Does the Catholic Church have a position on gun control?

[Annie39]

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.

I’m actually amazed that you think that justice was served when the attacker went free and the victims were imprisoned. Since I deal in logic rather than feelings I would be open to a discussion about whether or not the victims pursuing the thug could be considered vigilante justice. But…the thug went free. I’m willing to bet that if one of your children was harmed and you had a bat nearby the thug in your case might meet a similar fate as the thug in the story. Perhaps it would be just (maybe) that the two men should be punished somewhat. But the thug caused their adrenaline to skyrocket when their family was hurt. The jerk GOT OFF.

If you remember I said that someone already tried to get into my car. I was defenseless except screaming worked this time. When I was younger a man tried to kidnap me. A man behind the counter at the post office where this happened foiled his plan.

Do you remember the “night stalker” in Los Angeles, CA? The public finally caught him and they beat the daylights out of him before the police could get there. Nothing happened to those men. We weren’t such wusses back then.

You write: . 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 handsc

Wow if someone attacked a child of yours you would just let it slide. You know, when seconds count the police are just minutes away.

Well, I know that you didn’t want to carry this discussion on any longer and the discussion seems to have taken another course anyway so I would have acquiesced to that request if you hadn’t recommend that book by Steven Pinker, an evolutionist who may or may not be a member of the Freedom from Religion Foundation but he was written up on their blog where he said that he was a proud atheist. He believes, like all evolutionists I know of, that we are evolving from lower species to higher. He believes that over the last hundred years violence has declined. I wonder if he was referring to violence on some other planet. Or maybe he is ignorant of the history of the last hundred years of people like Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Planned Parenthood or NHRAL.
It makes little sense for a catholic to recommend a book like that. It IMHO it isn’t logical. I can recommend the books as Plato’s REPUBLIC and Thomas Aquinas’ works. Also a beginner’s course in logic would be helpful.

Annie

 

[LongingSoul]

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)

Since the stricter gun controls came in in 1997, the rate of gun deaths has significantly decreased. There was another amnesty in 2004 where people could hand back illegally owned guns without prosecution and again earlier this year (in Queensland at least).

In Australia, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2010: 236
2009: 227
2008: 232
2007: 237
2006: 246
2005: 212
2004: 234
2003: 287
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685

In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 1.06
2009: 1.04
2008: 1.08
2007: 1.12
2006: 1.19
2005: 1.04
2004: 1.16
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

The laws passed in 1997 were under the conservative government and received bipartisan support. This was a stance that first and foremost targeted a whole mentality and was never going to be or ever will be popular with the ‘guns save lives’ crowd. Their argument, similar to the ‘kids are going to have sex regardless, so we should provide them condoms’ argument… gives tacit approval to lethally defend, dependent on my own standards and perspectives, rather than restricting the ‘license to kill’ to the legitimate authorities.

There is a bigger picture than anyone persons anecdotes and the actual death by firearms figures make the best case for gun control for the purposes of my argument.

 

[Annie39]

Since the stricter gun controls came in in 1997, the rate of gun deaths has significantly decreased. There was another amnesty in 2004 where people could hand back illegally owned guns without prosecution and again earlier this year (in Queensland at least).

In Australia, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2010: 236
2009: 227
2008: 232
2007: 237
2006: 246
2005: 212
2004: 234
2003: 287
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685

In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 1.06
2009: 1.04
2008: 1.08
2007: 1.12
2006: 1.19
2005: 1.04
2004: 1.16
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

The laws passed in 1997 were under the conservative government and received bipartisan support. This was a stance that first and foremost targeted a whole mentality and was never going to be or ever will be popular with the ‘guns save lives’ crowd. Their argument, similar to the ‘kids are going to have sex regardless, so we should provide them condoms’ argument… gives tacit approval to lethally defend, dependent on my own standards and perspectives, rather than restricting the ‘license to kill’ to the legitimate authorities.

There is a bigger picture than anyone persons anecdotes and the actual death by firearms figures make the best case for gun control for the purposes of my argument.

Would you explain to me how “provide them condoms argument” is not a non sequitur? Let’s see… that would work IMHO if we would say “provide them with guns because they are going to shoot anyway.”

I’m very suspicious of any statistics on either side. I just read some statistics on the side of the people who want no gun control. I don’t plan to post them. Frankly I think that real life anecdotal arguments are at least as valid as statistics. I know that I’m safer having a means of self defense in my home. I cannot imagine how taking away the means of self protection from me would make the country safer. No one but no one is in danger of aggressive behavior from me. I simply cannot imagine the thugs turning in their weapons. Check out our cities here in the USA that have the most crime. Chicago, Illinois and the District of Columbia called Washington D.C. They have the strongest gun control laws on the books. People will say that is because they go to another state to get those guns. Maybe but they don’t buy them legally.

Our country borders Mexico. In fact from my house we could drive to Mexico (Tijuana) in about an 1 ¼ hrs. The border between the two countries is quite porous. If you don’t know about the high crime rate using guns in Mexico please look it up. BTW Mexico has strict gun control laws. Switzerland has a low crime rate and most citizens own guns they have no gun control laws.

I’m willing to concede one thing. It is possible that gun control may have helped drop suicide rates. That opinion comes from some personal knowledge; anecdotal if you will. There is a person in my life that is from time to time suicidal. She lives in a state where she can walk in a store and walk out with a gun. One of the times she felt suicidal, she hopped on a plane and flew here without telling anyone including me. She just showed up at my door. The reason she came here is that it takes 10 days to get a gun here. This person is still periodically suicidal. Maybe she’ll make it sometime. I AM for stricter background checks and a waiting period. It would stop the person in question from buying a gun. But as we know there are other ways of doing it. She once thought of driving her car into a freeway structure.

Annie

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Would you explain to me how “provide them condoms argument” is not a non sequitur? Let’s see… that would work IMHO if we would say “provide them with guns because they are going to shoot anyway.”

I’m very suspicious of any statistics on either side. I just read some statistics on the side of the people who want no gun control. I don’t plan to post them. Frankly I think that real life anecdotal arguments are at least as valid as statistics. I know that I’m safer having a means of self defense in my home. I cannot imagine how taking away the means of self protection from me would make the country safer. No one but no one is in danger of aggressive behavior from me. I simply cannot imagine the thugs turning in their weapons. Check out our cities here in the USA that have the most crime. Chicago, Illinois and the District of Columbia called Washington D.C. They have the strongest gun control laws on the books. People will say that is because they go to another state to get those guns. Maybe but they don’t buy them legally.

Our country borders Mexico. In fact from my house we could drive to Mexico (Tijuana) in about an 1 ¼ hrs. The border between the two countries is quite porous. If you don’t know about the high crime rate using guns in Mexico please look it up. BTW Mexico has strict gun control laws. Switzerland has a low crime rate and most citizens own guns they have no gun control laws.

I’m willing to concede one thing. It is possible that gun control may have helped drop suicide rates. That opinion comes from some personal knowledge; anecdotal if you will. There is a person in my life that is from time to time suicidal. She lives in a state where she can walk in a store and walk out with a gun. One of the times she felt suicidal, she hopped on a plane and flew here without telling anyone including me. She just showed up at my door. The reason she came here is that it takes 10 days to get a gun here. This person is still periodically suicidal. Maybe she’ll make it sometime. I AM for stricter background checks and a waiting period. It would stop the person in question from buying a gun. But as we know there are other ways of doing it. She once thought of driving her car into a freeway structure.

Annie

Switzerland is not a good example, as it’s military issues guns that are kept in the private homes of those serving.

 

[Annie39]

Switzerland is not a good example, as it’s military issues guns that are kept in the private homes of those serving.

They also keep their guns after they serve. Citizens are not ordered to arm themselves but they are encouraged to do so. I don’t understand why you would say that they keep their guns in their private homes. Ours are kept in our home as well unless we take them to a shooting range where we shoot at targets.

I’m not sure that we can compare different countries. There seems to be some difference in the citizens that I don’t know how to explain. I don’t know any Swiss people; not even an American with Swiss heritage that I’m aware of. I have known Australians in my life. To a person they were nice, respectful and fun to be around. But I understand that Australians are like people here. Many of them are descendants of Anglo-Saxons. I’m not but many of my countrymen are.

Annie

 

[Ender]

The men of the Church offer prudential judgements on teaching listed in the Catechism?

Yes, of course.

Do you think the regulation requiring a conceal permit goes against the quote from St. Bellarmine?

No, but that’s not the issue. The question is not whether church doctrine prohibits regulations restricting private ownership of firearms but whether her doctrines require it, and the answer to that question is also no.

Just as St. Bellarmine was chosen by the Holy Spirit, the men of the Church today are Holy Spirit chosen.

Bellarmine was discussing doctrine, not its application. The “men of the church today” are opining about application, not doctrine.

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.

Whatever, this point is irrelevant.

Ender

 

[Ender]

There is a bigger picture than anyone persons anecdotes and the actual death by firearms figures make the best case for gun control for the purposes of my argument.

There may be a factual argument to make in favor of stricter gun regulations but that is not a moral argument and the factual case is not one the church or her bishops are competent to make. This at least is the appropriate type of argument to make; there is certainly no moral objection one can draw from church doctrines.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

There may be a factual argument to make in favor of stricter gun regulations but that is not a moral argument and the factual case is not one the church or her bishops are competent to make. This at least is the appropriate type of argument to make; there is certainly no moral objection one can draw from church doctrines.

Ender

I don’t particular draw from Church doctrine in defending gun control myself. I think guns are an important tool of legitimate defense by legitimate authority who are commissioned to use lethal force where necessary. I even think it’s normal and natural for lads to be drawn to guns from a ‘call’ of some sort. I think that ‘call’ should be avidly cultivated and treated with respect in guiding lads (and some girls I guess), to serve an honourable and respected role in societies defense.

I fully believe that to give over that commission to everyone, is to disrespect its true role in society and disrespect those rightly enrolled into that commission, like the police and military.

Still at the end of the day, the safety and wellbeing of society has to determine how guns will serve that end. In Australia coppers carry guns routinely but mostly use taser to subdue if possible. In England, coppers on the beat don’t carry guns at all. The safety and wellbeing of citizens ultimately has to determine when and how to utilise this special commission.

 

[LongingSoul]

Would you explain to me how “provide them condoms argument” is not a non sequitur? Let’s see… that would work IMHO if we would say “provide them with guns because they are going to shoot anyway.”

The argument goes ‘there is going to be gun crime in society, so might as well make guns available on mass for protection purposes.’ That’s the justification for providing condoms in schools.
Public policy becomes grounded in ‘pre-marital sex is inevitable’ rather than ‘ pre-marital abstinence is the focus of our energy and resources”. Gun crime should be seen as a treatable problem, not an inevitable part of a normal life. It’s a stark mentality difference and affects the quality of people’s lives. When 4 in 100,000 people are annually killed by a gun, is it justifiable that the other 99,996 citizens should assume its inevitability going to visit upon them? That’s what a gun at the ready is saying. Having the guns at the ready actually puts more guns into the equation. Increased gun crime is inevitable and statistics show it.

Mexico seems to have an inordinately high number of criminals and crime revenue via drugs according to some googling. I think its fair to assume that gun control is probably limiting what could well be a complete domination of society by drug cartels. Western countries like England, Australia and New Zealand are probably closer to the environment and legal standards of the US than a place like Mexico for the purposes of comparison.

 

[Annie39]

The argument goes ‘there is going to be gun crime in society, so might as well make guns available on mass for protection purposes.’ That’s the justification for providing condoms in schools.
Public policy becomes grounded in ‘pre-marital sex is inevitable’ rather than ‘ pre-marital abstinence is the focus of our energy and resources”. Gun crime should be seen as a treatable problem, not an inevitable part of a normal life. It’s a stark mentality difference and affects the quality of people’s lives. When 4 in 100,000 people are annually killed by a gun, is it justifiable that the other 99,996 citizens should assume its inevitability going to visit upon them? That’s what a gun at the ready is saying. Having the guns at the ready actually puts more guns into the equation. Increased gun crime is inevitable and statistics show it.

Mexico seems to have an inordinately high number of criminals and crime revenue via drugs according to some googling. I think its fair to assume that gun control is probably limiting what could well be a complete domination of society by drug cartels. Western countries like England, Australia and New Zealand are probably closer to the environment and legal standards of the US than a place like Mexico for the purposes of comparison.

I DO see gun crime as a treatable problem. We need to spread the Faith. Turn their hearts towards The Lord. If their hearts are not changed this will continue. As a person who once was able to visit Mexico as a tourist I can tell you that the environment before the drug cartels took over was fantastic. They have wonderful traditions which for the most part came from Spain. My hairdresser a very wonderful lady holds dual citizenship US and Mexico. My son nearly married a Mexican national. I guarantee you they were more continental than the Australians that I once knew. Twice before I wrote that I never met an Australian that I didn’t like but compared to the Mexicans I know (two medical doctors among them) Australians are more errr earthy. You have much to be proud of in the kind way Australians, at least those I knew presented themselves but they are not more civilized than the Mexicans of my acquaintance.

Back to my hairdresser. She comes from a town in Mexico where a man she went to school with was murdered by the cartel. I don’t know why he could not have been given a fighting chance by being armed.

This will be my last post on this subject. But I leave you with this foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/26/fox-news-hosts-debate-gun-control-after-nj-mom-attacked-her-home

The man left the room TWICE I absolutely promise you that I would have gotten to my gun after he left once if my gun didn’t greet him on the way in.

Annie

 

[Beryllos]

Well, I know that you didn’t want to carry this discussion on any longer and the discussion seems to have taken another course anyway so I would have acquiesced to that request if you hadn’t recommend that book by Steven Pinker…
… evolutionist…
… atheist…
… some other planet…
It makes little sense for a catholic to recommend a book like that. It IMHO it isn’t logical. I can recommend the books as Plato’s REPUBLIC and Thomas Aquinas’ works. Also a beginner’s course in logic would be helpful.

Okay, we could talk about philosophy. Tell me, if an atheist speaks the truth, does that make it a lie? I can well judge Pinker’s book because I have actually read it. If you do not care to read it, please at least find yourself a good Catholic-oriented book review (and feel free to post me a link) before passing judgement. I regard the book as a historical/sociological study.

Popular wisdom informs you that violence is on the rise. A careful examination of the data informs us otherwise. Popular wisdom has it that we are safer with guns. Mortality records of the US vs. UK or Australia tell otherwise. I am surprised that some smart-alec hasn’t already tried to put me or LongingSoul down with the old saying “…lies, damned lies, and statistics.” (Most folks “know” that Mark Twain first said that. Other folks attribute it to Benjamin Disraeli. In truth, the origin is more obscure.)

I offer another quotation, to all those who disregard objective data and follow their gut feeling. This is attributed to Charles Babbage:

“Errors using inadequate data are much less than those using no data at all.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, of course.
No, but that’s not the issue. The question is not whether church doctrine prohibits regulations restricting private ownership of firearms but whether her doctrines require it, and the answer to that question is also no.
Bellarmine was discussing doctrine, not its application. The “men of the church today” are opining about application, not doctrine.
Whatever, this point is irrelevant.

Ender

The Church does not prohibit owning a gun, just as the Church doesn’t prohibit drinking alcohol. The Church does support responsibility, especially when issue affects a dignity of life.

The men of the Church today are no more ‘opining’ than Bellarmine is. Today’s men of the Church speak on and reference what’s in the Catechism to support what they say. Are we at liberty to ignore certain parts of the Catechism as we see fit, or as it disagrees with our personal view? It’s in self interest that people place closed ends on certain parts of the Catechism, and placing guidance from the men of the Church as prudential judgments. It’s a mockery of what is written, and the position of the men of the Church on what is written, in my opinion.

That no men of the Church speaks against gun controls is most relevant, it shows unity on an issue. It’s one thing to disagree with a man of the Church, it’s another to have no support of any men of the Church to do so.

 

[Ender]

The Church does not prohibit owning a gun…

Well there you have it: this is the church’s position on gun control.

The men of the Church today are no more ‘opining’ than Bellarmine is.

Bellarmine was speaking about church doctrine as it related to the ownership of weapons. The “men of the church today” (aka a couple of random bishops) were expressing their opinions on a political subject which in fact has nothing to do with church doctrine.

Today’s men of the Church speak on and reference what’s in the Catechism to support what they say.

Those two (three?) bishops were attempting to justify their opinions on gun control by incorrectly implying that their practical solutions are mandated by church doctrine. This is flatly incorrect. Their particular views on gun control no more obligate us to agree with them than did the opinions of those bishops who spoke in favor of Obamacare (before the HHS mandate) oblige us to support that proposal.

Are we at liberty to ignore certain parts of the Catechism as we see fit, or as it disagrees with our personal view?

There is nothing in the catechism that requires us to take any particular position on gun control. The (two or three) bishops are not explaining doctrine they are (in their own minds) applying doctrines to concrete circumstances. They are making prudential judgments.

It’s in self interest that people place closed ends on certain parts of the Catechism, and placing guidance from the men of the Church as prudential judgments.

Well, mostly their guidance is in the form of prudential judgments.“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. (Cardinal Dulles)

That no men of the Church speaks against gun controls is most relevant, it shows unity on an issue. It’s one thing to disagree with a man of the Church, it’s another to have no support of any men of the Church to do so.

Your choice of terms is misleading. It is not relevant that two or three bishops have expressed a personal opinion on a political issue and continuing to phrase this as if it was all the bishops on one side and none on the other, when in fact not even a handful has spoken out, is deceptive.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well there you have it: this is the church’s position on gun control.
Bellarmine was speaking about church doctrine as it related to the ownership of weapons. The “men of the church today” (aka a couple of random bishops) were expressing their opinions on a political subject which in fact has nothing to do with church doctrine.
Those two (three?) bishops were attempting to justify their opinions on gun control by incorrectly implying that their practical solutions are mandated by church doctrine. This is flatly incorrect. Their particular views on gun control no more obligate us to agree with them than did the opinions of those bishops who spoke in favor of Obamacare (before the HHS mandate) oblige us to support that proposal.
There is nothing in the catechism that requires us to take any particular position on gun control. The (two or three) bishops are not explaining doctrine they are (in their own minds) applying doctrines to concrete circumstances. They are making prudential judgments.
Well, mostly their guidance is in the form of prudential judgments.“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. (Cardinal Dulles)
Your choice of terms is misleading. It is not relevant that two or three bishops have expressed a personal opinion on a political issue and continuing to phrase this as if it was all the bishops on one side and none on the other, when in fact not even a handful has spoken out, is deceptive.

Ender

Does the Church not teach sacrificing for the sake of others? There you have it. We have a responsibility to society, as Catholics, to do our utmost to see a majority enjoy a dignity of life. This does not mean a few, to have whatever guns they desire.

You know better. The 2000 document, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice (Notice Responsibility in the title), from the USCCB, was approved by a “full body of bishops.” That document has been referred to by several bishops, over specific USCCB committees, Cardinal Dolan, the president of the USCCB, and a chief Vatican spokesman. With all of that, people have the audacity to minimize the guidance as “one,” “two,” “three,” “a few,” etc. Those that minimize will say the lack of any voice of the Church supporting their view to oppose more gun controls will say, “that is irrelevant.” The fact remains, there are no men of our Church today that support ‘no more gun controls.’

Those same people will also say, ‘prudential judgment,’ yet provide quotes from Catholic much earlier in history to make applicable something they feel can be viewed as support for their position, and still dismiss any guidance opposing their personal view from the men of the Church today, who specifically reference teachings of the Catechism. We are not at liberty to dissect and parse the Catechism to fit our view, nor dismiss a majority of the men of the Church’s expressed guidance placing our view as superior to theirs.

Even as they minimize those who speak, for committees, a full body, or even as a chief spokesman for the Vatican, they cannot show a SINGLE man of the Church that agrees with their view that there should be no more gun controls, or that we have enough. That speaks very loudly, and very clear, in my opinion.

 

[LongingSoul]

I DO see gun crime as a treatable problem. We need to spread the Faith. Turn their hearts towards The Lord. If their hearts are not changed this will continue. As a person who once was able to visit Mexico as a tourist I can tell you that the environment before the drug cartels took over was fantastic. They have wonderful traditions which for the most part came from Spain. My hairdresser a very wonderful lady holds dual citizenship US and Mexico. My son nearly married a Mexican national. I guarantee you they were more continental than the Australians that I once knew. Twice before I wrote that I never met an Australian that I didn’t like but compared to the Mexicans I know (two medical doctors among them) Australians are more errr earthy. You have much to be proud of in the kind way Australians, at least those I knew presented themselves but they are not more civilized than the Mexicans of my acquaintance.

Back to my hairdresser. She comes from a town in Mexico where a man she went to school with was murdered by the cartel. I don’t know why he could not have been given a fighting chance by being armed.

This will be my last post on this subject. But I leave you with this foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/26/fox-news-hosts-debate-gun-control-after-nj-mom-attacked-her-home

The man left the room TWICE I absolutely promise you that I would have gotten to my gun after he left once if my gun didn’t greet him on the way in.

Annie

I’m definitely not implying that I’m more continental or superior to Mexicans at all. I’m just saying I’m safer. When all is said and done, the philosophy of arming everyone to create a safer environment has not proved to work either on gun crime statistics or in the experience of wellbeing and security in the overall psyche of the country. (Showing graphic violent scenes without a gun present in the situation is more than matched by graphic scenes with guns in the equation). It just isn’t a psychologically sound theory and gives guns a place in society that they don’t rightly merit.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m definitely not implying that I’m more continental or superior to Mexicans at all.

… and the Mexicans make the best beer in the world also!

 

[Ender]

Does the Church not teach sacrificing for the sake of others? There you have it. We have a responsibility to society, as Catholics, to do our utmost to see a majority enjoy a dignity of life. This does not mean a few, to have whatever guns they desire.

In the context of this debate this comment is somewhat incomprehensible. What you see as a useful sacrifice is seen by others to be a useless one. Nor has anyone suggested that there be no restrictions at all.

The 2000 document, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice (Notice Responsibility in the title), from the USCCB, was approved by a “full body of bishops.”

The problem with citing this document is that it says essentially nothing at all about gun control. Here is the entirety of its recommendation: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.
We have measures that control the sale and use of firearms and “sensible regulation” is left to individual interpretation. There is no specific proposal that one could point to and (justifiably) claim that we have to support it because the bishops said so. The bishops made no concrete recommendations and no one is justified in making one in their name.

Oh, wait … we have a footnote.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. “Furthermore, the widespread use of handguns and automatic weapons in connection with drug commerce reinforces our repeated ‘call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.’”
It shouldn’t be necessary to point out the obvious but I’ll do it anyway: the rationale given by the “bishops” for opposing handguns isn’t moral, it is practical. As a practical matter there is no particular reason to believe they know what they’re talking about.

That document has been referred to by several bishops, over specific USCCB committees, Cardinal Dolan, the president of the USCCB, and a chief Vatican spokesman. With all of that, people have the audacity to minimize the guidance as “one,” “two,” “three,” “a few,” etc.

It would be hard to minimize the trivial bit of guidance this document has provided on the subject of gun control.

Those same people will also say, ‘prudential judgment,’ yet provide quotes from Catholic much earlier in history to make applicable something they feel can be viewed as support for their position, and still dismiss any guidance opposing their personal view from the men of the Church today, who specifically reference teachings of the Catechism.

Perhaps I just missed them but what references did the document make to anything in the catechism?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It would be hard to minimize the trivial bit of guidance this document has provided on the subject of gun control.

Perhaps I just missed them but what references did the document make to anything in the catechism?

Ender

What seems to be minimized, is the guidance that goes along with the document. The men of the Church reference the scriptures, the Catechism, this document, and the unity they express exists among themselves. The references to the Catechism happen to be those that are the topic of discussion in this thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The problem with citing this document is that it says essentially nothing at all about gun control. Here is the entirety of its recommendation: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.
We have measures that control the sale and use of firearms and “sensible regulation” is left to individual interpretation. There is no specific proposal that one could point to and (justifiably) claim that we have to support it because the bishops said so. The bishops made no concrete recommendations and no one is justified in making one in their name.

Oh, wait … we have a footnote.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. “Furthermore, the widespread use of handguns and automatic weapons in connection with drug commerce reinforces our repeated ‘call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.’”
It shouldn’t be necessary to point out the obvious but I’ll do it anyway: the rationale given by the “bishops” for opposing handguns isn’t moral, it is practical. As a practical matter there is no particular reason to believe they know what they’re talking about.

Ender

The document seems to be minimized because of what is specifically said, ignoring the references from several men of the Church today. In that minimization another quote is produced, as if it supersedes anything the men of the Church have to say.

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

When the men of the Church speak on scriptures, the Catechism, and the dignity of life, it is moral guidance, even if some cannot recognize it as such. The men that speak on the issue today specifically speak of a, ‘culture of death’ vs. ‘culture of life.’

It seems to only be ‘prudential’ because it conflicts with a secular view, but the men of the Church have always spoken on how Christians are to live in a secular world.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

This was not said ‘prudentially.’ They speak “as bishops.”

Again, to say, ‘we have regulations,’ makes a mockery of the guidance from the bishops, especially when it’s known that there are no regulations on certain sales.