Some questions in moral theology

1. Regarding self-defense

If I am being attacked by someone with a knife, am I obligated to use a knife (or my bare hands) to stop the attack or to disarm him? Or can I use a gun as a deterrent? Is it permissible to follow through on my threat if the threat fails to stop the attack?

If the attacker is standing still but has a knife out, it seems that I am obligated to warn him at least--there is no aggression yet? (Or is having a knife out enough to constitute aggression? It seems not--one cannot judge intention, though it seems 'reasonable' to judge that there is some potential for violence.) But if he starts to attack, do I need to warn? Or can I shoot to stop his attack?

Is the use of a firearm proportionate to his use of a knife? Do we judge means based on how they cause harm to the body? Or by the likelihood of it causing serious injury or death?

What of an unarmed attacker? It seems like a gun is going too far. But what if he is a skilled fighter, and there is a possibility of him hurting or disarming me? It seems that one is not required to go hand-to-hand, but can use a blunt weapon (baton) or a taser. (Although the employment of a taser would probably not be prudent, since it requires time and attention to operate.) Can a gun be used as a deterrent if the attacker is judged to be highly skilled?

2. Jimmy Akin has argued that it is morally acceptable to get a tattoo. I tend to disagree.

But can it be shown that tattooing is intrinsically wrong?

Tattoo: the term or purpose of the external act is precisely to put a tattoo on the body

Is it permissible to put paint pellets in the body to make it beautiful? Is this a morally indifferent act? Take an 'extreme' case -- getting a tattoo of Our Lady of Guadalupe or of the cross.

Is the body intended to be a canvas so that we can use it as we wish, to display whatever we want? Or is it intended for something more? Do we possess our body completely, or are we more like custodians of it? If the body is not appropriate matter to be drawn on, then the act of tattooing would seem to be intrinsically wrong. Is it that simple? Or is there a different rationale for prohibiting the act?

Altering or changing the body for the sake of some standard of beauty?

Possible intentions:
A. Vanity (only if the beauty that is intended is disordered in some way?)
B. For the sake of making the body beautiful
C. Statement or expression of rebelliousness;
D. Exaltation of youth culture (in opposition to the old fogeys); not quite 'rebelliousness'

Evaluation of the intention yields what conclusion?

Possible no because of circumstances? Negative associations of the tattoo which leads to scandal.
Link to a culture of promiscuity and casual sex?

Psychological 'necessity' to get a tattoo; purging of shame/guilt felt by losing one's purity by embracing a culture and its symbols? Compensation?

JIMMY AKIN.ORG: Tattoos
JIMMY AKIN.ORG: Still Yet More on Tattoos
JIMMY AKIN.ORG: Tattoo You... and you, and you...