Mr. Whiteman's understanding is this.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:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
Do you see the problem with that? He said if they break in "with the thought of committing unspeakable acts of violence on my family."In the name of Christian Charity, if an individual or individuals break into my home with the thought of committing unspeakable acts of violence on my family, God knows I have the right to deal the lethal blow to the aggressor(s).
After all, I'm the one who has the primary responsibility to protect hearth and home, not the police.
He can't know that. You see. That's the same old macho gun-owner talk we hear all the time from the protect-the-family guys.
Mr. Whiteman, or any other gun owner faced with that frightening situation would have to make a determination of how great the threat really is and what would be the appropriate response. Dealing a "lethal blow," as cool as that sounds, would have to be the last resort used only in the worst case.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.