Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[Sir_Knight]

if I have a choice between two pro-life candidates to vote for and one of then happens to have a sensible stand on gun control and the other doesn’t, I’ll vote for the pro-life and pro-gun control candidate.
But It is wishful thinking to think I will ever get a choice between two pro-life candidates, I consider myself blessed to get a choice of one pro-life candidate during an election.

Like I said earlier, I believe what I wrote, but it isn’t a high priority for me outside of this thread. I can only work with one person at a time.

The church has declared that if one votes for a pro-abortion candidate and that person is elected and passes pro-abortion laws, then those that voted for that person are also guilty of the sin of abortion.

I am curious … if one votes for a pro-gun control candidate and that person is elected and passes laws which limit a person’s ability to defend themselves and they are later injuried or killed because they did not have the means to protect themselves; are those who voted for them also guilty of that sin?

Just wondering.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Here is the priorities of the Catholic Church in America on the issue of violence. the Number Two priority appears to be “Gun Control” - I guess now you call USSCB equivalent of Jack Chick.

First off, according to Catholic beliefs, the official teachings of the Church with regards to faith AND morals is believed to be INFALLIBLE. The OFFICIAL teachings of the Church are represented by the Pope and the Holy See. The CCC (which is the authoritative source for Catholic norms as stated in an INFALLIBLE statement by Pope John-Paul II in the introduction) clearly states that we have a right and a duty to protect ourselves (see Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2264-2265). Further more, the Vatican is OFFICIALLY in support of the private ownership of firearms –

• … In a world marked by evil, the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS*. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community … (Source).

If the American Bishops disagree with those INFALLIBLE teachings, then THEY are the ones that are wrong and are INCORRECTLY representing the Catholic faith. Plain and simple.

 

[Sir_Knight]

**U.S. Suicide Statistics (2004) **
Suicide Methods

32,439 suicides

**Firearms **
51.6% 16,750

Hanging, strangulation, suffocation
22.6% 7,336

Poisons
17.9% 5,800

All other methods
7.9% 2,553

**U.S. Suicide Statistics (2001) **Attempted Suicides
There are approximately 750,000 suicide attempts each year.
An estimated 5 million living Americans have attempted suicide.
More females attempt suicide than males.
(3 female attempts for each male attempt.)

**Succesful - **

Men - Number of Suicides 25,566 total
Women - Number of Suicides 6,873 total

Firearms are still the most common method for suicide (51.6%), however when we break down the statistice by gender, we see that women use poisining more frequently than firearms

More males die from suicide than females.
(4 male deaths by suicide for each female death by suicide.)

Maybe we ought to just outlaw men, oops, never mind. My wife would like that too much.

suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html

Would they be less dead if they used some other means of suicide?

According to “Targeting Guns: Firearms and their control” by Prof. Gary Kleck, with supporting data from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics – Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen. Thus, there is no correlation between the availability of firearms, the homicide rate, or the suicide rate in America.

According to Suicide data from WHO, Worldwide, the per capita suicide rate is fairly static (the suicide rate of the U.S. is lower than many industrial countries, including many where private gun ownership is banned). A certain fraction of the population will commit suicide regardless of the available tools.

 

[Bennie_P]

First off, according to Catholic beliefs, the official teachings of the Church with regards to faith AND morals is believed to be INFALLIBLE. The OFFICIAL teachings of the Church are represented by the Pope and the Holy See. The CCC (which is the authoritative source for Catholic norms as stated in an INFALLIBLE statement by Pope John-Paul II in the introduction) clearly states that we have a right and a duty to protect ourselves (see Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2264-2265). Further more, the Vatican is OFFICIALLY in support of the private ownership of firearms –

… In a world marked by evil, the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community … (Source).

If the American Bishops disagree with those INFALLIBLE teachings, then THEY are the ones that are wrong and are INCORRECTLY representing the Catholic faith. Plain and simple.

Wow this all sounds so definitive, and I understand it is a grave matter and obligation for one to defend oneself and thier family I just don’t understand why you gloss over Paragraph 2316 in the CCC:shrug:

****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.

****“Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them” **Or does the Vatican give special treatment to the United States because we have the second amendment?

And you talk about the teaching authority, yes you have the right to defend yourself, with reasonable force, yet the CCC says the Public Authorities have** the right and duty to regulate** the **production **and sale of arms. What does this mean? How does this fit in to your opposition to gun control? I repeat, Yes you have an obligation to defend yourself, yet the CCC says the public authority has the right and the duty to regulate the sales and production of arms, becuase it affects the common good of nations and the international community. Where in the CCC is the US opt out clause?

**

 

[melensdad]

Bennie P, just to be clear, the section you quoted (2316) comes from the international “Avoiding War” section of the CCC. If you read other writing of the Vatican, there is plenty of evidence to support the Vatican’s view that ‘small arms’ and ‘arms sales’ should be monitored and regulated between nations so as not to promote war, or not to promote an arms race between nations.

So it is somewhat out of context with the self-defense portion of this conversation.

Never the less it is a valid point within the overall context of the thread and I do not see any real evidence that states that the Vatican believes in unfettered domestic sales of guns. In fact I would strongly suspect that the Vatican would suggest some gun controls if it weighed in on the issue. The USCCB has weighed in on the issue and unfortunately parroted many of the Brady Campaign falsehoods.

Bishops have also muted their calls for gun controls here in the US saying the controls must conform to just laws and not violate laws of the land. (I put some quotes earlier in this thread to support both sides of this issue as stated by the Bishops)

 

[Bennie_P]

Bennie P, just to be clear, the section you quoted (2316) comes from the international “Avoiding War” section of the CCC. If you read other writing of the Vatican, there is plenty of evidence to support the Vatican’s view that ‘small arms’ and ‘arms sales’ should be monitored and regulated between nations so as not to promote war, or not to promote an arms race between nations.

So it is somewhat out of context with the self-defense portion of this conversation.

Never the less it is a valid point within the overall context of the thread and I do not see any real evidence that states that the Vatican believes in unfettered domestic sales of guns. In fact I would strongly suspect that the Vatican would suggest some gun controls if it weighed in on the issue. The USCCB has weighed in on the issue and unfortunately parroted many of the Brady Campaign falsehoods.

Bishops have also muted their calls for gun controls here in the US saying the controls must conform to just laws and not violate laws of the land. (I put some quotes earlier in this thread to support both sides of this issue as stated by the Bishops)

This is how it is in context. For example; one of the big issues is the ban on assualt weapons, right? Many of the assualt weapons in that ban are produced overseas and imported into the United States, right? By the United States allowing a “legitmate” market for assualt weapons in US, give the producers, outside of American control, a “legitmate” reason to operate, in order to produce and sale those weapons, right? This inables them to divert thier products into areas of conflicts and unrest to fuel those areas of violence by a continuing flow of weapons made by “legitmate” manufactures? Thus, our outcry for unlimited access to all firearms and refusal to accept any form of regulation within the US adds to the world’s conflict. It is called poliferation.

And the production of some of the popular handguns are produced overseas also, right?

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.

**By the statistics we are still the most violent industrialized nation outside areas of conflict - **

You can split the peas, but the peas still make soup.

 

[melensdad]

This is how it is in context. For example; one of the big issues is the ban on assualt weapons, right?

No, I don’t even think it is an issue in most states. And there is no current federal proposal that I know of. But for some reason it is an issue in Illinois this year.

Many of the assualt weapons in that ban are produced overseas and imported into the United States, right?

No again.

Springfield Armory, Les Baer, Armalight, Barrett, DPMS, Colt, Lewis, Stag, Smith & Wesson, etc are all domestic companies and make the bulk of the rifles you are referring to right here in the USA. Now some of the Remington hunting rifles and shotguns also “qualify” as assault weapons and I believe some are imported and some may be made here. Ditto Winchester, which I believe makes its shotguns in Japan. Beretta/Beneli and FN are made overseas. But most of the guns that are mistaken to be AK47s are now made here in the USA too.

There are lots of handguns made all over the world, but based on crime data, the fancy expensive ones are not the guns used by the gang bangers. So when I buy an imported Para Ordnance LDA pistol from Canada, I’m buying a top dollar gun that is not increasing the crime rate.

HOWEVER to your point that “public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them” you should understand that they ALREADY are very heavily regulated when IMPORTED or EXPORTED or shipped/sold WITHIN the US. So that already occurs!!!

But regulation and banning are two different things.

Again, gun ownership is up and has been going up.

• Gun violence is NOT up.
• Suicide by gun is NOT up.
• Accidents with guns are going down.
• Guns are used DEFENSIVELY more often than CRIMINALLY.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

This is how it is in context. For example; one of the big issues is the ban on assualt weapons, right? Many of the assualt weapons in that ban are produced overseas and imported into the United States, right? By the United States allowing a “legitmate” market for assualt weapons in US, give the producers, outside of American control, a “legitmate” reason to operate, in order to produce and sale those weapons, right? This inables them to divert thier products into areas of conflicts and unrest to fuel those areas of violence by a continuing flow of weapons made by “legitmate” manufactures? Thus, our outcry for unlimited access to all firearms and refusal to accept any form of regulation within the US adds to the world’s conflict. It is called poliferation.

??? Are you wanting a serious discussion or not? You keep skipping form one misrepresented set of talking points to another. While you fawned when I presented the links on the apocryphal Brady quote, your response to every factual inaccuracy, misrepresentation, or being exposed in trying to use non-applicable source material for a point you have presented has been to simply hop on another tangent without further mention of the point on which you were challenged…

And the production of some of the popular handguns are manufactor overseas also, right?

Very few firearms in general originate from unstable areas, as you can see by browsing through this list of manufacturers by nationality. Going by where they are actually made and how they are distributed, the whole scenario you propose above is illogical on its face, and required only a token amount of independent research to reveal itself as such. Very few firearms manufacturers are delivering directly to the international arms dealers, most of those trades go through at least marginally legitimate governments first, and they are profiting form the sales on the black market to prop themselves up.

 

[melensdad]

**By the statistics we are still the most violent industrialized nation outside areas of conflict - **

OK, if you say so . . .

Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America’s former master – Great Britain – has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens – roughly one-quarter of the population – have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The **United States didn’t even make the “top 10” list **of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Highlights of the study indicated that:

• The percentage of the population that suffered “contact crime” in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
• Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;
• “After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate,” the London Telegraph said.
• England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the “top 10” nations.
• The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.
  Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates – just 15 percent overall – occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.

• The rest of the story is at this link: geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

Oh by the way, it is my Catholic understanding that the Vatican and the Holy Sea is infallible, and as such we loyal Catholics should be supportive of those words that come from our Pope.

Talk about “creeping infallibility” !!! Now the VATICAN is infallible !
It is my understanding that the Pope(not the Vatican) is only infallible when he speaks “ex-cathedra” (twice in the history of the papacy…(the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception).
this infallibility stuff has been blown way out of proportion.

 

[Guardian]

I don’t understand why so many Catholics seem to be in favor of gun control. More specifically, the Bishops and Clergy of the church seem to favor it. Is there a specific teaching or specific position about gun control that I don’t know about?

I’m a cradle Catholic, I’ve been working with my 12 year old who is in Catholic school going over basic Catholic teachings, she is in Catechism bowl at her school, she wants to learn how to shoot, neither she nor I can’t find anything about a position on gun control, but still I see/hear anti-gun talk from church leaders. Many of my friends are Jews, seems to me that, with the exception of some prominent American-Jewish politicians, Jews support gun ownership.

Can someone explain this to me?

That’s why I joined the Maronite Catholic Church instead of the Roman Catholic Church. All the Roman churches around here have “no guns allowed” signs on the front of the church.

However, at the Maronite Church here, my priest owns machine guns. When you’re persecuted in your home country, guns become your way of freedom and life.

GO MARONITES!! SCREW GUN CONTROL!!

 

[Evan]

Never the less, suicide should be removed from the list because it is not considered violence in the criminal sense. That is one of the tactics used to inflate statistics. If we want to discuss violence, then we need to look at violence. Why not also then add other suicides into the statistics?

We were discussing the presents of a gun in the home, not violence per se. Although domestic violence is properly brought into this discussion, it is only relevant with respect to the result of a domestic violence disturbance when a gun was or was not present.

When there is a gun, it more easily escalates to death rather than injury. This is similar to suicide in the presents of a gun or when no gun is present.

It is the easy access to a lethal device that encourages irreverable actions to occur.

A handgun is especially easy to use in a fit or anger rather than a rifle or shotgun.

However, the violence would go down in any case if trigger locks were used and guns were properly stored far from ammunition. Each separately stored behind locked doors.

Remember your gun safety course rule: “Never aim a gun at something you don’t want to kill!”

 

[melensdad]

a lethal device that encourages . . .

Sorry I have yet to see any inanimate object “encourage” any action.

Further, if gun ownership is climbing and suicide is not, then there is no cause/effect relationship.

 

[Evan]

Sorry I have yet to see any inanimate object “encourage” any action.

Further, if gun ownership is climbing and suicide is not, then there is no cause/effect relationship.

Isn’t it fun to play word games?

en·cour·age (ĕn-kûr’ĭj, -kŭr’-)

1. To inspire with hope, courage, or confidence; hearten.
2. To give support to; foster: policies designed to encourage private investment.
3. To stimulate; spur: burning the field to encourage new plant growth.

Both bolded parts are inanimate objects that encourage. Access to guns could be construed as a policy. Such a policy would encourage successful suicide attempts.

As has been shown previously in this thread, over 50% of successful suicides involve firearms. I am not saying gun ownership causes suicides, I am saying gun access makes suicide attempts successful.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

As has been shown previously in this thread, over 50% of successful suicides involve firearms. I am not saying gun ownership causes suicides, I am saying gun access makes suicide attempts successful.

You can say that, but the evidence really only shows that firearms are the most common tool used by those intending to be successful at suicide. In what I’ve seen previously, the male vs female success ratios are remarkably consistent through different societies - the correlations that is most obvious is that those that don’t have guns available tend to use other equally effective methods when they want the end to come fast.

 

[melensdad]

I am saying gun access makes suicide attempts successful.

No argument from me on that. Its hard to call back a bullet. However, since there is no real connection between suicide rates and guns, its very difficult to blame guns. This reality is proven in many nations and in our own nation. It is true that men who are inclined to commit suicide often use guns in the US. It is also true that with rise in the number of guns there has not been a corresponding rise in suicide. The two are independent of each other.

 

[melensdad]

The only legitimate form of gun-control is to use both hands

Peace,
+N

I wonder if this is appropriate based on your post:

youtube.com/watch?v=TaiAFfNceyo

The small percentage who would use the guns only if necessary for protection, are out numbered by those who would use them for violence…just my humble opinion.

Hmmm . . . . after the video I wonder what your opinion is? But if you are still not convinced, the reality is more clearly shown here:

youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

 

[Sir_Knight]

Talk about “creeping infallibility” !!! Now the VATICAN is infallible !
It is my understanding that the Pope(not the Vatican) is only infallible when he speaks “ex-cathedra” (twice in the history of the papacy…(the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception).
this infallibility stuff has been blown way out of proportion.

I believe that it happened more than twice. Let’s not forget that JPII declared that women can not be ordained as priest and he declared this teaching to be binding on the faithful. I would say that qualifies as “infallible” teaching. And let’s not forget that the Catechism is an authoritative source for Catholic norms – it specifically states this in the Introduction by Pope John Paul II.

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

I believe that it happened more than twice. Let’s not forget that JPII declared that women can not be ordained as priest and he declared this teaching to be binding on the faithful. I would say that qualifies as “infallible” teaching. And let’s not forget that the Catechism is an authoritative source for Catholic norms – it specifically states this in the Introduction by Pope John Paul II.

I would say that “binding” is not the same as “infallible”. You may think so but I and many theologians disagree with you.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Back to the topic of the Church and gun control, does anyone else find it interesting that in Luke 22:35-38 it was not any John, or Simon or Peter but actually Jesus Himself who gave instructions to the disciples to get the sword? …

This came up on a different thread as well. It really upset me. Weapons were completely against the mission of Jesus. The only time a weapon was used was rebuked by Jesus (Matthew 26:52).

The Sword is a metaphor for the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). Jesus was preparing them for a fight, but not necessarily in a physical sense.

“That is enough” is not a warrant for their use, but a dismissal of the subject. It is the same intention that God had in his discussion with Moses; “That’s enough! Don’t mention this again!” (Deuteronony 3:26).

I’m guessing that the Catholic stance for guns is not about scripture, but rather as a practical way to fight evil, if there is no other practical way.

… GO MARONITES!! SCREW GUN CONTROL!!

I’m a Maronite and I find that embarrassing. Must you boast about your guns?

I love Lebanon, it is the country of my parents. (We live in Australia now. I love Australia too!) But Lebanon would be a bad example of why we should have guns; too much guns in the wrong hands will cause civil wars. But I have no statistics on that. (I know you guys love statistics.) It’s just a thought. :twocents: