possibilities in the scenario, and firing the gun is certainly not the only one.
I’m glad you see that one doesn’t not have to shoot to kill if other options are available. But, from the way you worded your scenario, I didn’t get that impression.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
When someone is actively shooting other people, there are really no good options that don’t involve the immediate use of deadly force.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Hence the question. You’re right about the cellphone. I just never think about them because I always try not to use mine.Would you really go looking for a telephone while he is killing people?
I carry a cellphone with me at all times. Most people do these days. And I thought you believed that everything should be debated.
Unless you test it, how can you know that it is the best answer?
That is why I said that there is a thick concrete wall behind him. Personally, I could miss an elephant at thirty paces. As a result, I would not only fire, but continue firing until he stopped and the other people were safe. I am not saying that this is the right answer, however.Would you want me to shoot innocent people by mistake, because that’s the most likely thing that would happen if I had a gun in my hands.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That is the right answer. There is no other workable alternative.
No matter how fast the cops respond, it won’t be fast enough.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
vern humphrey:
One of the peculiarities of this question is that women answer in the negative more often than men do. When the scenario is modified to include children, especially their own children, almost all of the women say that they would fire.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Men, by and large are protectors, and women tend to be protectees. In time of danger, most women instictively seek a safe hiding place with their children, while men stand up and fight the threat. That’s one of our survival strategies as a species.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
vern humphrey:
Sorry; I come from a country in which private citizens are not allowed to carry firearms. Even our police only have them, unloaded, in a locked box in the boot of the patrol car. It still feels strange when I go to other countries and see police carrying firearms in public.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
vern humphrey:
Probably the worst iteration of displacement is the fact that people can assume that a problem is “not theirs”, and thus ignore it. For this reason, a woman who cries “Fire!” is more likely to be helped than a woman who cries “Rape!”, because only in the former do the audience perceive a threat to themselves.
There is also something called ‘displacement of responsibility’. In most cultures, women are allowed to hide behind men and so they do. A similar condition affects people’s responses to accidents: any given person is more likely to help when there are fewer people present, because they cannot so easily displace the responsibility to act.
Probably the worst iteration of displacement is the fact that people can assume that a problem is “not theirs”, and thus ignore it. For this reason, a woman who cries “Fire!” is more likely to be helped than a woman who cries “Rape!”, because only in the former do the audience perceive a threat to themselves.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Liberalizing the carrying of firearms has resulted in a dramatic drop in violent crime in the United States – currently 38 of 50 states have “shall issue” laws – if you take the course of instruction and have no criminal record, they must issue a license to carry.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You may have something there – note how in questions like this, a lot of people say “Let the police handle it” even though the scenario makes it abundently clear that immediate action is required.
I tend to follow Blondie Hassler’s philosophy. Hassler, a former Royal Marine with quite a record in WWII was also a yachtsman, and said, “Yachtsmen should not carry radio transmitters. We go to sea for our own pleasure and have no right to call on others to risk their lives to come to our rescue.”
I think if we are not willing to defend ourselves and go to the aid of others in danger, we have no moral right to expect others – even the police – to risk their lives to defend us.
M
MariaGorettiGrl
Guest
Not to go against the statistics, but if the gun falls between me and a guy, I’m not waiting to see what he does or if he’s a better shot! I’m taking the guy down. I’d carry my own gun, but I’m more of a rifle gal and it doesn’t fit well in my purse. 
Since my days as a small child with a bb gun, at the shooting range with my dad, he’s taught me that you must be okay with killing whatever you point your gun at. Don’t aim at someone you could not live with yourself for killing, because you never know when your aim will fail, the sight will be off or the gun will misfire.
I’m not bloodthirsty. I’m protective. Although, I may guilty of eating Bambi’s mother.
Since my days as a small child with a bb gun, at the shooting range with my dad, he’s taught me that you must be okay with killing whatever you point your gun at. Don’t aim at someone you could not live with yourself for killing, because you never know when your aim will fail, the sight will be off or the gun will misfire.
I’m not bloodthirsty. I’m protective. Although, I may guilty of eating Bambi’s mother.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You can buy purses designed to carry a gun. You can also carry in other ways.
You know the story of Dr. Suzzane Grazia-Hupp? She was in Luby’s Cafeteria with her parents when a killer came in and started shooting people at random. She had a gun, but under Texas law, it had to be locked in her car. Her father (in his 70s, as I recall) got up to try to stop the killed bare-handed and was shot. Her mother jumped up and cradled her dying husband in her lap, and the killer shot her through the head.
Dr. Grazia-Hupp was instrumental in getting Texas to pass a “shall issue” law.
M
MariaGorettiGrl
Guest
But is a rifle a very discrete thing to carry around? Although, no one would mess with me!
I think I’ll get a handgun and carry that around instead.
- Status