L
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
Longing, I’d still like to hear where ( if at all) the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto got any legitimacy to bear armsRobert, as the rest of the world looks on in shock and wonder at the gun tottin’ massacre ridden madness of the US, we see you as a man ahead of your time. Good for you. Keep the faith.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11929596&postcount=629
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Again Aquinas addresses this state of war situation in Summa Theologica under War.
If you are saying that the US is in fact identifying as being in a state of civil war… I actually agree with arming civilians who must necessarily identify as a civil army against an enemy within with the goal of eventual peace. Aquinas says…
But those who are identifying as private citizens arming themselves in self defense are in fact “taking up the sword” unlawfully…. “To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority.” – St Augustine as quoted by Aquinas.
The goal of any war is to be eventually able to lay down all arms and live in neighbourly peace rather than commit to living in a permanent state of armed cold war.
B
Brendan
Guest
Circular argument,. Aquinas used the term ‘legitmate authority’. What law gave the residents of the Ghetto (which was not a nation) the right to bear arms. What legio made them legitimate?
The Jews certainly did NOT have permission or authority from their civil government to bear arms, and were certainly NOT a State that could declare war. So where did they get their authority to bear arms?
But Americans HAVE permission under the Civil Law, so that clearly does not apply. If accept that those who have the permission and authority can bear arms, what ,then is your objection to them when they do so?
And, as I pointed out earlier, in a democracy, the people ARE the authority. The people cannot grant the authority to bear arms to the police unless, but definition, they have it already, that it is theirs to give (or to keep)
Do you have a different understanding of the source of power in a democracy?
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Robert, as the rest of the world looks on in shock and wonder at the gun tottin’ massacre ridden madness of the US, we see you as a man ahead of your time. Good for you. Keep the faith.
B
Brendan
Guest
BTW Longing,
Here is Aquinas on personal self defense, which is what we are discussing.
newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7
Here is Aquinas on personal self defense, which is what we are discussing.
newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The ‘common good’ is a real thing and not just a fanciful concept. It arises and exists from community. Jesus Himself confirmed this in saying “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” - Matt18:20. When people enter into a committed relationship with each other, there exists another place at the table. Now the nature of that new place, depends on the nature of the relationship. For example, if a ship of hundreds of people was wrecked on an island and it became evident that no rescue was likely, it is natural to form a civil relationship from which an authority to lead arises. There are generally a number of people within a community that have a natural empathy with the common good of all and can be ordained to act on its behalf. That would be a legitimate civil authority.
Every person that has responsibility for others is not naturally ordained with authority over the common good in this way. Parents are responsible for their families welfare but most of the time that is an extension of their own welfare by virtue of the instinctive love of children. A man may feel drawn to kill for the sake of his own family but not drawn to kill for the common good. That does not qualify as legitimate civil authority.
The Warsaw Ghetto situation was more like the first example of a zeal for the common good of a peoples … the Jewish people in wartime Poland.
Civil law is not divine law. It exists only in relation to the common good of all those gathered together into community. When you say the people ARE the authority, they aren’t a godlike authority, that authority arises out of the needs of the people gathered together under a common good. That’s where I think you miss the point. The civil authority isn’t accountable to the people, it is accountable to that thing, the common good of the people. Without respect for the common good, ‘the people’ is just the desire and voice of the strongest and fittest and more powerful in the group. In that situation, there is no examination of the question ‘what is the best policy for the wellbeing of everyone in the community, especially those weak, vulnerable’. The only question being asked is ‘what do I want. What suits me most. How can I maintain my own safety regardless of the consequence for others.’ Rather than embracing the Golden Rule, we devolve into Survival of the Fittest.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
You presented a Blog Story (Mother Jones) based on a study that was flawed.The study that I presented uses a national sample of respondents; what’s wrong with it? Please elaborate.
I presented data from several sources. Are they all wrong? If so, I would say that you’re experiencing unrealistic “paranoia.” Do you believe that there is some kind of a conspiracy going on with all the researchers? Can you point be in the direction of any study that did not find that having a gun resulted in more suicides, homicides and accidental shooting within one’s own household?
LOVE!
You mentioned a LA Times article (not a study, just an article that relates to a study:annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426
This study is a re-hash of former studies…nothing new.
You mentioned : aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
Data for this study are from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey. More re-hash nothing new.
You mentioned: ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suicide-homicide
The meta-analysis, published online Jan. 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine, pools results from 15 investigations. The “investigations” are older studies. Again nothing new.
All of this goes back to a study done by Arthur Kellermann, back in the early 1990’s
Kellerman wanted to prove that the presence of a gun in the home led to an increase in homicide. (He started with a premise and he wanted to prove it…not very objective)
His data consisted of 444 homicides that occurred in the victim’s home. The implication was that the victim was killed by the gun in the home. Actually in only 8 of the 444cases could it be established that the gun used was the one kept in the home.
Other factors were not considered, such as the validity of the information given by the control group. Many people do not want to admit that they have a gun for many reasons. It is obvious that many people incurring a homicide or suicide in their home would lie to authorities as well as an interviewer about having a gun.
The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a report asserting,** “The easy availability of firearms has been associated with higher firearm mortality rates.”** The authors, in noting that the presence of a gun in a home corresponds to a higher risk of suicide, apparently assume that if denied firearms, potential suicides will decide to live rather than turning to the numerous alternative suicide mechanisms. The evidence, however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, economic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means.
So yes, Robert they are all wrong or at least not very compelling when actually studied.
But they make really exciting anti-gun fodder for anti-American journalists.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
B
Brendan
Guest
And when that legitimate civil authority bestows certain rights and obligation on those, in recognition of the 'common
JP-II noted that the right (and duty) of self defense was incumbent on those who are responsible for another life
So sub-group can create their own common good, and grant themselves rights in spite of the local civil authority. Is that what you are stating?
My statement was that they are the root of the authority in a democracy.
If the weak and the vulnerable have a duty to protect others, such as their own children, would not the common good require that society not deny them the tools for an effective self defense. In what means should the weak protect their children from a stronger attacker? Should they offer no defense, or an ineffective defense (which, practically, is the same thing), until ‘legitimate authority’ arrives? Aquinas did not exclude the weak from being able to defend themselves, nor did Augustine. And Pope John Paul II was pretty clear. the defense had to be legitimate ( and Aquinas described pretty clearly what that was, as did the Catechism of Trent on the 5th Commandment)
Interestingly enough Pope John Paul II did not limit this right to only authorities, but to any who are responsible for another’s life. In addition, the common good defined was not for the State, but for the family. With whom does primary responsibility for the common good of the family lie, who did God entrust that to?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
That is a very offensive statement to make about the United States and patently false.Robert, as the rest of the world looks on in shock and wonder at the** gun tottin’ massacre ridden madness of the US**, we see you as a man ahead of your time. Good for you. Keep the faith.
Location Number killed Date
- Norway attacks 77 7/22/2011
- Sang-Namdo, South Korea 57 Apr-82
- Port Aurthur, Australia **35 ** 4/28/1996
- VA Tech ** 33** 4/16/2007
- Cave of the Patriarchs, Hebron Israel 29 2/24/1994
- Sandy Hook ** 28** 12/14/2012
- Luby’s Cafeteria ** 24** 10/16/1991
- San Ysidro McMassacre ** 22 ** 7/18/1984
- Dunblane, Scotland **18 ** 3/13/1996
- Erfurt, Germany **18 ** 4/26/2002
- Hungerford, UK **17 ** 8/19/1987
- Cuers, France ** 17 ** Sep-95
- Kandahar, Afghanistan **16 ** 3/11/2012
- Texas Tower Sniper 16 8/1/1966
- Winnenden, Germany **16 ** 3/11/2009
- Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal **15 ** 12/6/1989
- Columbine High 15 4/20/1999
- Edmond, OK **15 ** 8/20/1986
- Zug, Switzerland **15 ** 9/27/2001
- Aramoana, New Zealand 14 11/13/1990
- Binghampton, NY 14 4/3/2009
- Luxiol, France ** 14** Jul-89
- Fort Hood 13 11/5/2009
- Cumbria, England **13 ** 6/2/2010
- Rio de Janeiro, Brazil **13 ** 4/7/2011
- Aurora, CO ** 12 ** 7/20/2012
- Azerbaijan State Oil Academy **12 ** 4/30/2009
- McClendon, AL **10 ** 3/10/2009
- Kauhajoki, Finland 10 9/23/2008
- GMAC, FL **10 ** 6/18/1990
- Red Lake, MN 10 3/21/2005
- Adelaide, Australia **10 ** 9/6/1991
Awaiting your apology, longing soul
L
LilyM
Guest
As a country, those stats still prove that the US is way head of everyone. Which is exactly what was stated. I don’t see that any apology is required apart perhaps from the use of the word ‘madness’.That is a very offensive statement to make about the United States and patently false.
Location Number killed Date
I compiled a list of the 32 worst mass shootings (that I could find. I do not claim omniscience here). I picked 32 deaths as the cut-off because that makes 10 dead the low end. This does not include bombings and is should be noted that every other country has more stringent gun restrictions than the U.S.
- Norway attacks 77 7/22/2011
- Sang-Namdo, South Korea 57 Apr-82
- Port Aurthur, Australia 35 4/28/1996
- VA Tech 33 4/16/2007
- Cave of the Patriarchs, Hebron Israel 29 2/24/1994
- Sandy Hook 28 12/14/2012
- Luby’s Cafeteria 24 10/16/1991
- San Ysidro McMassacre 22 7/18/1984
- Dunblane, Scotland 18 3/13/1996
- Erfurt, Germany 18 4/26/2002
- Hungerford, UK 17 8/19/1987
- Cuers, France 17 Sep-95
- Kandahar, Afghanistan 16 3/11/2012
- Texas Tower Sniper 16 8/1/1966
- Winnenden, Germany 16 3/11/2009
- Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal 15 12/6/1989
- Columbine High 15 4/20/1999
- Edmond, OK 15 8/20/1986
- Zug, Switzerland 15 9/27/2001
- Aramoana, New Zealand 14 11/13/1990
- Binghampton, NY 14 4/3/2009
- Luxiol, France 14 Jul-89
- Fort Hood 13 11/5/2009
- Cumbria, England 13 6/2/2010
- Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 13 4/7/2011
- Aurora, CO 12 7/20/2012
- Azerbaijan State Oil Academy 12 4/30/2009
- McClendon, AL 10 3/10/2009
- Kauhajoki, Finland 10 9/23/2008
- GMAC, FL 10 6/18/1990
- Red Lake, MN 10 3/21/2005
- Adelaide, Australia 10 9/6/1991
Awaiting your apology, longing soul
B
Brendan
Guest
The CCC indicates that the common good requires that personal defense be recognized as a right.
1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.
How do you propose that a elderly woman defend herself? Can she engage in hand to hand combat with a young, stronger man?
1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.
How do you propose that a elderly woman defend herself? Can she engage in hand to hand combat with a young, stronger man?
A
Annie39
Guest
Zoltan,That is a very offensive statement to make about the United States and patently false.
Location Number killed Date
I compiled a list of the 32 worst mass shootings (that I could find. I do not claim omniscience here). I picked 32 deaths as the cut-off because that makes 10 dead the low end. This does not include bombings and is should be noted that every other country has more stringent gun restrictions than the U.S.
- Norway attacks 77 7/22/2011
- Sang-Namdo, South Korea 57 Apr-82
- Port Aurthur, Australia **35 ** 4/28/1996
- VA Tech ** 33** 4/16/2007
- Cave of the Patriarchs, Hebron Israel 29 2/24/1994
- Sandy Hook ** 28** 12/14/2012
- Luby’s Cafeteria ** 24** 10/16/1991
- San Ysidro McMassacre ** 22 ** 7/18/1984
- Dunblane, Scotland **18 ** 3/13/1996
- Erfurt, Germany **18 ** 4/26/2002
- Hungerford, UK **17 ** 8/19/1987
- Cuers, France ** 17 ** Sep-95
- Kandahar, Afghanistan **16 ** 3/11/2012
- Texas Tower Sniper 16 8/1/1966
- Winnenden, Germany **16 ** 3/11/2009
- Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal **15 ** 12/6/1989
- Columbine High 15 4/20/1999
- Edmond, OK **15 ** 8/20/1986
- Zug, Switzerland **15 ** 9/27/2001
- Aramoana, New Zealand 14 11/13/1990
- Binghampton, NY 14 4/3/2009
- Luxiol, France ** 14** Jul-89
- Fort Hood 13 11/5/2009
- Cumbria, England **13 ** 6/2/2010
- Rio de Janeiro, Brazil **13 ** 4/7/2011
- Aurora, CO ** 12 ** 7/20/2012
- Azerbaijan State Oil Academy **12 ** 4/30/2009
- McClendon, AL **10 ** 3/10/2009
- Kauhajoki, Finland 10 9/23/2008
- GMAC, FL **10 ** 6/18/1990
- Red Lake, MN 10 3/21/2005
- Adelaide, Australia **10 ** 9/6/1991
Awaiting your apology, longing soul
I think that you will get no apology from her. I proved to her last year and now that Australia is in worse shape than the USA. She dismisses this and anything else that doesn’t jive with her progressive world view. I think that she gets angrier as the thread goes on as those with more knowledge and intelligence than either of us take her and others to task. In case you don’t know, judging from my experience with some of her countrymen she is very typical of the majority of Australians. We never hear a peep out of them about the suction tottin’ massacre of unborn babes.
Annie
L
LongingSoul
Guest
What we are addressing here is not the right to self defense which is of course the right of each person, we are talking about the right to armed defense. Particularly the right to kill in armed defense. That right is extended to only those whose authority is granted by the civil community, justified by the civil needs of that community and are accountable to the common good of all. For example, a parent with authority to defend the common good of their family is not entitled to try and execute an aggressor. The authority to kill in that way is strictly reserved to the civil authority. The blameless defense of an individual does not include the intention to kill in self defense.
You ask in a later post how an old woman is expected to defend herself without a gun. There are many societies in the world who don’t allow anyone to own a gun for self defense and whose citizens value that policy. There is a stronger sense that well yes, I could successful stop an attack by killing someone with a gun, but the consequence of having millions more guns in circulation in the community is that there is an even greater occurence of violent attack on a greater number of vulnerable people. There can only be one trajectory when you begin putting arms into the hands of every person… that is that more violence will mean more and better guns are needed. That is so evident when you see the types of vanity photos these days of people posing with these great monstrosities they deem necessary for self defence. A biddy derenger photo would be laughed off the page nowadays.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
In your list, the Australian stats are 20 years old and prior to strict gun laws being implemented.That is a very offensive statement to make about the United States and patently false.
Location Number killed Date
I compiled a list of the 32 worst mass shootings (that I could find. I do not claim omniscience here). I picked 32 deaths as the cut-off because that makes 10 dead the low end. This does not include bombings and is should be noted that every other country has more stringent gun restrictions than the U.S.
- Norway attacks 77 7/22/2011
- Sang-Namdo, South Korea 57 Apr-82
- Port Aurthur, Australia **35 ** 4/28/1996
- VA Tech ** 33** 4/16/2007
- Cave of the Patriarchs, Hebron Israel 29 2/24/1994
- Sandy Hook ** 28** 12/14/2012
- Luby’s Cafeteria ** 24** 10/16/1991
- San Ysidro McMassacre ** 22 ** 7/18/1984
- Dunblane, Scotland **18 ** 3/13/1996
- Erfurt, Germany **18 ** 4/26/2002
- Hungerford, UK **17 ** 8/19/1987
- Cuers, France ** 17 ** Sep-95
- Kandahar, Afghanistan **16 ** 3/11/2012
- Texas Tower Sniper 16 8/1/1966
- Winnenden, Germany **16 ** 3/11/2009
- Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal **15 ** 12/6/1989
- Columbine High 15 4/20/1999
- Edmond, OK **15 ** 8/20/1986
- Zug, Switzerland **15 ** 9/27/2001
- Aramoana, New Zealand 14 11/13/1990
- Binghampton, NY 14 4/3/2009
- Luxiol, France ** 14** Jul-89
- Fort Hood 13 11/5/2009
- Cumbria, England **13 ** 6/2/2010
- Rio de Janeiro, Brazil **13 ** 4/7/2011
- Aurora, CO ** 12 ** 7/20/2012
- Azerbaijan State Oil Academy **12 ** 4/30/2009
- McClendon, AL **10 ** 3/10/2009
- Kauhajoki, Finland 10 9/23/2008
- GMAC, FL **10 ** 6/18/1990
- Red Lake, MN 10 3/21/2005
- Adelaide, Australia **10 ** 9/6/1991
Awaiting your apology, longing soul
I am sorry for the mocking tone I used. But it is just burying your head in the sand to try and white wash the horror stories that come out of US society that involve gun violence. Just in the last 4 years these are some of the shocking scenes that we’ve come to expect when we turn on our TV’s…
gawker.com/5968561/five-of-the-twelve-deadliest-gun-massacres-in-us-history-took-place-during-obamas-first-term/
B
Brendan
Guest
If you had read the thread in it’s entirety, that was already discussed. It is not the goal of armed defense to kill, but to stop the attack. That is consisted both with US Civil Law and Catholic moral theology.
What you are referring to, and what Aquinas referred to, was Capital Punishment, which is a form of Self Defense, but one restricted to the State. That is the only time a specific intention to kill is allowed under Catholic Moral Law.
I presume that your police are not authorized to try and execute an attacker, yet the police carry guns. The police do not exist for executions, but for armed defense; those are different things (mostly, see below)
Correct, And neither does anyone here. Consider the police in your town. They have arms for armed defense. But I would state that their intention is not to kill, but to stop attacks. If they used their arms on an attacker, and the attacker was left unconscious, the attack is ended, and the goal complete. If the intent is to kill, then the police would fire more shots into the unconscious person until they were actually dead, and the goal achieved.
Is that how the police in your city view their arms, with an intent to kill? I would presume not, as the police here do not. If any police officer tried something like that, they would be kicked off the police force, and charged with a crime. Likewise any civilian who did that to an attacker.
Even as an Army Officer, I would not have claimed it was my goal to kill the enemy, but rather to achieve my battlefield goals. If I was given the assignment to take a hill or fortification. If I had ordered my tanks onto the hill and found everyone passed out from a night of vodka drinking, and took them all prisoner I would have considered that to be the best of all possible outcomes, even though not a single enemy would have been killed. And my commanders would think the exact same thing.
Your understanding of what armed defense entails is decidedly WRONG. I would recommend you contact your local police and see how they view armed defense.
And what would stop the circulation of guns among criminals anyway? It’s not like they are even hard to make. I’ve made flintlocks from ‘scratch’ using materials I can get at any junk shop and tools from my local hardware store.
If you add to that what is being done with 3-D printing, how exactly do you envision any criminal who wanted a gun being unable to obtain one.
Here are blueprints for the Britsh Sten Gun, a WW-II submachine gun that was specifically designed to be manufactured in garages.
milsurps.com/content.php?r=422-Blueprints-for-The-STEN-MKII-(complete-machine-plans
I could easily make one in my garage with simple tools.
Shortly after WW-II, in British occupied Palestine, Zionists were making them by the hundred in the basement of a laundry that served British officers. The sounds of the machinery below were drowned out by the sounds of the washers and dryers above, all while the very men who were supposed to be keeping arms away from the feuding sides were dropping off their shirts to be pressed
And even in Australia, it doesn’t seem hard for a criminal to get their hands on a gun, if they wanted
news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325
B
Brendan
Guest
It’s scary to think of the conversations you folks seem to have\
"Did you hear about old Mrs Jones
No what?
Her flat was broken into last night, they beat the dear black and blue, She’s in the hospital now, they don’t think she’ll pull through
What a shame, if only she could have defended herself against those thugs
With WHAT? A GUN? She could have actually pulled the trigger and HURT one of the thugs, possibly even killed him!!
Good point!, who gave her that right anyway, to hurt thugs. Besides who wants more guns in the hands of the weak and defenseless anyway"
L
LilyM
Guest
Such a conversation is more likely in real life to go ‘did you hear about poor old Mrs Jones? Someone broke into the poor old dear’s house yesterday. She tried to scare the thief off with a gun, but being the thief was younger/stronger/fitter/also packing, it did her no good.’It’s scary to think of the conversations you folks seem to have\
"Did you hear about old Mrs Jones
No what?
Her flat was broken into last night, they beat the dear black and blue, She’s in the hospital now, they don’t think she’ll pull through
What a shame, if only she could have defended herself against those thugs
With WHAT? A GUN? She could have actually pulled the trigger and HURT one of the thugs, possibly even killed him!!
Good point!, who gave her that right anyway, to hurt thugs. Besides who wants more guns in the hands of the weak and defenseless anyway"
I don’t decry the idea of having weapons for self-defence per se. I do think their value is being far overrated in this thread, especially in terms of protection against the stereotypical (but not at all typical) stranger/homeinvader/mugger.
F
freeRadical
Guest
No. All that has been shown in this thread is that there is a correlation between having access to a gun in the home and suicides, homicides, and accidental shootings of people within the household. But correlation does not equal causation. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It seems that people in your profession and the other “soft sciences” make that mistake all the time. You cannot infer a causal relationship from a correlation but that is exactly what you are doing in this thread.
The Second Amendment and Supreme Court disagree with you. Darn that pesky Constitution!
- Status