Philosophical Question Regarding Defensive Handgun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Mosin said:
Answers will vary, I am sure; but as a solution to a personal religious question I have (Christian in conflict over the recent National you-know-what between you-know-who); is there a definable line to bring drawn where a handgun transitions from "defensive"to "non-defensive", in regards to defense against two legged threats ?

I'm not inquiring as to the nature of SD itself (that right is inherent in all mankind), but if it's possible to draw a line based on type of gun, caliber, capacity; etc.

IE, most would consider a snub .38 a defensive weapon, whereas a service sized .357 Magnum... that could be debated.
Click to expand...

Check your premise. If you believe your life is not worthy of self- defense, then every gun is too big. If you believe it is, no gun is too big.

I get what you are trying to say, but it is an invalid consideration. An unneeded pandering to anti-gun semantics. Defensive vs. non-defensive is defined by use, not caliber. Is not a snubnose .38 used to mug a person an offensive handgun at that moment? Is not a .357 Colt Python used to defend an innocent family from home invasion a defensive handgun at that moment?
 
entropy said:
Check your premise. If you believe your life is not worthy of self- defense, then every gun is too big. If you believe it is, no gun is too big.

I get what you are trying to say, but it is an invalid consideration. An unneeded pandering to anti-gun semantics. Defensive vs. non-defensive is defined by use, not caliber. Is not a snubnose .38 used to mug a person an offensive handgun at that moment? Is not a .357 Colt Python used to defend an innocent family from home invasion a defensive handgun at that moment?
Click to expand...
I see your point. Both of em, and thank you for reminding me to stand tall in the face of what is to come.
 
Mr. Mosin said:
Answers will vary, I am sure; but as a solution to a personal religious question I have (Christian in conflict over the recent National you-know-what between you-know-who); is there a definable line to bring drawn where a handgun transitions from "defensive"to "non-defensive", in regards to defense against two legged threats ?

I'm not inquiring as to the nature of SD itself (that right is inherent in all mankind), but if it's possible to draw a line based on type of gun, caliber, capacity; etc.

IE, most would consider a snub .38 a defensive weapon, whereas a service sized .357 Magnum... that could be debated.
Click to expand...

Are you asking about the nature of the firearm in question? As in...a snub nose 38 is utterly useless as an offensive weapon so as to justify owning it, morally, as a solely defensive tool that you would be unable to threaten someone with it? As compared to owning an AR15, which, in the wrong hands, would pose a grave threat to people?

If so, my answer would be no. That is not to say that bad actors intent on harm wouldn't prefer an AR15 over a snub nose 38, but the evil nature is not inherent in the firearm; it is inherent in the user. Indeed, I suspect you could, using New Testament scripture (which we won't go into here because this THR, not Sunday School) more successfully argue against what you call the nature of self defense, than you could that the 38 snub nose is somehow morally superior to the AR15.
 
Criminals will use whatever they have available. To think .38 Special is only a defensive firearm is absurd. To assume a .357 is automatically something more is equally absurd.
 
A lot of good comments here about legalities, juries, etc. etc. The OP mentioned a Christian religious/philosophical point of view. In light of that, I doubt legal issues are a concern.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
A lot of good comments here about legalities, juries, etc. etc. The OP mentioned a Christian religious/philosophical point of view. In light of that, I doubt legal issues are a concern.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, I do think so, insofar as the legal issues are either in line with or conflict with the individual's religious beliefs. Since the United States was founded with a Constitution based on principles in accord with Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, one would hope that today the legal issues of concern would not conflict with the OP's religious beliefs when it comes to using a firearm for self defense. But that being said, if there is a conflict, the religious beliefs would have to take priority. If you can't be true to your inner convictions, then perhaps you don't believe your life is sacred enough to defend, either, nor defend someone else's sacred life with your own. When it comes to inner convictions and beliefs and the sanctity of lives then the instrument used is not material only insofar as it's adequate for what needs to be done.
 
Mr. Mosin said:
is there a definable line to bring drawn where a handgun transitions from "defensive" to "non-defensive", in regards to defense against two legged threats ?
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking...no. If you discharge a firearm, you have just used deadly force.

Your actions will be judged based on whether or not that use of force was justified.
 
wiscoaster said:
Well, yes, I do think so, insofar as the legal issues are either in line with or conflict with the individual's religious beliefs. Since the United States was founded with a Constitution based on principles in accord with Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, one would hope that today the legal issues of concern would not conflict with the OP's religious beliefs when it comes to using a firearm for self defense. But that being said, if there is a conflict, the religious beliefs would have to take priority. If you can't be true to your inner convictions, then perhaps you don't believe your life is sacred enough to defend, either, nor defend someone else's sacred life with your own. When it comes to inner convictions and beliefs and the sanctity of lives then the instrument used is not material only insofar as it's adequate for what needs to be done.
Click to expand...

I'm trying not to put words in the OP's mouth, but there is an argument to be made against your idea.

Most legal doctrine justifies homicide in defense of life. Not all Christian sects would agree. Some see all life as a representation of God so killing is prohibited, even in self defense. (There are eastern religions that believe similarly.) I can't really go further as religion is a disallowed topic at THR, and I'm already on thin ice, but I can clearly see where a person who might be a member of a congregation that holds proscriptions on killing might want to consider a defensive weapon as more "acceptable" than an "offensive" weapon. In my view, that doesn't pass scriptural or doctrinal muster.
 
The weapon, .38 snub or Ford pickup truck, is secondary to YOUR response. The questions become: was what you were confronted with at the time a true and present danger and was your response reasonable and prudent. There is case law aplenty the current atmosphere notwithstanding.

I carry a 1911. I would carry a 1912 but JMB didn’t make one.
 
bdickens said:
The question is nonsensical and therefore has no real meaning.
Click to expand...

Not very empathetic.

Ironicaintit said:
Well, maybe not to you
Click to expand...

I agree, Ironicaintit. A person wrestling with religious convictions, trying to reconcile them with lived experiences or, at least, perceptions, would see this as a serious soul searching issue, if not a downright crisis of faith. Many many Americans have gone to prison over such conflicts.
 
Deadly force is deadly force.

Is a person somehow "more dead" because he got shot with a bigger gun?

Said deadly force is either justified or it isn't.

.38 Special vs .357 Magnum isn't the issue to be wrestling with. The issue to be wrestling with is do my beliefs allow me to possibly kill someone else in self- defense.
 
bdickens said:
The question is nonsensical and therefore has no real meaning.
Click to expand...

D.B. Cooper said:
Not very empathetic.
Click to expand...

I am a devout Christian and I have not the slightest idea what the OP is talking about.

I'm honestly reading the question as "How small of a caliber gun can I have before I don't have to worry about the STASI taking it away from me."

And the answer to that question is they'll take your bb guns when it comes down to it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Defining the Right of Self Defense By Handgun
Replies
4
Views
417
Standing Wolf
S
A
  • Locked
Preemptive Legal Defense questions
Replies
20
Views
1K
AlexanderA
A
L
  • Locked
Average shots fired in average SD scenario
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Double Naught Spy
Double Naught Spy
W
  • Locked
New York Bar Exam SELF DEFENSE question
Replies
21
Views
1K
Cosmoline
C
X
  • Locked
Peace and Security Through Defense and Neutrality
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Colt
C
Back
Top