Gun Control

[Deo_Vindice]

tommcguire:

Oh how we miss the lessons Jesus Christ taught. “Love one another as I have loved you”.

Do some business in his church and see how loving he is?

ender:

Well, now. Whenever one engages in debate he should expect his position to be challenged, and I do. What I don’t expect and won’t accept are challenges to my integrity like this. It is ironic that such uncharitable judgments are so frequently made by those who see themselves as exemplars of Christian virtue, apparently believing that people as good as themselves are exempt from the prohibition against rash judgment and the obligations of simple charity.

This is going to be my signature one day. It applies to most of the threads. Well done.

 

[ddarko]

The logic of this point is underwhelming: you assert that one has the right to defend himself, but not the right to possess the means to do so.
The point is not that they are the same but that the right to have something is meaningless without the means to obtain it. If you grant someone the right to vote but deny him access to his poling place you have in every meaningful sense denied his voting right.

Right, I see that logic might not be some of those arguers strongest field.

So lets run it down again for clarification.

Right to self-defense exists. But it does not equal gun possession. That is why it is a straw man to equate Gun possession with Self-defense. The relationship is not one-one and therefore not logically equivalent.

So one can disagree with gun possession while still agreeing with self defense as being moral.

BUT this distorts both what the Church teaches and what she doesn’t teach. She does teach that a person may be justified in using deadly force (2264: * Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow)*. She does not teach that dealing a lethal blow is limited to fisticuffs. Your entire position is based on the absence of a statement that unambiguously permits an individual to arm himself for his own protection. You are apparently undismayed by the absence of any statement that even implicitly forbids it.

There is no distortion. Phew, I am rather surprised that you are talking about distortion after your little stunt with St. Cyril’s sermon.

What you are mistaking here is that the church says it is moral to defend oneself. But since gun possession and self-defense are not logically equivalent statements, it is very much possible that gun possession is IMMORAL while self-defense is MORAL.

Do you comprehend?

Most people FOR gun possession somehow make the logical error in equating two different things.

You’ve really missed the entire point of the Church’s teaching on self defense which is not about the means used but the intent on the part of the defender.

Exactly my friend, exactly. It is surprising that you had the sanity to point this out to me (assuming I didn’t know) yet you are the one who seems to be equating MEANS with ACTS.

• But in him who defends himself, it may be without sin, or it may sometimes involve a venial sin, or sometimes a mortal sin; and this depends on his intention and on his manner of defending himself. For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin* (Aquinas, ST II-II 41,1)

It is not about the objects with which we defend ourselves, it is about the intent behind our actions.
Ender

Yes yes yes!!!

Now try and see how this applies to you You seem to know the stuff but hesitant to put the effort to see how it actually applies to you.

Once you realize that Gun possession is not LOGICALLY equivalent to Self Defense, things should hopefully become clearer.

Me and everyone else on this forum who has understood this trivial yet important matter will continue to pray for you and others like you. Do not be discouraged.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

“Honest” enough to quote the entire sermon? In those few cases where you cite things do you cite the entire document? As for the claim that St. Cyril was anti-Semitic, I see this as extending to him the same discourtesy you’ve visited on me.

I suggest you go back to the sermon, and read what it says about Jews and “what they deserve”. Ok?

There is no point in me wasting my words when you already have them right in front of you. I will pray that you will be given the light to see the whole sermon and not the parts that just seem to be to your liking.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. (SOURCE: “Targeting Guns” by Gary Kleck published by Aldine Transaction in 1997 on page 360.)

In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000). (SOURCE: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online.)

If they are “happy” about living in a more violent society where they and their loved ones can be killed or seriously injuried, then there is something wrong with them.

Your opinion is wrong and ill-informed. As the above facts show, reduced guns actually results in MORE violent crime – not less. My dear friends, this is the length some go to mislead.

I guess logic is certainly not the strongest point with gun lovers. There could be number of other things that changed between 1920 and 1986 in Canada. To take one aspect that changed and take it as the cause is rather … well… don’t take it as uncharitable but its illogical.

So lets first LEARN how to interpret STATISTICS before making very bold claims shall we ?

There is no shame in not knowing how to interpret statistics but going about spewing rubbish as if they are intelligent claims is a shameful thing to do.

Let us pray for those who forget their integrity and go after anything for the sake of self-justification. May God soften their hearts to see the truth that is right in front of them.

God Bless

 

[starshiptrooper]

Right ddarko, that increase in violent crime in Canada had nothing to do with the fact that gun control laws only disarm law-abiding citizens.

 

[Deo_Vindice]

ddarko:

So lets run it down again for clarification.

Right to self-defense exists. But it does not equal gun possession. That is why it is a straw man to equate Gun possession with Self-defense. The relationship is not one-one and therefore not logically equivalent.

So one can disagree with gun possession while still agreeing with self defense as being moral.

Yes, that is logical. I follow you.

When the attacker has a firearm, though, self defense with another firearm is logically valid.

it is very much possible that gun possession is IMMORAL while self-defense is MORAL.

Yes it is possible, but it is also possible that gun possession is moral. I hear your logic, but I own many guns and I don’t think it’s immoral. But as far as logic and semantics go, I understand. I am not being illogical in disagreeing with you though.

Most people FOR gun possession somehow make the logical error in equating two different things.

Ok here is where you get off base. MOST, as in 51%? because I think you are way off with that generalized un-evidenced assertion. Many would be more appropriate. I think it’s odd that you use valid logic to support yourself, and then make this off base assumption. The gun owners that I know (myself included) feel differently than your assertion, I would say less than half support your idea. Our guns are to fight the government, to stand up for ourselves, and against our enemies. They can be used for self-defense, and I use mine for this as well, but that is not their only purpose.

Once you realize that Gun possession is not LOGICALLY equivalent to Self Defense, things should hopefully become clearer.

Gun possession is just a tool to better insure your self defense.
When I open carry, everyone is polite to me, when I carry concealed, there are rude people everywhere.

I guess logic is certainly not the strongest point with gun lovers.

Stereotyping a whole group of people based on the opinions of a few, seems quite the odd tactic, for one who thinks he is so logical.

 

[ddarko]

Ok here is where you get off base. MOST, as in 51%? because I think you are way off with that generalized un-evidenced assertion. Many would be more appropriate. I think it’s odd that you use valid logic to support yourself, and then make this off base assumption. The gun owners that I know (myself included) feel differently than your assertion, I would say less than half support your idea.

I am glad that you are not in the group I referred to. But if you read the posts made by others here, they’ve all been along the lines of “Church supports self-defense and therefore Gun possession is also supported by the Church teaching”

I am both give praise to the God and am glad of the fact that you are not one of them but please understand who I was addressing.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Right ddarko, that increase in violent crime in Canada had nothing to do with the fact that gun control laws only disarm law-abiding citizens.

It might have, who knows? From the evidence presented, no one can know. From 1920 to 1980 lot of other things changed in Canada as well. You know, little stuff that has nothing to do with violence like… increase in population… industrialization… just to name a few etc.

God Bless

 

[LaFleurDeLis]

Yes, you notify the authorities. And you try to do all you can in that moment of his crime.

What I am pointing out is that for you to get all afraid and carry a gun around because that person living down the street is a gang banger shows that you are being judgmental of him and unloving. You are called to LOVE everyone.

The more right thing for you to do is to go to his place and talk to him and try and preach him the message of Christ. Not run and buy a gun from Walmart with the hope of putting a bullet between the eyes the next time he tries to rape someone.

God Bless

If it is said that I can defend my life to the upmost, then I will do just that. I recently moved into a rough neighborhood and bought a Glock 19. I’ve grown up around guns all my life, shot an AR-15 at 6 years old, and don’t fell comfortable without one in the house. So am I being judgemental of evil/dangerous people in general? I feel that carrying a firearm is preventive protection, just like when someone surrounds their house with sand bags to prevent their house from flooding. I pray to God I never have to use it and if I do, I pray that God will forgive me for harming another person or taking their life. But I don’t see why I should stand idley by and let someone harm or kill me only so they can rob me and make a few lousy bucks.

Gun control isn’t something that will keep guns from being purchased illegally or to keep criminals from using guns. Whether there is a law against owning and carrying a firearm or not, there will always be people who will ignore the law and carry it anyways. If such a law exists the only people it hurts or affects are the people like me who wish to own and carry a firearm to protect themselves from idiotic criminals.

 

[Deo_Vindice]

I am glad that you are not in the group I referred to. But if you read the posts made by others here, they’ve all been along the lines of “Church supports self-defense and therefore Gun possession is also supported by the Church teaching”

yeah that is very illogical. I think that is called Affirming the Consequent, its very non sequitur, or in that same group of logical fallacies. I am going to have to look that one up, do you know which one it is?

I am both give praise to the God and am glad of the fact that you are not one of them but please understand who I was addressing.

np I got you. just try not to throw everyone under the bus next time

 

[Deo_Vindice]

LaFleurDeLi:

Gun control isn’t something that will keep guns from being purchased illegally or to keep criminals from using guns.

I’ll tell you what gun control is.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in the alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

So am I being judgemental of evil/dangerous people in general? I feel that carrying a firearm is preventive protection,

Can Hoosiers open carry? this is my favorite tactic (usually a 9mm glock myself). I am not judging nor afraid of anyone. I am merely advertising that “this is the guy you don’t want to mess with today.” has nothing to do with judgement, don’t worry about.

keep carrying broseph.

 

[ddarko]

I’ll tell you what gun control is.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in the alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

Can Hoosiers open carry? this is my favorite tactic (usually a 9mm glock myself). I am not judging nor afraid of anyone. I am merely advertising that “this is the guy you don’t want to mess with today.” has nothing to do with judgement, don’t worry about.

keep carrying broseph.

Um,
Your example is skewed because it only highlights one side of the story. Here’s another possible scenario, she gets attacked in the alley, she yells, the attacker shoots her with his gun in the face.

This is also an example which shows that Gun possession is not logically equivalent to Self defense.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

yeah that is very illogical. I think that is called Affirming the Consequent, its very non sequitur, or in that same group of logical fallacies. I am going to have to look that one up, do you know which one it is?

Hard to classify it. I think it can be described as a Non sequitur in the broad sense.

np I got you. just try not to throw everyone under the bus next time

Yes, I have to apologize. You wouldn’t believe how long this thread has continued with many stating the church supports guns idea using that line of argumentation.

It is certainly refreshing to finally meet someone who sees why its not valid.

God Bless

 

[Deo_Vindice]

Um,
Your example is skewed because it only highlights one side of the story. Here’s another possible scenario, she gets attacked in the alley, she yells, the attacker shoots her with his gun in the face.

If she was just going to be shot, then why approach her in the first place? You see guns are weapons that you can fire from far away. Your scenario makes no sense. guns are the equalizer, women have no longer to fear physically stronger men taking advantage of them.

people getting jacked dont yell cause then you get shot.

This is also an example which shows that Gun possession is not logically equivalent to Self defense.

God Bless

Um I never said that it was equivalent, I get your logic man. We have already gone over this. are you like a broken record? I was chatting with the Americans, why jump in and state something we already went over?

 

[ddarko]

If she was just going to be shot, then why approach her in the first place? You see guns are weapons that you can fire from far away. Your scenario makes no sense. guns are the equalizer, women have no longer to fear physically stronger men taking advantage of them.

Sorry about pointing out the self defense thing again but I thought it was a bit relevant.

Your argument from that example seems to boil down to guns help women defend better. Therefore gun control is bad.

What I wanted to point out was that by saying

“guns help women defend better” one cannot conclude that gun control is bad. Sure, it leads to one specific example like you mentioned above. BUT, its not a one-one relationship. One can come up with numerous other scenarios where bad things happen because the other person had the gun or both had guns etc.

So it seemed that you might have implicitly fallen in to the trap of thinking that example proves gun control is bad or i.e. gun possession is good.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

A gun is an inanimate object. How it is used determines whether it is sinful or not.

 

[tommcguire]

I certainly understand how doing business with church people is not the best way to discover the love of God. I can site lots of examples of Church injustice.

I find it amazing that Catholics who are called to proclaim the good news of salvation put so much trust in violence as a means of defense. True the Church permits it.

The Church has made mistakes in her teaching over time, and her teaching does change.

All this because we are human and victims of original sin. We all sin, that includes our Pope, bishops, priests, religious and lay people.

For me any kind of violence is a sign of sin. I did not make the judgment that every act is a personal sin on the part of the person committing the act of violence.

What makes sense to me is for disciples of Christ to look for ways to prevent violence without using violence.

 

[Newbie2]

A gun is an inanimate object. How it is used determines whether it is sinful or not.

So is a nuclear missle.

 

[Deo_Vindice]

ddarko:

Sorry about pointing out the self defense thing again but I thought it was a bit relevant.

Your argument from that example seems to boil down to guns help women defend better. Therefore gun control is bad.

What I wanted to point out was that by saying

“guns help women defend better” one cannot conclude that gun control is bad. Sure, it leads to one specific example like you mentioned above. BUT, its not a one-one relationship. One can come up with numerous other scenarios where bad things happen because the other person had the gun or both had guns etc.

So it seemed that you might have implicitly fallen in to the trap of thinking that example proves gun control is bad or i.e. gun possession is good.

I am not sure I got that 100%, but I will try.
Guns do help women defend themselves, and old people too. I bought my father (a life long labor-democrat, and resident of anti-gun Illinois) his 1st firearm for his 60th birthday. Me and my brother are out of the house and doing our own thing, and as my parent age, I am concerned over their well-being. My dad is not the tough guy he used to be, and I want them to have better protection in case something bad happens (because when you need help in seconds the police are there in minutes). I also took him to the range, showed him how to fire, safely handle, load and clean it (not in that order, lol).

You made the conclusion that gun control is bad. I never stated that. Somehow you are drawing the conclusion that I said gun control was bad. My statement was that gun control means a helpless victim is morally superior to someone who uses self defense.

Gun possession is good though, but this has nothing to do with your spotted logical fallacy from earlier.
Sir Knight:

A gun is an inanimate object. How it is used determines whether it is sinful or not.

If guns kill people, then my keyboard creates typos on this site all the time.
Also, “if guns cause crime, then mine are defective”—Ted Nugent.

 

[MillTownCath]

The only ones who suffer from gun control is the law abiding citizens. The criminal will always get guns no matter how much control there is. The criminal will always get illegal guns no matter how much gun control there is. See the law abiding citizen will often do what the law says but the criminal will not. To me gun control means limiting the guns for the law abiding citizen but the criminal will always have free reign. Why because they don’t care about the law. I don’t think a criminal will say “Oh we can’t have that kind of gun because its against the law.” or “I can’t have a gun because I’m a criminal.” They could care less about the laws on controlling guns.

I think that we should have laws that make it very hard for a criminal to own a gun. I’m not saying it will prevent them from owning one, but why make it easy for them?

If you don’t have a deep criminal history, then it is fine to own a gun I think.