Church Social Teaching and Gun Control

[PeterJohn]

I clicked on this topic because I am a gun owner. I was wondering what our Church teaching was on this topic because I am concerned with the direction this country(USA) is moving in. Am i wrong in thinking that I believe: a gun is not in itself evil, I have the to duty to defend my wife and children’s lives, I can own a gun.?.

I also believe we have a obligation to apply morality to everything we do in our lives including voting and stewardship of our country. If its evident that evil has subtlety slipped into many aspects of my countries laws/rights and by right of living in a democracy where I have ability to be a steward, I must act with morality. Do I take peaceable actions to aid in stopping my country from moving towards a position where Catholics (and anyone) have less of a say in what direction the country moves in?

 

[shipwrkd]

I clicked on this topic because I am a gun owner. I was wondering what our Church teaching was on this topic because I am concerned with the direction this country(USA) is moving in. Am i wrong in thinking that I believe: a gun is not in itself evil, I have the to duty to defend my wife and children’s lives, I can own a gun.?.

I also believe we have a obligation to apply morality to everything we do in our lives including voting and stewardship of our country. If its evident that evil has subtlety slipped into many aspects of my countries laws/rights and by right of living in a democracy where I have ability to be a steward, I must act with morality. Do I take peaceable actions to aid in stopping my country from moving towards a position where Catholics (and anyone) have less of a say in what direction the country moves in?

I think Church teaching is vague on this topic. Peter carried a sword into the Garden and was not told by Jesus to get rid of it. Two thousand years ago, a sword was a weapon used to kill man or defend oneself. Knives were used to peel grapes and spears were used to hunt with. Today, the sword has been replaced by a gun and perhaps tomorrow the gun will be replaced by the “photon pack” and the controversy will shift. The key is acting with morality in all things, even a photon pack

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m having somewhat of an inner debate as to the stance of Church Social Teaching regarding civilian ownership of guns…I’m inclined to change my views about gun ownership on the basis that it’s unjust.

I’m thinking it is not so much unjust as dangerous – guns make killing people (including oneself) so much easier, if one just happens to get angry, depressed, or go into some madness.

People who are non-hunters probably buy guns thinking the gun is for protection. They imagine the possibility of confronting some mad killer robber-burglar-rapist-stranger-bogeyman. And there is some slight possibility of that. But only about 0.6% of deaths are from murder. And of murder cases (in which the victim/offender relationship is known) 80% of the murderers knew their offenders, and only about 20% happened between strangers. And firearms are involved in nearly 70% of murders and 50% of suicides. (Some sources: cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm ; afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=050fea9f-b064-4092-b1135c3a70de1fda )

When people buy guns perhaps they actually have killing the dangerous stranger on their mind, even though they may think it is only “defense” on their mind. They buy the gun because they know it can kill people; otherwise they’d just buy an imitation gun. Then if at all the gun is actually used they are much more likely than people without firearms to kill someone they know, even an intimate, or themselves.

And even if some killer-stranger were to confront someone who owns a gun, it is highly unlikely the gunowner would be able to actually use his/her weapon effectively to avoid harm. It’s like seatbelts – better to wear them, because they prevent many more injuries and deaths than without them, even though occasionally one would have been better off without the seatbelt. In the gun case people (civilians) are much better off without guns, even though in some rare case a gun might help.

As for the Christian perspective, you only need to read the Gospels to find out whether or not civilians should own guns for protection (i.e., killing).

Just yesterday some elderly people we met in a restaurant asked us what we thought about the gun control issue. I told them I am totally against guns, that I’d rather die than kill, and that’s because I am a Christian.

What would Jesus do? He would stretch out his arms and die for us.

Besides, he didn’t have a holster…

 

[DL82]

I would say so. His comments were made in responds to a question about violent movies not your average gun owner. I’m close to several LEO’s who fantasize quite the opposite…they hope never to have to kill another human being but they constantly prepare for it. Preparation and fantasizing are quite different. Ask any soldier.

I agree, and that was my main point about the need for spiritual discipline if you’re going to own and train with a weapon. I just wonder how many people lack this, and am quite worried by some of the unhealthy mentalities that I have heard from those on the pro-gun right.

 

[Ender]

As the recent Vatican editorial praising the Obama administration’s “first step” noted, the Church’s position is already in pastoral documents.

The Vatican may have an opinion on the effectiveness of a specific approach to gun control but let’s not pretend for a moment that this is a Church doctrine.

Now look at the document you provided: Section IV, it covers how theologists and the Magisterium are supposed to interact and “The Problem of Dissent”.

First, I am not dissenting from anything since there is no doctrine involved to dissent from. Second, inasmuch as that is the section of the document containing the citation I gave, I am familiar with what it said. Suggesting I read it again is not the same as responding to my comment.

You come here, to this very forum and make statements like many we can find in this thread, flatly disagreeing with what the Church is now teaching on gun control.

You continue to ignore the distinction between doctrine and opinion. Some bishops have expressed opinions with which I disagree but there is no doctrine involved that I have rejected. Nothing you have expressed about dissent applies to opinions and while the Church has a doctrine on self defense she has none on gun control.

'You [the imaginary theologian] even claimed you were not bound to the teaching because it was not dogmatic/infallible, this is the most radical form of dissent.

Your imaginary theologian’s case is nothing like mine inasmuch as I have already said we have an obligation to assent to the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which are the non-infallible doctrines. The opinions of the bishops however don’t fall into this category. You could clear some of this up by answering this: are the prudential judgments of bishops in the category of teachings of the ordinary Magisterium?

Do you really believe that if our theologian appealed his situation in the court system of the Catholic Church that his bishop’s actions would all be wholly unfounded under Canon Law?

If the theologian was dissenting from Church doctrine, no; if he was disagreeing with opinions, yes.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I think Church teaching is vague on this topic.

The Church is not at all vague on the subject of self defense (see post #114) nor does the form of the weapon matter (which is why there is no specific doctrine on guns). What matters is the intent of the defender and whether the force used was necessary to counter the threat.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m thinking it is not so much unjust as dangerous …

I completely disagree with your perception of guns and why people own them but on this and practically every other topic we are free to disagree, form our own opinions and act accordingly. There is no moral distinction between our beliefs even though one of us must surely be wrong.

As for the Christian perspective, you only need to read the Gospels to find out whether or not civilians should own guns for protection (i.e., killing).

The Church has addressed the issue of self defense and her position quite clear. Whatever may be your personal interpretation of the Gospels, Church doctrine is that we may in fact kill the aggressor in self defense if that response is necessary to protect ourselves or others.

What would Jesus do?

I assume he would have us accept what the Church teaches.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I completely disagree with your perception of guns and why people own them but on this and practically every other topic we are free to disagree, form our own opinions and act accordingly. There is no moral distinction between our beliefs even if one of us must surely be wrong.
The Church has addressed the issue of self defense and her position quite clear. Whatever may be your personal interpretation of the Gospels, Church doctrine is that we may in fact kill the aggressor in self defense if that response is necessary to protect ourselves or others.
I assume he would have us accept what the Church teaches.

Ender

 

[ELCore]

Just yesterday some elderly people we met in a restaurant asked us what we thought about the gun control issue. I told them I am totally against guns, that I’d rather die than kill, and that’s because I am a Christian.

The doctrine that self-defense is justified – even to the point of killing* – has been taught by the Church for at least three-quarters of a millennium. It was affirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas; it figures in the Roman Catechism, the Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism of St. Pius X, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church; and it is reaffirmed in an encyclical by Bl. Pope John Paul II.

Is this doctrine wrong?

• Not all killing, nor even all violence, in self-defense is justified: the response must be proportional to the threat.

 

[pnewton]

In responds to the security system, it usually buys the owner enough time to call 911 and gather his weapon. Unless a homeowner is away, the police will not make it to an alarm until after harm can be done.

Audible alarms alert on breaking in that the police are en route. While they could harm an owner and then be arrested, the common reaction is to flee. Obviously a weapon is still useful. The point is,I wonder how many here that keep a weapon nearby because they care so much to protect their family, *also *have this less violent means.

 

[shipwrkd]

The Church is not at all vague on the subject of self defense (see post #114) nor does the form of the weapon matter (which is why there is no specific doctrine on guns). What matters is the intent of the defender and whether the force used was necessary to counter the threat.

Ender

On self defense, I agree with you but because of the rapidly changing technology in the firearm market, The Church almost needs to be non-committal.

Audible alarms alert on breaking in that the police are en route. While they could harm an owner and then be arrested, the common reaction is to flee. Obviously a weapon is still useful. The point is,I wonder how many here that keep a weapon nearby because they care so much to protect their family, also have this less violent means.

Several on my block that had them do not have it in their budget to pay the monthly contract and have let it lapse. The sign stating they have one can be a deterrent in itself. I don’t have the money to hook up and maintain an alarm so I asked the neighbor for one of his signs and if that’s not enough of a deterrent my 30 year old Browning A5 will have to do.

I would tend to agree that the less violent system is preferred but not everyone who owns a firearm to hunt with can afford one and in rural areas,they are ineffective at notifying police in time for them to help.

 

[BiologyBrain]

This is significant when you consider the ‘tactical’ side of a tactical weapons ban. What is going through someone’s head when they stockpile military assault rifles in their home? Are they not doing so on the basis of where they can most easily access them if they need to kill other human beings? When they fire these at a weapons range, are they imagining killing other human beings? If they train with a militia, are they not imagining a war scenario against their fellow human beings? The concept of ‘tactical’ weaponry is that you define your ‘tactics’ in order to be the most efficient killer. Before you have killed one person, you have killed him hundreds of times in tactical scenarios in your mind. That is not spiritually healthy (also not socially or psychologically healthy in my opinion).

You do realize that “tactical” weapons vs “regular” weapons is mostly just cosmetic, right? So when a gun manufacturer makes a gun in black and with bluing or nickel, the gun doesn’t actually change. It still shoots the same ammo at the same rate with the same speed. It’s just harder to see in certain conditions. The addition of rails to guns is considered tactical, but really is just practical… If someone breaks into my house with intent to do harm to me when it’s pitch black, wouldn’t it be a good thing for me to have a rail mounted flashlight (or even strobe) on my gun? If I have a strobe light on the rail of my gun, I may be able to blind and disarm my attacker without firing a round. In at least that instance, a “tactical”/“assault” accessory is actually LESS lethal than a “normal” weapon.

Target practice (and gun ownership in general) is not about trying to kill for killing’s sake. It’s about being comfortable with your weapon just in case you ever need to use it in defense. Its also about safety. Most police officers put thousands of round through their weapons without ever drawing on a live person for their whole career. Most people who carry a gun hope and pray they never have to use it. Even then, most people hope and pray that if they do draw their weapon, the mere sight of the weapon will suffice to end the threat. Yet, we practice time and time again for the muscle memory to overcome our hesitancy to harm another human if our lives are threatened. We own, carry, and practice with guns to prevent loss of life, not to purposefully inflict death. It is really disheartening to be vilified for wanting to protect myself and my family from serious harm. I is especially disheartening to read comments like yours indicating I’m poisoning my soul by becoming more comfortable with my weapons and learning more about safety.

Hunting rifles are one thing, picking up a hunting rifle and using it to shoot an intruder to protect your home is one thing, but, as my wife put it, who needs a 200 round clip to shoot a deer?

A really bad shot?
Someone with serious deer overpopulation problems
Someone who doesn’t like to reload

 

[GregBussey]

in a defensive situation only one or two rounds should be necessary.

Maybe, assuming the attacker is alone and assuming you’re so well trained that the stress of the attack doesn’t affect your aim. In reality, criminals often work in teams. Also, consider that in a recent home invasion, the mom hit her attacker with 5 rounds before he would leave. Note that he still didn’t drop. With 5 rounds in him, he still had the strength to get into his car and drive. One or two rounds is insufficient for defense.
abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

 

[davidmlamb]

continued quote…

His argument does sound very convincing, and if the Church really teaches this, why is it that so many American Catholics refuse to yield to the bishops and continue to support ‘gun-rights’? I’m just kindly asking a question, and I hope it doesn’t lead to a flame war

Thanks and God bless!

The answer to your question is rooted in idolatry. I believe the 2nd ammendment was written for the formation of a Militia which is fulfilled in State National Gaurd. No one should have “a right” to own an assault rifle which sole use is for taking human life. We have civil authorities to protect us. I have never owned a gun because I believe to own a gun poses a greater risk of a mishap or misuse that can lead to serious injury or death. The only time I would own a gun is if I lived in a rural area where there were dangerous wild animals such as wolves or bears that posed a threat to my families safety. Scripture teaches us that those who live by the sword will die by the swords…

Peace,

David

 

[shipwrkd]

Maybe, assuming the attacker is alone and assuming you’re so well trained that the stress of the attack doesn’t affect your aim. In reality, criminals often work in teams. Also, consider that in a recent home invasion, the mom hit her attacker with 5 rounds before he would leave. Note that he still didn’t drop. With 5 rounds in him, he still had the strength to get into his car and drive. One or two rounds is insufficient for defense.
abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

12 gauge 00 buck from a short barrel.

 

[shipwrkd]

The answer to your question is rooted in idolatry. I believe the 2nd ammendment was written for the formation of a Militia which is fulfilled in State National Gaurd. No one should have “a right” to own an assault rifle which sole use is for taking human life. We have civil authorities to protect us. I have never owned a gun because I believe to own a gun poses a greater risk of a mishap or misuse that can lead to serious injury or death. The only time I would own a gun is if I lived in a rural area where there were dangerous wild animals such as wolves or bears that posed a threat to my families safety. Scripture teaches us that those who live by the sword will die by the swords…

Peace,

David

Ask a police officer where the first line of defense lies. Squarely in your hands for when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I strongly disagree with your scripture quote for I have two police officers in the family (one is my son) and they live by the gun. I certainly don’t expect them to die by the gun.

 

[lynnvinc]

I completely disagree with your perception of guns and why people own them but on this and practically every other topic we are free to disagree, form our own opinions and act accordingly. There is no moral distinction between our beliefs even though one of us must surely be wrong.
The Church has addressed the issue of self defense and her position quite clear. Whatever may be your personal interpretation of the Gospels, Church doctrine is that we may in fact kill the aggressor in self defense if that response is necessary to protect ourselves or others.
I assume he would have us accept what the Church teaches.

Ender

I have an aversion for anyone who owns a gun (one which is not for hunting or in line of professional duy). I don’t even ask my neighbors (down here in Texas), because many probably do own guns. Up north when I found out our neighbors, who also went to our same church, had a gun, my opinion of them plummeted.

I’m not even going to read the posts on this site, bec there may be people here who own guns. I just pray that they do not shoot their loved ones in rage or that their kids don’t get a hold of them and kill or injure someone in play.

So I’ll just say so long.

I’d rather die than kill, but frankly I’m not sure what I’d actually do if push comes to shove. I aspire to follow Jesus and be a pacifist. However, I do not disrespect those who kill in self defense (even tho it disgusts me that civilians own guns, ready and eager to kill in their self-defense), or even a woman having an abortion when her life it at stake. I would hope that I would stand strong, with God’s strength and grace, and die rather than kill, but I may wimp out in the last moment of such a context.

Lord, do not bring us to the test.

 

[SamH]

I’m not even going to read the posts on this site, bec there may be people here who own guns. I just pray that they do not shoot their loved ones in rage or that their kids don’t get a hold of them and kill or injure someone in play.

Wouldn’t want to accidently read anything that might shake an unfounded opinion would you?

 

[SamH]

12 gauge 00 buck from a short barrel.

As a matter of home defense 2 shot or 4 shot is probably better than 00 buck.

 

[shipwrkd]

As a matter of home defense 2 shot or 4 shot is probably better than 00 buck.

Your probably right, less collateral damage. But the only 2 or 4 shot I have is steel and lacks penetration. I’ve given up on two’s for Canadian Geese because they take a breast full and keep going.