Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[Bennie_P]

What I do know is that AFTER carry laws have been relaxed, crime RATES go down. I also know that MURDER rates in relaxed gun law states are typically LOWER than MURDER rates in harsh gun law states. But I’ve not made too many claims about specific cities, except for Chicago, which I do live very near.

First I haven’t seen any data on your claim about muder rates going down, even if they do, the decrease is not signifcant. For by the cities’s stats of crime rates I posted still show a very high crime rate in the cities with lax state gun laws as compared to cities with very stirct state gun laws. I not against carry laws, but I don’t believe they have the significant effect the ‘gun lobby’ wants us to believe. But I think if Handgun registration for all handguns went along with the carry laws we may see a significant effect. Chicago proves that gun registration must work somewhat or thier violent crimes per capita would even be higher as we see compared to many of the other cities with lax laws noted . I think other laws, such as waitng periods would help and the number of guns allowed to purchased at a time would also help. But I think the most signifcant thing that would help is a reform of the laws to make them more uniform. We had to do it to the licensing of truck drivers in the trucking industry to get unsafe drivers off the road, this is something needed to get and keep handguns out of the wrong hands.

Of course the gun lobby doesn’t want to see these kind of reforms, for all they give us the same old solution relax ‘carry laws’ - but they don’t work as well as strict gun laws - but could if combined with hand gun registration and uniformity of gun laws across the nation we may be able to plug the holes and, We do need to plug the holes. IMO

P.S. When you dispute a post where I’m replying to someone else, I can only assume you are taking the same position or agreeing with thier statement unless you note otherwise.

 

[RobDH]

The statistics quoted by BennieP are correct. If you want to see the original data, you have only to go to the FBI website. The problem is that what you don’t and can’t see there is whether those rates have increased or decreased over time in specific cities. The other thing you can’t see there or any other site that I’m aware of is a comparison of infrastructure, poverty level, school grades, etc. which would allow a balanced and fair comparison between cities.

The only place I’ve seen such comparisons is in the book More Guns Less Crime by John R. Lott Jr. published in 1998 by University of Chicago. He was, according to the book jacket, at the time of publishing, teaching "criminal deterence and law and economics at the University of Chicago, where he is the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989." His book claims that there are significant changes from before and after the passing of concealed weapon carry laws.

I’m sure there are other, more recent tomes on both sides of the argument, but my point is that there are studies showing that there are significant changes before and after such laws are enacted.

 

[whatevergirl]

I think that ufstudent pointed out the hypocrisy in the Catholic pro-gun position very well. I think that you try and twist catholic teaching to promote gun ownership when the main thrust of theology is in direct contradiction to that position, and I think when the argument goes against you, you try to back up your position by playing at orthodoxy.

As it happens I don’t really have much of a problem with people owning and shooting guns. My problem is with people who try and play it off as being Catholic and somehow promoted by the Church and promulgated by her teachings!

thank you–I never got why people would say that the RCC advocates this? Self defense of one’s own life, and family…yes…of our country, yes. But, the RCC isn’t pro-guns. I don’t buy that at all. Pro self defense…that’s it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

He’s telling them that things are going to be tough from now on.

Which is why they need to be armed.

 

[Sir_Knight]

But, the RCC isn’t pro-guns. I don’t buy that at all. Pro self defense…that’s it.

And being pro self defense, they can not be anti-gun either.

 

[Bennie_P]

And being pro self defense, they can not be anti-gun either.

Self-defense has to separated from being self-centered. Legitimate self-defense may be accomplished in many ways, including taking measures to reduce the access of handguns from criminals with uniformed and sensible gun laws. Opposition to measures that can or may stop usless violence is akin to refusing to defend the innocent, which is also an obligation of a Catholic. There should be a balance, for we are all responsible for each other. The Church teachings on self-defense doesn’t take away from the Church teachings of loving our neighbor which is the second greatest commandment Christ gave us. We cannot not just set back and blame criminals when we allow them access to the means to do harm. Allowing things to stay as they are, just so it will be convenient to purchase and own guns in order for ourslves to feel safe, well that is just is a cop out.

Christ nevered promised us a rose garden, an easy and convinient life, the garden I recall from the Bible is the one where he sweated blood while in prayer with our Father over the sacrifice of Himself He was about to accept for our sake. When they came armed to arrest Him, He commanded Peter to put his sword away.

You cannot just take the part of CCC about self-defense and build a pro-gun teaching out of it, you must take the whole pro-life section in context and in its entirety, though you may want to separate the part of Safe Guarding Peace, para 2316, Under Avoiding War where nations have the obligation to regulate the production and sale of guns, but our communities within our nation are part of the international community. and our inner cities are at war, ask any mother who has lost a child shot by accident in a drive by shooting in neighborhoods were armies are warring with other being fueled by the proliferation of arms coming from outside of thier ‘cummunity’ (nation) in order that ‘citizens’ of a another (nation) state doesn’t have to have the inconvience of registering thier handguns or waitng a few days to pick it up thier purchase of a handgun, or wait a month to acquire the newest ‘imported’ piece for thier collection. Just as nations are obligated to prevent war outside thier nation, thier obligated to do the same within their nations. We have an obligation to promote peace.

Mat 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

goodgun.org/images/youdontpanel2.jpg

**CCC **2330
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Mt 5:9).

 

[melensdad]

thank you–I never got why people would say that the RCC advocates this? Self defense of one’s own life, and family…yes…of our country, yes. But, the RCC isn’t pro-guns. I don’t buy that at all. Pro self defense…that’s it.

I loved reading this answer in response to the post by FightingFat. The reason I loved it was because FightingFat was so wrong in what was written that when I put up the challenge to prove any of what was said there was no response.

Clearly that post was NOT based on ANY fact. And now you have posted that you agree. But what do you agree with, the errors of the post?

So please, please show me where I have stated that the RCC advocates a pro-gun stance? Because quite clearly I have asked why it is so anti-gun! Yes, I am pro-gun. But I do not believe the Church is pro-gun. However I do believe that many here are actually advocating anti-self-defense positions which is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Church.

**CCC **2330
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Mt 5:9).

Bennie, are you suggesting that I am acting contrary to this message? If so, then you are suggesting that I am acting in some criminal way? Or in some aggressive way when I use my guns?

The anti-gun folks here seem to think that many of us who own guns cannot be trusted with them because we are apparently NOT peacemakers? Or because we might wake up one day and become criminals? Heck some just outright say that we are liars, as has been illustrated by several posts in this thread (not specifically aimed at anything written by Bennie). But seriously why do some here seem to believe that it is mutually exclusive to be BOTH a gun owner and a peaceful person?

Why cannot some people see that being pro-gun is actually consistent with being pro-life and respect for life?

 

[Man]

The Church is quite clear. It is anti-escalation and pro-disarmament. By pro-disarmament, however, it selects a prudent route which clearly allows for self defense, which concludes with beating weapons into tools. That is the Church. It is specifically for this reason that in the strictest sense, pure adherence outside of “law enforcement*” would likely be a “hunting rifle” or similar tool.

*Definition for this appears to be the subject of this thread.

It hardly seems just to disarm one area but not another. This leads to an natural inequality and often oppression or a feeling of oppression. While it may be admirable for someone to lay down their arms first, it appears that making the determine could be** considered just only if it appeared to be truly prudent (for instance including a debate for the other side to disarm in a sort of political pressure) and there was no imminent danger.

**Because of the innate danger of the devices it appears to be, in most or all cases, a person’s right not to carry a weapon whatsoever.

 

[Bennie_P]

Bennie, are you suggesting ?

That you respond to my replies to you and not read more into my post then what I’m saying.

---

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Mt

***** 5:9).

Originally Posted by melensdad http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif Bennie, are you suggesting that I am acting contrary to this message?

I think, or believe, that everyone participating in this thread are trying to promote peace, we just differ on how to go about doing that. Myself I know I don’t live up to that, so I’m surely not going to accuse you of not doing what I know I fail at doing.

 

[jabelltulsa]

For me there’s a little line of scripture that sums it up - ‘those who live by the sword will die by the sword’. I just don’t see Jesus joining the pro-gun lobby with that attitude.

I would like to point out something on this. I understand your logic, and I see the Truth in this passage, but I don’t think it applies. Gun ownership is not living by the sword in my opinion. Being a rouge vigilante would be.

For me, and my family, having fire arms keeps us safe from a tyrannical, or a potentially tyrannical government. The defense of my home and those in my home is merely an added benefit. Its primary purpose is to make it less likely for the government to over step its bounds.

This may sound outlandish, and like the makings of a conspiracy theory, but understand that many poor innocent souls have been killed by their governments because the populace was unarmed.

Do you realize what happened in Cambodia. They killed nearly a third of their population (~ 2 million out of 6 million). Had these people been armed, an upstart government would be less confident in an overthrow of the people. (Granted, this situation is way more complex than I am describing, here, in regards to US involvement in that ordeal).

Had German Jews been armed, who knows what the outcome would have been. They had nothing to defend themselves with. More importantly, Hitler and the Nazis had no resistance, therefore, they had complete confidence in their decision to do what they did.

Gun ownership should be first, a deterrent of impending government take over. Secondly, a deterrent of crime.

As long as governments are lead by men, they are prone to corruption. In fact, if I were an evil man looking for control and to exploit that control, what job should I be looking for? A high government position, of course.

As a Catholic, I believe it is my duty to do my part in deterring this. Don’t think it can’t happen here. It just hasn’t been attempted - I believe private ownership of guns helps protect us from this.

 

[Bennie_P]

I would like to point out something on this. I understand your logic, and I see the Truth in this passage, but I don’t think it applies. Gun ownership is not living by the sword in my opinion. Being a rouge vigilante would be.

For me, and my family, having fire arms keeps us safe from a tyrannical, or a potentially tyrannical government. The defense of my home and those in my home is merely an added benefit. Its primary purpose is to make it less likely for the government to over step its bounds.

This may sound outlandish, and like the makings of a conspiracy theory, but understand that many poor innocent souls have been killed by their governments because the populace was unarmed.

Do you realize what happened in Cambodia. They killed nearly a third of their population (~ 2 million out of 6 million). Had these people been armed, an upstart government would be less confident in an overthrow of the people. (Granted, this situation is way more complex than I am describing, here, in regards to US involvement in that ordeal).

Had German Jews been armed, who knows what the outcome would have been. They had nothing to defend themselves with. More importantly, Hitler and the Nazis had no resistance, therefore, they had complete confidence in their decision to do what they did.

Gun ownership should be first, a deterrent of impending government take over. Secondly, a deterrent of crime.

As long as governments are lead by men, they are prone to corruption. In fact, if I were an evil man looking for control and to exploit that control, what job should I be looking for? A high government position, of course.

As a Catholic, I believe it is my duty to do my part in deterring this. Don’t think it can’t happen here. It just hasn’t been attempted - I believe private ownership of guns helps protect us from this.

I guess St Stephen wasn’t a good Catholic? For he didn’t defend himself?

Act 7:58 (7:57) And casting him forth without the city. they stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul.
Act 7:59 (7:58) And they stoned Stephen, invoking and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 (7:59) And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not his sin to their charge: And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death.

Rom 8:35 Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? Or nakedness? Or danger? Or persecution? Or the sword?

As Catholics should we live in such fear?

 

[RobDH]

I guess St Stephen wasn’t a good Catholic? For he didn’t defend himself?

Act 7:58 (7:57) And casting him forth without the city. they stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul.
Act 7:59 (7:58) And they stoned Stephen, invoking and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 (7:59) And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not his sin to their charge: And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death.

Rom 8:35 Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? Or nakedness? Or danger? Or persecution? Or the sword?

As Catholics should we live in such fear?

Ok, BennieP, I give up.
You’ve beaten me into submission, you’ve won. I give up trying to discuss an issue when I don’t even know what it is you believe.
At least I stated mine, clearly and plainly.
I’m an evil gun-toting person and I’ll shut up now.
But I won’t give them up.

 

[jabelltulsa]

I guess St Stephen wasn’t a good Catholic? For he didn’t defend himself?

I fear that cynicism will be the death of charity. What does that statement about Saint Stephen actually mean?

You and I both believe that Saint Stephen was a good Catholic - don’t be silly, I wrote my post respectfully to you.

I am in favor of protecting the right of citizens to arm themselves. This is for the good of all. I do not own a firearm with the intent of saving my own skin. I leave that to God. My fiancee, my future children; if God wills it; my parents, siblings, their children, friends, even strangers are those I believe I should do my best to protect.

I believe private ownership helps in this regard.

As Catholics should we live in such fear?

Nothing in my post says anything about fear. I am not irrationally afraid of anything. I trust in God, but I do what is practical to protect the lives of those I love.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I guess St Stephen wasn’t a good Catholic? For he didn’t defend himself?

Act 7:58 (7:57) And casting him forth without the city. they stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul.
Act 7:59 (7:58) And they stoned Stephen, invoking and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 (7:59) And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not his sin to their charge: And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death.

Rom 8:35 Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? Or nakedness? Or danger? Or persecution? Or the sword?

As Catholics should we live in such fear?

So, are you saying that the Catholic Church is WRONG when it tells us in the CCC, which is the authoritative norm for Catholic morals and behavior, that Catholics have a DUTY to protect themselves?

Because if you say ‘yes’, then you open up a whole cane of worms that other Catholic teachings COULD be also wrong.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Self-defense has to separated from being self-centered. Legitimate self-defense may be accomplished in many ways, including taking measures to reduce the access of handguns from criminals with uniformed and sensible gun laws.

As long as you are ONLY disarming the criminals and NOT potential crime victims. What is that saying that we always hear our courts use? It’s far better to let a hundred guilty go free than to unjustly punish one innocent one.

Opposition to measures that can or may stop usless violence is akin to refusing to defend the innocent, which is also an obligation of a Catholic.

Opposition to measures that MAY stop usless violence can ALSO be akin to disarming the innocent leaving them unable to defend themselves if the need arise, which goes AGAINST the Catholic obligation of protecting the innocent.

There should be a balance, for we are all responsible for each other.

In a majority of cases, that balance is rarely reached.

The Church teachings on self-defense doesn’t take away from the Church teachings of loving our neighbor which is the second greatest commandment Christ gave us.

And how does one show that love for their neighbor by limiting or restricitng their ability to protect themselves and their families from potential harm?

If you were to take your family on a hike in the woods where there have been known bear attacks and you arm yourself with bear repellent [sp] for protection and I come along and take that repellent [sp] away from you because you MAY accidently injury one of your children with it or they MIGHT get their hands on it and injury themselves and I send you into the woods without that bear repellent [sp], have I done you a service or a disservice?

Sure, I may have prevented your children from POSSIBLY being injuried by accident but in doing so, I have exposed you and your family to the far greater danger of being defenseless against a possible bear attack.

We cannot not just set back and blame criminals when we allow them access to the means to do harm.

We already have laws in place barring criminals from buying and even owning guns. If they break the laws to obtain them, then they will break any additional laws that are passed and those laws will only be obeyed by law abiding citizens who are not the problem in the first place.

Allowing things to stay as they are, just so it will be convenient to purchase and own guns in order for ourslves to feel safe, well that is just is a cop out.

Passing additional gun laws which do nothing to reduce crime and merely serve to disarm law-abidding citizens leaving them more vulnerable to crime is just a cop out.

Continued in NEXT Post due to space limitations

 

[Sir_Knight]

Continued from PREVIOUS Post due to space limitations

Christ nevered promised us a rose garden, an easy and convinient life, the garden I recall from the Bible is the one where he sweated blood while in prayer with our Father over the sacrifice of Himself He was about to accept for our sake.

You are completely correct. Christ knew that it wasn’t a rose garden out there which is why He instructed His apostles to ARM themselves even if had to sell their coat in order to purshase a weapon – showing that well armed is MORE important that being well clothed or even taking care of the poor … Christ didn’t say to sell out coat to feed the poor but to sell our coat to buy a sword – a weapon!

When they came armed to arrest Him, He commanded Peter to put his sword away.

And Christ also informed Peter that if He wanted to, He could have called upon seven legion of angels to defend Him. Jesus did not do so because He knew that He had to die for our sake.

If Jesus did not intend the sword to be used, He would have never commanded that it be purchased because that would have been wasteful.

You cannot just take the part of CCC about self-defense and build a pro-gun teaching out of it, you must take the whole pro-life section in context and in its entirety, though you may want to separate the part of Safe Guarding Peace, para 2316, Under Avoiding War where nations have the obligation to regulate the production and sale of guns,

And you can not take other parts of the CCC and build an anti-gun teaching out of it completely going against the parts of the CCC which teaches us that we have a duty to protect ourselves.

but our communities within our nation are part of the international community. and our inner cities are at war, ask any mother who has lost a child shot by accident in a drive by shooting in neighborhoods were armies are warring with other being fueled by the proliferation of arms coming from outside of thier ‘cummunity’ (nation) in order that ‘citizens’ of a another (nation) state doesn’t have to have the inconvience of registering thier handguns or waitng a few days to pick it up thier purchase of a handgun, or wait a month to acquire the newest ‘imported’ piece for thier collection. Just as nations are obligated to prevent war outside thier nation, thier obligated to do the same within their nations. We have an obligation to promote peace.

And aren’t these drive by shootings already illegal? Aren’t the shooters already barred from even owning firerarms? If the existing laws on the books can not be enforced, how will even MORE laws be enforced?

Mat 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully ARMED, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Is that overall crime or per capita?

Latest 2005 Crimes per 100,000 People Chicago vs Little Rock
Murder Chicago, IL 15.6 / Little Rock 22.1
Robbery Chi - 555.6 / LR - 462.7
Aggravated Assault Chi 624.4/ LR 1224.6

crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/Gun_Laws_by_State.htm

You seem to have found an exception to the norm. Using the site that you mentioned, LR’s 22.1 murder rate per 1000 is smaller when compared to other cities such as …

Baltimore: 42.0
Detroit: 39.3
St. Louis: 37.9
Washington, DC 35.4

… which have restrictive gun laws.

 

[Bennie_P]

Nothing in my post says anything about fear. I am not irrationally afraid of anything. I trust in God, but I do what is practical to protect the lives of those I love.

The idea of wanting to protect your family is all in good, but what I refering to about fear, is when you went into all this for justification, well just like you said it does sound outlandish and to me, I not making an judgement of your heart or sincerity, it sounds like it is coming form someone that lives in fear, so I made a challenge to you on it.

If the police came to your house right now and told you they needed to talk to you, but wouldn’t tell what about, and you needed to go with them, would you one, shoot it out with them or two go with them?

Originally Posted by jabelltulsa This may sound outlandish, and like the makings of a conspiracy theory, but understand that many poor innocent souls have been killed by their governments because the populace was unarmed.

Do you realize what happened in Cambodia. They killed nearly a third of their population (~ 2 million out of 6 million). Had these people been armed, an upstart government would be less confident in an overthrow of the people. (Granted, this situation is way more complex than I am describing, here, in regards to US involvement in that ordeal).

Had German Jews been armed, who knows what the outcome would have been. They had nothing to defend themselves with. More importantly, Hitler and the Nazis had no resistance, therefore, they had complete confidence in their decision to do what they did.

Gun ownership should be first, a deterrent of impending government take over. Secondly, a deterrent of crime.

As long as governments are lead by men, they are prone to corruption. In fact, if I were an evil man looking for control and to exploit that control, what job should I be looking for? A high government position, of course.

 

[Bennie_P]

Sir_Knight:

 

[Bennie_P]

You seem to have found an exception to the norm. Using the site that you mentioned, LR’s 22.1 murder rate per 1000 is smaller when compared to other cities such as …

Baltimore: 42.0
Detroit: 39.3
St. Louis: 37.9
Washington, DC 35.4

… which have restrictive gun laws.

Washington is the only one that has as strict and/or restrictive gun laws as compared to Chicago with the “15.6” rate per 100,000. and you just go outside the City the surrounding states have very lax gun laws compared to Washigton and Chicago. So only Washington may be considered the exception, but it proves the point of a need to have uniform laws across the country.
You need to compare the laws of these cities and thier states as to Chicago’s and you will find that Chicago has the more restrictive laws and the lower crime rates. I’m not sure, but MO now has an shall issue law which is not reflected with this information.
It is not a just question of lax and strict but uniformity of laws and Chicago is a good benchmark on how strict laws have an effect on violent crime.
I haven’t claimed a perfect solution to reducing crime, but a combination of actions. I’m not opposed to shall issue laws, but I promote a uniformed set of laws which would include registration of all Handguns, waiting periods and limit on multiple gun sales. Without uniformity, laws seem to defeat themselves in pupose. Be truthful IMO, a shall issue law along with the other strict laws on registration already in place in Chicago may help bring thier crime rate further down.
The State (by State) of Right-To-Carry

Maryland State Requirements

Rifles and Shotguns
Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.
Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.
Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.
Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.

Handguns
Permit to purchase handgun? No. (Police record made of purchases from dealers)
Registration of handguns? No. (Police record made of purchases from dealers)
Licensing of owners of handguns? No.
Permit to carry handguns? Yes.

Other Requirements
Is there a State waiting period? 7 days for handguns.
Is there a FBI *NICS check for firearm transactions? Yes.
Permit to carry a concealed weapon required? Yes.
Record of sale: No.
*NICS - National Instant Check System

Missouri State Requirements

Rifles and Shotguns
Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.
Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.
Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.
Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.

Handguns
Permit to purchase handgun? No.
Registration of handguns? No.
Licensing of owners of handguns? No.
Permit to carry handguns? Carrying concealed prohibited.

Other Requirements
Is there a State waiting period? Up to 7-day wait to acquire permit to purchase a handgun.
Is there a FBI *NICS check for firearm transactions? Yes.
Permit to carry a concealed weapon required? Not allowed.
Record of sale: Yes.
*NICS - National Instant Check System

crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/Gun_Laws_by_State.htm

phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Chicago&s1=IL&c2=Baltimore&s2=MD