Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[triumphguy]

The police in Northern Ireland carry guns as the normal practice, so your statement is incorrect.

You could say “in England” or “in London” and be correct, but not for the entire UK.

You could say Great Britain and be correct.

Northern Ireland - well that’s because of the Catholics who have guns!

 

[jay29]

I’m not to fond of the Catholic Bishops in this country for nearly the loss of faith and belief in the pews which they play a big part. It seems to me that if they focused their antigun enthusiasm on anti abortion efforts things just might be different. A gun by itself is not immoral.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not to fond of the Catholic Bishops in this country for nearly the loss of faith and belief in the pews which they play a big part. It seems to me that if they focused their antigun enthusiasm on anti abortion efforts things just might be different. A gun by itself is not immoral.

Is a contraceptive by itself immoral?

 

[Brendan]

Is a contraceptive by itself immoral?

The USE of contraceptives is intrinsically evil. The use of a gun is not.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The USE of contraceptives is intrinsically evil. The use of a gun is not.

Some uses of guns are intrinsically evil.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Contraceptives don’t prevent births of people, people prevent births of people.

 

[Brendan]

Some uses of guns are intrinsically evil.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. .

You are correct, so uses are. Just as using a rosary to strangle a person would be intrinsically evil.

A priest’s stole could be used to hang a person

But it does not follow that the rosary nor the stole themselves are intrinsically evil because they could be put to evil uses. What the Church considers to be the evil act is NOT the object, but the intent and the action.

That is why the statement “Priestly stoles don’t hang people, people do” is a correct statement.

Contraceptives don’t prevent births of people, people prevent births of people

That is why the Church does not even consider condoms to be instriscally evil, but rather their contraceptive use. If someone uses a condom to keep matches dry (as they did in WW-II), then there is no moral fault.

Likewise, if a gun is used in self defense, there is no moral fault, no evil act, intrinsic or otherwise was committed.

This is basic Catholic Moral Theology, I am surprised that you have such a lack of understanding on it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are correct, so uses are. Just as using a rosary to strangle a person would be intrinsically evil.

A priest’s stole could be used to hang a person

But it does not follow that the rosary nor the stole themselves are intrinsically evil because they could be put to evil uses. What the Church considers to be the evil act is NOT the object, but the intent and the action.

That is why the Church does not even consider condoms to be instriscally evil, but rather their contraceptive use. If someone uses a condom to keep matches dry (as they did in WW-II), then there is no moral fault.

Likewise, if a gun is used in self defense, there is no moral fault, no evil act, intrinsic or otherwise was committed.

This is basic Catholic Moral Theology, I am surprised that you have such a lack of understanding on it.

I have a very good understanding of my faith as a whole and your ad hominem doesn’t change it, nor does it convince me that your view is anywhere more righteous than anyone else. Being you have to make something personal, instead of a discussion. I won’t respond to you.

 

[Brendan]

I have a very good understanding of my faith as a whole and your ad hominem doesn’t change it, nor does it convince me that your view is anywhere more righteous than anyone else. Being you have to make something personal, instead of a discussion. I won’t respond to you.

It’s not an ad hymenium. I was very surprised that you made an attempt to link a material object to an intrinsic evil.

My views are immaterial, What matters are factual statements and rationally derived arguments…

Your statement was not an articulation of the Catholic understanding of Moral Theology.

As such, it was a non sequitur and had no place in a rational discussion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s not an ad hymenium. I was very surprised that you made an attempt to link a material object to an intrinsic evil.

My views are immaterial, What matters are factual statements and rationally derived arguments…

Your statement was not an articulation of the Catholic understanding of Moral Theology.

As such, it was a non sequitur and had no place in a rational discussion.

It makes as much sense to me as ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ An inanimate object does not create evil, people have to use them to create an evil act. That’s what has taken place when a mass murderer takes a gun and kill a group of people. They didn’t go for cars, water, fire, gas, or anything else; their choice of weapon, as per recent events, are guns.

I know very well what your intent was. Explain it anyway you want, I have received it as you gave it. I will not be brought down to such a level, and am sorry to see some that feel it’s necessary to take discussions in that direction.

Now, this is my last post to you. God bless you on your journey.

 

[Brendan]

An inanimate object does not create evil, people have to use them to create an evil act. That’s what has taken place when a mass murderer takes a gun and kill a group of people. They didn’t go for cars, water, fire, gas, or anything else; their choice of weapon, as per recent events, are guns.

In Catholic Moral Teaching, the evil is committed when the intention is formed, in other words, when the person sets their will to committing the evil act.

The moral wrong is commited at that point, before the attacker even moves or decides to use any type of inanimate object.

As far as their recent choice, would you feel better if they used other things to commit the crime. It is the tool that is wrong, not the act in your viewpoint?

If so, I would claim that you have departed severely from Catholic Moral Teaching on this.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

In Catholic Moral Teaching, the evil is committed when the intention is formed, in other words, when the person sets their will to committing the evil act.

The moral wrong is commited at that point, before the attacker even moves or decides to use any type of inanimate object.

As far as their recent choice, would you feel better if they used other things to commit the crime. It is the tool that is wrong, not the act in your viewpoint?

If so, I would claim that you have departed severely from Catholic Moral Teaching on this.

This is absolutely true.

However, it is also true that guns allow a person with an evil intent to care out that intent more easily - at a distance from his victims, and more quickly and potential more of them than many other options.

Of course something like a bomb or flying an airplane into a building would have an even greater effect, but those means are not as easily come by as guns are.

I would not argue that it is the tool that is evil. But certain tools are more effective for evil intentions. Given that, the question is, “Is there a way to mitigate the effectivness of this tool when used for evil intentions that does not overly impair nuetral or good uses of the same tool.”

 

[Brendan]

. Given that, the question is, “Is there a way to mitigate the effectivness of this tool when used for evil intentions that does not overly impair nuetral or good uses of the same tool.”

Yes, now we have a premise that can be rationally analyzed

Access to tools to actually commit the crimes has been shown to be unaffected by attempts at regulation. In all the recent cases, the criminal had already been prohibited from possessing the firearm by law. Thus attempts even as strict as CT’s laws are not effective.

My claim would be that the statistically most effective way is for the person to be stopped by armed resistance sooner that has been the case in the recent shootings.

The police response time in CT was 20 minutes. Virginia Tech was 38 minutes

Contrast that to the school shooting at Appalachian School of Law, armed response (in the form of two students who were also active and reserve police officers) arrived in 8 minutes.

 

[iloveangels]

This is absolutely true.

However, it is also true that guns allow a person with an evil intent to care out that intent more easily - at a distance from his victims, and more quickly and potential more of them than many other options.

Of course something like a bomb or flying an airplane into a building would have an even greater effect, but those means are not as easily come by as guns are.

I would not argue that it is the tool that is evil. But certain tools are more effective for evil intentions. Given that, the question is, “Is there a way to mitigate the effectivness of this tool when used for evil intentions that does not overly impair nuetral or good uses of the same tool.”

So your real problem is that you don’t like efficient tools? The alternatives are many and not any better in terms of consequences. Better to see if you can do something about the kind of social problems we have that cause people to want to use tools on other people.

 

[ProVobis]

I would not argue that it is the tool that is evil. But certain tools are more effective for evil intentions. Given that, the question is, “Is there a way to mitigate the effectivness of this tool when used for evil intentions that does not overly impair nuetral or good uses of the same tool.”

IMO a tranquilizer gun, taser gun, or pepper spray could be just as effective without all the worry about whether a killer gun is evil or not.

 

[Geist]

IMO a tranquilizer gun, taser gun, or pepper spray could be just as effective without all the worry about whether a killer gun is evil or not.

Been hit by the last two, they’re painful but you can still function with enough will and/or rage. I wasn’t on any substances either, had I been high on meth or PCP I doubt I’d have noticed.

Edit: Tasers have killed people.

 

[pnewton]

Been hit by the last two, they’re painful but you can still function with enough will and/or rage. I wasn’t on any substances either, had I been high on meth or PCP I doubt I’d have noticed.

Edit: Tasers have killed people.

Hence the term, less than lethal as opposed to non-lethal.

There is an upside and a down side to most things. Delay and hesitation can also costs lives. When one is dealing with pepper spray, a mistake causes inconvenience, as opposed to accidently killing a family member. This is their up side. A boo boo is not permanent. With guns, a life is gone, for good or ill. With pepperspray, all it does is debilitate, not stop, and the debilitation can apply to the user. Unless escape is at hand, less than lethals require something beyond their use, but they can be used more readily.

 

[Brendan]

IMO a tranquilizer gun, taser gun, or pepper spray could be just as effective without all the worry about whether a killer gun is evil or not.

And they are pretty much single ‘shot’ devices. Miss, and you’re defenseless

 

[jay29]

The bishops should be going after abortion and contraceptives rather than guns. As a whole, they have been far to silent. I can’t remember a single time I heard the word abortion from the pulpit at a NO Mass.

 

[triumphguy]

The bishops should be going after abortion and contraceptives rather than guns. As a whole, they have been far to silent. I can’t remember a single time I heard the word abortion from the pulpit at a NO Mass.

I hear it frequently at Mass.

I think “NO Mass” is kinda insulting actually.

 

[pnewton]

The bishops should be going after abortion and contraceptives rather than guns. As a whole, they have been far to silent. I can’t remember a single time I heard the word abortion from the pulpit at a NO Mass.

Hmmm. I have never heard guns from the pulpit. I hear about abortion a lot, though I do not know if the word itself is used often. Usually it is phrased in terms of conception and the value of the life of the unborn. I agree with the above poster. The whole “NO” thing is uncalled for. We has a strict rule here about setting one form of the Mass over another, or another rite. In light of that, there simply is no point in using that term. You could have just said “Mass”.