In his Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II writes:
"......Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense."
He goes on to say:
"...legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."
Pope John Paul II knew exactly what happens when innocents are disarmed, having lived under both Nazism and communism. He did not believe in disarming citizens and neither does the Catholic Church, this spokesperson's personal opinion notwithstanding.
Is this the same JPII who is routinely depicted by traditionalists on FR as being responsible for so many aspects of the modern church that are apparently regarded objectionable?
Well, from what I have been told, there are two levels of the pope’s teaching, one being ordinary teaching and another one being infallible pronouncements. However the popes are not normally in the habit of shouting “LISTEN HERE! THE FOLLOWING IS INFALLIBLE!” before one of the latter pronouncements, which would settle the question for good; instead the magisterium does something akin to voting on its status.