Does the Catholic Church have a position on gun control?

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t understand your question so perhaps we are discussing two different things. I was responding to Brendan64. He wrote that the Church does not teach that a person ought to have the right to own a fire arm and I pointed out that the Church does not teach that we ought not to own one either. He says he is in the UK. He writes that there is more violent crime in the US than in the UK and that perhaps our less stringent gun control laws are the reason. I pointed out that on the contrary violent crime has increased both in the UK and in Australia which also has more stringent gun control laws than the USA. We own several guns both for sports shooting and for self defense. We have taken a safety course and practice on a legal gun range to stay on our game so to speak. We are very law abiding.

Annie

It seemed your argument was for a need to own a gun, for self defense. The men of the Church have not called for an eradication of ALL guns. The controls and regulations would not impact a safety conscious sports shooting person, or their ability to defend. The guns targeted, by the men of the Church, have proven to be problematic because of an easy access for anyone.

Playing the statistics is like playing polls at election time. They can be skewed and misused. It isn’t complex to see the most recent ‘spurt’ of shootings for what they are, the guns chosen, and recognize we have a responsibility to act on the behalf of all society, through minor inconveniences to ourselves personally.

 

[pnewton]

The question here is not whether a line ought to be drawn but whether the church has said it should be drawn prohibiting individuals from owning a firearm … or making it so difficult to own one that in practice it amounts to the same thing. CCC 2316 is ambiguous.

You changed the question. Paragraph 2316 directly answers the topic, almost word for word. This is a case of you asking something, then not liking the answer, or agreeing that it is an answer.

Brendan: The Church teaches that public authorities have not just a right, but a duty to regulate the sales of arms. Our Church does not expand it’s position beyond that.

Ender: I should be surprised to find a doctrine expressing this idea.

CCC 2316: The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them**. **

So to answer the original proposition, yes, the Catholic Church does have a position on the regulation and control of weapons. How this is done in each country is something the public authorities needs to address.

Also, the Church also has a position on the value of life, as in pro-life. The Church has a position on legitimate self-defense. These principles need to be incorporated into the decision on regulation.

 

[Brendan_64]

The Church does not teach that men ought not to have a right to own a firearm either. I am a law abiding citizen. I own a gun. The general public is in no danger from me so why should I not have the right to chose to arm myself with a firearm? BTW I have taken a course in gun safety and practice from time to time at a legal firing range.

I have never said that the Church teaches that individuals may not own firearms, however the Church DOES teach that public authorities have a duty to regulate sales of arms. Therefore the Church does not hold that individuals have a right to own a gun, other than that determined by the relevant public authority who has does have a right and a duty to regulate this. Whether you like it or not, that is Church teaching.

Well I have never had a knife pulled on me but a pregnant woman was stabbed in the abdomen and left for dead in Birmingham, England birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/pregnant-woman-stabbed-left-dead-4803310

Do you think that she should have run or maybe had a chat with her attacker in an attempt to get him to back off; or do you think that it would have been handy if she had been armed? In this case do you think that it would have changed the outcome? .

Do you really want to go down that route? Do you want me to, in turn, list examples of murders (many mass murders) that have occurred in the USA from the barrels of legally held firearms? Newtown Conecticut, Santa Monica, Columbine High… Do you think the outcome of these events would have changed if these legally held guns were not available?I could go on, but if you want to play that game… In fact more murders are committed in the USA by legally held firearms than by illegally held firearms.

Do you think that it would have been a good thing if the member of the UK military who was beheaded on the streets of London had had a gun? If memory serves, it took the police 20 minutes to arrive after the horrid incident.

Yes a member of the public may well have been able to kill the murderer, but the actual attack that killed the man was very fast.What would killing the attacker after the man was dead achieve? If someone walks up to you, pulls out a machete and takes one blow at your neck at close range and without warning, then carrying a gun will not save you, unless you’ve got it in your hand at the time, with the safety catch off, and just by chance happen to be pointing it at the person who attacks you by surprise and without warning with a lethal machete blow to the neck.

Can you show evidence of your claim that the USA is more dangerous than the UK due to privately owned firearms?

That is pretty easy to do (especially since the majority of gun killings in the USA were from legally obtained guns).
USA - Murders with firearms per 10,000 population - 3.6
UK - Murders with firearms per 10,000 population - 0.04

That means that a person is 90 times more likely to get murdered with a gun in the USA than in the UK.

Anyway most of this post is not relevant to the point of this thread.

The OP asked whether the Church has a position on gun control. The answer is clearly, “Yes” as the Church teaches that it is the right and duty of public authorities to regulate the manufacture and sales of arms.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How is this applicable to gun controls and regulations, as opposed to a total eradication of guns in the US? We seem to be discussing two different things. The bishops have not called for an eradication of ALL guns, and neither has any politician seriously put forth such a bill.

Nor have the bishops ever endorsed Obama’s failed bill, which you appear to present here as somehow being the bishops’ will. The full body of bishops in 2000 supported gun controls generally, with specific reference to cheap handguns on the street. Many gun laws and many bishops have changed since then.

In any event, even the 2000 statement is not morally binding on Catholics.

The bishops do not support Obama’s program, period, and it’s false to represent that they do.

If there are differences between what you espouse and Obama’s proposal, you can distinguish. But so far, it seems there are none.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Playing the statistics is like playing polls at election time. They can be skewed and misused. It isn’t complex to see the most recent ‘spurt’ of shootings for what they are, the guns chosen, and recognize we have a responsibility to act on the behalf of all society, through minor inconveniences to ourselves personally.

It would be interesting to see you empirically demonstrate a causal connection between the availability of particular kinds of guns and the motivation of criminally-minded or insane people to use them.

A few days ago a friend demonstrated, and I fired, an old (what? 60 years old?) M1 Garand; a massively more deadly rifle than the usual version (.223) of an AR-15 he also demonstrated at the time. Both have a “military look”. Both are semi-automatic. The only differences between them are that you can only load 8 shells into an M1 at a time (takes a couple of seconds because they are already in a casing) and that an M1 round would go through multiple people with ease while an AR-15 round would not likely do so. Also, the women present at the target shoot avoided the M1 but easily handled the AR-15.

Now, the standard load for an M1 is a lower-powered 30-06 round than what is used in a standard deer rifle.

So what, exactly, are you wanting to ban?

Of perhaps passing interest, the government itself has a program of selling surplus M1s to citizens, while Obama is trying to ban AR-15s. Clearly, Obama, who could stop the M1 program, has not chosen to do so, perhaps because it brings in money to the government. So it seems fairly plain his interest is in exploiting a tragedy in order to please a particular constituency, at least in part.

 

[SamH]

It would be interesting to see you empirically demonstrate a causal connection between the availability of particular kinds of guns and the motivation of criminally-minded or insane people to use them.

A few days ago a friend demonstrated, and I fired, an old (what? 60 years old?) M1 Garand; a massively more deadly rifle than the usual version (.223) of an AR-15 he also demonstrated at the time. Both have a “military look”. Both are semi-automatic. The only differences between them are that you can only load 8 shells into an M1 at a time (takes a couple of seconds because they are already in a casing) and that an M1 round would go through multiple people with ease while an AR-15 round would not likely do so. Also, the women present at the target shoot avoided the M1 but easily handled the AR-15.

Now, the standard load for an M1 is a lower-powered 30-06 round than what is used in a standard deer rifle.

So what, exactly, are you wanting to ban?

Of perhaps passing interest, the government itself has a program of selling surplus M1s to citizens, while Obama is trying to ban AR-15s. Clearly, Obama, who could stop the M1 program, has not chosen to do so, perhaps because it brings in money to the government. So it seems fairly plain his interest is in exploiting a tragedy in order to please a particular constituency, at least in part.

The AR15 is hardly a “new” or “cutting edge” design. Stoner designed it in the 1950s and has been sold to civilians since 1963. The Garand is about 15 years older.

 

[Fairwinds]

It would be interesting to see you empirically demonstrate a causal connection between the availability of particular kinds of guns and the motivation of criminally-minded or insane people to use them.

A few days ago a friend demonstrated, and I fired, an old (what? 60 years old?) M1 Garand; a massively more deadly rifle than the usual version (.223) of an AR-15 he also demonstrated at the time…

not massively more deadly, no.

any of those .30 caliber “battle rifles” like the M1 use a cartridge designed for a relatively clean through and through wound. the .223 or the military version 5.56mm is not a clean cartridge. the bullet rotates forward in a dense medium like flesh and then fragments on the crenelation line (where the brass is crimped into the bullet). the bullet fragments create a bigger and more lethal wound channel than does the .30 cal., which does not fragment or expand. google this, looking for demonstrations in ballistic gel, and this will become obvious.

 

[Ridgerunner]

not massively more deadly, no.

any of those .30 caliber “battle rifles” like the M1 use a cartridge designed for a relatively clean through and through wound. the .223 or the military version 5.56mm is not a clean cartridge. the bullet rotates forward in a dense medium like flesh and then fragments on the crenelation line (where the brass is crimped into the bullet). the bullet fragments create a bigger and more lethal wound channel than does the .30 cal., which does not fragment or expand. google this, looking for demonstrations in ballistic gel, and this will become obvious.

I’m not a ballistics expert, but it’s obvious the M1 round has a lot more shocking power than does a .223. It is also deadlier if shot into a crowd. Many are the times servicemen in WWII and Korea experienced killing more than one person with a single bullet.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nor have the bishops ever endorsed Obama’s failed bill, which you appear to present here as somehow being the bishops’ will. The full body of bishops in 2000 supported gun controls generally, with specific reference to cheap handguns on the street. Many gun laws and many bishops have changed since then.

In any event, even the 2000 statement is not morally binding on Catholics.

The bishops do not support Obama’s program, period, and it’s false to represent that they do.

If there are differences between what you espouse and Obama’s proposal, you can distinguish. But so far, it seems there are none.

The president of the USCCB, Cardinal Dolan, made a statement to the affect of ‘common ground.’ The Vatican chief spokesman stated something to the affect of ‘find agreement.’ And the three bishops, representing committees of the USCCB, made their calls in a time that coincides with the most recent tragedies.

The 2000 document was a call to all, without specifying any particular party. It seems important to some anti gun control advocates to make it political to a particular party for some reason. Why you continue to make the connection to this administration alone, as if you don’t recognize the call to all politicians, seems to have other motivations, in my opinion. I can only speculate, as I have explained the lack of a specific political calling from any of the men of the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It would be interesting to see you empirically demonstrate a causal connection between the availability of particular kinds of guns and the motivation of criminally-minded or insane people to use them.

A few days ago a friend demonstrated, and I fired, an old (what? 60 years old?) M1 Garand; a massively more deadly rifle than the usual version (.223) of an AR-15 he also demonstrated at the time. Both have a “military look”. Both are semi-automatic. The only differences between them are that you can only load 8 shells into an M1 at a time (takes a couple of seconds because they are already in a casing) and that an M1 round would go through multiple people with ease while an AR-15 round would not likely do so. Also, the women present at the target shoot avoided the M1 but easily handled the AR-15.

Now, the standard load for an M1 is a lower-powered 30-06 round than what is used in a standard deer rifle.

So what, exactly, are you wanting to ban?

Of perhaps passing interest, the government itself has a program of selling surplus M1s to citizens, while Obama is trying to ban AR-15s. Clearly, Obama, who could stop the M1 program, has not chosen to do so, perhaps because it brings in money to the government. So it seems fairly plain his interest is in exploiting a tragedy in order to please a particular constituency, at least in part.

The proof is in the most recent shooting sprees by those bent on as much destruction as possible. They all used the same type gun, that you specify in your post above. It seems we all know what weapons are proving to be problematic through an easy access, as the men of the Church have expressed needed controls over.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not a ballistics expert, but it’s obvious the M1 round has a lot more shocking power than does a .223. It is also deadlier if shot into a crowd. Many are the times servicemen in WWII and Korea experienced killing more than one person with a single bullet.

Then you agree a certain design might be the similar factor behind the mass shooter’s choice of weapon?

It seem to be a ‘look,’ or ‘feel,’ that draws some to this choice.

 

[Fairwinds]

I’m not a ballistics expert, but it’s obvious the M1 round has a lot more shocking power than does a .223. It is also deadlier if shot into a crowd. Many are the times servicemen in WWII and Korea experienced killing more than one person with a single bullet.

there’s more to it than that. the army made the decision to switch from the .30 caliber rifles to the 5.56mm based on tactics (fire and maneuver), how servicemen actually used the rifles in combat (less aimed fire, more spraying bullets), the increased number of cartridges a soldier could carry, actual combat distance (under 200 yards) and apparently, the destructiveness of fragmenting bullets vs a heavier bullet that goes through a target that is not, by convention, designed to expand.

if you’re shooting deer, use a .30 with an expanding bullet for its stopping power. if you’re fighting [your favorite enemy here], then the 5.56 is a better choice (for a rifle).

 

[SamH]

there’s more to it than that. the army made the decision to switch from the .30 caliber rifles to the 5.56mm based on tactics (fire and maneuver), how servicemen actually used the rifles in combat (less aimed fire, more spraying bullets), the increased number of cartridges a soldier could carry, actual combat distance (under 200 yards) and apparently, the destructiveness of fragmenting bullets vs a heavier bullet that goes through a target that is not, by convention, designed to expand.

if you’re shooting deer, use a .30 with an expanding bullet for its stopping power. if you’re fighting [your favorite enemy here], then the 5.56 is a better choice (for a rifle).

Except most of those decisions don’t apply. The 5.56 was never a “fragmenting” bullet. Its use in the military has always (until just recently) been with a metal jacket to prevent fragmentation. Only the latest MK 262 round is actually designed to fragment - its use is limited to special forces. The older M16s used a light rifle twist (1:14) that allowed the bullet to yaw upon striking the target while giving it “good enough” accuracy up to 400 yards while causing massive soft tissue damage as the small round keyholed through the target. Todays M4s rifles have an extremely tight rifle twist (1:7) and good accuracy up to 800 yards. The “yaw” effect is kept to a minimum and over penetration is common. Also gone are the full auto selectors - the selection is 1 round or 3 round bursts.

 

[Fairwinds]

Except most of those decisions don’t apply. The 5.56 was never a “fragmenting” bullet. Its use in the military has always (until just recently) been with a metal jacket to prevent fragmentation. Only the latest MK 262 round is actually designed to fragment - its use is limited to special forces. The older M16s used a light rifle twist (1:14) that allowed the bullet to yaw upon striking the target while giving it “good enough” accuracy up to 400 yards while causing massive soft tissue damage as the small round keyholed through the target. Todays M4s rifles have an extremely tight rifle twist (1:7) and good accuracy up to 800 yards. The “yaw” effect is kept to a minimum and over penetration is common. Also gone are the full auto selectors - the selection is 1 round or 3 round bursts.

except for this warning to the squeamish, very graphic photo series on 5.56 bullet fragmentation on a human target, I’ll pass on the technical debate.

my explanation for the change from .30 caliber to 5.56 remains valid: fire and maneuver tactics, combat range, lack of aimed fire, need to carry more ammunition.

I defer to the experts.

from Military Review there are similar studies.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The president of the USCCB, Cardinal Dolan, made a statement to the affect of ‘common ground.’ The Vatican chief spokesman stated something to the affect of ‘find agreement.’ And the three bishops, representing committees of the USCCB, made their calls in a time that coincides with the most recent tragedies.

The 2000 document was a call to all, without specifying any particular party. It seems important to some anti gun control advocates to make it political to a particular party for some reason. Why you continue to make the connection to this administration alone, as if you don’t recognize the call to all politicians, seems to have other motivations, in my opinion. I can only speculate, as I have explained the lack of a specific political calling from any of the men of the Church.

It’s political because it’s political. It is a legitimate function of government to make specific laws, or not to make them.

Cardinal Dolan said he would let the issue rest with the legislative body, and properly so, because it’s a political issue. The Congress turned down the measures you seem to want.

Three bishops who agreed with Obama do not constitute “the bishops of the U.S.” Far from it. Their statement is their opinion. Nothing more.

The 2000 statement of the bishops had no specifics in it. It just supported gun control generally in the context of talking about the availability on the street of cheap hanguns.
Even that statement is not binding in conscience for Catholics as it does not meet the Canon Law requirements for that.

Since 2000, lots of gun laws have been passed. Since 2000, none of the 500+ bishops in the U.S. have advocated any specific gun laws other than Bp. Blaire and the other two who agreed with him. None other have agreed with the Obama proposals you espouse but will not defend. Not in 2000, and not now. You can’t use the 2000 statement to support Obama’s now-dead proposal.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then you agree a certain design might be the similar factor behind the mass shooter’s choice of weapon?

It seem to be a ‘look,’ or ‘feel,’ that draws some to this choice.

Not necessarily. It could simply be that the mass shooters hear or read all the wailing about guns that resemble modern military weapons and, being “spectacle killers” pick up on that to enhance the spectacle effect. If so, all the politically-motivated complaints about rifles like the AR-15 are the big factor in their choice of weapons, and those who go on and on about them in the public forum are complicit in the choice.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s political because it’s political. It is a legitimate function of government to make specific laws, or not to make them.

Cardinal Dolan said he would let the issue rest with the legislative body, and properly so, because it’s a political issue. The Congress turned down the measures you seem to want.

Three bishops who agreed with Obama do not constitute “the bishops of the U.S.” Far from it. Their statement is their opinion. Nothing more.

The 2000 statement of the bishops had no specifics in it. It just supported gun control generally in the context of talking about the availability on the street of cheap hanguns.
Even that statement is not binding in conscience for Catholics as it does not meet the Canon Law requirements for that.

Since 2000, lots of gun laws have been passed. Since 2000, none of the 500+ bishops in the U.S. have advocated any specific gun laws other than Bp. Blaire and the other two who agreed with him. None other have agreed with the Obama proposals you espouse but will not defend. Not in 2000, and not now. You can’t use the 2000 statement to support Obama’s now-dead proposal.

As Christians, we have obligations to society. The men of the Church speak on the dignity of life lost due to an easy access to guns. That’s guidance on how to live in a secular world, or political if you prefer. Make it political all you want, the facts are the calls have existed through the administrations under both major political parties, and went to ALL Americans, especially legislators, without specifying a single party.

I’m not going to argue the numbers of bishops with you anymore. You take a ‘closed eye’ view, and it seems for the interest you have on the issue. The men of the Church are united. That’s easy to see because no one can meet the challenge to produce one bishop to speak in opposition, or clarification, of what those who speak have said. We have to give the men of the Church credit enough to realize what is being said on their behalf, from committees in their own ranks. The 2000 document had approval from a FULL BODY OF BISHOPS. I know, I’ve seen you attempt to minimize that with, ‘not all those bishops are serving anymore.’ Calls on behalf the dignity of life for all do not change.

There was not this much unity when the ‘political’ debates raged, speaking on the Church guidance of how Catholics are to vote. There was no majority, as you require on this issue, yet people grabbed the few snippets of anyone they personally agreed with and obligated all they spoke to as ‘from the Church.’ Again, this is for political interests, or so it seems.

Anyone can read all the documents for themselves. They are all on the USCCB website.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not necessarily. It could simply be that the mass shooters hear or read all the wailing about guns that resemble modern military weapons and, being “spectacle killers” pick up on that to enhance the spectacle effect. If so, all the politically-motivated complaints about rifles like the AR-15 are the big factor in their choice of weapons, and those who go on and on about them in the public forum are complicit in the choice.

So, recognition of facts is not being complicit? Right…

 

[Fairwinds]

Then you agree a certain design might be the similar factor behind the mass shooter’s choice of weapon?

It seem to be a ‘look,’ or ‘feel,’ that draws some to this choice.

this analysis, hardly a friend of the second amendment, notes:

By far the most common weapons used in these cases [mass murder cases] are semi-automatic handguns

not AR 15 or knockoffs.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As Christians, we have obligations to society. The men of the Church speak on the dignity of life lost due to an easy access to guns. That’s guidance on how to live in a secular world, or political if you prefer. Make it political all you want, the facts are the calls have existed through the administrations under both major political parties, and went to ALL Americans, especially legislators, without specifying a single party.

I’m not going to argue the numbers of bishops with you anymore. You take a ‘closed eye’ view, and it seems for the interest you have on the issue. The men of the Church are united. That’s easy to see because no one can meet the challenge to produce one bishop to speak in opposition, or clarification, of what those who speak have said. We have to give the men of the Church credit enough to realize what is being said on their behalf, from committees in their own ranks. The 2000 document had approval from a FULL BODY OF BISHOPS. I know, I’ve seen you attempt to minimize that with, ‘not all those bishops are serving anymore.’ Calls on behalf the dignity of life for all do not change.

There was not this much unity when the ‘political’ debates raged, speaking on the Church guidance of how Catholics are to vote. There was no majority, as you require on this issue, yet people grabbed the few snippets of anyone they personally agreed with and obligated all they spoke to as ‘from the Church.’ Again, this is for political interests, or so it seems.

Anyone can read all the documents for themselves. They are all on the USCCB website.

So, you’re basically saying that all but three of the 500+ bishops in the U.S. are derelict in their duty by not speaking out in favor of what you characterize as an important moral imperative.