Gun Control

[JerrySeibert]

What one must remember. Jesus healed the servant with the ear. But he also said sell your cloak and buy a sword. He knew one must be able to defend themselves and there family. If it is with a gun so what? Some people have black belts in martial arts.
If someone has a weapon to defend themself it is their right.

 

[tommcguire]

To carry a gun may be a right in the United States, but as a follower of Jesus it would seem He did not expect His followers to use the sword (gun) He allowed them to carry. When the servant used the sword to stop the one who came to arrest Him, He said: “No more of that.”

If I use a weapon to kill another, even to defend myself, would that be the way I would become perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect? (Today’s Gospel) The call of Jesus is radical, so much more radical than what we humans can imagine. Jesus would have His disciples put all their energy into finding ways to heal and invite conversion of those who are in sin or sick. How is using a gun doing what Jesus calls us to do?

 

[Ender]

How is using a gun doing what Jesus calls us to do?

The Church recognizes a person’s right to use deadly force in self defense; you apparently do not. Are we to understand you to mean that the Church’s position on this issue is wrong? It’s fairly simple: your position disagrees with what the Church teaches so either you or she is wrong.

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

The Church recognizes a person’s right to use deadly force in self defense; you apparently do not. Are we to understand you to mean that the Church’s position on this issue is wrong? It’s fairly simple: your position disagrees with what the Church teaches so either you or she is wrong.

Ender

The Church recognizes a person’s right to use deadly force in self defense; you apparently do not.

Ender; I didn’t perceive that was what the last poster said. Nor did the respected poster come out and say he/she was against a citizen owning a firearm.

And for that matter neither am I against a citizen owning a firearm.

Respectfully; I think all gun owners who are so strong defending the firearms they possess, need to sit back and seriously ask themselves, Do You Possess Guns or Rifles, or Do they possess you.

The American Rifle Association has a famous slogan (“Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do”)

This frequent pro-gun slogan is something that, upon reflection, seems entirely true. But it’s not.

In actuality, the first half of this slogan is demonstrably false; guns do indeed kill people. But the point that the gun lobby is surely trying to make is that they do not kill people by themselves; they require a human to pull the trigger.

This argument is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that guns make it much easier to kill people. Guns do this in two ways: enhanced ability and feasibility. We can see the enhanced ability from suicide statistics: the most successful suicide attempts are those that involve firearms. And this greater ability also makes murder feasible in a greater number of circumstances. To anyone entertaining murderous impulses, a gun makes it feasible to attack larger people, multiple people, people from a distance, from secrecy, etc. No one in their right mind would try to rob a bank with a knife. But a gun inspires confidence of success in a would-be bank robber, allowing a crime to occur when it wouldn’t have otherwise.

Gun control advocates argue that a certain, extremely small percentage of the populace is actively contemplating murder at any given time, and would if they could. They argue the murder rate would drop if these would-be murderers did not possess the enhanced ability and feasibility provided by guns. The above pro-gun slogan responds to this argument illogically, by making an irrelevant point.

A wit once described this irrelevancy thus: “Fingers don’t kill people, bullets do.”

 

[Newbie2]

What moral question is involved in determining how best to confront violence? There is none. Is it immoral to believe that society is safer if individuals are allowed to own firearms? Nowhere does the Church teach that societies should outlaw handguns and when bishops support such an idea they mislead people into believing that they have a moral obligation to accept the bishops’ opinions - and this is entirely untrue.

Gun control is not a moral issue and we are deceived when anyone - bishops included - imply otherwise.
Ender

It depends on what we mean by “gun control” and its application, no? Is it a legitimate attitude to think as a firearm as our protector, rather than our Lord?

I’m not saying that everyone thinks this way, but there is some room for discussion here. Agreed, the Church does not get into prudential judgments for the most part, and the application of “gun control” laws would certainly fall into the catagory of a prudental social matter.

To carry a gun may be a right in the United States, but as a follower of Jesus it would seem He did not expect His followers to use the sword (gun) He allowed them to carry. When the servant used the sword to stop the one who came to arrest Him, He said: “No more of that.”

If I use a weapon to kill another, even to defend myself, would that be the way I would become perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect? (Today’s Gospel) The call of Jesus is radical, so much more radical than what we humans can imagine. Jesus would have His disciples put all their energy into finding ways to heal and invite conversion of those who are in sin or sick. How is using a gun doing what Jesus calls us to do?

The Church recognizes a person’s right to use deadly force in self defense; you apparently do not. Are we to understand you to mean that the Church’s position on this issue is wrong? It’s fairly simple: your position disagrees with what the Church teaches so either you or she is wrong.

Ender

I think there is some middle ground here. While we are not called to absolute pacifism, we are not called to resort to a “him or me” mentality either.

 

[Brendan]

To carry a gun may be a right in the United States, but as a follower of Jesus it would seem He did not expect His followers to use the sword (gun) He allowed them to carry. When the servant used the sword to stop the one who came to arrest Him, He said: “No more of that.”

That is simply because Christ had to die for our sins.

We do not, that is why the Church recognizes the right to self defense, as did Christ when He ordered his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords.

 

[Ender]

Gun control advocates argue that a certain, extremely small percentage of the populace is actively contemplating murder at any given time, and would if they could. They argue the murder rate would drop if these would-be murderers did not possess the enhanced ability and feasibility provided by guns. The above pro-gun slogan responds to this argument illogically, by making an irrelevant point.

I have not been debating the issue of gun control per se; I have been discussing the bishops involvement in it.

That is, bishops should not be gun control advocates since this is not a moral issue and there is nothing they can teach on the subject.

You may argue all you like for or against the issue but it is improper to suggest that one position is more moral than another. There is no question of morality involved… which is why the bishops should not be involved either.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It depends on what we mean by “gun control” and its application, no? Is it a legitimate attitude to think as a firearm as our protector, rather than our Lord?

The Church allows individuals to protect themselves up to and including the use of deadly force. If you think the Church is mistaken to do so then make that point, don’t just imply it.

I’m not saying that everyone thinks this way, but there is some room for discussion here. Agreed, the Church does not get into prudential judgments for the most part, and the application of “gun control” laws would certainly fall into the catagory of a prudental social matter.

Agreed: gun control is a strictly prudential issue, so what justification can you think of that supports the involvement of the USCCB?

Ender

 

[Newbie2]

The Church allows individuals to protect themselves up to and including the use of deadly force. If you think the Church is mistaken to do so then make that point, don’t just imply it.

Didn’t mean to imply that the Church is mistaken. However, the attitude that one can depend on a firearm to protect them from all harm i.e. putting one’s faith in the gun to “save” their life and viewing the firearm as one’s “protector” is somewhat misguided, methinks, from a Catholic perspective. That doesn’t mean that a firearm is not a useful means to an end in terms of protecting one’s self. Is that clear what I’m saying? I can’t seem to find the right words to make my point.

Agreed: gun control is a strictly prudential issue, so what justification can you think of that supports the involvement of the USCCB?

Ender

I’m not familiar with what they have to say about the matter.

 

[Tigg]

The issue has more to do with greater governmental strict controls towards which citizens can and cannot own firearms. Tell me how does that restrict freedom and liberty and the right to bear arms?

I’ll ask you a rhetorical question in return: Do you absolutely trust this secular government which does not honor the Constitution, is clearly persecuting Christianity and the common good, and has leanings toward socialism? (Please read history for the correct answer!)

 

[Ender]

However, the attitude that one can depend on a firearm to protect them from all harm i.e. putting one’s faith in the gun to “save” their life and viewing the firearm as one’s “protector” is somewhat misguided, methinks, from a Catholic perspective.

Yours is not a judgment related to the issue of gun control, it is a judgment about people and your perception of what they believe. The fact that some people may want a firearm for the “wrong” reason does not justify banning them for those who want them for valid reasons. Still less does it justify the bishops involvement.

Ender

 

[Newbie2]

Yours is not a judgment related to the issue of gun control, it is a judgment about people and your perception of what they believe. The fact that some people may want a firearm for the “wrong” reason does not justify banning them for those who want them for valid reasons. Still less does it justify the bishops involvement.

Ender

Well, we still haven’t really defined “gun control” in terms of this discussion, have we?

What exactly is the Bishop’s involvement?

 

[centurionguard]

I’ll ask you a rhetorical question in return: Do you absolutely trust this secular government which does not honor the Constitution, is clearly persecuting Christianity and the common good, and has leanings toward socialism? (Please read history for the correct answer!)

Well first of all I’m not an American although I have many relatives that are.

However; if I was respectfully an American to answer your rhetorical question I don’t see how the Constitution really fits well…at least if your a devout Catholic and as you have pointed out secular political systems do persecute Christianity.

Being a child of God I don’t buy into any political system. But being forced to live inside a political system we should try to find a common good dependent on what moral good it best serves all. Yet different types of moral good can be perceived differently by many.

 

[tommcguire]

The Bishops of the Catholic Church are teachers. Their statements are meant to apply of Catholic teaching on all kinds of prudential decisions about moral issues.

Hand guns are involved in actions that harm and kill human beings. Any action that harms or kills a human person is a moral action. Therefore Bishops are obligated to teach about the moral aspects of gun control.

To say there is nothing moral about gun control reminds me of what Mao Tse-tung is reported to have said about killing human beings. “You kill, I kill; what is moral about that?”

Again, I want to emphasize, that guns in my community, owned by people who commit and do not commit crime, do not make this a safe or, more important, a peaceful place to live. When I was teaching Middle School students in the local Catholic School, we prayed regularly for people who had been shot and killed in the neighborhoods where the children lived. In the ten years I was a pastoral minister in that local parish, twelve men were shot and killed within five blocks of the church. Gun control will not solve this kind of wanton destruction of human life.

Work on the issues the Bishops mention in their teaching statements below will have a greater impact in making my community a safer and peaceful place than work on making sure everyone can posses a gun.

What I experience now is the withdrawal of Catholics from the communities in which they are most needed. Jesus came for the sinner and the sick. He calls us to be workers in the harvest. Please, let us sell all we have and follow Jesus into the mission fields.

A Sampling of Statements from the USCCB Website on Gun Control.

Handgun Violence: A Threat to Life

From: New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse, USCC, 1990.

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.” (Quoting the 1975 Handgun Statement) p.10.

From: Confronting A Culture Of Violence: A Catholic Framework for Action, 1995.

Violence in our culture is fed by multiple forces – the disintegration of family life, media influences, growing substance abuse, the availability of so many weapons, and the rise of gangs and increasing youth violence. No one response can address these diverse sources. Traditional liberal or conservative approaches cannot effectively confront them. We have to address simultaneously declining family life and the increasing availability of deadly weapons, the lure of gangs and the slavery of addiction, the absence of real opportunity, budget cuts adversely affecting the poor, and the loss of moral values. (p. 5)

Advocacy: Parish and diocesan representatives and other groups can meet with media representatives to bring pressure against excessive violence and pornography. Legislative networks can advocate for public policies that prevent and combat crime, restrict dangerous weapons, promote safe communities, eliminate the death penalty, and help lift people out of the “hellish cycle of poverty” and confront the violence of abortion. (p. 19)

… intensify our advocacy for national policies that address violence, including strengthening families, violence in the media, the availability of drugs and dangerous weapons, the violence of abortion and the use of the death penalty, and other economic and social policies that attack the root causes of violence. (p. 20)

From: Community and Crime: A Statement of the Committee on Social Development and World Peace, 1978.

Par. 61: In 1976, crime statistics indicated that

64 percent of all murders were committed with a firearm and

49 percent were committed with handguns.

Twenty-four percent of all aggravated assaults and

43 percent of all robberies were committed with firearms.

Eighty-five percent of the police officers killed were killed with firearms.

30 Other studies have shown that most homicides are committed against friends and relatives, not strangers. Since such a significant number of violent offenses are committed with handguns and within families, we believe that handguns need to be effectively controlled and eventually eliminated from our society. We acknowledge that controlling the possession of handguns will not eliminate gun violence, but we believe it is an indispensable element of any serious or rational approach to the problem.31

Par 79: (3) Handgun control. We support the development of a coherent national handgun control policy that includes: a several day cooling-off period between the sale and possession; a ban on “Saturday Night Specials”; the registration of handguns; the licensing of handgun owners; and more effective controls regulating the manufacture, sale and importation of handguns. We recognize, however, that these individual steps will not completely eliminate the abuse of handguns. We believe that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence.33

See Also: Handgun Violence: A Threat To Life, Statement on Gun Control. Committee on Social Development and World Peace, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, September 11, 1975.

For Further Information: Andy Rivas, Policy Advisor: Food, Agriculture and Non-violence issues, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 202-541-3190, fax: 202-541-3339, email: arivas@usccb.org

 

[Ender]

What exactly is the Bishop’s involvement?

This comment from the USCCB was cited earlier in this thread:

*“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.” *

Given that there is no moral question involved, either side of the issue may be taken with equal justification. It is utterly inappropriate for the bishops and the USCCB to involve themselves in political issues that don’t relate to any moral problem. Their personal political views are irrelevant and they do us an injustice by implying - by the simple fact that they express them - that their opinions deserve our assent.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Bishops of the Catholic Church are teachers. Their statements are meant to apply of Catholic teaching on all kinds of prudential decisions about moral issues.

What moral issue is involved here?

Hand guns are involved in actions that harm and kill human beings. Any action that harms or kills a human person is a moral action. Therefore Bishops are obligated to teach about the moral aspects of gun control.

You need to think more carefully about this. Cars are involved in actions that harm and kill human beings. Is driving a car a moral action? Diseases harm and kill human beings; is a doctor’s decision about how best to treat a patient a moral problem? The simple fact that a problem is serious does not of itself mean that it involves moral questions.

Gun control will not solve this kind of wanton destruction of human life.

This is a statement regarding facts and as such is neither moral nor immoral. If I disagree with your assessment that does not make me immoral; at worst it would make me wrong - but being mistaken is not a sin. We disagree about matters of facts, not about morals.

Work on the issues the Bishops mention in their teaching statements below will have a greater impact in making my community a safer and peaceful place than work on making sure everyone can posses a gun.

It may - and it may not. Again, that is not a moral statement, it is a claim whose validity would have to be determined not by reading Aquinas or papal encyclicals but by studying Bureau of Criminal Justice statistics. I will point out again: it is not sinful to disagree and to hold the opposite position.

You may certainly advocate for your position but there is no justification in claiming that your position is more moral than anyone else’s. It simply isn’t a question of which side is moral but of which side is correct

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

This comment from the USCCB was cited earlier in this thread:

*“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.” *

Given that there is no moral question involved, either side of the issue may be taken with equal justification. It is utterly inappropriate for the bishops and the USCCB to involve themselves in political issues that don’t relate to any moral problem. Their personal political views are irrelevant and they do us an injustice by implying - by the simple fact that they express them - that their opinions deserve our assent.

Ender

Hello Ender;

I guess what I’m trying to understand from your point of view is where you can’t see any moral issue, political or otherwise from the violent criminal use of firearms.

Don’t you think that is why and what the USCCB was referring to?

If governmental politics can’t see or ignore that there is an moral issue here then why can’t the USCCB make their own moral viewpoint on the violence caused by firearms.

The Catholic Church does have the authority to make its moral views known when there is governmental political misgivings on Same-Sex Marriage.

Yes its a different moral topic. But what of violence in the use of misaligned gun control?
How can that not become a moral issue?

Peace
Chris

 

[Newbie2]

This comment from the USCCB was cited earlier in this thread:

*“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.” *

Given that there is no moral question involved, either side of the issue may be taken with equal justification. It is utterly inappropriate for the bishops and the USCCB to involve themselves in political issues that don’t relate to any moral problem. Their personal political views are irrelevant and they do us an injustice by implying - by the simple fact that they express them - that their opinions deserve our assent.

Ender

Hello Ender;

I guess what I’m trying to understand from your point of view is where you can’t see any moral issue, political or otherwise from the violent criminal use of firearms.

Don’t you think that is why and what the USCCB was referring to?

If governmental politics can’t see or ignore that there is an moral issue here then why can’t the USCCB make their own moral viewpoint on the violence caused by firearms.

The Catholic Church does have the authority to make its moral views known when there is governmental political misgivings on Same-Sex Marriage.

Yes its a different moral topic. But what of violence in the use of misaligned gun control?
How can that not become a moral issue?

Peace
Chris

I agree. While the highlighted statement doesn’t seem to take into account those who target shoot for sport, for example, it seems to imply an ideal where handguns get taken away from the*** badguys*** too.

Yeah, since handguns are involved in a lot of armed crimes (I majority? I don’t know the stats), the notion of de-arming bad guys would seem to lessen or eliminate the need for citizens arming themselves for protection.

What I see in this statement (and I have not read the entire document) is an ideal raher than a “political statement”.

 

[Ender]

I guess what I’m trying to understand from your point of view is where you can’t see any moral issue, political or otherwise from the violent criminal use of firearms.

This objection doesn’t address my point. The issue is not whether criminal use of firearms is immoral it is whether there is a moral question involved in resolving the problems firearms create. No one argues that criminal behavior is immoral but that’s not what the bishops were referring to; their comment was in support of a particular solution to that problem. My response was that the choice of solutions is entirely prudential and has no moral component. My rejection of their preference and support of the exact opposite approach could perhaps be wrong but it is not possible for it to be immoral since the problem is practical: what works?

Don’t you think that is why and what the USCCB was referring to?

Not at all - they were proposing a solution, which, unless it involves acts that are intrinsically immoral, does not involve morality at all.

The Catholic Church does have the authority to make its moral views known when there is governmental political misgivings on Same-Sex Marriage.

Same sex “marriage” involves an intrinsic evil and the Church is right to speak out about it.

But what of violence in the use of misaligned gun control? How can that not become a moral issue?

The question isn’t about whether there should or should not be violence but about what approaches will best prevent it. Solutions are about what works, not what is moral. It is of course not valid to use immoral means to resolve problems, but aside from that there is no moral consideration involved.

Ender

 

[tommcguire]

IN BRIEF: From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for clarification, here is a summary of the morality of human acts.

Ender,

1757
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three “sources” of the morality of human acts.

1758
The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759
“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760
A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761
There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

From this I conclude that gun control is an object that can be chosen. The end and circumstances for which gun control is chosen contribute to placing it within the realm of morality.

The end use of guns can be to kill human beings. The 5th Commandment says: “Thou shalt not kill.” It is this end use that the Bishops are concerned about when they advocate for gun control. Their prudential judgment is not infallible; they can be wrong as you and I can be wrong. However, in their role as teachers they have an obligation to apply Catholic Teaching to serious moral questions. Gun control is a serious moral question.

You mentioned cars. Every driver of a car is required to have a driver license. There are many laws that govern the use of motor vehicles; most of those laws are intended to protect life. So vehicle control like gun control is a part of the complex of human morality.

Let me return to the Bishops statements. As followers of Jesus Christ, the Bishops are calling us to go beyond the law. To do something positive to bring about the will of God. The root causes of violence require the risk of commitments beyond which most of us are willing to go. To imitate Jesus who touched and was touched by the sick and sinners, we are called to touch, be present to, people who are sick and in need of salvation. However, most of us, like the rich young man, when asked to sell all and follow Jesus, walk away.