Gun Control

[Sir_Knight]

I live in a community with lots of guns. There is no control on who owns or does not own a gun. Children die from guns all too often. That is my evidence for wanting more gun control.

I believe the Gospel, which is not based on statistics, encourages virtue. Courage is one of those virtues that is much needed. The following article sites the kind of courage that the Gospel of Jesus Christ encourages. I believe this kind of courage will make a difference in the war we are fighting with each other.

Clancey Sigal in an Alter Net article, “In a War-Loving Society, Peace Activism Takes a Lot of Guts and Bravery”, asked some questions worth reflecting on. What does Memorial Day memorialize? Decoration Day began to honor the more than 600,000 dead Confederate and Union soldiers.

He goes on to ask: “Isn’t it time to also honor those who have ‘fallen” in a different battle –against the slaughtering wars?”

He goes on to say: “Over time, my attitude to conscientious objectors and deserters has shifted. Once, I held them in contempt. But the Vietnam war, when I came into contact with war resisters, changed me. I saw then, and see now, that often it takes a different kind of moral and, yes, even physical courage to resist a call to serve your country in a war you believe is a crime, when all your family, friends, teachers and the vast American majority support joining up. When I was called to my war, I went with shining eyes and revenge in my heart and couldn’t wait to get my hands on a .30-calibre machine-gun to wipe out those Nazi bastards.”

He asks: “But what kind of guts does it take for war objectors, whether they’re Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mennonites or secular, who simply don’t want to kill?”
And concludes: “On this Memorial Day, it might be a time to think about the outcasts who refuse to take life.”

May God have mercy on us all. May all who die doing what their conscience says is good and moral live eternally in the bosom of our loving God.
I also pray for more courageous people to choose not to use guns to take life.

forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/136704-leesport-redners-market-not-carry-friendly-page-5.html

 

[ddarko]

I acknowledge that only the Church can infallibly interpert scripture’s teachings. You seem to think that you know better. A Protestant approach.

I sometimes love the amusement I get out of our discussions

I am not doing any interpretation. I am making an observation. That we should imitate the early Christian community shown in Acts of the Apostles is an infallible Church teaching. It’s just like saying “we must imitate Jesus in our lives”.

You my friend have left the boundary of Catholicism to some kind of “Bible is not for me” position. That’s definitely not Catholic.

Stop being hypocritical. The Church can not teach that we have a right and even a duty to do something and then restrict our ability to perform that duty. Additionally, NOWHERE does the CCC forbid the use of weapons for self defense. In absence of such, the two go hand in hand.

Actually this is a logical error.

There can be a duty, YES. But whether you should be allowed guns for it is a different question. Unless the Duty is one-one with possession of Guns, there is no reason to think that it logically follows that one must also have the right to own guns.

So I am really not sure what else to say. Your repeated emphasis of this point seems to indicate that you don’t understand what I am saying. Perhaps you should talk to the other gun advocates who I discussed with this on thread and acknowledged the difference.

No, they are not. The CCC applies to all and not to exceptions.

The CCC applies to events they describe. Sometimes these events are the exceptions.

The CCC applies to ALL. All have a right to self defense. A gun is a means to accomplish that self defense and since the CCC does not place any restrictions that weapons can not be used for self defense … you have nothing to base your conclusion on

CCC applies to self-defense YES. But to Guns NO. This is a logical error on your part, please read above.

The CCC applies to all and you have presented no Vatican document showing that all should not all own guns.

The CCC applies to all but it says nothing that everyone should own guns. It specifically says State and those in authority when it comes to guns. I think you don’t understand that those are not everyone I am not sure what else to say.

I know how to read scripture much better than you. Jesus clearly instructed His followers to purchase a sword if they did not have one even if they had to sell their cloak to do so. The Apostles, who spent three years eating, sleeping, living and learning from Jesus understood Jesus to mean real swords. The scripture clearly says that whenever the Apostles misunderstood something, Jesus always explained it to them and we always see that explanation. No further explanation for this particular passage is EVER offered. Either the Apostles understood correctly and Jesus was talking about real swords (therefore, no further explanation would be needed) or this would mark the one part in all the gospels where a misunderstood concept was not further explained. Finally, if the Apostles misunderstood this teaching, when their minds were opened to the truth by the Holy Spirit and recalling that they themselves misunderstood this teaching, why wouldn’t they explain this teaching to prevent others from misunderstanding it the way that they did?

If I was given directions on how to get somewhere and I missed a hidden turn, when giving those directions to others that I cared about, I would more carefully explain that turn to ensure that others don’t make the same mistake that I made. If the Apostles misunderstood, they would have clarified this teaching to prevent others from misunderstanding it. They didn’t. Why? Because they didn’t misunderstand. Jesus was instructing His followers to arms themselves with weapons.

Thanks for repeating this. It makes it easier for me to copy and paste to my letter. Now if you would please let me know your parish or your Bishop and I would be happy to write to him.

More fabrication on your part. Where have I ever said that I taught RCIA? Link please?

Well if you don’t, then that’s good. I can sleep well then

God Bless

 

[starshiptrooper]

When one says that we have to imitate the early Christian community, it does not mean we can’t do anything new. What it means is that when we consider doing something new, we have to see if it is compatible with how things took place in the early Christian community. That is always a must. If you are denying this, your Catholic Faith and the Church is no more. It would just be an unnecessary invention. Protestants are right and you might as well convert.

I just gave you two examples which prove that Catholics do not have to imitate the lifestyle of the early Christian community.

The whole church hierarchy, parishes etc are all based on Acts of the Apostles. The problem with arming people with guns is that this stands in direct contradiction to what we see in Acts of the Apostles.

So the argument is not that we shouldn’t own guns because Apostles didn’t own guns. They obviously had no way of even knowing what a gun is. The argument is that owning a gun seems contradictory to the self-sacrificing life style the early church community lived as described in the acts of the Apostles.

As I just pointed out, using the same line of reasoning, we can also conclude that using methods of transportation other than walking and owning private property are contradictory to the lifestyle of the early Church community.

If you want me to take your argument seriously, you need to refute the facts I just brought up.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I sometimes love the amusement I get out of our discussions

I am not doing any interpretation. I am making an observation. That we should imitate the early Christian community shown in Acts of the Apostles is an infallible Church teaching. It’s just like saying “we must imitate Jesus in our lives”.

Okay then, you have made an INCORRECT “observation”.

You my friend have left the boundary of Catholicism to some kind of “Bible is not for me” position. That’s definitely not Catholic.

When your interpretation / observation conflicts with an OFFICIAL position of the Church, then YOUR interpretation / observation of the bible is INCORRECT.

Actually this is a logical error.

There can be a duty, YES. But whether you should be allowed guns for it is a different question. Unless the Duty is one-one with possession of Guns, there is no reason to think that it logically follows that one must also have the right to own guns.

So I am really not sure what else to say. Your repeated emphasis of this point seems to indicate that you don’t understand what I am saying. Perhaps you should talk to the other gun advocates who I discussed with this on thread and acknowledged the difference.

If something is “tied” to the performance of a duty, unless the Church specifically forbids it’s use, it IS allowed. Guns are tied to the duty of defense. Nowhere does the Church specifically forbid their use. Therefore, they go hand in hand with the duty of defense. That is the logical flow. The Vatican even CONFIRMS that conclusion in the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144) …… 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. This right ALONE can **justify the possession of arms **…
Read what that says (and I’m para-phrasing here) … “Defense by arms exists and that right is a serious DUTY for those responsible for others” – INCLUDING family members. Those responsible for the common good of the family … NOT families or the family institution but the FAMILY – have a GRAVE duty to protection WITH arms.

According to your faulty logic, unless the Church specifically says that we can use something, we are prohibited from doing so. Thus, the Church says that we have a duty to attend Mass on Sundays but because the Church does not specifically say that we can use an automobile to get us to Mass, it is wrong to use a car to get us to Mass.

See the error in your logic? We have a duty to attend Mass on Sundays. The use of a car helps us perform that duty. Since the Church does not specifically say that we can not use a car to get to Mass, the Church indirectly approves of the use of a car to get us to Mass because that car is helping us perform the duty that the Church says that we have. The same logic applies to guns. We have a duty to self defense. The use of a gun helps us perform that duty. Since the Church does not specifically say that we can not use a gun in defending ourselves, the Church indirectly approves of the use of a gun for self defense purposes because that gun is helping us perform the duty that the Church says that we have.

The CCC applies to events they describe. Sometimes these events are the exceptions.

CCC applies to self-defense YES. But to Guns NO. This is a logical error on your part, please read above.

The CCC applies to all but it says nothing that everyone should own guns. It specifically says State and those in authority when it comes to guns. I think you don’t understand that those are not everyone I am not sure what else to say.

Actually, CCC2265 says “one who is responsible for the lives of others”. The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144) further clarifies that this extends to those who are responsible for the good of the family – which would include a father, husband, mother, etc.; since they have a DUTY to provide for themselves and their families. They have a duty to provide food, shelter, clothing AND protection. Protection from harm in whatever shape it may come. Those who fail to provide for themselves and their families are “worse than an unbeliever” according to 1 Timothy 5:8.

Thanks for repeating this. It makes it easier for me to copy and paste to my letter. Now if you would please let me know your parish or your Bishop and I would be happy to write to him.

As soon as you tell me your parish or Bishop. If you think that your understanding of scripture trumps that of Bishops and Popes – including official Church teachings, then you are DANGEROUSLY flirting with Church Canon Law §751 & §1364 ¶1.

Well if you don’t, then that’s good. I can sleep well then

I don’t but I may seriously look into it to ensure that those coming into the faith have a correct understanding of the faith and do not become as misguided as you thinking that the final say on matters of faith and morals is their understanding of scripture rather than official Church teaching on those things.

 

[tommcguire]

I thought of this thread last night as I listened to guns being fired down the street. Often those guns are fired into the air. Where do the bullets go? Some injure people, others are embedded in the roofs of homes in the neighborhood, and some fall on the ground. If there is lead in the bullets, that lead can find its way into food grown in backyard gardens.

I also wonder if others on this thread think of ways guns hurt the common good. I think of guns used as toys by children, some of whom die of gun shot injuries. The high cost of health care is in part related to the care of individuals injured and often maimed for life. They get medical care at the expense of everyone who pays for health insurance. The use of guns makes it easier to fatally kill one consider to be an enemy. Not a good form of justice. Here in Detroit, a man came into a police station recently and shot several officers. He did not seem afraid of those who were armed. He is not someone who should have had a gun for self defense; his action did not enhance the common good. Think of the number of attempts to use guns to kill politicians during the past decades; many good public servants were successfully killed.

Restrictions on guns are necessary. Why can’t we turn from trying to prove a point from ideology, Church teaching, or scripture and turn to discussing how we stop the war on each other in which guns are used?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I live in a community with lots of guns. There is no control on who owns or does not own a gun. Children die from guns all too often. That is my evidence for wanting more gun control.

I believe the Gospel, which is not based on statistics, encourages virtue. Courage is one of those virtues that is much needed. The following article sites the kind of courage that the Gospel of Jesus Christ encourages. I believe this kind of courage will make a difference in the war we are fighting with each other.

Clancey Sigal in an Alter Net article, “In a War-Loving Society, Peace Activism Takes a Lot of Guts and Bravery”, asked some questions worth reflecting on. What does Memorial Day memorialize? Decoration Day began to honor the more than 600,000 dead Confederate and Union soldiers.

He goes on to ask: “Isn’t it time to also honor those who have ‘fallen” in a different battle –against the slaughtering wars?”

He goes on to say: “Over time, my attitude to conscientious objectors and deserters has shifted. Once, I held them in contempt. But the Vietnam war, when I came into contact with war resisters, changed me. I saw then, and see now, that often it takes a different kind of moral and, yes, even physical courage to resist a call to serve your country in a war you believe is a crime, when all your family, friends, teachers and the vast American majority support joining up. When I was called to my war, I went with shining eyes and revenge in my heart and couldn’t wait to get my hands on a .30-calibre machine-gun to wipe out those Nazi bastards.”

He asks: “But what kind of guts does it take for war objectors, whether they’re Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mennonites or secular, who simply don’t want to kill?”
And concludes: “On this Memorial Day, it might be a time to think about the outcasts who refuse to take life.”

May God have mercy on us all. May all who die doing what their conscience says is good and moral live eternally in the bosom of our loving God.
I also pray for more courageous people to choose not to use guns to take life.

I thought of this thread last night as I listened to guns being fired down the street. Often those guns are fired into the air. Where do the bullets go? Some injure people, others are embedded in the roofs of homes in the neighborhood, and some fall on the ground. If there is lead in the bullets, that lead can find its way into food grown in backyard gardens.

I also wonder if others on this thread think of ways guns hurt the common good. I think of guns used as toys by children, some of whom die of gun shot injuries. The high cost of health care is in part related to the care of individuals injured and often maimed for life. They get medical care at the expense of everyone who pays for health insurance. The use of guns makes it easier to fatally kill one consider to be an enemy. Not a good form of justice. Here in Detroit, a man came into a police station recently and shot several officers. He did not seem afraid of those who were armed. He is not someone who should have had a gun for self defense; his action did not enhance the common good. Think of the number of attempts to use guns to kill politicians during the past decades; many good public servants were successfully killed.

Restrictions on guns are necessary. Why can’t we turn from trying to prove a point from ideology, Church teaching, or scripture and turn to discussing how we stop the war on each other in which guns are used?

First off, your profile shows that you are from Detroit, Michigan. Detroit, Michigan has one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. So your comment …* There is no control on who owns or does not own a gun.*
… is completely false. Secondly, no responsible gun owner is going to be shooting into the air. I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that the people who are doing this are already disqualified from owning guns and have obtained those guns illegally.

Now, let me ask you – if there are already laws in place barring them from owning guns and they broke those laws, what makes you think that they will not break additional laws that would be passed? Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws … INCLUDING gun laws. Gun laws do only one thing. They place limits and restrictions on law-abidding citizens because the criminal is going to obtain those guns illegally anyway. So, by passing more gun laws, you have no impact on the criminal population while impacting the law-abidding citizens who are not the problem in the first place.

Extensive research (I provided the references for this in my previous reply to you and challenged you verify the findings) has shown that when gun laws are loosen (not tighten), violent crime goes DOWN. This has nothing to do with “statistics” – it is real life cause and effect. Detail analysis of 3,000+ counties show that when gun laws are relaxed, violent crime goes down and when gun laws are enacted, violent crime goes up. Not just in a majority of cases or in an overwhelming majority but EVERY SINGLE case.

Knowing this, why do you say …Restrictions on guns are necessary.
… More restrictions will result in MORE violent crime. It has happened EVERY SINGLE time. What makes you think that this time will be different? What will make these restrictions different from all of the previous ones which resulted in an INCREASE?

 

[ddarko]

I just gave you two examples which prove that Catholics do not have to imitate the lifestyle of the early Christian community.As I just pointed out, using the same line of reasoning, we can also conclude that using methods of transportation other than walking and owning private property are contradictory to the lifestyle of the early Church community.

If you want me to take your argument seriously, you need to refute the facts I just brought up.

Yes which is why your two examples are a gross misunderstanding.

My point was that we have to be consistent with the Early Church Community of Acts of the Apostles. Not only do what they did. Obviously, they didn’t have cars. Does it mean we can’t drive cars? NO. That’s a naive interpretation. The point is that having a car does not violate anything the early Christian community stood for.

When it comes to self-defense, we see people giving up their lives, while praying for persecutors. So is having a gun for self-defense compatible with that? NO.

So you seem to have a naive understanding of what it means to imitate. We DO imitate the early Christian Community.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Okay then, you have made an INCORRECT “observation”.

When your interpretation / observation conflicts with an OFFICIAL position of the Church, then YOUR interpretation / observation of the bible is INCORRECT.

If something is “tied” to the performance of a duty, unless the Church specifically forbids it’s use, it IS allowed. Guns are tied to the duty of defense. Nowhere does the Church specifically forbid their use. Therefore, they go hand in hand with the duty of defense. That is the logical flow. The Vatican even CONFIRMS that conclusion in the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144) …… 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. This right ALONE can **justify the possession of arms **…
Read what that says (and I’m para-phrasing here) … “Defense by arms exists and that right is a serious DUTY for those responsible for others” – INCLUDING family members. Those responsible for the common good of the family … NOT families or the family institution but the FAMILY – have a GRAVE duty to protection WITH arms.

According to your faulty logic, unless the Church specifically says that we can use something, we are prohibited from doing so. Thus, the Church says that we have a duty to attend Mass on Sundays but because the Church does not specifically say that we can use an automobile to get us to Mass, it is wrong to use a car to get us to Mass.

See the error in your logic? We have a duty to attend Mass on Sundays. The use of a car helps us perform that duty. Since the Church does not specifically say that we can not use a car to get to Mass, the Church indirectly approves of the use of a car to get us to Mass because that car is helping us perform the duty that the Church says that we have. The same logic applies to guns. We have a duty to self defense. The use of a gun helps us perform that duty. Since the Church does not specifically say that we can not use a gun in defending ourselves, the Church indirectly approves of the use of a gun for self defense purposes because that gun is helping us perform the duty that the Church says that we have.

Actually, CCC2265 says “one who is responsible for the lives of others”. The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144) further clarifies that this extends to those who are responsible for the good of the family – which would include a father, husband, mother, etc.; since they have a DUTY to provide for themselves and their families. They have a duty to provide food, shelter, clothing AND protection. Protection from harm in whatever shape it may come. Those who fail to provide for themselves and their families are “worse than an unbeliever” according to 1 Timothy 5:8.

As soon as you tell me your parish or Bishop. If you think that your understanding of scripture trumps that of Bishops and Popes – including official Church teachings, then you are DANGEROUSLY flirting with Church Canon Law §751 & §1364 ¶1.

I don’t but I may seriously look into it to ensure that those coming into the faith have a correct understanding of the faith and do not become as misguided as you thinking that the final say on matters of faith and morals is their understanding of scripture rather than official Church teaching on those things.

I give up on you. You just don’t understand that Self-Defense != Gun possession.

It might be blindness to defend your livelihood in which case I feel for you. But in any event, I think you and I cannot carry out a discussion any further.

Once you think long enough and wrap your brain around why right to self-defense does not necessarily mean right to own a gun, then we will talk. Lets not waste each others time.

God Bless

 

[tommcguire]

A new story about use of a gun:

*‘The girl, wearing a black bandanna over her face and carrying a stolen 9 mm. Smith and Wesson handgun, walked into the Country Lake Market on North Milford road the night of April 15, and demanded money. The employees were able to wrestle her to the ground and hold her until sheriff’s deputies arrived.’

‘She pleaded guilty April 26 to one count of armed robbery and has been in custody since the robbery.’*

I agree laws that restrict guns alone will not make much difference in their use. I do not think the people shooting guns in my neighborhood are criminals; and I have no way to know if the guns they own are legal. But I am sure that some who own guns legally do use them in ways that endanger others and harm the common good.

A culture of gun ownership is a contributing factor to the problem of gun violence. We live in la society that values guns beyond reason. The 12 year old who tried to hold up a bank did not make a rational adult decision to use a gun to rob a bank. She took from her culture values that influenced her immature and perhaps disturbed mind to take up a gun and get what she wanted–money.

What the Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to is compassion, compassion that looks for peaceful ways of resolving problems. How do we find a way to influence our culture to rely more on the grace of God than on guns?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I give up on you. You just don’t understand that Self-Defense != Gun possession.

I give up on you. You just don’t understand that the Church can not require a duty of someone and then deny them the means by which to do it.

It might be blindness to defend your livelihood in which case I feel for you. But in any event, I think you and I cannot carry out a discussion any further.

It might be too much self-pride wanting to depend on one’s incorrect understanding of scripture instead yielding to the authority of the Church on such matters. In any event, I think you and I cannot carry out a discussion any further.

Once you think long enough and wrap your brain around why right to self-defense does not necessarily mean right to own a gun, then we will talk. Lets not waste each others time.

Once you think long enough and wrap your brain around why it is hypocritical to say that someone has a right to do something but deny them the means by which to do it, then we will talk. Lets not waste each others time.

 

[ddarko]

I give up on you. You just don’t understand that the Church can not require a duty of someone and then deny them the means by which to do it.

It might be too much self-pride wanting to depend on one’s incorrect understanding of scripture instead yielding to the authority of the Church on such matters. In any event, I think you and I cannot carry out a discussion any further.

Once you think long enough and wrap your brain around why it is hypocritical to say that someone has a right to do something but deny them the means by which to do it, then we will talk. Lets not waste each others time.

If I didn’t know better, the way you repeat what I said to you back to me, I would think I was arguing with a 5 year old

Well, back to better things.

God Bless

 

[starshiptrooper]

Yes which is why your two examples are a gross misunderstanding.

My point was that we have to be consistent with the Early Church Community of Acts of the Apostles. Not only do what they did. Obviously, they didn’t have cars. Does it mean we can’t drive cars? NO. That’s a naive interpretation. The point is that having a car does not violate anything the early Christian community stood for.

I never said anything about cars, just means of transportation other than walking. That is consistent with your line of reasoning.

When it comes to self-defense, we see people giving up their lives, while praying for persecutors. So is having a gun for self-defense compatible with that? NO.

Again, using your logic, I was able to prove that private property is incompatible with Christianity, women should have their heads covered in Church, and that Christians should walk most of the time.

So you seem to have a naive understanding of what it means to imitate. We DO imitate the early Christian Community.

God Bless

As I just pointed out, we don’t.

 

[Sir_Knight]

If I didn’t know better, the way you repeat what I said to you back to me, I would think I was arguing with a 5 year old

I’ve been feeling that way about you for a while now. The Vatican says “the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS.” How someone can not understand that is beyond me. Either you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old or you are so caught up with self-pride that you think you can interpret faith and morals from scripture better than the Vatican.

 

[ddarko]

I never said anything about cars, just means of transportation other than walking.

This is not consistent with my line of reasoning. Let me enlighten you.

If Apostles used to believe in Christ and we don’t, then it is inconsistent with the early Christian Community.

If we now believe in more well defined Doctrine on Christ’s nature etc. just because the early Christian community didn’t know it, it does not make it inconsistent.

GOT IT? See the difference?

Now with guns for self defense, the early Christian Community never carried weapons and in fact happily laid their lives down while praying for those persecuting them. For us to go the other way is INCONSISTENT.

That is consistent with your line of reasoning.Again, using your logic, I was able to prove that private property is incompatible with Christianity, women should have their heads covered in Church, and that Christians should walk most of the time.As I just pointed out, we don’t.

Just TRY… IF YOU CAN… to understand PROPERLY what I am saying. You have a very naive view of what it means to imitate the Early Christian Community. No wonder you have a naive view of Guns.

In any case, please, if you want to get all logical, first know what the other person’s position is. There is no point in you sitting their attacking a straw man because it wastes BOTH of your valuable time.

God Bless

 

[chain]

I keep hearing we should imitate the early Christians. In some respects that is a good thing, but I will still choose to use electricity and modern bathrooms. That said, while early Christians were willing to die for their faith - I don’t think that pacifism was the norm.

IIRC, the military (Roman military) had certain weapons that were most likely not legal for individuals to own, but citizens were allowed to own weapons of self defense (just not specific weapons of war). Likewise, most people would have tools of their trades in possess that could easily substitute as self defense weapons (my keyboard and cell phone don’t work so well as a hoe, or a staff).

The “gun” culture that is being refereed to in Detroit is not “gun” culture. It is gang culture. Gangs were fighting and killing each other with knives before they decided to start shooting each other. The culture of crime and violence exists - the guns are only a tool it uses.

I grew up in a rural culture. Guns were common place - and they never caused people to start shooting at one another. Cars were by far the biggest killer of our youth (for a while the alcohol related fatalities among boys was about 1 per year (given that graduating classes had less than 10 boys - that was really bad). I don’t know of any local kids killed by guns - but then again I know of a local horse fatality (he was about 2 years older than me) and a boating fatality (one of my best friends).​

to be honest - I guess I know of two gun fatalities - both self inflicted by terminally ill older men.

 

[ddarko]

I keep hearing we should imitate the early Christians. In some respects that is a good thing, but I will still choose to use electricity and modern bathrooms. That said, while early Christians were willing to die for their faith - I don’t think that pacifism was the norm.

IIRC, the military (Roman military) had certain weapons that were most likely not legal for individuals to own, but citizens were allowed to own weapons of self defense (just not specific weapons of war). Likewise, most people would have tools of their trades in possess that could easily substitute as self defense weapons (my keyboard and cell phone don’t work so well as a hoe, or a staff).

The “gun” culture that is being refereed to in Detroit is not “gun” culture. It is gang culture. Gangs were fighting and killing each other with knives before they decided to start shooting each other. The culture of crime and violence exists - the guns are only a tool it uses.

I grew up in a rural culture. Guns were common place - and they never caused people to start shooting at one another. Cars were by far the biggest killer of our youth (for a while the alcohol related fatalities among boys was about 1 per year (given that graduating classes had less than 10 boys - that was really bad). I don’t know of any local kids killed by guns - but then again I know of a local horse fatality (he was about 2 years older than me) and a boating fatality (one of my best friends).​

to be honest - I guess I know of two gun fatalities - both self inflicted by terminally ill older men.

Don’t misunderstand me my friend. What I mean by imitate is to do what is consistent with the early Christian community.

I also do not promote pacifism either. I in fact clearly stated that examples like you mentioned (living in rural areas) justifies owning a gun for self defense.

I am merely pointing out that given the law enforcement present in most areas and other even other non-lethal forms of self-defense available if required, gun possession is not justified for the civilian population as a whole.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am merely pointing out that given the law enforcement present in most areas and other even other non-lethal forms of self-defense available if required, gun possession is not justified for the civilian population as a whole.

Again, the Vatican disagrees with you …
" … the RIGHT of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS … "

 

[tommcguire]

Last night I was reading accounts of the Chinese Martyrs killed during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. Most offered their life without resistance But there were some who used guns to defend themselves. The result in one case where guns were used, more than 3000 Catholics were killed, some burned to death in a church where they had taken refuge. The use of guns as a defense did not help them at all.

My question remains: as disciples of Christ what can be done to move from a culture of violence, in which guns are glorified, to one in which the non-violent pursuit of peace become the predominant value?

 

[Sir_Knight]

There is a difference between dying for the faith and being senselessly killed by a criminal.

 

[ddarko]

the RIGHT of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS … "
[/INDENT]

YES and YES and YES. I agree with the Vatican.

What I disagree is someone like you making the jump from that sentence to “Civilians at all times are justified in possessing a gun”.

That is not Church teaching.

God Bless