When is the time to kill?

[vern_humphrey]

MariaGorettiGrl:

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.

I recommend the Ruger SP 101 with the 3 1/16" barrel. That’s what I bought for my daughter, along with a purse with a built-in holster.

 

[Mystophilus]

vern humphrey:

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.

The situation has been improved then, but it is still not good.

We’re allowed a licence unless we have convictions, but we’re not allowed to carry a firearm unless the weapon is unloaded and in the boot and you are transporting it either to a sport-shooting location or to go hunting.

We have a population of 4 000 000, and 40-50 murders per year. New York, alone, has more than 2 000 murders per year. Violent crimes are still committed - bank robbers use knives - but the total damage is much, much less.

 

[Mystophilus]

vern humphrey:

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.

I would have to respectfully disagree, on the grounds that some people are psychologically incapable of defending themselves, and the protection of these people, while not a moral right on their part, is a moral duty on the part of the more able.

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Rescue the weak and needy;
   deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:3-4)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mystophilus:

The situation has been improved then, but it is still not good.

We’re allowed a licence unless we have convictions, but we’re not allowed to carry a firearm unless the weapon is unloaded and in the boot and you are transporting it either to a sport-shooting location or to go hunting.

We have a population of 4 000 000, and 40-50 murders per year. New York, alone, has more than 2 000 murders per year. Violent crimes are still committed - bank robbers use knives - but the total damage is much, much less.

One advantage you have is a fairly homogenous population. In the US we have a mixed population, and that makes problems.

For example, there was a study comparing Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada) with Seattle, Washington, (US) which showed a lower murder rate in Canada – attributed to “gun control.”

When the data was re-looked, the reviewer adjusted for population. What he found was the minority population in Seattle was African-American and had a very high rate of violent crime. The minority population in Vancouver was asian, and had a very low violent crime rate.

Interestingly enough, this re-look showed that Caucasian citizens of Vancouver were more likely to commit violent crimes than their counterparts in the more violent city of Seattle.

Other studies show that while murders are less likely to occur in other countries, much of the difference is due to reporting (in Japan, for example, when someone kills his whole family and then commits suicide, all the deaths are classed as “suicide.”)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mystophilus:

I would have to respectfully disagree, on the grounds that some people are psychologically incapable of defending themselves, and the protection of these people, while not a moral right on their part, is a moral duty on the part of the more able.

Some people are paralyzed, or otherwise physically unable to defend themselves. But that doesn’t alter the fact that there is a general duty to be prepared to help yourself and your neighbors.

 

[Mystophilus]

vern humphrey:

One advantage you have is a fairly homogenous population. In the US we have a mixed population, and that makes problems.

Where on earth did you get the idea that we are the ones with the homogeneous population? Not that ‘great melting pot’ myth again, I hope!

USA: white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)

New Zealand: European 69.8%, Maori 7.9%, Asian 5.7%, Pacific islander 4.4%, other 0.5%, mixed 7.8%, unspecified 3.8% (2001 census, since which time the Asian component has increased)

Both sets of figures are from the CIA World factbook, not a NZ source.

Other studies show that while murders are less likely to occur in other countries, much of the difference is due to reporting (in Japan, for example, when someone kills his whole family and then commits suicide, all the deaths are classed as “suicide.”)

This, too, does not apply to us. All sudden deaths in New Zealand are investigated as homicides until proven otherwise. “suicide” is only for an individual who kills him-/herself deliberately; “manslaughter” is only for a demonstrably accidental killing. Recently, a 14-year-old on a bridge over a motorway threw an 8kg (3.5 lb) piece of concrete onto the motorway. The concrete went through the windscreen of a car, killing the driver. The teenager has been charged with murder.

It’s simple, really: guns make killing easier; a lack of guns makes killing harder.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mystophilus:

Where on earth did you get the idea that we are the ones with the homogeneous population? Not that ‘great melting pot’ myth again, I hope!

USA: white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)

New Zealand: European 69.8%, Maori 7.9%, Asian 5.7%, Pacific islander 4.4%, other 0.5%, mixed 7.8%, unspecified 3.8% (2001 census, since which time the Asian component has increased)

Both sets of figures are from the CIA World factbook, not a NZ source.

It isn’t the numbers, but the cultures attached to the components. Most violent crime in the US comes from two sub-groups, African-Americans and Hispanics.

Mystophilus:

This, too, does not apply to us. All sudden deaths in New Zealand are investigated as homicides until proven otherwise. “suicide” is only for an individual who kills him-/herself deliberately; “manslaughter” is only for a demonstrably accidental killing. Recently, a 14-year-old on a bridge over a motorway threw an 8kg (3.5 lb) piece of concrete onto the motorway. The concrete went through the windscreen of a car, killing the driver. The teenager has been charged with murder.

It’s simple, really: guns make killing easier; a lack of guns makes killing harder.

The problem is, lack of guns doesn’t apply to criminals – only to honest people.

In the US we have seen a significant drop in violent crime by allowing honest people to carry guns.

 

[Mystophilus]

vern humphrey:

It isn’t the numbers, but the cultures attached to the components. Most violent crime in the US comes from two sub-groups, African-Americans and Hispanics.

Both of which are culturally and economically marginalised, like the high-crime groups in most countries, like the Maori (indigenous) and Pacific Islander (immigrant) populations here.

The problem is, lack of guns doesn’t apply to criminals – only to honest people.

In the US we have seen a significant drop in violent crime by allowing honest people to carry guns.

Here, criminals rarely use guns: the system works. However, I suspect that it works because it has worked, and that it would fail in the US for much the same reason: culture. Banning guns in the US now would be about as useful as Prohibition was. You have a culture of weapon-carrying; we don’t. You also have a much larger population to attempt to control, and you have borders.

In fact, the only practical human solution to the situation in the US may be something suggested by Macchiavelli: install a draconian tyrant, have him obliterate the criminal element, then publicly execute the tyrant for an infraction and install a more moderate governor.

 

[Hospitaller]

**Would you shoot him? **

Yes.

Why?

Because there’s no way in heck I’d be convinced to try tackling him.

 

[Fox]

It is morally right to kill, to save your own or someone elses life.

 

[sirknightron]

Peace be with you

As a last resort effort to protect the innocent from the greater harm or wrong in the lost of the most precious gift of life. This goes for the Just as well as the injust.

Killing humans should be avoided at all cost IF it can be done since we are created in the image of God.

Choosing to do nothing or not to get involved when one is able is still a decision and is a greater sin than making a misjudged decision to kill.

What about killing in general? (any and all life )
Are bunnies more important than bugs?
Where do we draw the line?
Is it what we are to kill or is it our reasons and are these reasons just?
We are the care takers of life on this planet, but do we have all authority to justify what or who we are to kill?
The killing off of any spiecies of life for the comfort of man
for example, is this justified killing?

We tend to think of killing to apply only to man when God gave us dominion over all life on this planet.

It’s a great question to ask yourself when put in the right perspective.
Ron

 

[But_for_Grace]

I didn’t vote on this, it is all equivication, how can you judge one life as more valuable than another?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mystophilus:

Here, criminals rarely use guns: the system works. However, I suspect that it works because it has worked, and that it would fail in the US for much the same reason: culture. Banning guns in the US now would be about as useful as Prohibition was. You have a culture of weapon-carrying; we don’t. You also have a much larger population to attempt to control, and you have borders.

That last is crucial – we have tons of drugs crossing our borders every day. How could we manage to keep guns out when we can’t keep drugs out?

In addition, although we don’t imprison people just for being illegal immigrants, nearly a third of the people in prison in the US are illegal immigrants – a lot of our crime is imported.

Mystophilus:

In fact, the only practical human solution to the situation in the US may be something suggested by Macchiavelli: install a draconian tyrant, have him obliterate the criminal element, then publicly execute the tyrant for an infraction and install a more moderate governor.

Oh, no! We can do without that!

We are decreasing our crime rate rather nicely these days – and a good bit of it has to do with ensuring the people have the right and the means of self-defense.

 

[mlchance]

But for Grace:

I didn’t vote on this, it is all equivication, how can you judge one life as more valuable than another?

Comparative value of lives has nothing to do with it. In certain circumstances, it is just (even a demand of charity) to kill. This is why Saint Thomas Aquinas discusses just use of force as a subset of his discussion about charity and the duties thereof.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But for Grace:

I didn’t vote on this, it is all equivication, how can you judge one life as more valuable than another?

There is no Catholic duty to stand helpless and allow an unjust aggressor to kill you.

The right to self defense is inherent in the right to life. In fact, you have a duty to defend your own life and those around you if you have the ability.

 

[cynic]

Whenever it serves the economic or political interests of the United States…we can bomb civilian areas with depleted uranium coated shells - getting the stuff into the soil and local water.But this gross disregard for human life isn’t tecnically ‘murder’…

 

[fix]

john doran:

i totally agree. he is only guilty of murder if he intends to deal the lethal blow.

How is that? Are you claiming it is contrary to Catholic teaching one may not intentionally kill another for reasons of self defense?

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

Whenever it serves the economic or political interests of the United States…we can bomb civilian areas with depleted uranium coated shells - getting the stuff into the soil and local water.But this gross disregard for human life isn’t tecnically ‘murder’…

When did we “bomb civilian areas with depleted uranium coated shells?”

Please post a cite or retract that unfounded accusation.

 

[wabrams]

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.

The Church’s teaching on this is very clear and doesn’t need to be debated. 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.

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. And shooting to kill shouldn’t be the first priority if it would be possible to render the person unable to hurt you and others. Still, the police are trained to face such situations, and so we ought to leave it up to them before taking any actions ourselves.

Which is usually shoot to kill if you can’t talk him out of dropping the weapon; unless of course he/she has already fired the weapon, then back to shoot to kill.

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

When did we “bomb civilian areas with depleted uranium coated shells?”

Please post a cite or retract that unfounded accusation.

i think cynic’s probably talking about the simple use of depleted uranium munitions by the US in the balkans and iraq during desert storm…

this is a good article that gives an apparently level-headed overview of the whole DU issue:

wise-uranium.org/pdf/dumyths.pdf