I
Irishmom2
Guest
I was answering your thought of why people do not trust the government that was elected. Not anything about dealing with it. That would warrant its own thread.
- Status
V
vin_dedvukaj
Guest
you lived here you would clearly understand…
J
JulianN
Guest
You know, I’m guessing that, as a priest, he’s probably read the Catechism sections a few times. And probably many of the actual documents on which they’re based.
P
Pattylt
Guest
The problem Americans have is, due to gun ownership from the point of establishing the US means that guns are owned equally by both good and bad people. If your criminal element owned guns at the same rate as ours, your police would carry them, too. Yours don’t have to because the saturation of guns isn’t prevalent. Ours are.
At this point in time, our police wouldn’t dare go into situations without the equalization of carrying a gun. That horse left the barn 200 years ago.
I
ImQuiet
Guest
If I may chip in an anecdotal experience, since this discussion is taking off.
In the area I grew up, the only people who had ready access to guns were frequently criminals, meth dealers, or meth heads. The area had semi-frequent shootings, and they were almost all over a drug dispute, and all the guns were legally obtained.
In my view that’s a sign of a definite problem. It’s too easy to get access to a gun in America, and the people interested in purchasing a gun in my neighborhood were either idiots or a group of very dangerous individuals. If someone had tried drawing a gun on them in self-defense I’m afraid it’d only end in tragedy.
Just my two cents. I know there’s some good reasons that people put forth for a civilian to own a gun, but I think the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.
In the area I grew up, the only people who had ready access to guns were frequently criminals, meth dealers, or meth heads. The area had semi-frequent shootings, and they were almost all over a drug dispute, and all the guns were legally obtained.
In my view that’s a sign of a definite problem. It’s too easy to get access to a gun in America, and the people interested in purchasing a gun in my neighborhood were either idiots or a group of very dangerous individuals. If someone had tried drawing a gun on them in self-defense I’m afraid it’d only end in tragedy.
Just my two cents. I know there’s some good reasons that people put forth for a civilian to own a gun, but I think the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
OK. Apologies for any offense. And I have 31 years of carrying badge and gun, making such decisions regularly - so it is perhaps far easier for me to make them.
The upshot is that God is huge on freedom - man, not so much. Throughout human history, corrupt man has sought to take away each and every freedom granted by God. 31 years in government service have not changed my opinion on that - rather, only solidified it.
Power and authority are the sharpest of doubled edged weapons, and for that reason, I cast a jaundiced eye upon them.
The upshot is that God is huge on freedom - man, not so much. Throughout human history, corrupt man has sought to take away each and every freedom granted by God. 31 years in government service have not changed my opinion on that - rather, only solidified it.
Power and authority are the sharpest of doubled edged weapons, and for that reason, I cast a jaundiced eye upon them.
Emeraldlady
New member
But one of the hallmarks of modern civilisation is an expectation of peaceful co-existence between people. Cultures that lived by a default of war like the Vikings ended up self destructing. They were so focused on defense and dominance that they neglected the fruitful work of tending to a society of peace.
C
Convert3
Guest
You don’t have to go back to the Vikings to find an abuse of power. There are many in powerful positions in the US that would not hesitate to use the force of government if the citizens did not have the right to have weapons. They often try to limit that right and abuse their governmental powers.
Those who claim no one can defeat the military with its sophisticated weapons do not understand the power of insurgency should our government throw out the Constitution.
Those who claim no one can defeat the military with its sophisticated weapons do not understand the power of insurgency should our government throw out the Constitution.
po18guy
Well-known member
Not arguing. And peaceful coexistence is so common that it seems no longer to be noted. It does not make headlines, does not bleed and therefore is not normally newsworthy.
Have not measured it, but I believe that society was much more peaceful before the visual and audio media.
Crime? Genesis 4 for the first homicide.
Have not measured it, but I believe that society was much more peaceful before the visual and audio media.
Crime? Genesis 4 for the first homicide.
R
Rau
Guest
The debate might be more about whether it is wise to own a gun. And more important than that, whether it is in the best interests of US society that guns are relatively widely/freely available.
I
InThePew
Guest
I’d be interested to know how many of those who buy guns for “self defence” actually undergo training in how to use them and regularly practice with them - especially in the case of handguns or more powerful rifles…
T
Theban
Guest
Sure, but that’s a political question. As catholics we can disagree on this matter without sin, which is what I think the op wanted to know.
R
Rau
Guest
Well, I guess every question on which politicians tend to take sides might be labeled “political”. That’s a pretty unhelpful characterization. Certainly, if one believes that pursuing laws (well intentioned) which provide for widespread availability of guns leads to net good outcome, then we can say such pursuit is a good act. If we believe the outcomes are likely to be bad, then we must conclude such pursuit is a bad act. But what we believe here (about the likely outcome) is a matter of prudential judgement. We can disagree (with the Pope even).
Last edited:
T
Theban
Guest
That’s not what I meant by “political”, I’m not really sure how you got that impression. What I meant is pretty much what you just said, that people can come to different conclusions on what is best for society without being morally wrong.
(Although I don’t think it’s all about whether society is overall better or worse, a political question could be as simple as which values we want to emphasize most even when there isn’t a clear “better” choice.)
R
Rau
Guest
Sometimes the reasoning applied is not fit for the task of moral analysis. For example - some work off a belief that gun ownership is a “right” and from that conclude that the relatively widespread access to guns in the US must be the correct path. Regardless of whether the premise is accepted (and how it is even understood) it is simply not the appropriate reasoning for a catholic.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
There is disagreement I suspect over the diagnosis. And like cancer treatment, the cure may necessarily impinge on some healthy cells!
R
Rau
Guest
I may justly feel aggrieved, should my freedoms be infringed, but accepting that may be the better course.
L
libbeylu
Guest
Gun ownership can be legal…but there are “ghost” guns that are not traceable because they don’t have any identifiable number on them. Anyone can order one and according the the media…they are “flying” off the shelf!
I am and still feel shocked at the various school shootings simply because the parents of the shooters were never mentioned…wonder why? Guns make me feel very uneasy and I don’t own one. A feeling of fear of this weapon defines my reason for not having one.
I am and still feel shocked at the various school shootings simply because the parents of the shooters were never mentioned…wonder why? Guns make me feel very uneasy and I don’t own one. A feeling of fear of this weapon defines my reason for not having one.
- Status