Carrying A Gun...

[pnewton]

Did you omit the “not” between “is” and “to”?

Uh, yes. Make that a really big yes. We must **not **intend to kill someone.

The intent must never be to take a life (homicide), but to save a life, knowing that loss of the perpetrator’s life is a possibility if you act, and loss of your own life is a possibility if you do not.

That is a much better intention than my last post.

FYI - I respect what you are saying and think it applies to many. I do not carry a gun as a personal choice. It is not the force option I find suits me best.

 

[po18guy]

Uh, yes. Make that a really big yes. We must **not **intend to kill someone.

That is a much better intention than my last post.

FYI - I respect what you are saying and think it applies to many. I do not carry a gun as a personal choice. It is not the force option I find suits me best.

Well said!

 

[LongingSoul]

I just wanted to clarify that this does not preclude training and preparing for the possibility that you will need defend yourself with deadly force. This sort of planning is fine as long as the intent is to get to kill someone.

That would be the absolute moral ideal within a cultural law seeing a need for private citizens to use armed self defense… but pan back to the reason for the law and indeed the ‘right’ itself.

The theory is to be armed and prepared to fight crime lethally within the neighbourhoods. We can see the lines defining that theory because it isn’t a universal theory even in countries with high crime rates. To *not *arm yourself is to plan for peace in the first instance.

Think of in a relationship where trust has been broken or a person has previous trust issues. In terms of the psychology, the relationship can never have the ideal communion if the person identifying as the potential victim of betrayal, keeps up a position of defense where there is no imminent threat to them. The ideal is to trust that the partner is honest and goodly intended and of course that means being vulnerable, but a relationship can never grow wholesomely without that vulnerable trusting atmosphere. If there is a genuine reason not to trust the partner, it’s better to look at treating the relationship itself rather than adopting a permanent defensive position.

Not carrying a gun around with you will certainly make one seem vulnerable, but psychologically speaking, the price of the defensive position is greater than the price of vulnerability. That’s pointed to by the Churchs position on arms stockpiling on a national level by CCC 2315

"The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation. "

We know this to be true as an emotional and psychological norm of all relationships from national to personal, so that is the the argument that I am applying to the cultural norm that promotes a position of permanent defensiveness by guarding firepower for defense in the conduct of civil relationships between citizens.

 

[po18guy]

Not carrying a gun around with you will certainly make one seem vulnerable, but psychologically speaking, the price of the defensive position is greater than the price of vulnerability. That’s pointed to by the Churchs position on arms stockpiling on a national level by CCC 2315

"The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation. "

We know this to be true as an emotional and psychological norm of all relationships from national to personal, so that is the the argument that I am applying to the cultural norm that promotes a position of permanent defensiveness by guarding firepower for defense in the conduct of civil relationships between citizens.

You have conflated Church teaching regarding governments/warlords, etc. with Church teaching regarding individual human life. You are in OZ. That nation could not be more different from the US. Culture. Dialect. Founding documents. History. Legal system. All vastly different.

Why does the Church teach universally that:

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The Church does not teach that we are to offer ourselves and our loved ones up to the violent. We are graced with the passion of anger, which, ultimately, is used properly to oppose evil:

1765 There are many passions. The most fundamental passion is love, aroused by the attraction of the good. Love causes a desire for the absent good and the hope of obtaining it; this movement finds completion in the pleasure and joy of the good possessed. The apprehension of evil causes hatred, aversion, and fear of the impending evil; this movement ends in sadness at some present evil, or in the anger that resists it.

1766 "To love is to will the good of another."41 All other affections have their source in this first movement of the human heart toward the good. Only the good can be loved.42 Passions “are evil if love is evil and good if it is good.”

If the love of your loved ones is good, then the passion of anger used to defend them against evil is also good.

 

[pnewton]

To *not *arm yourself is to plan for peace in the first instance.

I do not plan for peace. Peace is easy for me. I plan for the worst and strive for the best.

I see no relevance to the stock-piling citation. It specifically says “nations”. What you did is called proof-texting, that is, taking a sentence and applying it elsewhere. When it comes to individuals, we have a different set of instructions as the above poster has quoted.

 

[CatholiqueCajun]

I may not be exact on the quote but does not John 15:13 state, “No one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends…” My interpretation is that this means doing what ever needs to be done to protect another. To me this implies putting oneself in harms way and engaging in armed conflict if necessary. Killing another person is not the same as murder is intentional.

 

[Ender]

Privately owned guns *for the purpose of self defense *of an individual and his family are morally debateable because of the Church prohibition on the excess of force in defending oneself.

The church has addressed this issue and it is not morally debatable. We are told killing in self defense is just only as a last resort and must never be planned. We are also told that carrying a weapon for self defense is justifiable. There is no moral fault in carrying a gun for that reason.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

We are also told that carrying a weapon for self defense is justifiable. There is no moral fault in carrying a gun for that reason.

Ender

Where is this stated? There are clear justifications for legitimate authority to use deadly force in defending the citizens, but in searching for the Church position on gun control regarding private ownership, I could find only a clear emphasis on disarmament.

First from the USCCB 1990 statement regarding substance abuse there is the call “for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”

Then from “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” November 2000.

“As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer – especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner – and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

Followed in conclusion by “However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

 

[pnewton]

Where is this stated"

Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

I note that the quote from the USCCB is not against carrying a firearm. I only state that guns need to be controlled and that it is a good* long term* goal to eliminate them completely from society.

 

[LongingSoul]

You have conflated Church teaching regarding governments/warlords, etc. with Church teaching regarding individual human life. You are in OZ. That nation could not be more different from the US. Culture. Dialect. Founding documents. History. Legal system. All vastly different.

The question is why are we different? The strong suggestion of the Church and other commentators is that the culture of violence is perpetrated by the overwhelming presence of guns throughout the community. If it is a phenomenon on a global level that the easy resort to firepower promotes an atmosphere of fear and defensiveness, it is likely to have that same impact on the national civil level. So that is why the question arises… why is the US so different that it needs to arm the civilians against one another?

Why does the Church teach universally that:

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility

.

The Church does not teach that we are to offer ourselves and our loved ones up to the violent.

CCC2265 speaks of legitimate defense in general to begin with but then makes the qualification that the use of arms is permitted for *those who hold legitimate authority *to defend the civil community. By this we refer to the police and military and other authorities that are subject to rigorous background and psychological testings and stringent guidelines for deploying the weapon in the line of duty. Not individuals who make that judgement themselves based on their own personal evaluation.

We are graced with the passion of anger, which, ultimately, is used properly to oppose evil:

1765 There are many passions. The most fundamental passion is love, aroused by the attraction of the good. Love causes a desire for the absent good and the hope of obtaining it; this movement finds completion in the pleasure and joy of the good possessed. The apprehension of evil causes hatred, aversion, and fear of the impending evil; this movement ends in sadness at some present evil, or in the anger that resists it.

If the love of your loved ones is good, then the passion of anger used to defend them against evil is also good.

Again this further illustrates the danger of the individual have resort to a gun. Passion is a very subjective thing. The legitimate authorities may have a general passion for their job but act to a very strict code of rules in deploying a weapon and are not permitted to fire depending on their personal passion at any given time. Individuals are left to their own discretion in that judgement. One person may feel that a situation calls for a shot to wound while another in the same situation may feel it is a shoot to kill call.

That all just sounds too lawless to engender an atmosphere of security.

 

[LongingSoul]

Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

That paragraph then follows to CC2265 which gives context to what moderation entails…

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason,* those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.*

Those with legitimate authority are subject to strict guidelines unlike the individual making judgement calls based on his own personal reaction.

 

[pnewton]

That paragraph then follows to CC2265 which gives context to what moderation entails…

Those with legitimate authority are subject to strict guidelines unlike the individual making judgement calls based on his own personal reaction.

No, these are two separate principles. The first applies to all people, the right to legitimate self-defense. The latter applies when to those for whom defense of others is a grave duty. 2265 is not the context, but a more specific application. Ask your priest, or one of the apologists here and see if this is not true if you doubt.

The Catholic Church does not consider gun possession sinful, or killing in self-defense or defense of another sinful, if done in a narrow set of circumstances (no other option that uses less force).

 

[pnewton]

One person may feel that a situation calls for a shot to wound while another in the same situation may feel it is a shoot to kill call…

Neither is a good idea. If shooting is necessary, and it seldom is, then the best shot is a shot to stop.

 

[LongingSoul]

No, these are two separate principles. The first applies to all people, the right to legitimate self-defense. The latter applies when to those for whom defense of others is a grave duty. 2265 is not the context, but a more specific application. Ask your priest, or one of the apologists here and see if this is not true if you doubt.

The Catholic Church does not consider gun possession sinful, or killing in self-defense or defense of another sinful, if done in a narrow set of circumstances (no other option that uses less force).

No, no. I’m not saying that gun possession is sinful for the individual. There are a number of legitimate reasons for an individual to own a gun. I’m not saying that self defense in which a ‘lethal blow’ was the only way of restraining the agressor is sinful either. Quite the contrary.

I’m questioning the morality of dedicating a gun to self defense for the individual on the basis that they constitute a ‘legitimate authority’ responsible for the common good.

Or… are you reading 2265 “those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” … as meaning ‘legitimate authority also have the right’, along with the private citizens right to bear arms for defense of the common good?

I read that ‘also’, to mean that in addition to people defending lives by the physical and situational means available… the legitimate authorities can use a dedicated weapon to restrain and possibly kill over and above the resources that one normally has available.

I’m panning back to the law that permits the use of a gun for self defense of individuals and how that permission is protected from accountability to the common good, by its status as an inalienable right. Is there ever going to be a point where the presence of guns for private self defense can be questioned? If 2 people are left in the country having been decimated by internal gun battles, would the right to own a gun for self defense still be unaccountable by virtue of the constitution?

 

[Ender]

Where is this stated?

See the statement from St. Bellarmine in post #9.

There are clear justifications for legitimate authority to use deadly force in defending the citizens, but in searching for the Church position on gun control regarding private ownership, I could find only a clear emphasis on disarmament.

The church has no position on gun control. Her bishops may express concerns about guns but there is no doctrine that prohibits either private ownership or the concealed carrying of guns … so long as it is allowed by the state.

First from the USCCB 1990 statement regarding substance abuse there is the call “for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”

We’ve been down this road before. First, the opinions of the USCCB are not really relevant, and second, even they did not claim there was any doctrine limiting the ownership of guns.

Followed in conclusion by “However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

This conclusion is clearly a personal preference; it doesn’t even imply that there might be some doctrine that forbids private ownership of handguns.

Ender

 

[po18guy]

Where is this stated? There are clear justifications for legitimate authority to use deadly force in defending the citizens, but in searching for the Church position on gun control regarding private ownership, I could find only a clear emphasis on disarmament.

You did? I believe that you have read your agenda into it.

Have you actually read CCC2265?

First from the USCCB 1990 statement regarding substance abuse there is the call “for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”

What does a provincial, quasi-activist organization which is badly in need of reform have to do with logic, common sense, constitutional interpretation or official Church teaching?

Nothing.

I ask again: Have you actually read CCC2265?

 

[LongingSoul]

See the statement from St. Bellarmine in post #9.

The church has no position on gun control. Her bishops may express concerns about guns but there is no doctrine that prohibits either private ownership or the concealed carrying of guns … so long as it is allowed by the state.

We’ve been down this road before. First, the opinions of the USCCB are not really relevant, and second, even they did not claim there was any doctrine limiting the ownership of guns.

This conclusion is clearly a personal preference; it doesn’t even imply that there might be some doctrine that forbids private ownership of handguns.

Ender

The way in which the Catholic Church differs from other Christian and non-Christian Churches, is that we defer to the guidance and interpretation of doctrine of Church teachers in our day headed by the Pope. This is what the Apostolic succession implies for us. It is not accurate to dismiss the Conferences of Bishops guidance as ‘irrelevant opinions’. That is not giving due respect to the Catholic Conferences of Bishops role in the Magisterium.

To ‘trump’ the Bishops by quoting St Bellarmines words that were relevant 500 years ago in a climate of war (Italy had endured nearly constant warring for 70 years at time)… is not an acceptable Catholic tactic. That is especially so of this case as the authorities (the servants of the common good) in Renaissance Italy were dealing with the imminent threat of war at any moment. In that climate gun ownership for self defence obviously served the common good.

The question arise then about the need for this extreme solution when there is no imminent threat of civil war. Owning a gun is not sinful. People aren’t morally culpable if they are abiding by their national laws in owning their gun even it is solely for self-defense. However, in relation to how such a law serves the common good in peacetime, it has a moral quality. Authority is legitimate dependent on its fidelity to the common good. It’s laws have to protect and promote the common good of all citizens. If the common good is secondary to an inalienable right to do a thing, does that not make the authority beholden to another power separate from the common good?

If the presence of guns for self defense in the community undermines the common good of all, the laws of the state responsible for the common good of all, must move towards eliminating that problem.

 

[po18guy]

Those with legitimate authority are subject to strict guidelines unlike the individual making judgement calls based on his own personal reaction.

Why do you equate “legitimate authority” with the government? Legitimate authority is simply the legal authority to defend.

Have you absolutely no responsibility for your loved ones? And, if you have no responsibility for them, do you actually love them?

 

[po18guy]

The way in which the Catholic Church differs from other Christian and non-Christian Churches, is that we defer to the guidance and interpretation of doctrine of Church teachers in our day headed by the Pope. This is what the Apostolic succession implies for us. It is not accurate to dismiss the Conferences of Bishops guidance as ‘irrelevant opinions’. That is not giving due respect to the Catholic Conferences of Bishops role in the Magisterium.

To ‘trump’ the Bishops by quoting St Bellarmines words that were relevant 500 years ago in a climate of war (Italy had endured nearly constant warring for 70 years at time)… is not an acceptable Catholic tactic. That is especially so of this case as the authorities (the servants of the common good) in Renaissance Italy were dealing with the imminent threat of war at any moment. In that climate gun ownership for self defence obviously served the common good.

The question arise then about the need for this extreme solution when there is no imminent threat of civil war. Owning a gun is not sinful. People aren’t morally culpable if they are abiding by their national laws in owning their gun even it is solely for self-defense. However, in relation to how such a law serves the common good in peacetime, it has a moral quality. Authority is legitimate dependent on its fidelity to the common good. It’s laws have to protect and promote the common good of all citizens. If the common good is secondary to an inalienable right to do a thing, does that not make the authority beholden to another power separate from the common good?

If the presence of guns for self defense in the community undermines the common good of all, the laws of the state responsible for the common good of all, must move towards eliminating that problem.

No need to derail the thread and go off on a hoplophobic tirade simply because the OP is investigating the mere possibility of a firearm for defense.

 

[LongingSoul]

Why do you equate “legitimate authority” with the government? Legitimate authority is simply the legal authority to defend.

Have you absolutely no responsibility for your loved ones? And, if you have no responsibility for them, do you actually love them?

I’m taking the meaning of ‘legitimate authority’ from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica regarding self-defense.

Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). 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

It is lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense for those authorities that are charged with safeguarding the common good. This is the soldier and the judge. They are equipped thus with arms or instruments of death. Now for a private citizen to choose a gun for self defense, a gun being an instrument of death which is why it is being chosen over a knife or bat, begs the question does this constitute adopting a right over life and death from the outset? Does that sense of the power over another persons life and death, contribute to the overall culture of death that sees permanent defense as the highest manifestation of peace?

In a culture of life, trust and neighbourliness replace defense and how better to demonstrate those virtues than through deferring that ability to strike dead, to the public authorities who are charged with maintaining the lawfulness with very strict and considered instructions about how the common good is best served.