Gun Control

[Ender]

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.

No, they do not. The object (gun control) is not an issue of intrinsic evil, therefore one can be either for or against it without committing a sin. It is only in cases where the object itself is intrinsically evil that it determines the morality of the act. As for circumstances, not much help there either:

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act… Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

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.

Again, we’re not discussing the end use of guns; the issue is gun control. The question of whether stricter or more permissive control of handguns is harmful or beneficial is not a moral question. Everyone would like to see less violence, the disagreement is over how best to achieve it and that simply isn’t a moral question.

Gun control is a serious moral question.

Do stricter laws regarding the ownership of guns reduce crimes and violence? How would you go about answering that question: by researching crime statistics or by reading up on theology? Is it possible to regard answering that question to be anything other than a determination of fact? Where is the moral issue in determining fact?

The root causes of violence require the risk of commitments beyond which most of us are willing to go.

Determining the root causes of violence is an anthropological question, not a moral one.

we are called to touch, be present to, people who are sick and in need of salvation.

The question is not whether we are called or even whether we are willing to respond, it is about determining what will help. Three hundred years ago doctors bled patients thinking this would help. Neither the doctors applying leeches nor the doctors who rejected this treatment behaved immorally: they weren’t disagreeing on whether or not they should help, they were disagreeing about what techniques were helpful. It’s the same situation with regard to gun control; the disagreement is not over whether to help, it’s a disagreement over what actions are helpful.

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

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?
Not at all - they were proposing a solution, which, unless it involves acts that are intrinsically immoral, does not involve morality at all.
Same sex “marriage” involves an intrinsic evil and the Church is right to speak out about it.
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

It seems quite apparent to me your having great difficulty seeing the intrinsic evil of people choosing to use firearms for evil crimes against innocent people.

Evil is Evil whether its immoral Same-Sex or immorally using firearms to kill, maim innocent people in society. .

Solutions are about what works, not what is moral.

My response was that the choice of solutions is entirely prudential and has no moral component.

Considering the evil and immoral heavily laden crimes caused by firearms, your statements are absurdly contradictory.
You do not offer any solution whatsoever to diminish such crimes even if that means strongly restricting who can and can’t own firearms which is a viable solution proposed by the USCCB.

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.

Again another contradictory statement that rejects moral deliberation and conclusion.

 

[Ender]

It seems quite apparent to me your having great difficulty seeing the intrinsic evil of people choosing to use firearms for evil crimes against innocent people.

It’s as if we’re not communicating in the same language. Of course I recognize that the criminal use of firearms is evil. The fact that this idea should have occurred to you ought to have been an indicator that you might not have understood my point.

Evil is Evil whether its immoral Same-Sex or immorally using firearms to kill, maim innocent people in society.

We agree on what constitutes evil, where we disagree is over what actions will reduce it.

Considering the evil and immoral heavily laden crimes caused by firearms, your statements are absurdly contradictory.

We agree that crimes should be reduced, we disagree about the best approach to achieve a shared goal. If my comments are in fact absurdly contradictory that would make me foolish, it would not make me sinful. You may justly disagree with my position but you may not justly say that I behave immorally in holding it.

You do not offer any solution whatsoever to diminish such crimes even if that means strongly restricting who can and can’t own firearms which is a viable solution proposed by the USCCB.

Suppose I were to support the idea of allowing every law abiding citizen to own a handgun with the claim that expanding gun ownership would diminish the number of violent crimes. How would you refute my claim? The only way to do so would be to cite statistics and studies that have been conducted to evaluate the results when such actions have been taken. Where is the moral concern in that?

Again another contradictory statement that rejects moral deliberation and conclusion.

What moral deliberation is there in determining whether increasing or decreasing the number of handguns in private ownership will reduce crime?

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

Gun Control in the United States is an extremely difficult topic.

Here in the following are some topics of interest that not easy to read and take in all it once.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

daria.no/skole/?tekst=6099

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/02/daley-launches-final-gun-control-push.html

Looking at the articles is it fair to say (“Gun Control in the United States is completely out of Control”)?

What more can be said. I’m at lost cause to say anything more.

 

[Ender]

Gun Control in the United States is an extremely difficult topic.

Yes it is; I don’t dispute that. Being difficult, however, only means that people may with justification hold widely different views on what needs to be done. If you assume good intentions on both sides it’s easier to recognize that the debate is between groups with similar objectives but very different solutions.

Ender

 

[tommcguire]

Ender,

I have come to some conclusions about your views of morality. I assume you consider morality has little to do with restricting human behavior. Morality is subjective, everybody gets to simply invent their own morality without having to worry if they have adopted a “correct standard”. The exception is what you call acts defined (Who defines?) as intrinsically evil.

Catholic Morality has a standard that has to do with love and life; the standard is summarized by the command to love God and neighbor. Moral principles define for the Catholic a minimal level of good. As pilgrims on the way in Christ, the Catholic is called to go above the minimum and be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect.

Gun control is about going beyond the minimum; it seeks to put in place a minimal level of control to help people move to a better place. Many in a society disagree with this Catholic position and will do all in their power to prevent that control from being put in place. I believe in a free society, I should do all I can to try and put that control in place, as one means of preserving life.

 

[Ender]

I have come to some conclusions about your views of morality.

You have a gross misconception not just about my views of morality but about pretty much everything I’ve said.

I assume you consider morality has little to do with restricting human behavior. Morality is subjective, everybody gets to simply invent their own morality without having to worry if they have adopted a “correct standard”.

No. Either morality is objectively true for everyone or it doesn’t exist.

The exception is what you call acts defined (Who defines?) as intrinsically evil.

I don’t call them intrinsically evil, the Church does, and she has defined what they are. You really should have more carefully read that section of the Catechism from which you quoted; that’s where this concept is explained.

Gun control is about going beyond the minimum; it seeks to put in place a minimal level of control to help people move to a better place.

Your problem seems to be that you cannot accept the possibility that someone might believe that restricting gun ownership makes people less safe. You seem think that your solution is so obviously correct that the only possible way someone could disagree with it is if they disagreed with the objective. I share your objective; I disagree with your proposed solution.

Many in a society disagree with this Catholic position and will do all in their power to prevent that control from being put in place.

It isn’t a Catholic position and I am quite free to reject it - and willingly work to prevent its implementation. Since it isn’t a question of faith or morals the Church is rightly silent on the matter.

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

Yes it is; I don’t dispute that. Being difficult, however, only means that people may with justification hold widely different views on what needs to be done. If you assume good intentions on both sides it’s easier to recognize that the debate is between groups with similar objectives but very different solutions.

Ender

If you assume good intentions on both sides it’s easier to recognize that the debate is between groups with similar objectives but very different solutions.

Interesting. Perhaps this is where the human equation in fallacy begins. Similar objectives in gun control can easily be seen as being akin to a spoiled child. Ultimately; and logically there can be only "one objective and one solution to gun control.

In a society where Morality is as diverse as there is different gun brands I have a very difficult time seeing any objective or solution to gun control where there is childlike minds who possess a cascade of so many different mindsets.

Taking away guns from owners would be akin to taking a toy or teddy bear from a child.
So how do you change the behavior of a spoiled child? Strict Rules!
Every Adult is really best defined as a bent spoiled child. Even God knows that.
Seems to me there are millions of spoiled childlike Gun Owners who don’t know how to take care of their toys properly. Solution…take away there liberty until they know how to respect there liberty. Its clear that in today’s society that only very few know how to respect themselves and others.

 

[tommcguire]

Ender,

We disagree about what is morality; I respectfully submit that we will probably never agree on a definition of morality. I call to your attention my use of the word this. I believe Catholics can have different points of view on some moral issues. I understand you do not consider gun control a moral issue. But maybe we can still talk about the issue, even from radically different assumptions about morality.

The analogy that your brought up about motor vehicles seems appropriate.

We restrict the use of motor vehicles in all kinds of ways precisely because a vehicle can be a danger to life.

We require a drivers license, restrict driving when one consumes alcohol, require drivers to obey traffic regulations and restrictions.

Why can a society not restrict the use of guns, which also can be of danger to life?

 

[Ender]

Ultimately; and logically there can be only "one objective and one solution to gun control.

That may well be true, let’s assume that it is. We also have to accept, however, that no one knows for sure what that solution is - that’s what the whole debate is about. Having said that, if I take one position and you take another, which of us is behaving immorally? Given that each of us believes his solution is right it should be pretty clear that neither of us sins by choosing different approaches. At least one of us must be wrong, but neither of us is acting immorally. This is the point I’ve been trying to get across.

Taking away guns from owners would be akin to taking a toy or teddy bear from a child. So how do you change the behavior of a spoiled child? Strict Rules!

Ah, yes: well I may have to amend the comment I just made about neither of us sinning by taking differing positions on this issue. Clearly this type of uncharitable judgment of millions of people is inappropriate and crosses the line of what’s acceptable.

Ender

 

[Ender]

We disagree about what is morality; I respectfully submit that we will probably never agree on a definition of morality.

I don’t have a definition of morality; I accept the Church’s definition.

The analogy that your brought up about motor vehicles seems appropriate. We restrict the use of motor vehicles in all kinds of ways precisely because a vehicle can be a danger to life. We require a drivers license, restrict driving when one consumes alcohol, require drivers to obey traffic regulations and restrictions. Why can a society not restrict the use of guns, which also can be of danger to life?

Society can and does restrict the use of guns; we are not debating between having some restrictions and no restrictions at all, we differ on which ones are appropriate. I would also point out that there is no Church teaching on the proper restrictions for motor vehicles for the same reason there is none for gun ownership: both are entirely prudential issues that don’t involve moral choices. Prudential choices, yes; moral ones, no.

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

("Ultimately; and logically there can be only “one objective and one solution to gun control”) That may well be true, let’s assume that it is. We also have to accept, however, that no one knows for sure what that solution is - that’s what the whole debate is about.

Ender; I made that statement as a general consensus. It wasn’t directed towards you. Secondly I respect your comments. But as you say below neither yours are my comments are likely to find a perfect solution.

Then by your using this statement friend, perhaps this thread topic is irrelevant since in the end it achieves nothing.

Peace
Chris

 

[Ender]

Then by your using this statement friend, perhaps this thread topic is irrelevant since in the end it achieves nothing.

My comments achieve nothing in determining what level of gun control should be employed since I have avoided taking a position. What I have been arguing is that there is no Catholic position to be taken for the simple reason that the solution doesn’t involve moral choices.

If you want to argue that stricter controls are better then make that case, but make the case using statistics and studies that support your assertion. That’s all valid. What is not valid is to claim that stricter controls are mandated by Church teaching. That is incorrect.

I don’t consider the discussion so far to have been irrelevant because I think it is important to understand what the Church does and does not oblige us to believe, and I think that for the vast majority of issues the resolution lies with us to discover. The Church provides guidelines but it is up to us to apply them, and guidelines do not get down to the level of specifying (e.g.) what level of handgun control is best.

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

My comments achieve nothing in determining what level of gun control should be employed since I have avoided taking a position. What I have been arguing is that there is no Catholic position to be taken for the simple reason that the solution doesn’t involve moral choices.

The Church may not be in a position, but it does have the right to make a strong suggestion based upon moral reason. And whatever moral reasons the Church has its directed primarily at Catholics to seriously consider those moral reasons. It has nothing to do as saying you’ll go to hell for ignoring the Churches proposal in good faith.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.”

Are you saying that Jesus commanded His followers to buy something that was not to be used? Wouldn’t that be wasteful? Jesus taught at almost every turn to help the poor but in this one passage He instructed His followers to spend their money on something that would never be used instead of giving it to the poor? I don’t think so. Jesus fully intended the sword to be used when appropriate.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

“Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity; sometimes, even ’til the aggressor’s death. This act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim. One is also allowed to kill other people’s unjust aggressor.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, (Dizionario ecclesiastico).

The end use of guns can be to kill human beings. The 5th Commandment says: “Thou shalt not kill.”

Actually, the correct translation is “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder and killing are not the same thing. Murder is the intentional taking of an innocent life. There are numerous places in scripture where God commanded the people to “kill” (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT, Leviticus 20:27 NAB, Exodus 21:15 NAB, Leviticus 20:10 NLT, Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB, Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT, etc.). Recall that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23. Clearly, if the commandment was “Thou shalt not kill.”, then God would have been contradicting Himself – which we know can not be the case.

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.

And in this particular case, they ARE wrong because their position is in direct contradiction with the position of the Pope and the Vatican on this matter. As I said earlier, the Vatican’s own website clearly states …

… 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 **…

… When it comes to following someone’s teaching, I’ll take the Pope and the Vatican over the US Bishops.

 

[centurionguard]

From the Vatican’s own website …

… 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 **…

… 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

I won’t argue with what is written here at least for sane, peaceful, and responsible people in society.

However; if one studies the profoundness entailed in the above statement by the Vatican; can it not make someone paranoid to the degree as if to reason within oneself. ("Gee; maybe I should rush out at this very moment and buy myself a firearm to protect my family because there is a real threat that strongly exists in my land whereby my loved ones could be in jeopardy or their safety always in question)?

Is the above the mindset of some who own firearms?

Again I’m not here to argue the valid statement from the Vatican.
I’m just looking at it from another angle deliberating if there are people who do own firearms, own them for the wrong reasons. Somehow in all this I can’t help but see a certain aspect of paranoia in owning firearms in some people. At least for those in society who lack responsibility, sanity, and striving to be being peaceful law abiding citizens.

Peace
Chris

 

[Sir_Knight]

I won’t argue with what is written here at least for sane, peaceful, and responsible people in society.

However; if one studies the profoundness entailed in the above statement by the Vatican; can it not make someone paranoid to the degree as if to reason within oneself. ("Gee; maybe I should rush out at this very moment and buy myself a firearm to protect my family because there is a real threat that strongly exists in my land whereby my loved ones could be in jeopardy or their safety always in question)?

The CCC, which represents the OFFICIAL teaching of the Catholic Church, states that we have a grave duty to protect ourselves and others from harm. Not a right or even a duty but a GRAVE duty. A grave duty is to be accomplished by the best means possible otherwise it can not be considered to be “grave”. The best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a firearm. If your family was in danger and you failed to provide them with the best means of defense, would you not have failed in that grave duty? Just asking.

Is the above the mindset of some who own firearms?

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Again I’m not here to argue the valid statement from the Vatican.
I’m just looking at it from another angle deliberating if there are people who do own firearms, own them for the wrong reasons. Somehow in all this I can’t help but see a certain aspect of paranoia in owning firearms in some people. At least for those in society who lack responsibility, sanity, and striving to be being peaceful law abiding citizens.

Peace
Chris

Those who lack responsibility should not own firearms. With the FREEDOM to own firearms comes the RESPONSIBILITY of firearm ownership. You can’t have one without the other.

 

[centurionguard]

The CCC, which represents the OFFICIAL teaching of the Catholic Church, states that we have a grave duty to protect ourselves and others from harm. Not a right or even a duty but a GRAVE duty. A grave duty is to be accomplished by the best means possible otherwise it can not be considered to be “grave”. The best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a firearm. If your family was in danger and you failed to provide them with the best means of defense, would you not have failed in that grave duty? Just asking.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Those who lack responsibility should not own firearms. With the FREEDOM to own firearms comes the RESPONSIBILITY of firearm ownership. You can’t have one without the other.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

I must admit my appreciation for you explaining carrying a gun in this manner.
No one has ever explained to me owning a gun under these circumstances.
Again I appreciate this. Its regrettable that all gun owners don’t see it as you have explained. Mostly of course I’m speaking about those who misuse this liberty and inflict uncharitable harm and crime on others.

Thanks Again
Vivat Jesus
Yours In Christ
Chris

 

[tommcguire]

I will not talk about morality again. In the end these arguments will not move us to peace.

I do not approach the issue of gun control from a theoretical position. I believe that the community I live in would be much safer, moving to peaceful, if there were more, not less, regulation and restriction of guns. Here are some of the controls I support

I believe there is no need for anyone to privately own military assault rifles. Such rifles are owned by a few of my neighbors. I hear them being fired freely on holidays, especially the Fourth of July and New Years.

I believe everyone who owns a gun should have a license, and should have a very strict background check, be trained in the safe use and storage of a guns. Way too many children in my community have been killed because the gun’s owner did not safely store the gun.

I believe there is a need to regulate the purchase of ammunition. Gun owners should not be allowed to purchase unlimited amounts of ammunition. The holiday shooting sprees dumps a lot of bullets into the roofs of homes in my neighborhood.

Having said all that, I choose not to own or carry a gun. I have been held up at gun point. Had I had a gun, either the person who held me up or I would have been dead or wounded. I am thankful everyday I did not kill that young man and he did not kill me. I believe my non- violent response to him was a good choice.

I made the deliberate choice to live with my family (We moved here when my children were young.) in a community where there is a lot of violence. I believe my living here gives witness to a non-violent way of life. It requires risk, risk of losing my life or the life of my family. The choice to live here is a good choice.

I do not have fear. I do not trust in any form of weapon to protect me. I trust in the grace of God that the way I have chosen to live follows the call of Jesus to be His disciple.