Does the Catholic Church have a position on gun control?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi LS
You write: From my point of view, it’s not a situation that will be resolved with anecdotal evidence at all.

Me: Will you at least acknowledge that my anecdotal evidence beats your “Nigerian scammers and Marijuana” non non sequiturs?

Regarding the man who massacred those people in Port Arthur; it seems that he was mentally unstable. A member of my family is unstable and is periodically suicidal. There is no way this person would ever have access to our guns. We have a gun safe that this person won’t get near let alone be told the combination. I believe that if a person has ever been suicidal or homicidal, that fact should go on his/her record for life and the person should not be allowed to own a gun also guns in the homes the person visits should be locked away.

You write: Police always advise after every crime report, not to play hero in these situations. Normally, the gun is being used to intimidate and subdue a victim… not to kill them and life is more important than goods

Me: Hero? I wonder how they would define the seasoned citizen who confronted a man breaking into her home. If your mom was home alone one day and someone broke in what would you have her do? Should she just hope that the person is after only her goods? A policeman of my acquaintance was the first responding officer to a home invasion robbery. The victim was an older lady with gray hair. She was laying face down lifeless. She looked for all the world like his mom from the back. This officer was granted leave for a few days to come to grips with this. I’m thinking that he wished that lady had a gun.

I find it interesting that the Australians are counting on their thugs to ONLY intimidate and subdue the victims of their society.

Here are some statistics regarding the gun issue in the USA:

Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”

Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Annie
 
I was thinking about how different communities respond differently to gun violence. This article looks back on the 1996 school massacre in Dunblane, Scotland:
Connecticut shootings: The lessons from Dunblane (from BBC Magazine)
Sixteen children, ages 5 to 6, and one teacher were killed. The gunman also killed himself. Fifteen others were injured. To make a long story short, it led to stricter gun control measures in the UK.

Here is a clip from the article which I find interesting:
In Scotland, the link between the availability of guns and the number of people shot dead every year is accepted. Since Dunblane, the public have remained firmly in favour of keeping firearms out of private hands.
This year, five people have been killed by guns in Scotland [as of 15 Jan 2013]. That’s in line with the rest of the UK per head of population and a death rate 50 times lower than in the United States.
In other words, the people support gun control, and it’s working.

In the US, our gun control policy is driven by fear; in the UK, by hope. Praise God! Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
 
I was thinking about how different communities respond differently to gun violence. This article looks back on the 1996 school massacre in Dunblane, Scotland:
Connecticut shootings: The lessons from Dunblane (from BBC Magazine)
Sixteen children, ages 5 to 6, and one teacher were killed. The gunman also killed himself. Fifteen others were injured. To make a long story short, it led to stricter gun control measures in the UK.

Here is a clip from the article which I find interesting:

In other words, the people support gun control, and it’s working.

In the US, our gun control policy is driven by fear; in the UK, by hope. Praise God! Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
below is the most important apparently Bobbies are losing the battle against criminals who have guns. Bobbies for the first time wear body armor. Listen to the end especially regarding Tony Martin.

youtube.com/watch?v=GfTzPfdzFBY

youtube.com/watch?v=j5-uQuv-QEg

I’m posting the url below with reluctance because some of the comments use terribly foul language.

youtube.com/watch?v=O6f-xQ_dcX8&NR=1&feature=endscreen

youtube.com/watch?v=GfTzPfdzFBY
 
below is the most important apparently Bobbies are losing the battle against criminals who have guns. Bobbies for the first time wear body armor. Listen to the end especially regarding Tony Martin.
First video, part one: People marching in the streets for the right to… hunt fox? Oh, yeah, give up sport hunting and that’ll be the end of civilization as we know it.

First video, part two: Why all the sympathy for Tony Martin, who shot at two unarmed criminals and killed one of them? I happen to think he used excessive force.

Second video: No substance. Commentary, opinion, hot air. Fear.

Third video: I only watched the first minute or two which tells of gang vs. gang killing. How would a more liberal gun policy have changed that? Most likely, it would have resulted in many more gangland (and other) shootings.

I think the Brits are doing all right with their stricter gun controls and lower gun violence than the USA.
 
The message I am getting from this article (and one of the youtube videos you posted earlier) is that gun violence has not been reduced to zero in strict gun-controlled societies. Well, nobody could realistically expect zero. There will always be exceptions to the rule, and there will always be some guns. What I am saying is that they have lower, and I mean much, much lower gun death rates.

A second message I am getting is that one can always find dissenting opinions. That’s just what they are: opinions. If some Aussie or Brit says “Americans, don’t repeat our gun control mistakes,” I think that person has taken leave of his senses. Honestly, I cannot take that opinion seriously. Take a look at the data:

United States: 3.60 homicides per 100,000 (in 2011)
Australia: 0.13 (in 2010)
United Kingdom: 0.04 (in 2010)

So tell me, which country has made the mistake?

(gun death rates from wikipedia: List of countries by firearm-related death rate)
 
First video, part one: People marching in the streets for the right to… hunt fox? Oh, yeah, give up sport hunting and that’ll be the end of civilization as we know it.

First video, part two: Why all the sympathy for Tony Martin, who shot at two unarmed criminals and killed one of them? I happen to think he used excessive force.

Second video: No substance. Commentary, opinion, hot air. Fear.

Third video: I only watched the first minute or two which tells of gang vs. gang killing. How would a more liberal gun policy have changed that? Most likely, it would have resulted in many more gangland (and other) shootings.

I think the Brits are doing all right with their stricter gun controls and lower gun violence than the USA.
What would you have had Mr. Martin do? What do you think that I should do if something happened to me? Something did recently BTW a man tried to get into my car while I was sitting in it in the parking lot of a grocery store. Screaming helped in that case. What if he had attempted to break into my house when I was alone? I will be 70 one my next b/day. Screaming would do no good, my neighbors are too far away or at work to hear me.
I’d like to know how you would have handled the situation if you were in Mr. Martin’s place? He lived on a farm where no one could hear him. Did you listen to the entire video? The Bobbies do not believe they can deal with this. As for the thugs killing thugs. The point is if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. I have c/p’d a part of it below the url.
Below is an article that explains how gun control is working out for the law abiding citizens the UK

examiner.com/article/defenseless-british-citizens-are-attacked-their-own-homes-by-violent-burglars-every-30-minutesc

A millionaire businessman has been jailed for attacking a man who held his family hostage in their own home – while the criminal went free. Munir Hussain, who was threatened at knifepoint and tied up by a gang of masked men in his living room last year, was told he must go to prison for 30 months to preserve “civilised society”. But Walid Salem, a criminal with more than 50 convictions, was handed a two-year supervision order for his role in the break-in at an earlier hearing. He was one of three men who ambushed Mr Hussain, his wife and children as they returned to their home in High Wycombe, Bucks, on Sept 3 last year after attending Ramadan prayers at their local mosque, Reading Crown Court heard. Their hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room before being forced to lie down in the living room. But when Hussain’s teenage son managed to escape and raise the alarm, he seized his chance and turned on his captors. . . The brothers were found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent by a jury in September. Sentencing, Judge John Reddihough told them it was his “public duty” to jailing Munir Hussain for 30 months and his brother for 39 months. . .
 
The URL you posted above seems to be defective; here is the correct one:
Examiner.com: Defenseless British citizens are attacked in their own homes by violent burglars every 30 Minutes


I always seek the truth, and something about this article seemed less than truthful. Why would these men go to jail just for defending themselves in a home invasion? The British justice system isn’t that unfair. I followed a link in the article to get more information:

The Telegraph: Businessman jailed for attacking intruder - who goes free

What I find is that the first article left out key details that explain the charges: The man whose home was invaded went a bit further than self-defense, pursuing one of his attackers down the street, and, with the help of his brother who was not involved in the home invasion, “set upon him with a metal pole and a cricket bat… He was struck so hard that the bat broke and he suffered a fractured skull.” I think this might be another case of excessive force.

I hope that you live in peace, never to be threatened or harmed by malicious people. I do not know how to answer all your “what if” questions. If someone attacked me or my family, and I felt that the threat persisted and that the police would not be able to help, and I did not have the time to consider the alternatives, perhaps I would take the law into my own hands. But that is just a “what-if” scenario. At this point in time, it is not real life, but only an unhealthy fantasy, and not an acceptable excuse for me to get a gun.

Now I must rest my case. I can write more, but what’s the use? Have I changed your mind? Didn’t think so.

Wait a second… one more thought. For those who are looking for a glimmer of hope in today’s violent world, read this book: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, by Steven Pinker.
You can look it up here on Amazon
or read this review in the Wall Street Journal
or read this lengthy Q&A with the author.

God bless us, every one.
 
That paragraph, as I understand it, is written with respect to the international arms trade which supplies such as the Syrian rebels. As usual, the Ominstration has apparently read this paragraph, and consistent with their treatment of the Catholic Church, has agreed to arm the Al Qaeda Syrians.
You are incorrect there. That paragraph does not make any such distinction. It applies to the sales of arms in general. Don’t make the mistake of interpreting Church teachings in the light of your own political viewpoint.

Public authorities have not just the right, but a duty to regulate the sales of arms (not just internationally). That is the teaching of our Church.
 
You are incorrect there. That paragraph does not make any such distinction. It applies to the sales of arms in general. Don’t make the mistake of interpreting Church teachings in the light of your own political viewpoint.

Public authorities have not just the right, but a duty to regulate the sales of arms (not just internationally). That is the teaching of our Church.
👍
 
You are incorrect there. That paragraph does not make any such distinction. It applies to the sales of arms in general. Don’t make the mistake of interpreting Church teachings in the light of your own political viewpoint.

Public authorities have not just the right, but a duty to regulate the sales of arms (not just internationally). That is the teaching of our Church.
That is quite true. But I am unaware of a single country where the Catholic Church operates in any great numbers where the sale of guns are NOT regulated.

I doubt anyone would claim that neither Ireland, the UK, Canada nor the United States has no firearms regulations.

Ergo, the teachings of our Church are thus fulfilled in all of those countries.

There might be some African or Middle Eastern countries where no firearms sales regulations exist, but not anywhere else (to my knowledge)

Do you have information to the contrary?
 
That is quite true. But I am unaware of a single country where the Catholic Church operates in any great numbers where the sale of guns are NOT regulated.

I doubt anyone would claim that neither Ireland, the UK, Canada nor the United States has no firearms regulations.

Ergo, the teachings of our Church are thus fulfilled in all of those countries.

There might be some African or Middle Eastern countries where no firearms sales regulations exist, but not anywhere else (to my knowledge)

Do you have information to the contrary?
The teaching have not been fulfilled, as there is no completion in the teaching. Regulations are an ongoing process, according to the authorities recognition of ineffective measures, evident by the harm suffered by society.
To claim completion places the men of the Church in an odd position when they speak out in support of further measures.
The teaching should be above sarcastic witticisms. :rolleyes:
 
The teaching have not been fulfilled, as there is no completion in the teaching. Regulations are an ongoing process, according to the authorities recognition of ineffective measures, evident by the harm suffered by society.
To claim completion places the men of the Church in an odd position when they speak out in support of further measures.
The teaching should be above sarcastic witticisms. :rolleyes:
But the point that you bolded

“Public authorities have not just the right, but a duty to regulate the sales of arms (not just internationally). That is the teaching of our Church.”

Has been fulfilled. Can you name a single country with a substantial Catholic presence where there are no regulations on the sale of arms?

That was the item that you seemed to agree with, was it not?
 
But the point that you bolded

“Public authorities have not just the right, but a duty to regulate the sales of arms (not just internationally). That is the teaching of our Church.”

Has been fulfilled. Can you name a single country with a substantial Catholic presence where there are no regulations on the sale of arms?

That was the item that you seemed to agree with, was it not?
A duty to regulate is not complete, and allows further regulations, as seen proper by those public authorities. The men of the Church have been calling for more regulations, from our public authorities, for a number of years now. That I agree with, and they don’t seek to use witticisms to make a point.
 
To argue regulations are already in place puts other more important issues at risk, because we already have regulations on those issues; yet we seek new regulations, as we should. There is no set standard in the duty to regulate, considering changing times and technologies.
 
That is quite true. But I am unaware of a single country where the Catholic Church operates in any great numbers where the sale of guns are NOT regulated.

I doubt anyone would claim that neither Ireland, the UK, Canada nor the United States has no firearms regulations.

Ergo, the teachings of our Church are thus fulfilled in all of those countries.

There might be some African or Middle Eastern countries where no firearms sales regulations exist, but not anywhere else (to my knowledge)

Do you have information to the contrary?
I was simply replying to po18guy, who claimed that the Church’s teaching on the regulation of gun control only applied to international arms trading (to Syrian rebels etc.) and not to domestic sales, that this narrow interpretation is not what is meant by our Church’s teaching. The teaching of our Church should not be interpreted in the light of one’s own political viewpoint (which is looking at things upside down).

I wasn’t making any point about the level of gun control that our Church teaches that a government should apply, I was simply pointing out that our Church teaches that there should be gun control, and indeed that it is the duty of governments to regulate the use of guns.
 
A duty to regulate is not complete, and allows further regulations, as seen proper by those public authorities. The men of the Church have been calling for more regulations, from our public authorities, for a number of years now. That I agree with, and they don’t seek to use witticisms to make a point.
One problem with this debate is that the terms are being so loosely used they mean different things to different people. What, for example, does “gun control” mean? Does not every regulation constitute some sort of control so isn’t it technically correct to say that gun controls already exist universally? Is the real issue here the international sale of arms between countries or the ownership of firearms by individuals, because there will be almost no common argument between them? Finally, the difference between the opinions of “the men of the church” and the truths contained in the doctrines of the church needs to be clearly understood. The former are prudential judgments and do not require our assent while the latter are eternal truths which do require it.

On the question of the church’s doctrine regarding the private ownership of firearms we can say at least this: there is no doctrine that forbids it. The church is concerned not with whether someone owns a weapon but with why a person owns it.For example, if there be no law prohibiting the carrying of weapons, the carrying of weapons will be evil for him who is easily provoked to anger, and who has enemies whom he desires to kill; but it will not be evil for a peaceable man, who only desires to defend himself. (St. Robert Bellarmine)
Ender
 
One problem with this debate is that the terms are being so loosely used they mean different things to different people. What, for example, does “gun control” mean? Does not every regulation constitute some sort of control so isn’t it technically correct to say that gun controls already exist universally? Is the real issue here the international sale of arms between countries or the ownership of firearms by individuals, because there will be almost no common argument between them? Finally, the difference between the opinions of “the men of the church” and the truths contained in the doctrines of the church needs to be clearly understood. The former are prudential judgments and do not require our assent while the latter are eternal truths which do require it.

On the question of the church’s doctrine regarding the private ownership of firearms we can say at least this: there is no doctrine that forbids it. The church is concerned not with whether someone owns a weapon but with why a person owns it.For example, if there be no law prohibiting the carrying of weapons, the carrying of weapons will be evil for him who is easily provoked to anger, and who has enemies whom he desires to kill; but it will not be evil for a peaceable man, who only desires to defend himself. (St. Robert Bellarmine)
Ender
The men of the Church offer prudential judgements on teaching listed in the Catechism?

Do you think the regulation requiring a conceal permit goes against the quote from St. Bellarmine? No, it’s not. He said, ‘If there be no law…’ He was not speaking against regulations, and his comments don’t address, ‘if there is a law…’

Just as St. Bellarmine was chosen by the Holy Spirit, the men of the Church today are Holy Spirit chosen. Where is the statement from any man of the Church in current times that opposes gun controls, or even more gun controls? There are none.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top