I never knew that...

[Feud]

During a discussion with an anti today who was trying to convince me that self defense is against my religion, he pointed out something that I had never heard before:

Taking this further, if someone broke into your house, would you use the gun on them? Noting, of course, that the law in most states about self-defence in the home indicates that you must shoot to kill in these instances. Would you be able to kill, knowing that is against one of the 10 commandments?

I asked him where I could learn more about these laws requiring one to actively try to kill intruders. I've yet to get a reply.

 

[mr_blove]

I am interested to see what his response is, keep us posted Good job.

 

[Mannix]

You could also point that "thou shalt not kill" could be more accurately translated as "thou shalt not murder". If the former rather than the latter were the case, there wouldn't be so much of it being committed against other peoples by the Israelites in the OT, now would there(murder being defined as legally or morally unjustified killing)?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Blah, you should have just pointed out that the Ten Commandments also say Thou shall not Murder.

There's no murder in self defense. Ergo, even if there was a law that said you must kill it still wouldn't be against the Ten Commandments.

 

[JohnKSa]

1. The commandment commonly translated: "Thou shalt not kill." is more accurately translated: "Thou shalt not commit murder.".

2. If he's going to quote from the Pentateuch, he should at least read the rest of it. There are clear provisions for self-defense and justifiable homicide contained therein.

3. If he's going to pontificate about the legalities of self-defense, he should try to inform himself, at least to a minimum level on the topic.

 

[Feud]

He finally got back to me, apparently he thinks the Castle Doctrine is a license (and requirement) to kill.

 

[Zedicus]

During a discussion with an anti today who was trying to convince me that self defense is against my religion

heh, sounds like my Cousin, he thinks Self Defense with Lethal force is Murder, and Training and Preparation for related SHTF situations equates to Premeditated Murder.

Trying to tell my cousin otherwise is like trying to make a 10 ton granite block melt just by staring at it.
(Some people are just Stubbornly Ignorant to an Absurd degree...)

& if you don't mind, might I ask what Religion you (& this person) are?
(you may reply by PM if you don't want it public)

 

[Zedicus]

He finally got back to me, apparently he thinks the Castle Doctrine is a license (and requirement) to kill.

Did he even bother to research it?

Its only a Legal Shield to prevent needless lawsuits for matters of self-defense when lethal force is used.
(In Most States Anyway)

 

[Warren]

Did he even bother to research it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Feud]

if you don't mind, might I ask what Religion you

I go to a BYU school, take a guess.

Did he even bother to research it?

He researched it enough to say a few states that had it, and seemingly enough to try and pull it in the first place. Whether he didn't research it enough to actually figure out what it meant, or just hoped I either didn't know it or wouldn't look it up is beyond me.

 

[Zedicus]

Mormon eh? (don't know how but I failed to notice BYU on your location)

I'm not very knowledgeable on the Mormon religion, and the ones i've encountered before seemed as though they never use or even read the bible (only the book of Mormon) so I guess quoting scripture would probably be pointless in this case.

I could be wrong though...*shrugs*

 

[Apple a Day]

Back in the day, when being Mormon meant you had a big red bullseye on your back, lots of Mormons carried guns and were ready to defend themselves. Smith had a bodyguard - who's name escapes me this early in the morning - who carried a sawed-off revolver called "The Avenging Angel". Reportedly, he used it often and well.

 

[Warren]

Orrin Porter Rockwell?

Smith had a bodyguard - who's name escapes me this early in the morning - who carried a sawed-off revolver called "The Avenging Angel". Reportedly, he used it often and well.

 

[Owens]

In regard to the original post, I wonder how this person reconciles all those folks that the Jews of old were told to stone? Talk about being required to kill!


Oh... he didn't research a little.

Amazing how justifiable moves it to another category.

 

[redneck2]

After given the Ten Commandments, the Jews conquered what is now Israel. They killed every man, woman, child, animal, and destroyed every building. Took ethnic cleansing to a whole new level.

Facts rarely enter into a liberal point of view.

If you want to actually learn what the Bible tried to say and means, get a KJ study bible version and a Strong's Concordance.

 

[El Tejon]

Castle Doctrine is a legal shield? No, it is not.

As I have stated over and over on THR, Feud, the confusion is the result of Big Media deliberating misstating the law of self-defense (both the majority rule and the minority rule), elimination of the duty to retreat, "castle doctrine" (which has mutated into some mobile "legal shield" now) and the ojective/subjective standard of self-defense.

Given this deliberate media campaign by those that hate us but cannot stop us in state legislatures, I can believe that an "anti" (who is not paying as close attention to these matters as we are here at THR) would somehow believe that elimination of the duty to retreat mandates a duty to use deadly force. Big Media is using the misinformation technique of "poisoning the well" which was common in the USSR--giving people fake information hoping that some gun owner acts on this information.

We need a thread on each of these topics to counter this Media manipulations!

 

[1911Tuner]

Reminds me of a story heard once that involved a Quaker. As many of you know, Quakers epitomize peace and non-violence, and much prefer to live and let live.

A guy broke into a local Quaker's home late on a Thursday night...which also happened to be the peaceful gent's place of business. He had scoped him out for some time, and noticed that he made a trip to the bank with his deposits once a week...on Friday.

While he was busy ransacking the office in his search for the small safe that he was sure was there somewhere...he didn't hear the resident walk up behind him...until he heard the sound of cocking hammers.

When he looked up, the Quaker was standing there with an old rabbit-eared double shotgun leveled at his face. Startled by this aggressive response, he remarked nervously:

"I thought Quakers were pacifists who wouldn't hurt a worm!"

To which the old Quaker replied:

"Friend, I love thee like my own brother, and not for all the gold in the world would I harm a hair on thy head...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot."

 

[spwenger]

Some Good References from David Kopel

The Torah and Self-Defense

The Catholic Second Amendment

Self-Defense in Asian Religions

I'm not familar with Mormon scripture but recall seeing John Farnam quote some which is consistent with the rest of Judaeo-Christian tradition regarding the propriety of use fo force in the defense of innocent human life.

 

[OAKVILLE SHOOTER]

As already pointed out several times over, it says "Thou shalt not commit murder"

Noting, of course, that the law in most states about self-defence in the home indicates that you must shoot to kill in these instances.

As for this statement, it is illegal in at least some states to shoot to intentionally wound. Deadly force means just that. If the situation requires that you shoot, you should plan on shooting to kill. If you miss the chest and hit the shoulder and that stops the threat, so be it. You don't need to keep shooting until the perp dies. Just don't purposely shoot the arm or leg to "stop the threat," or at least don't admit to doing it on purpose.

 

[Feud]

'm not very knowledgeable on the Mormon religion, and the ones i've encountered before seemed as though they never use or even read the bible (only the book of Mormon) so I guess quoting scripture would probably be pointless in this case.

I could be wrong though...*shrugs*

In this case you are, I've read the Bible cover to cover, and I've read the NT as many times as I have the Book of Mormon. I have no problem reconciling my religion and the owning of firearms (go John Browning!), or in their proper and ethical use.

In any case, I think he has decided to back off the issue since he last addressed it around seven hours ago, and since he lives in England I'm not going to just chalk it up to him being asleep (like I was).

 

[Dravur]

hmmmm

I am LDS and have absolutely no problems with guns, carrying guns, shooting guns and yapping about guns. Religion does not prove a factor in this at all. Self defense, self reliance are all parts of the Mormon creed.

 

[arthurcw]

Deadly force means just that. If the situation requires that you shoot, you should plan on shooting to kill.

IANAL But... I think that is a bit out of phase. I was always instructed that Deadly Force means force that MAY WELL LEAD TO and / or IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO the death of that person. You are NOT shooting to kill nor should you plan to shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the attack / illegal action. That is all.

Shooting to wound and /or kill (or even threatening to shoot to kill or wound for that matter), at least in Texas from what I understand, is illegal. You may shot to stop an attack or illegal action (these are defined by Texas Law) IF a reasonable person would. The death of the individual is the unintended secondary cause; not stopping the attack. …Very big distinction.

But I see the point you are getting at, I think. You should NEVER kid yourself that what you are doing is not going to, most likely, take a life. You should not "aim for the leg" or "just try to wound".

Deadly force is very serious business and you will ALWAYS live with the fact that YOU killed someone. Morally justified or not, it's not in the normal persons wiring to just shrug that off.

 

[41magsnub]

Look at it this way.. if you shoot the intruder you are helping them because then they will not violate the first commandment by killing you or your family. You are preventing sin! Would you rather have me permit sin? huh?

 

[Eb1]

To my knowledge this is discussed in the Catholic religion, and states something to the fact of:

FYI -
While it is wrong to kill another individual, it is not right to watch a human be beaten or killed and not do something about it. It goes on to state something of the fact that. To kill in defense of another would not be judged as an act of hate, etc.

 

[Deanimator]

To my knowledge this is discussed in the Catholic religion, and states something to the fact of:

FYI -
While it is wrong to kill another individual, it is not right to watch a human be beaten or killed and not do something about it. It goes on to state something of the fact that. To kill in defense of another would not be judged as an act of hate, etc.

There was a lot of faux pacifist nonsense going on in the Catholic Church in Chicago when I was growing up in the '60s and '70s. Apart from my disbelief in the supernatural, that sort of hooey led me to give Catholicism (and religion in general) up for Lent in the mid-'70s. Things have only gotten worse, since then with that nitwit Fr. Phleger picketing gunstores recently.

I'm now an agnostic and life is good.