Does the Catholic Church have a position on gun control?

[pira114]

I didn’t read every post. Most were so far off the charts of ridiculousness I couldn’t do it.

Let’s talk world wide here for a minute.

Anyone who thinks having a firearm is somehow mistrusting of society or creating an environment where everyone’s finger is on the trigger is simply naive and blind.

The world is not so simple as that. Gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens. Period. Criminals don’t follow laws. Wait, let’s say that again. CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW LAWS. Seems obvious right? So how is making a law against something prevent anything? The only thing it prevents is a law abiding person from protecting themselves.

Protecting your life and the lives of others is a duty. Doesn’t matter how. Firearms just make it somewhat of a more level playing field.

O.K. Let’s talk just America for a second. Does anyone actually know what the Second Amendment really does? It ensures an inalienable right to protect yourself from…wait for it…a tyrannical government. It’s not about protection of an individual against bad guys. It’s about The People protecting themselves from their own government. Again, it’s a duty. As an American, you have a right to arm yourself against a tyrannical government.

So why the gun control laws? Who’s pushing for them? Oh yeah, the tyrannical government is. Gee, wonder why a tyrannical government would want to disarm it’s citizens? 6 million Jews found out the hard way.

 

[pnewton]

Is it possible to bring Scripture, church teachings, or the lives and writings of saints into this discussion?

Jesus did warn us that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. But this is just another principle. That is all we have from the Church. Principles. We are to value life above worldly goods or convenience. We have the right to self-defense and defense of others. Our society should use prudence in protecting both life and liberty. So our bishops both teach the principles and give prudential application. I personally do not wish do disregard either doctrine or prudence.

 

[pnewton]

. Gee, wonder why a tyrannical government would want to disarm it’s citizens? 6 million Jews found out the hard way.

Godwin’s Law strikes again!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

When people start to try to argue that our Church teaches that their should be stringent regulation, or that their should be only minimal regulation, they are trying to use Church teaching to support their own personal (often political) opinions. That is looking at it upside down.

By all means hold opinions on the issue of gun control, and by all means argue the rights and wrongs of such position, but don’t try to argue that our Church teaches something that in actual fact it doesn’t. Our Church teaches what is written in the Catechism and other in official Church documents. Trying to argue that the Church teaches something that it hasn’t written is wrong.

The discussion on the rights and wrongs of stricter gun control has got nothing to do with the teachings of our Church. I’m not sure it even belongs on this forum.

 

[pira114]

Godwin’s Law strikes again!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

That’s pretty funny. I only brought it up because Hitler is considered one of the first, if not just the most notable, leaders to institute gun control.

 

[pira114]

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.

When people start to try to argue that our Church teaches that their should be stringent regulation, or that their should be only minimal regulation, they are trying to use Church teaching to support their own personal (often political) opinions. That is looking at it upside down.

By all means hold opinions on the issue of gun control, and by all means argue the rights and wrongs of such position, but don’t try to argue that our Church teaches something that in actual fact it doesn’t. Our Church teaches what is written in the Catechism and other in official Church documents. Trying to argue that the Church teaches something that it hasn’t written is wrong.

The discussion on the rights and wrongs of stricter gun control has got nothing to do with the teachings of our Church. I’m not sure it even belongs on this forum.

Correct or not, in regards to America, the Church can give all the opinions it wants. It doesn’t matter. Our Constitution specifically affirms our inalienable right to bear arms to ensure our freedom. That’s all the regulation we should ever have had in this country. The fact that we as a People have allowed tyrants to enact unlawful laws doesn’t change anything.

In regards to other countries, if those people wish to live as non free men, so be it. I’ll support support their choice. Just not agree with it.

In the end, it’s a political matter, not a Church matter. Render unto Caesar and all that.

 

[Brendan_64]

Correct or not, in regards to America, the Church can give all the opinions it wants. It doesn’t matter. Our Constitution specifically affirms our inalienable right to bear arms to ensure our freedom. That’s all the regulation we should ever have had in this country.

The American Constitution is merely a series of man-made laws. Church teachings are the laws of God. Our Church does not teach that man has an inalienable right to bear arms (or even any right to bear arms). That doesn’t however mean the Church teaches that man should not be allowed to own firearms.

What the Church does teach is that it is the duty of government to regulate the sales of arms. the Church does not teach that man has any inalienable rights to own a gun. God has not bestowed upon men, the inalienable right to own a gun, therefore this right is not inalienable (regardless of what any man-made document might say).

You argue that there should not be any regulation of arms sales in the USA, as your Constitution grants you ‘inalienable’ rights, despite the fact that Church teaching clearly states that arms states must be regulated. Are you arguing that the American Constitution trumps the teachings of the Church, should there be a conflict between the two? I wouldn’t want to try arguing that on Judgement Day. Who is the higher authority, God or the founding fathers of the USA. Who has the power to bestows natural rights on men, God or George Washington?If there is a conflict between God’s laws and man’s laws, which should we follow?

 

[Ender]

The Church teaches that public authorities have not just a right, but a duty to regulate the sales of arms.

I should be surprised to find a doctrine expressing this idea. One might teach that a moral state has an obligation to create an environment of safety and protection for all but it will leave the discernment of what laws are required to achieve those goals up to those who have the responsibility to govern.

By all means hold opinions on the issue of gun control, and by all means argue the rights and wrongs of such position, but don’t try to argue that our Church teaches something that in actual fact it doesn’t. Our Church teaches what is written in the Catechism and other in official Church documents. Trying to argue that the Church teaches something that it hasn’t written is wrong.

Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier comment … I certainly agree with this.

The discussion on the rights and wrongs of stricter gun control has got nothing to do with the teachings of our Church. I’m not sure it even belongs on this forum.

The discussion is here because some bishops have weighed in with their opinions which raises a couple of questions, among them whether it was appropriate for them to have commented on the subject in the first place.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Our Church does not teach that man has an inalienable right to bear arms (or even any right to bear arms).

The church has taught that it is not immoral for a man to bear arms if his intent is to defend himself. “Arms” in the sense she used that term would include firearms. She has surely recognized man’s inalienable right to self defense and she could not be so unreasonable as to limit this right only to those who can protect themselves with no arms at all. If I have a right to protect myself then surely I have the right to the tools necessary to effect that protection.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The discussion is here because some bishops have weighed in with their opinions which raises a couple of questions, among them whether it was appropriate for them to have commented on the subject in the first place.

Ender

One of the questions is, or should be, whether the men of the Church have knowledge of the documents, scriptures, and Church teachings on the subject. To say it’s inappropriate for them to speak on this worldly issue, opens the door to questioning them speaking on all worldly issues. At the very least, it places one’s view as superior to the men of Church, especially when there are no men of the Church supporting an opposing view to those who have spoken out.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The church has taught that it is not immoral for a man to bear arms if his intent is to defend himself. “Arms” in the sense she used that term would include firearms. She has surely recognized man’s inalienable right to self defense and she could not be so unreasonable as to limit this right only to those who can protect themselves with no arms at all. If I have a right to protect myself then surely I have the right to the tools necessary to effect that protection.

Ender

I’m sure the men of the Church realize this. This is why their calls have been short of a complete eradication of all guns. The guns they have targeted have proven to be problematic in the wrong hands, due to an easy access.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Scriptures tell us these men have Holy Spirit protection, and guidance. The same for the multitude is through the men of the authoritative Church.

Christ told the Apostles that two swords were enough, when they misunderstood what He was telling them. He didn’t say, ‘you need bows, arrows, swords, spears, shields, armor, and every type weapon made by man.’

 

[pnewton]

The Church teaches that public authorities have not just a right, but a duty to regulate the sales of arms.

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. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

 

[Brendan_64]

I should be surprised to find a doctrine expressing this idea. One might teach that a moral state has an obligation to create an environment of safety and protection for all but it will leave the discernment of what laws are required to achieve those goals up to those who have the responsibility to govern.

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.

That is stating that public authorities do have a duty to legislate to control sales of arms.

 

[Brendan_64]

The church has taught that it is not immoral for a man to bear arms if his intent is to defend himself. “Arms” in the sense she used that term would include firearms. She has surely recognized man’s inalienable right to self defense and she could not be so unreasonable as to limit this right only to those who can protect themselves with no arms at all. If I have a right to protect myself then surely I have the right to the tools necessary to effect that protection.

Ender

So where do you draw the line? Baseball bat, knife, shot-gun, hand-gun, rifle, assault rifle, machine gun, grenade, flame-thrower, RPG, … Exocet missile.

Yes man has a right to defend himself, but a line must be drawn somewhere regarding the tools he is allowed to have to enable him to protect himself. The argument is about where the line on the continuum of increasing severity of weapon is to be drawn. Firearms are not a special case by which one should have an automatic right to own one. The Church certainly does not teach that men ought to have a right to own a firearm.

Personally I’ve never been in a situation where a gun would have been necessary for my protection, thankfully. I’ve had a few knives pulled on me, one inches from me, and I’ve either been able to turn and run, or talk my way out of danger. I don’t think my pulling out a gun and firing would have been a necessary solution or outcome.

Maybe things are more dangerous in the USA (I’m from the UK) but perhaps, just perhaps, there is a link between the high amount of gun crime and attacks you face in the USA, and the high amount of privately held firearms?

 

[Annie39]

So where do you draw the line? Baseball bat, knife, shot-gun, hand-gun, rifle, assault rifle, machine gun, grenade, flame-thrower, RPG, … Exocet missile.

Yes man has a right to defend himself, but a line must be drawn somewhere regarding the tools he is allowed to have to enable him to protect himself. The argument is about where the line on the continuum of increasing severity of weapon is to be drawn. Firearms are not a special case by which one should have an automatic right to own one. The Church certainly does not teach that men ought to have a right to own a firearm.

Personally I’ve never been in a situation where a gun would have been necessary for my protection, thankfully. I’ve had a few knives pulled on me, one inches from me, and I’ve either been able to turn and run, or talk my way out of danger. I don’t think my pulling out a gun and firing would have been a necessary solution or outcome.

Maybe things are more dangerous in the USA (I’m from the UK) but perhaps, just perhaps, there is a link between the high amount of gun crime and attacks you face in the USA, and the high amount of privately held firearms?

Hi Brendan,

You write: Firearms are not a special case by which one should have an automatic right to own one. The Church certainly does not teach that men ought to have a right to own a firearm.

Me: 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.

You: Personally I’ve never been in a situation where a gun would have been necessary for my protection, thankfully. I’ve had a few knives pulled on me, one inches from me, and I’ve either been able to turn and run, or talk my way out of danger.

Me: 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 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. The knife wielding person was, as I’m sure you know videotaped talking on and on while the poor man lay in the street no citizen tried to subdue him they were unarmed after all and were therefore defenseless. As the saying goes, when seconds count the police are minutes away. It seems that this saying applies in both countries.

You: Maybe things are more dangerous in the USA (I’m from the UK) but perhaps, just perhaps, there is a link between the high amount of gun crime and attacks you face in the USA, and the high amount of privately held firearms?

Me: I posted some articles on this thread showing evidence that it is not the case that the USA is more dangerous than the UK. There are more articles showing more of that evidence.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

Also, check out the information I posted on the thread called “on gun control for LongingSoul especially my latest post regarding crime in gun controlled Australia.

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi Brendan,

You write: Firearms are not a special case by which one should have an automatic right to own one. The Church certainly does not teach that men ought to have a right to own a firearm.

Me: 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.

You: Personally I’ve never been in a situation where a gun would have been necessary for my protection, thankfully. I’ve had a few knives pulled on me, one inches from me, and I’ve either been able to turn and run, or talk my way out of danger.

Me: 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 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. The knife wielding person was, as I’m sure you know videotaped talking on and on while the poor man lay in the street no citizen tried to subdue him they were unarmed after all and were therefore defenseless. As the saying goes, when seconds count the police are minutes away. It seems that this saying applies in both countries.

You: Maybe things are more dangerous in the USA (I’m from the UK) but perhaps, just perhaps, there is a link between the high amount of gun crime and attacks you face in the USA, and the high amount of privately held firearms?

Me: I posted some articles on this thread showing evidence that it is not the case that the USA is more dangerous than the UK. There are more articles showing more of that evidence.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

Also, check out the information I posted on the thread called “on gun control for LongingSoul especially my latest post regarding crime in gun controlled Australia.

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

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.

 

[Annie39]

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.

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

 

[Ender]

So where do you draw the line? Baseball bat, knife, shot-gun, hand-gun, rifle, assault rifle, machine gun, grenade, flame-thrower, RPG, … Exocet missile.

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. It clearly addresses the international trade in arms but it does not address the topic of this thread which is the individual ownership of a firearm.

Firearms are not a special case by which one should have an automatic right to own one. The Church certainly does not teach that men ought to have a right to own a firearm.

You reversed my comment. I didn’t claim the church taught the individual had a right to own a firearm, what I said was that she didn’t teach that he did not haves such a right. That is, the church has no doctrine that specifies the point.

Maybe things are more dangerous in the USA (I’m from the UK) but perhaps, just perhaps, there is a link between the high amount of gun crime and attacks you face in the USA, and the high amount of privately held firearms?

We can debate this point but it isn’t relevant to the question. Either the church has a doctrine relevant to the ownership of a firearm or she hasn’t.

Ender

 

[Brendan_64]

Either the church has a doctrine relevant to the ownership of a firearm or she hasn’t.

Ender

The Church doesn’t have a doctrine prohibiting the ownership of firearms, but she DOES have a doctrine declaring that it is the duty of public authorities to regulate the sales of firearms. CCC2316 is not ambiguous. It doesn’t relate merely to international arms sales. It is only ambiguous to those who wish it to be ambiguous.

The bottom line is that while the Church does not say that individuals should not own firearms, the Church does insist that sales of firearms should be regulated in the interests of the common good.

Therefore there is no absolute right for an individual to own a gun. That ‘right’ will be subservient to what public authorities deem to be in the interests of the common good. Whatever right an individual has to own a gun will be determined by regulation decided upon, in the interests of the common good, by public authorities.