Gun Control

[hxcCatholic413]

Our duty as Catholics is to OPPOSE evil. Also, recall that scripture tells us that Jesus was always in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father AND we see numerous times in the Old Testament when God commanded the people to kill the aggressor. In fact, 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 showing that pacifism is not always pleasing to God.

With that logic (bolded) one could walk into an abortion clinic and murder the doctor. Am I right?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Of course. I am certainly not talking about pacifism.

What I am pointing out is the type of relationship we must have with our fellow brothers and sisters. It must be with acceptance of the fact that everyone is our brother and sister in Christ. That is why we do not carry a gun around. Just as we do not fear our brother or sister harming us, we do not fear the spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, this is the essence of Christianity. Our life is a strife to get ourselves to love everyone as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Does that mean Pacifism? No. Those in authority will have to step in and discipline the flock. So in the case of the Church, God has given this authority to the Church. In the case of the law, God has given this authority to those who we have elected as leaders. They have a moral duty to maintain the law just as the church has a duty to maintain Christ’s teachings and laws.

But of course, when things go wrong, when authority is corrupt, when there is war, THAT IS CERTAINLY the TIME to bear arms. BUT, we are not yet in such a time and place, correct? And that is certainly not the type of situation that you are addressing either if I understand you correctly.

God Bless

Also, remember that the Church teaches that we have a DUTY to protect ourselves. Recall, that prior to being made a saint, Thomas Aquinas’s writings were careful studied to make sure that there was nothing in them contrary to the faith and after reading the following …
“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 Church had no problem in still making him a saint. What does that tell you?

 

[ddarko]

I modified the example to remove the objections that you brought up

Something had to cause these result to happen and the only common thing was the loosen guns laws. Thus, what is the logical conclusion?

Aah yes. This might appear so. But there could be many factors effecting it. That is why Correlation of the two phenomenon, i.e. Gun Control and Violence might not imply a Causal relationship between the two. So your modifications do not get rid of this problem in your examples. It is a logical error to conclude that it implies a causal relationship from the examples.

Now I can understand that this might be a foreign concept to you so let me show you why in a different way as well. If you look at some studies performed in other places of US, and around the world, you will find negative correlations. So counter examples to the studies you cite. Now does that mean one set of studies were wrong? Not really. It just means that there are other factors in play that need to be controlled in order to make a valid logical conclusion about causation. So far, there has been no research study that can conclude either way that No gun control = more violence or vice versa.

So our debate on gun control cannot hinge on this point I am afraid.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

With that logic (bolded) one could walk into an abortion clinic and murder the doctor. Am I right?

If one is in danger of death or serious bodily injury, under the law, one is allowed to use deadly force. Under the law, one is not allowed to use deadly force to stop an abortion.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

If one is in danger of death or serious bodily injury, under the law, one is allowed to use deadly force. Under the law, one is not allowed to use deadly force to stop an abortion.

the law also **allows **abortion what kind of law is that??? Does God approve of that law?

 

[ddarko]

Also, remember that the Church teaches that we have a DUTY to protect ourselves. Recall, that prior to being made a saint, Thomas Aquinas’s writings were careful studied to make sure that there was nothing in them contrary to the faith and after reading the following …
“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 Church had no problem in still making him a saint. What does that tell you?

Um… not sure what you want me to say? (note: Not all of Aquinas’s writing is considered 100% theologically accurate. He has writings which state things contrary to our blessed mother’s immaculate conception for an example. There is also writings on women which consider them as defective in the generative sense. So I just want to make sure you that you understand that sainthood does not mean infallibility)

St. Thomas Aquinas was simply defending just war doctrine in its most basic form as it applies to at the individual level. I of course agree with him just like you.

Note that he does not encourage people to carry a weapon around and make it a duty. He himself carried no weapon and wasn’t exactly the most physically fit person at defending himself.

That is where the contradiction with Christian teaching lies in your case (but not in Aquinas’s case). It is not with the fact that one must defend against an aggressor. It is with the idea of carrying a weapon because one wants to ‘level the playing field’ with a ‘would be’ aggressor. That is the wrong idea.

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. So we must mimic the same relationship that we do with our brothers and sisters with those who are spiritual brothers and sisters. That is the essence of Christianity. So I am not sure how we reconcile carrying a weapon when we are among spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ while not carrying a weapon amidst those who are our brothers and sisters. It seems like we would be contradicting Christ’s teachings that we are ALL BROTHERS AND SISTERS through the death of Christ.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

If one is in danger of death or serious bodily injury, under the law, one is allowed to use deadly force. Under the law, one is not allowed to use deadly force to stop an abortion.

I think you might have misread the post. I believe the idea is that if ‘we have a duty to oppose evil’ as you put it. Then we must, in the matter of defending the person in his/her most vulnerable state, go and shoot the doctor who is performing the abortion.

That is of course against Catholic teachings (Vatican has in-fact decried such instances. It does not simply say that it shouldn’t have been done because its against the law to shoot an abortionist) and is certainly a problem that you must show how to reconcile with your position.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Aah yes. This might appear so. But there could be many factors effecting it. That is why Correlation of the two phenomenon, i.e. Gun Control and Violence might not imply a Causal relationship between the two. So your modifications do not get rid of this problem in your examples. It is a logical error to conclude that it implies a causal relationship from the examples.

37 states have loosen their gun laws to allow for concealed carry of firearms for private citizens. In every single case, violent crimes went down when these laws were passed. Without any other common element, the logical conclusion is that guns in the hands of regular citizens, leads to reduced dangers for all of society.

Now I can understand that this might be a foreign concept to you so let me show you why in a different way as well. If you look at some studies performed in other places of US, and around the world, you will find negative correlations. So counter examples to the studies you cite. Now does that mean one set of studies were wrong? Not really. It just means that there are other factors in play that need to be controlled in order to make a valid logical conclusion about causation. So far, there has been no research study that can conclude either way that No gun control = more violence or vice versa.

Actually, there have been. According to UN stats, countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates.

So our debate on gun control cannot hinge on this point I am afraid.

God Bless

Actually, it does.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I think you might have misread the post. I believe the idea is that if ‘we have a duty to oppose evil’ as you put it. Then we must, in the matter of defending the person in his/her most vulnerable state, go and shoot the doctor who is performing the abortion.

That is of course against Catholic teachings (Vatican has in-fact decried such instances. It does not simply say that it shouldn’t have been done because its against the law to shoot an abortionist) and is certainly a problem that you must show how to reconcile with your position.

God Bless

exactly ddarko…I was trying to make Sir Knight “think” about his actual position. His wording let me slip in a hypothetical question. God Bless!

 

[Sir_Knight]

I think you might have misread the post. I believe the idea is that if ‘we have a duty to oppose evil’ as you put it. Then we must, in the matter of defending the person in his/her most vulnerable state, go and shoot the doctor who is performing the abortion.

That is of course against Catholic teachings (Vatican has in-fact decried such instances. It does not simply say that it shouldn’t have been done because its against the law to shoot an abortionist) and is certainly a problem that you must show how to reconcile with your position.

God Bless

That is exactly what I said. Something like that is AGAINST the law and therefore NOT permitted. To defend oneself against an aggressor, on the other hand, is legally and morally permitted.

 

[Sir_Knight]

exactly ddarko…I was trying to make Sir Knight “think” about his actual position. His wording let me slip in a hypothetical question. God Bless!

I think that you both missed the point. I explained why such actions would not be permitted and then you went on to say the exact same reasons why such actions were not permitted.

 

[ddarko]

37 states have loosen their gun laws to allow for concealed carry of firearms for private citizens. In every single case, violent crimes went down when these laws were passed. Without any other common element, the logical conclusion is that guns in the hands of regular citizens, leads to reduced dangers for all of society.

Actually, there have been. According to UN stats, countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates.

Actually, it does.

I am afraid what you stated above is very inaccurate. There are studies around the world and many other states in the US that show results to the contrary. In fact, this is why no one can simply look at the statistics and come to a clear cut decision on which position is right.

In any case, EVEN IF what you say is true, it still does not imply a Causation. It only shows a correlation.

Do you realize that? At this point I am starting to doubt if you understand this very important concept.

God Bless

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I think that you both missed the point. I explained why such actions would not be permitted and then you went on to say the exact same reasons why such actions were not permitted.

We said it’s against God’s law…you said it’s against US law. Ironically both are against murdering an abortionist; however in US law it’s okay to be an abortionist and to have an abortion??? Therefore can it be said that God’s law should be the law of the land???

 

[ddarko]

I think that you both missed the point. I explained why such actions would not be permitted and then you went on to say the exact same reasons why such actions were not permitted.

Well I am not sure what you mean. Do we, or do we NOT have a duty to oppose evil?

Or are you saying this comes with the caveat that if its supported by the law then we should not oppose evil? Are you saying that your “Moral DUTY” is secondary to the LAW of the state?

You must also know that in the instances that a person shot an abortionist, the Vatican condemnation WAS NOT on grounds that the person broke the law. It was along the lines of what I’ve been telling you i.e. The person acted violently against a brother or a sister in Christ.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Um… not sure what you want me to say? (note: Not all of Aquinas’s writing is considered 100% theologically accurate. He has writings which state things contrary to our blessed mother’s immaculate conception for an example. There is also writings on women which consider them as defective in the generative sense. So I just want to make sure you that you understand that sainthood does not mean infallibility)

St. Thomas Aquinas was simply defending just war doctrine in its most basic form as it applies to at the individual level. I of course agree with him just like you.

Note that he does not encourage people to carry a weapon around and make it a duty. He himself carried no weapon and wasn’t exactly the most physically fit person at defending himself.

That is where the contradiction with Christian teaching lies in your case (but not in Aquinas’s case). It is not with the fact that one must defend against an aggressor. It is with the idea of carrying a weapon because one wants to ‘level the playing field’ with a ‘would be’ aggressor. That is the wrong idea.

Does the Church teach that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others from harm? Yes! Does not a “grave” duty require one to utilize the best means possible to accomplish that duty? Yes, otherwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty. What is the single best means of personal self defense in most cases? A gun!

Draw your own conclusions.

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. So we must mimic the same relationship that we do with our brothers and sisters with those who are spiritual brothers and sisters. That is the essence of Christianity. So I am not sure how we reconcile carrying a weapon when we are among spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ while not carrying a weapon amidst those who are our brothers and sisters. It seems like we would be contradicting Christ’s teachings that we are ALL BROTHERS AND SISTERS through the death of Christ.

God Bless

And by failing to be armed, like Christ instructed His followers, we are also contradicting Christ’s teaching to us.

 

[Sir_Knight]

We said it’s against God’s law…you said it’s against US law. Ironically both are against murdering an abortionist; however in US law it’s okay to be an abortionist and to have an abortion??? Therefore can it be said that God’s law should be the law of the land???

Well I am not sure what you mean. Do we, or do we NOT have a duty to oppose evil?

Or are you saying this comes with the caveat that if its supported by the law then we should not oppose evil? Are you saying that your “Moral DUTY” is under the LAW of the state?

You must also know that in the instances that a person shot an abortionist, the Vatican condemnation WAS NOT on grounds that the person broke the law. It was along the lines of what I’ve been telling you i.e. The person acted violently against a brother or a sister in Christ.

God Bless

We have a duty to oppose evil WITHIN THE LAW – moral & civil. Both do not permit one to kill a doctor who performs abortions. Both allow for the use of deadly force when we are in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[ddarko]

Does the Church teach that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others from harm? Yes! Does not a “grave” duty require one to utilize the best means possible to accomplish that duty? Yes, otherwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty. What is the single best means of personal self defense in most cases? A gun!

Draw your own conclusions.

And by failing to be armed, like Christ instructed His followers, we are also contradicting Christ’s teaching to us.

Well what you said above is wrong (Christ never approved of using weapons. Case in point, Gethsemane when Peter cut the persons ear with the sword), but I want to play along this line for a bit. I want to know how you address the abortion question in light of this view.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

We have a duty to oppose evil WITHIN THE LAW – moral & civil. Both do not permit one to kill a doctor who performs abortions. Both allow for the use of deadly force when we are in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

So you are saying Moral Law, which is God law becomes secondary to your view? Do you think that is very accurate Catholic teaching?

Also why doesn’t the Vatican argue along those lines. Why does it say that its WRONG just because it involved VIOLENCE toward a fellow brother and sister in Christ?

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

So you are saying Moral Law, which is God law becomes secondary to your view? Do you think that is very accurate Catholic teaching?

“My view”? The CCC, the official teachings of the Catholic Church, tells us in a number of places that we are to oppose evil.

Also why doesn’t the Vatican argue along those lines. Why does it say that its WRONG just because it involved VIOLENCE toward a fellow brother and sister in Christ?

God Bless

It DOES go along these lines. In case you overlooked it, the CCC came to us out of the Vatican.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well what you said above is wrong (Christ never approved of using weapons. Case in point, Gethsemane when Peter cut the persons ear with the sword), but I want to play along this line for a bit. I want to know how you address the abortion question in light of this view.

God Bless

In case you missed it earlier in this thread, Christ commanded His followers to purchase swords for themselves if they did not have one. Even if they had to sell their cloaks to obtain one. To say that Christ instructed His followers to purchase something that He did not intend for them to use is ridiculous. That would have been extremely wasteful and the money could have been better spent by providing for the poor, whom; Jesus was a firm supporter of. The fact that Jesus said that the proceeds from the selling of the cloak were to be used for the purchase of a weapon instead of giving to the poor, shows that taking care of one’s personal safety come before our duty to the poor.

And when Peter cut off the ear, Jesus told Peter to put the sword away – not to throw it away. The reason was that the purpose of the sword was for His followers to be able to defend themselves after Jesus was gone. It was not for defending Jesus, who could have called down twelve legions of angels to defend Him.