The Church's Position On Defense Of Oneself And Family.

[Winchester]

Okay, okay.  Fine.  
 
Can someone explain to me without fancy rhetoric exactly why you all like guns so much?  Do you really think you need a huge AK-47 thing to "protect your family"? I get owning hunting equipment, and a variety of guns for stuff like that.  I get owning something like a handgun, or even having a concealed carry permit.  Seems to me that it'd be prudent to regulate and track gun ownership at the state level, because it seems that different states (or even different areas within states) have different needs.  I don't understand why it's such a good idea to promote things like putting a huge gun in a woman's hand as "protection" - shouldn't we be educating our men to not assault people instead?  Is it really just about owning a ton of weapons to start a government uprising if need be?  Because that's a lot of the rhetoric I hear from you guys, and frankly that sounds really, really ridiculous to me.  If you guys could help me understand why, I'd appreciate it.

I was taught not to assault people and I own firearms. I've thrown exactly one unprovoked punch one time. In nursery school. Over a girl. Since that time, I have not started a single fight. But it's a matter of choice. You can't "educate" evil out of someone. It's a choice. You might be able to diminish things like robbery or burglary--those crimes honestly could be motivated by desperation born of some lack of knowledge. But there are other crimes. Educate, but also prepare. If you want to prepare. You don't want to carry a weapon, that's cool. I think it's a perfectly legitimate decision.

 

I don't think there's anything special about government. I don't think it's any different for my neighbor to own a weapon than it is for a weapon to be in the hands of a member of the government. They are just people, to me. I believe everyone has equal dignity and the same rights. I don't think government makes people virtuous. Yes, the right of a citizen to resist tyranny exists, and personal weapons may one day play a role in that. You think that's ridiculous. I think it's a lesson from history. I think it's unlikely in the near future, but I don't think the US is exempt.

 

[Anastasia13]

From the CCC:

 

 

"2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow."

 

"2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others."

 

 

So how do you respond when someone says that they would not want to defend the lives of themselves (and possibly their family) (at least when death of the attacker is the only option) because they want to give the attacker more time to repent, whereas if they killed him during the attack, the attacker would be sent to hell for dying in a mortal sin?

[Nihil Obstat]

So how do you respond when someone says that they would not want to defend the lives of themselves (and possibly their family) (at least when death of the attacker is the only option) because they want to give the attacker more time to repent, whereas if they killed him during the attack, the attacker would be sent to hell for dying in a mortal sin?

Personally I think it is somewhat shortsighted. God does not work on our time. Everyone is offered precisely what they need in order to accept the Church.

[eagle_eye222001]

From the CCC:

 

 

"2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow."

 

"2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others."

 

 

So how do you respond when someone says that they would not want to defend the lives of themselves (and possibly their family) (at least when death of the attacker is the only option) because they want to give the attacker more time to repent, whereas if they killed him during the attack, the attacker would be sent to hell for dying in a mortal sin?

 

What happens when you go to judgement and God asks why you failed to defend what was good?

 

Personally I think it is somewhat shortsighted. God does not work on our time. Everyone is offered precisely what they need in order to accept the Church.

 

Yes.  Everyone has their opportunity.  And if they don't...then that is for God to decide how to handle that situation (aborted babies...etc)

[Noel's angel]

I'm sure many of you have seen the film Of Gods and Men. I have one question regarding the Cistercians depicted in the film. Do you think the monks would have served God better had they armed themselves and fought the Islamic fundamentalists? Would you say that by staying and remaining unarmed that they let God down in some way by 'failing to defend what was good'?

Edited January 25, 2013 by Noel's angel

[KnightofChrist]

I'm sure many of you have seen the film Of Gods and Men. I have one question regarding the Cistercians depicted in the film. Do you think the monks would have served God better had they armed themselves and fought the Islamic fundamentalists? Would you say that by staying and remaining unarmed that they let God down in some way by 'failing to defend what was good'?

Sometimes laying down ones life is the answer, sometimes it is not the answer. Should the Cristeros laid down their lives or fought as they did fight, in defense of the Faith, themselves and their families? Edited January 25, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm sure many of you have seen the film Of Gods and Men. I have one question regarding the Cistercians depicted in the film. Do you think the monks would have served God better had they armed themselves and fought the Islamic fundamentalists? Would you say that by staying and remaining unarmed that they let God down in some way by 'failing to defend what was good'?

A right to self-defense does not necessarily imply an obligation.

[Akalyte]

Some catholics are labeling me and other "catholics for guns" as right wing extremists catholics" and they are pitting us against the vatican. Saying were wrong for loving our country, wrong for wanting guns. Accusing us of practicing the "Americanism heresy". Look i have to live in this country, i was born here, i have a family. What are we suppose to do? hate our country because its not vatican city?I love my faith and my allegiance is to the pope, but catholics have duties to their own countries as well. These same people who march to abortion clinics wont even do the same for the country itself. 

will you not also march for your own rights and freedom?

[4588686]

Some catholics are labeling me and other "catholics for guns" as right wing extremists catholics" and they are pitting us against the vatican. Saying were wrong for loving our country, wrong for wanting guns. Accusing us of practicing the "Americanism heresy". Look i have to live in this country, i was born here, i have a family. What are we suppose to do? hate our country because its not vatican city?I love my faith and my allegiance is to the pope, but catholics have duties to their own countries as well. These same people who march to abortion clinics wont even do the same for the country itself.


will you not also march for your own rights and freedom?

That's not what you're doing. You're just glorifying violence and warfare. I've been watching your site and that is the constant theme. You're not defending anything. You're the quintessential 'Internet tough guy' who also goes to the shooting range.

[4588686]

Some catholics are labeling me and other "catholics for guns" as right wing extremists catholics" and they are pitting us against the vatican. Saying were wrong for loving our country, wrong for wanting guns. Accusing us of practicing the "Americanism heresy". Look i have to live in this country, i was born here, i have a family. What are we suppose to do? hate our country because its not vatican city?I love my faith and my allegiance is to the pope, but catholics have duties to their own countries as well. These same people who march to abortion clinics wont even do the same for the country itself.


will you not also march for your own rights and freedom?

That's not what you're doing. You're just glorifying violence and warfare. I've been watching your site and that is the constant theme. You're not defending anything. You're the quintessential 'Internet tough guy' who also goes to the shooting range.

[Noel's angel]

No one actually answered my question.

[Socrates]

Okay, okay.  Fine.  

 

Can someone explain to me without fancy rhetoric exactly why you all like guns so much?  Do you really think you need a huge AK-47 thing to "protect your family"? I get owning hunting equipment, and a variety of guns for stuff like that.  I get owning something like a handgun, or even having a concealed carry permit.  Seems to me that it'd be prudent to regulate and track gun ownership at the state level, because it seems that different states (or even different areas within states) have different needs.  I don't understand why it's such a good idea to promote things like putting a huge gun in a woman's hand as "protection" - shouldn't we be educating our men to not assault people instead?  Is it really just about owning a ton of weapons to start a government uprising if need be?  Because that's a lot of the rhetoric I hear from you guys, and frankly that sounds really, really ridiculous to me.  If you guys could help me understand why, I'd appreciate it. 

(An AK-47 is actually not huge, nor is it what is actually being debated here - AR-15s and others so-called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic - one trigger pull, one bullet - rather than automatic like an AK, but that's all really beside the point.)

 

Of course, we should educate men not to assault people, but that really has nothing to do with whether the government has a right to ban citizens from owning certain weapons, or with whether people have a right to self-defense against aggressors.  You've created a false dichotomy here (teaching basic morality vs. gun ownership/self-defense) which is nonsensical.

 

We've (rightly) taught the principle "Thou shalt not kill" for millennia, and should continue to teach it, but unfortunately, in this evil, fallen world, we still have to contend with people who happily assault and kill anyway - which is why the Church teaches the principle of legitimate self-defense in the first place.

Yes, it would be wonderful if no man would ever assault a woman or other person (armed or otherwise), but that's not the reality we live in, and it's certainly not wrong to give women the means to defend themselves should they be so unfortunate as to be assaulted.

 

Quite frankly, as free citizens (pardon the "fancy rhetoric"), I don't think it's the place of government to tell us exactly what kind of weapons we should be allowed to own and what is or is not necessary for every possible situation.  While a so-called "assault weapon" with a 30-round clip may not be needed to defend oneself against a single mugger, for instance, there are situations with multiple armed attackers in which more ammo may need to be expended (not all bullets hit their targets, and not all hits are fatal/incapacitating).  

Such situations may be especially prevalent where there is a general breakdown of order due to social-political upheaval or natural or man-made disaster.  The example of the 1990s L.A. riots have been used frequently here.  I'm not into every paranoid conspiracy theory or apocalyptic prediction, but I certainly don't think it inconceivable that we may face such breakdowns in public order and society in the near future.  We can't count on the cops always being there to protect us.

 

"Gun control" laws do little in reality to protect against those with criminal intent, as they are often quite successful at obtaining weapons illegally, and will not be deterred by increased background check requirements and such.

 

You could probably argue and quibble all day long about the likelihood of various scenarios, and exactly what kind of weapons are or are not needed, but I see no need to give the government additional powers to restrict the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of free citizens.  The burden of proof should be on those considering taking away said rights, not the other way around.

 

I've seen a lot of serious damage done with simple gasoline and matches.  Let's ban those as well (or restrict them to all-wise employees of the State, who can be properly trusted with them), rather than allow such dangerous items in the hands of us simple peons - who will no doubt only hurt ourselves and others.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Socrates

[Nihil Obstat]

No one actually answered my question.

I found it to be irrelevant, and I told you why.

[Jesus_lol]

(An AK-47 is actually not huge, nor is it what is actually being debated here - AR-15s and others so-called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic - one trigger pull, one bullet - rather than automatic like an AK, but that's all really beside the point.)

 

[...]

Quite frankly, as free citizens (pardon the "fancy rhetoric"), I don't think it's the place of government to tell us exactly what kind of weapons we should be allowed to own and what is or is not necessary for every possible situation.  While a so-called "assault weapon" with a 30-round clip may not be needed to defend oneself against a single mugger, for instance, there are situations with multiple armed attackers in which more ammo may need to be expended (not all bullets hit their targets, and not all hits are fatal/incapacitating).  

 

dang it Soc, its "Magazine"!

 

One good example of the benefits of something like a rifle with a larger magazine, is a recent self defense case in the USA. A woman was home alone with her kids, when a guy broke into her house, she was on the phone with her husband at work(and he was on the phone with the police). He told her to get the gun and hide. She grabbed the gun, a 6 shot .38 special revolver, gathered the kids and moved them into the basement/crawlspace. 

 

The home invader went looking for them and ended up breaking into the crawlspace where she was with the kids despite her telling him not to, etc. Hardly the most innocent intentions, i would imagine, certainly not just there for the TV. She then shot him, hit him with 5 of the 6 shots. After that, getting hit by 5 shots, some in the face and neck area, the guy got up and left, going for his car.

 

Guns arent always as effective as people assume. If he had a weapon himself, he could have still attacked them instead of running when she emptied the gun, or if she missed more(frankly 5 out of 6 with a small revolver is pretty good in a rough situation) they could have been pretty screwed.

 

Or, as often happens, he could have been in there with another criminal or more. Home invasions are pretty commonly done with a group.

http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/ga-mom-shoots-intruder-5-times-saves-children/

 

 

As to your earlier point Soc, yes both the AK and AR(especially the AR) fire rounds that are considerably less powerful than most hunting rifles. the AR's .223 round for instance is about 1/3 the power of a standard .30-06 deer rifle round.

[Winchester]

Deers shouldn't have rifles.