Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Annie39]

Too true. It seems that when it comes to firearm ownership people tend to rank Thomas Jefferson up there amongst Peter and Paul .

The Church has only spoken to self defense being a duty and a right to preserve life. It does not speak to the construct of a right that people can go around with assault weapons looking for the chance to provoke something. There are methods of self defense that do not involve firearms, and also preserve life. (Guess what, I said it, a midlength M4 knockoff with a full size magazine is entirely similar to the Sturmgewehr 44 which was the original assault rifle, only needs a quick sear mod)

Question: Who do you know who goes around with assault weapons looking for the chance to provoke something? Interesting circles you run in.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The error you are making is in conflating a small part with the overall. For example we can say that food is a fundamental right of all people. But we can’t then say well chocolate is a food, therefore chocolate is a fundamental right of all people. Chocolate is a food, but it serves a specific purpose at a specific time. It is not covered by the inalienable right of a human being to have food.

No error. In this case the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is clearly spelled out in our founding documents as a fundamental INDIVIDUAL right.

BTW: There is no “right to have food”-- if no one chooses to produce food. Human beings have the right to produce or acquire their own food.

Human beings are made in the image of God and therefore each has a right to life. We are commanded ‘thou shalt not kill’. We have a right to defend ourselves from an aggressor, but no individual has the right to kill in self defense. This is decribed by Thomas Aquinas as the principle of double effect…

Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm

Here the argument is that carrying a gun which is specifically made to kill, for the purpose of self defense… is indeed ‘intending to kill a person in self defense’… and therefore exceeds the limits of a blameless defense.

So religion teaches that human life is sacred and protected.

The International Declaration of Human Rights (which was created with the contribution of the Vatican), details the basic rights that apply to every person, everywhere at any time.

un.org/en/documents/udhr/

These include the Article 3 point from which the right to self defense comes.

•Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

We have the right of security of person. That does not conflate with ‘the right to bear arms’ because there are some humans who will never qualify for that right. Children, mentally ill, blind, paraplegic. Because this right cannot apply to everyone, everywhere, anytime, it cannot be considered ‘inalienable’. It is a *measure *that serves some other primary end and from exploring the times and conditions within which the Founding Fathers devised their ‘right to bear arms’, it seems obvious that the Government was not one fully committed to the national interests. It had the interests of the monarchy of another country at heart also. The right to bear arms, served to address that unique ‘anomoly’ where it was concievable that the government could turn on the people for some reason. That is no longer the situation. The government has a national heart now. (I’m talking philosophy here not politics)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights a document that is NOT legally binding. Countries that have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be held legally responsible if they break their promise to protect and preserve human rights and freedoms. It was written right after WWII and every country that originally ratified it has violated it countless times.

 

[Annie39]

Yes. If it were possible.

Zoltan it is possible if the government would act. I think that most people who go on a killing rampage (maybe all) were known to be dangers due to their mental state but they all seemed to have slipped through the cracks. I wonder if they are slipping so much as it is that there is no monitoring of the system. There is a person in my life that has been forcibly committed for mental problems. She has said in the past that if she committed suicide that she would take her daughter with her. We learned that since this happened 5 years ago there is nothing that can be done about her custody of her child. One would hope that since she was involuntarily committed that she would be denied a gun if she went to buy one but I’m not confident of that. The Isla Vista killer was well known to be a danger. His parents were driving up to Isla Vista from L.A. because they were trying to prevent the slaughter. Now, there are police in Isla Vista, why oh why were their hands tied and could not prevent this tragedy? You see, there are many people who believe that the police are there to protect us. They are actually there to get the bad guy after the fact. I’m not saying that the police would not stop it if they could but police aren’t everywhere. I’m sure that they are grieving along with all the families. I relate to this particular tragedy more than the others that I heard of because I lived only a few miles drive from there most of my life and spent quite a bit of time there and our niece is a graduate of UCSB.

Annie

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

You are clearly adding more to the “right to life” than is required.

People had the right to life long before guns were invented. If what you say is true, that the right to own a gun is inherent in the right to life, then no one really could exercise their right to life BG (before guns).

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If what were possible? If it were possible to deny him gun ownership? Of course it is possible in cases where the mental illness is sufficiently documented. But if that is your position, how do you reconcile it with your statement that gun ownership is God-given, like the right to life? If it really were an unalienable right, government would be wrong to deny him the exercise of that right.

Bottom line Leaf:

Rights cannot be taken from anyone. Rights can be violated and in some cases they SHOULD be denied. Our rights are violated everyday by individuals, states and governments. When you sign a traffic ticked you give up certain rights. Most of the time we don’t care. The more it happens the less we think of that right and soon it is not recognized and becomes meaningless.

Of course mentally defective people should not have access to firearms.

Currently, a potential gun buyer has to check a block on a BATF form stating that he is NOT mentally defective. The nationwide instant background check searches no data about the person’s medical or mental condition. That data base does not exist. He can lie and get a gun.

The only way I see to make this work would be for the government to have access to ALL medical and psychiatric records nationwide. Do you think the ACLU would stand for that?

How about a psychiatric evaluation of all gun owners? If it were logistically possible, do you think that would go over?

Then we could have mandatory reporting of suspicious behavior by school officials, doctors, counselors etc. That would open a world of abuses.

So to keep mentally defective people from obtaining guns, all of us including YOU, Leaf, would be required to submit our medical and psychiatric history to a government agency. Since you have the right to own a gun, you have the potential to buy one. Therefore, maybe you would be required to undergo a periodic psychiatric evaluation…unless you agreed to wave your right to own a gun.

Think about it.

 

[Annie39]

Bottom line Leaf:

Rights cannot be taken from anyone. Rights can be violated and in some cases they SHOULD be denied. Our rights are violated everyday by individuals, states and governments. When you sign a traffic ticked you give up certain rights. Most of the time we don’t care. The more it happens the less we think of that right and soon it is not recognized and becomes meaningless.

Of course mentally defective people should not have access to firearms.

Currently, a potential gun buyer has to check a block on a BATF form stating that he is NOT mentally defective. The nationwide instant background check searches no data about the person’s medical or mental condition. That data base does not exist. He can lie and get a gun.

The only way I see to make this work would be for the government to have access to ALL medical and psychiatric records nationwide. Do you think the ACLU would stand for that?

How about a psychiatric evaluation of all gun owners? If it were logistically possible, do you think that would go over?

Then we could have mandatory reporting of suspicious behavior by school officials, doctors, counselors etc. That would open a world of abuses.

So to keep mentally defective people from obtaining guns, all of us including YOU, Leaf, would be required to submit our medical and psychiatric history to a government agency. Since you have the right to own a gun, you have the potential to buy one. Therefore, maybe you would be required to undergo a periodic psychiatric evaluation…unless you agreed to wave your right to own a gun.

Think about it.

Csókolom Zoltan. I don’t see it your way. As I see it if parents like the Rogers report their child as a danger which I believe that they did. Or if a person had been committed for dangerous behavior whether voluntary or not or if anyone has told the authorities that this person is dangerous that should go on a record of that person and that record should prevent the dangerous person from owning a firearm. Of course the person who would be reported should be notified so that he/she could contest the accusation.

BTW since Zoltan is an Hungarian name I just took a guess so if you aren’t Magyar the greeting means hello

Annie

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Bottom line Leaf:

Rights cannot be taken from anyone. Rights can be violated and in some cases they SHOULD be denied. Our rights are violated everyday by individuals, states and governments. When you sign a traffic ticked you give up certain rights. Most of the time we don’t care. The more it happens the less we think of that right and soon it is not recognized and becomes meaningless.

Of course mentally defective people should not have access to firearms.

Currently, a potential gun buyer has to check a block on a BATF form stating that he is NOT mentally defective. The nationwide instant background check searches no data about the person’s medical or mental condition. That data base does not exist. He can lie and get a gun.

The only way I see to make this work would be for the government to have access to ALL medical and psychiatric records nationwide. Do you think the ACLU would stand for that?

How about a psychiatric evaluation of all gun owners? If it were logistically possible, do you think that would go over?

Then we could have mandatory reporting of suspicious behavior by school officials, doctors, counselors etc. That would open a world of abuses.

So to keep mentally defective people from obtaining guns, all of us including YOU, Leaf, would be required to submit our medical and psychiatric history to a government agency. Since you have the right to own a gun, you have the potential to buy one. Therefore, maybe you would be required to undergo a periodic psychiatric evaluation…unless you agreed to wave your right to own a gun.

Think about it.

Now you are getting more practical, which is a good thing. You are addressing the real problems that lawmakers have to struggle with when dealing with gun laws.

I know that I have to undergo a periodic medical evaluation every two years just to exercise my right to fly my own little plane. And even that exam has some mental health questions. Would it be so different to undergo some sort of periodic exam to exercise the right to keep a firearm? I admit I don’t know.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Zoltan it is possible if the government would act. I think that most people who go on a killing rampage (maybe all) were known to be dangers due to their mental state but they all seemed to have slipped through the cracks. I wonder if they are slipping so much as it is that there is no monitoring of the system. There is a person in my life that has been forcibly committed for mental problems. She has said in the past that if she committed suicide that she would take her daughter with her. We learned that since this happened 5 years ago there is nothing that can be done about her custody of her child. One would hope that since she was involuntarily committed that she would be denied a gun if she went to buy one but I’m not confident of that. The Isla Vista killer was well known to be a danger. His parents were driving up to Isla Vista from L.A. because they were trying to prevent the slaughter. Now, there are police in Isla Vista, why oh why were their hands tied and could not prevent this tragedy? You see, there are many people who believe that the police are there to protect us. They are actually there to get the bad guy after the fact. I’m not saying that the police would not stop it if they could but police aren’t everywhere. I’m sure that they are grieving along with all the families. I relate to this particular tragedy more than the others that I heard of because I lived only a few miles drive from there most of my life and spent quite a bit of time there and our niece is a graduate of UCSB.

Annie

It is always easy to say, after the fact, that someone who went on a killing spree should have been noticed and stopped ahead of time. But the number of people who go on killing sprees is so tiny compared to the number of people who may raise suspicions. I think any increase in preemptive action is likely to violate many many people’s civil rights long before it prevents a single mass shooting. I think by and large they are doing as good a job as can be expected in preventing these events.

 

[Annie39]

It is always easy to say, after the fact, that someone who went on a killing spree should have been noticed and stopped ahead of time. But the number of people who go on killing sprees is so tiny compared to the number of people who may raise suspicions. I think any increase in preemptive action is likely to violate many many people’s civil rights long before it prevents a single mass shooting. I think by and large they are doing as good a job as can be expected in preventing these events.

I cannot disagree with you more. You sould ask Elliot Rodger’s parents what they think. They are living in a type of hell. the same hell that I will be living in if someone I know takes the life of a member of my family like she has threatened in the past and is on record as threatening this.
If I had threatened violence and it was on record I sure would hope that someone would violate my civil rights. Madam your civil rights stop just before you murder someone.

Annie

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I cannot disagree with you more. You sould ask Elliot Rodger’s parents what they think. They are living in a type of hell. the same hell that I will be living in if someone I know takes the life of a member of my family like she has threatened in the past and is on record as threatening this.
If I had threatened violence and it was on record I sure would hope that someone would violate my civil rights. Madam your civil rights stop just before you murder someone.

Annie

These are not the people to ask about what policy should be applied in general because their judgement is bound to be clouded by their own recent personal experience. I think it is valuable to ask these people for their (name removed by moderator)ut on what they observed to help guide the formation of future policy, but the ultimate policy decision should be made by someone who can rationally take into account all factors, including all the people who will be wrongfully accused of being a threat to society if much stricter policies are put in place.

 

[LongingSoul]

Bottom line Leaf:

Rights cannot be taken from anyone. Rights can be violated and in some cases they SHOULD be denied. Our rights are violated everyday by individuals, states and governments. When you sign a traffic ticked you give up certain rights. Most of the time we don’t care. The more it happens the less we think of that right and soon it is not recognized and becomes meaningless.

Of course mentally defective people should not have access to firearms.

Currently, a potential gun buyer has to check a block on a BATF form stating that he is NOT mentally defective. The nationwide instant background check searches no data about the person’s medical or mental condition. That data base does not exist. He can lie and get a gun.

The only way I see to make this work would be for the government to have access to ALL medical and psychiatric records nationwide. Do you think the ACLU would stand for that?

How about a psychiatric evaluation of all gun owners? If it were logistically possible, do you think that would go over?

Then we could have mandatory reporting of suspicious behavior by school officials, doctors, counselors etc. That would open a world of abuses.

So to keep mentally defective people from obtaining guns, all of us including YOU, Leaf, would be required to submit our medical and psychiatric history to a government agency. Since you have the right to own a gun, you have the potential to buy one. Therefore, maybe you would be required to undergo a periodic psychiatric evaluation…unless you agreed to wave your right to own a gun.

Think about it.

Put yourself in the role of government lawmakers who are responsible for the common good and welfare of the community as a whole. What do you propose to try and stop massacres and gun violence within the community? Or are you proposing that they are unfortunate collateral damage that should just be tolerated?

 

[pnewton]

The nationwide instant background check searches no data about the person’s medical or mental condition. That data base does not exist.

I am hoping that this is a problem with a remedy. In Texas, such a database does exist, and we spend precious little on mental health here. If other states have, or get, such a system, national checks would be possible.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Zoltan Cobalt;

Now I am frustrated.

Good Evening Zoltan: Don’t be. We’re just discussing.

I thought I made it pretty clear. Device does not equal “intent.”

I am offering the idea that devices have specific intents or what developers call “use cases” when they are invented and manufactured. The “use case” for a gun is to shoot. You can use it as a paperweight, but that is not its purpose.

God-given rights have no bearing on a device or an inanimate object.

It is admittedly my own practical experience and observation that I am going on, but I do not have the understanding that God either gave or intended any rights for anyone.

An abortionist has the** right **to carry the tools of his trade to and from work. Most of those tools are designed to SAVE lives. It is for what purpose he uses them that violates the right to life.

The public at large carrying around suction devices and other tools used for abortion are not a threat to the general population. There is little purchase to be had in attempting a “mass sucking” in a crowded street or building, nor is there little chance of becoming the unintended victim of a “drive by sucking.” Children don’t accidentally blow their siblings or their own faces off with suction devices, and few hunters would be killed in sucking accidents. On the other hand, we know the potential that guns have for such things, and we know these outcomes well.

I am sure God has little concern about rights and fairness. As rational human beings, we NEED some concept of rights, fairness and justice. “Rights” therefore become a moral concept.

I agree with you completely.

Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

I agree again. My sense is that the difference may lie in our perceptions of what the best means of sustaining and advancing life might be. I think more lives could be saved or improved through proper funding of research than can be done with weapons.

In my life time I have been around the world three times, shook hands with everyone twice and even had lunch with the pope. I have become a fair judge of people. I KNOW there are good people and EVIL people. I, for one, do not care to be included with the EVIL

How do you define a good person and an evil person? Everyone is capable of and participates in both. Is there a certain threshold that you are applying in determining who is which? For instance, I do bad things sometimes and at other times I do some very good things. Which does that make me - good or evil? I think I am neither good nor evil.

“…but we are all good guys and evil people” What you mean “we” ???

We are all part of each other Zoltan. In reality, I do not think there is any “us” vs. “them.” It’s all “us.” Any perception of separation is illusory insofar as I am able to reason. So the question is what are “we” going to do about all this gun violence?

Thank you,
Gary

 

[LongingSoul]

I thought I made it pretty clear. Device does not equal “intent.”

Other weapons that are deemed to be infused with ‘intent’ are flick knives, daggers, sharpened swords (as opposed to ornamental), nunchucks, brass knuckles. Like the defense gun, their lethal mystique commonly invokes a negative chemical change in people with a desire for power over others. They are more than just the sum of their parts.

I’m not sure about the US, but all these are banned in Australia.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Other weapons that are deemed to be infused with ‘intent’ are flick knives, daggers, sharpened swords (as opposed to ornamental), nunchucks, brass knuckles. Like the defense gun, their lethal mystique commonly invokes a negative chemical change in people with a desire for power over others. They are more than just the sum of their parts.

I’m not sure about the US, but all these are banned in Australia.

Good Evening Longing Soul: I agree. I’m not sure which of these devices are illegal in the US though, because I have never sought to own any of them. It probably varies by state.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Brendan]

Other weapons that are deemed to be infused with ‘intent’ are flick knives, daggers, sharpened swords (as opposed to ornamental), nunchucks, brass knuckles. Like the defense gun, their lethal mystique commonly invokes a negative chemical change in people with a desire for power over others. They are more than just the sum of their parts.

I’m not sure about the US, but all these are banned in Australia.

Were there that many nunchuck fatalities in Australia that the government felt they had to ban them?

 

[Peebo]

I do own guns…and I’m not buying into this post…just observing…it seems that here in the US we see guns as a “right” for self defense…in Australia they don’t…different cultures…that about sums it up I guess.

 

[Peebo]

Incidently the general population in Australia can own guns…shotguns…but not pump action…rifles…bolt action and lever action…not semi or automatic…they cannot be bought solely for the intended purpose of self defense…however…I know of one case in Adelaide where an elderly guy did kill someone who broke into his house…he was charged… but later acquitted after a public outcry…in South Australia in 2003 the state government made it law that anyone who felt threatened in a home invasion could use what ever force was deemed necessary to defend themselves…that included shooting and killing the invader if they legally owned a gun…and would be immune from prosecution…that doesn’t sound much different than here in the US.

 

[thequietsinger]

I think I could. What concerns me more is someone else using my gun (I have a family) or shooting someone by mistake, which also happens. Even if one is exonerated the cost is great.

That is very true, and one reason why I’d rather carry a knife on me rather than a gun, so if I absolutely had to do something, at least then I could pick a place where they wouldn’t die, and it would just be a shock for them so I could get away. Shooting, I mean, you can always miss your target, no matter how sharp a shooter you may be.

 

[LongingSoul]

Were there that many nunchuck fatalities in Australia that the government felt they had to ban them?

The weapons listed are among a list of banned weapons that are known to be favoured for abuse in some way. Creedence is given to the ‘lethal mystique’ that an object holds for those who experience a need to compensate for personal lack of some sort.

My 8 year old niece was only just telling me about how a certain type of kids trading card has been banned from her school for the negative effect it was bringing to the general school community. You might say how can a piece of card with a picture on it be a negative thing. Well the fact is that some kids with certain lacks (not even criminal or evil types), can over invest their self worth and self esteem into owning a piece of coloured card. That has led some who might ordinarily not turn to crime…behaving in a criminal way to secure this illusion of power or esteem that is so illusive from within themselves. And alternately, others feel inordinately diminished and insecure due to not being the owner of this piece of magical cure all.

Manufacturing a false sense of worth, power or even security (which defense guns promise)… is big business for someone but step back a step or two and see the big picture of their effect on the community.