Gun Control

[Ender]

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.

Gun possession and self-defense are not equal any more than means and ends are the same thing, but the right to the ends conveys the right to valid means, a right that is recognized for States and individuals.

• leaders of the State that has been attacked have the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms … If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation …*
  (Social Doctrine of the Church, 500)

Sin is the spiritual death of the soul. Hence man is preserved from future sin in the same way as the body is preserved from future death of the body: and this happens in two ways. First of all, in so far as man’s nature is strengthened inwardly against inner decay, and so by means of food and medicine he is preserved from death. Secondly, by being guarded against outward assaults; and thus he is protected by means of arms by which he defends his body. (Aquinas ST, III, 79 6)

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

One may surely disagree with the idea. One is not, however, capable of making a rational defense of that position.

I am rather surprised that you are talking about distortion after your little stunt with St. Cyril’s sermon.

Your position here is no more supportable (in both its logical and moral senses) than your other one. You reject Cyril’s explanation of the passage in Luke because he is (according to you) anti-Semitic. Are you claiming that because Cyril (sorry, St. Cyril) is anti-Semitic he is therefore unable to understand Scripture or that his explanations are not to be trusted? Given that the Church saw fit to declare him a Father of the Church it would seem that they accept both that he understood Scripture and could be trusted. That’s just their opinion of course.

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.

This is your argument? Means and ends are not the same thing? “Very much possible” that the ends are moral and specific means are not? I am dazzled … although I was hoping for something, you know, specific as to why the ownership of arms for self defense was immoral (and, please, no assertions that Aquinas meant “arms” in the sense of legs and not in the sense of weapons.)

Exactly my friend…

I wouldn’t go there; your comments are calculated to offend, not make friends. You have at least succeeded in that.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

Means and ends are not the same thing? “Very much possible” that the ends are moral and specific means are not? I am dazzled … although I was hoping for something, you know, specific as to why the ownership of arms for self defense was immoral (and, please, no assertions that Aquinas meant “arms” in the sense of legs and not in the sense of weapons.)

Ender

Well, it appears from what you’ve written above that you still fail to recognize anything logical.

You quoted

“**leaders of the State **that has been attacked have the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms … If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation …
(Social Doctrine of the Church, 500)”

So get that in to your head. It doesn’t seem to be sinking in. STATE is different from CIVILIANS. It may well be MORAL for STATES to possess weapons while NOT for Civilians. I really hope CAF implements a rule system to weed out intellectual dishonesty on this forum.

Then you go on to make the same sorry excuse of logic by showing me Catholic teaching on self-defense. SURE!! Buddy no one disagrees with you on that.

What people find illogical in your ideas is that you equate the Church teaching on self-defense to GUN POSSESSION. You present these examples as it to tell us that the Church approves of gun possession. NO NO NO and for the FINAL UMPTEENTH TIME NO!

THAT IS NOT LOGICAL.

So rather than being dazzled by me, try to up your standards of logic a bit.

At this point, I am afraid I can only pray for your knowledge and intellect to grow. Those with a clear mind, even from those who advocate guns, have shown that they understand. So my prayers go out to you.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

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.

Ok I understand your position a bit better now.

But do you think Gun Control exclusively means that “a helpless victim is morally superior to someone who uses self defense”?

Because this once again assumes Guns are the only means of self-defense. Also, one can look at Gun control equaling the social attitude towards peace as a whole than towards violence. In this sense, it is trying to give the law enforcement an upper hand over a person who might also wield a gun during an attack.

So I don’t think the connection you made still follows. The reasons for Gun Control is not one reason and it is certainly not the idea that helpless Victims are morally superior to those who can defend.

But there is a certain element of truth in what you say in terms of Catholicism.

There are not any saints who died defending their own life and got raised to the sainthood for that. Absolutely NO ONE got considered a saint for such actions. But there are many who died praying for their persecutors and would be murderers like. St. Maria Goretti.

So yes, I think laying down ones lives, praying for ones persecutors is a Morally superior thing to do. We have to follow the examples given by Christ and his Apostles after all.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Your position here is no more supportable (in both its logical and moral senses) than your other one. You reject Cyril’s explanation of the passage in Luke because he is (according to you) anti-Semitic. Are you claiming that because Cyril (sorry, St. Cyril) is anti-Semitic he is therefore unable to understand Scripture or that his explanations are not to be trusted? Given that the Church saw fit to declare him a Father of the Church it would seem that they accept both that he understood Scripture and could be trusted. That’s just their opinion of course.

NO, your distortion was that St. Cyril SPECIFICALLY HIGHLIGHTS that the passage/verse REFERS to JEWS AND NO ONE ELSE.

So even IF HE WAS RIGHT, your case is STILL NOT SUPPORTED. GET IT?

I mean honestly, this is starting to feel like a mental hospital. People keep repeating the same things like they are in denial.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

"**leaders of the State **that has been attacked have the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms … If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation …

So get that in to your head. It doesn’t seem to be sinking in. STATE is different from CIVILIANS. It may well be MORAL for STATES to possess weapons while NOT for Civilians.

I’m sorry, I thought that by highlighting the principle the document expressed it would have been clear that I was … referring to a principle. I’ll try to make the point clearer:

…***responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right…

***Your objection that what is moral for States *may *be different from what is moral for civilians is true. Of course it is just as true to say they *may *be the same, but neither observation constitutes an argument as to which is true in this case.

I really hope CAF implements a rule system to weed out intellectual dishonesty on this forum.

Be careful what you wish for.

What people find illogical in your ideas is that you equate the Church teaching on self-defense to GUN POSSESSION.

I guess that would be illogical if I had actually done that, but I haven’t equated self-defense with gun possession (or even GUN POSSESSION); I have applied a general principle (responsibility justifies possession of the specific means) to a specific case (the right to own a firearm for self defense). I think you is the only people who finds this illogical.

NO NO NO and for the FINAL UMPTEENTH TIME NO!

THAT IS NOT LOGICAL.

Agreed.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

Ender:
Your objection that what is moral for States *may *be different from what is moral for civilians is true. Of course it is just as true to say they *may *be the same, but neither observation constitutes an argument as to which is true in this case.
Be careful what you wish for.
I guess that would be illogical if I had actually done that, but I haven’t equated self-defense with gun possession (or even GUN POSSESSION); I have applied a general principle (responsibility justifies possession of the specific means) to a specific case (the right to own a firearm for self defense). I think you is the only people who finds this illogical.
Agreed.

Ender

Your bolded section above, ONCE AGAIN, was a conclusion about something said to the STATE.

The State can posses nuclear weapons, Civilians CANT. State can possess Fighter Jets, Civilians CANT.

The responsibility level of STATE and Civillian is different.

So what you are trying to do here is apply a principle that allowed Gun possession for the state to EVERYONE else. But this clearly is incorrect because the state is never considered by the Church to be in the responsibility or authority level as a civilian.

God Bless

 

[LaFleurDeLis]

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.

I agree. I’m unsure whether this is true, but I heard once that if someone broke into your house while you’re home, you shoot them and they survive, then they can sue you or file charges (can’t remember) However, if you shoot them and they die, you won’t face any punishment.

Also, I’m unsure if you can carry openly. There is a concealed carry law, which means you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. I think with such a permit you are allowed to carry it in a way that it is in view of people, however, this is normally looked badly upon by police officers and many people.

 

[Ender]

Your bolded section above, ONCE AGAIN, was a conclusion about something said to the STATE.

It was something said *about *the State; that is, it was the application of a general principle to a specific responsibility which States have. Simply because it was applied to States surely cannot mean the principle is limited to States. That conclusion is unwarranted.

The State can posses nuclear weapons, Civilians CANT. State can possess Fighter Jets, Civilians CANT.

And what is the reason civilians can’t possess fighter jets? Right: because they don’t have the responsibility for national defense. See how this principle thingy works?

The responsibility level of STATE and Civillian is different.

True, but the principle that responsibility confers the right to the means to satisfy ones duties applies in both cases.

So what you are trying to do here is apply a principle that allowed Gun possession for the state to EVERYONE else.

Not exactly. What I said does not necessarily apply to everyone. The principle is that those having a responsibility have a right to those things which allow them to fulfill their duties (I don’t think you’ve grasped the principle yet.) I said nothing about whether everyone has a responsibility commensurate with gun ownership.

Ender

 

[LaFleurDeLis]

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

So a gun control law will stop this attacker from having a gun and shooting someone? Whether something is legal or illegal, people will do it anyway. It will be just like prohibition. People obtain guns illegally now, what makes you think that just because there is a gun control law that it will suddenly make criminals think twice before getting a gun illegally?

 

[ddarko]

It was something said *about *the State; that is, it was the application of a general principle to a specific responsibility which States have. Simply because it was applied to States surely cannot mean the principle is limited to States. That conclusion is unwarranted.

No, what it means is that either usage is unwarranted. That passage cannot be used in favor or against your position or mine.

But what you are doing here is the opposite.

And what is the reason civilians can’t possess fighter jets? Right: because they don’t have the responsibility for national defense. See how this principle thingy works?
True, but the principle that responsibility confers the right to the means to satisfy ones duties applies in both cases.

Ok, if you want to understand why a state is considered different than its civilians, this is probably not the forum. But for all intents and purposes of this topic, I am going to have to assume there is a distinction between State and its civilians. To me it strikes as obvious.

Not exactly. What I said does not necessarily apply to everyone. The principle is that those having a responsibility have a right to those things which allow them to fulfill their duties (I don’t think you’ve grasped the principle yet.) I said nothing about whether everyone has a responsibility commensurate with gun ownership.

Ender

Sure, if you mean that people have a right to self defense, I agree. As long as you don’t cross the line to claim that “Therefore people have the right to guns” you are logical.

But if all you wanted to say was the above, it is hardly worth mentioning on this topic because no one disagrees.

God Bless

 

[Deo_Vindice]

ddarko:

But do you think Gun Control exclusively means that “a helpless victim is morally superior to someone who uses self defense”?

No not at all that was a tagline, I have no idea who wrote it, it has been quoted so many times.

There are not any saints who died defending their own life and got raised to the sainthood for that. Absolutely NO ONE got considered a saint for such actions. But there are many who died praying for their persecutors and would be murderers like. St. Maria Goretti.

I find that hard to believe. Because I know there were warrior saints (St. Martin of Tours, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Joan of Arc, etc.). Of course you wouldn’t get considered a saint for that reason, because that is not a reason for sainthood. I think Joan of Arc comes very close to that as she was fighting for a French crown over an English one in the hundred years war, when she was captured and burned. Of course that is not why she is a saint, but that is a silly statement to make IMO. Also if you die, you can’t say you defended your life, because you aren’t alive.

LaFleurDeLis:

I agree. I’m unsure whether this is true, but I heard once that if someone broke into your house while you’re home, you shoot them and they survive, then they can sue you or file charges (can’t remember) However, if you shoot them and they die, you won’t face any punishment.

It depends on your state, I will look it up. Yes Indian is a castle doctrine state. They maybe be able to sue you in a civil court but not a criminal one, depends on the judge.

Also, I’m unsure if you can carry openly. There is a concealed carry law, which means you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. I think with such a permit you are allowed to carry it in a way that it is in view of people, however, this is normally looked badly upon by police officers and many people.

Unfortunately Indiana is not really an open carry state.
opencarry.org/in.html

 

[Ender]

Sure, if you mean that people have a right to self defense, I agree. As long as you don’t cross the line to claim that “Therefore people have the right to guns” you are logical.

Yes, we all agree that people have a right to self defense, but surely it follows that they therefore have a right to the necessary means of self defense. For women and the elderly particularly, that usually means that the only effective means is a weapon. Therefore, inasmuch as they have a right to self defense, and to the means of effecting that defense, they are justified in possessing weapons.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

Yes, we all agree that people have a right to self defense, but surely it follows that they therefore have a right to the necessary means of self defense. F**or women and the elderly particularly, that usually means that the only effective means is a weapon. **Therefore, inasmuch as they have a right to self defense, and to the means of effecting that defense, they are justified in possessing weapons.

Ok take a deep breath, take a look at the bolded quote above. That is not a logical conclusion.

Once again, we see you equating two logically unequal concepts.

There will always be those who cannot defend themselves. Your conclusion assumes that possessing a weapon is the ONLY means of self-defense and empowering them. That is FALSE!

We can see this by few counterexamples like the following:-

One can strengthen the law enforcement. One can have men for an example who would walk women home as a service. Btw, this is already implemented in many Universities very successfully. One can try to restrict gun possession by crime gangs. One can even make the case that if both the attacker and the victim have a gun, then its only a matter of who pulls the trigger first anyway.

In any case, my point is that “Right to self defense” leads to “Right to own a weapon” does not logically follow automatically. Though you keep saying that you understand that the two are different logically, you keep making this connection as if they are one-to-one.

Your conclusion is only valid IF the you can show that it is the only alternative and giving weapons to the helpless indeed does guarantee that they will be able to defend themselves. But as you can see, there are other alternatives, ESPECIALLY for US Citizens and gun possession does not necessarily solve the issue of what happens when the other person (who also would be able to have a gun now) HAS A gun.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I find that hard to believe. Because I know there were warrior saints (St. Martin of Tours, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Joan of Arc, etc.). Of course you wouldn’t get considered a saint for that reason, because that is not a reason for sainthood. I think Joan of Arc comes very close to that as she was fighting for a French crown over an English one in the hundred years war, when she was captured and burned. Of course that is not why she is a saint, but that is a silly statement to make IMO. Also if you die, you can’t say you defended your life, because you aren’t alive.

True, but I think you understand what I mean. Even Joan of Arc, is celebrated for her martydom. She did not try to defend her self against the Church authorities that put her to death using any violence. She submitted, just like Christ.

So even though some are certainly warriors, they were always canonized for martydom. Not for valiant self-defense. And some of those who you listed above, changed their lives completely around to a life of spirituality.

God Bless

 

[tommcguire]

Why do you think it is that people do not become saints for committing violent acts of self defense or even national defense?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Why do you think it is that people do not become saints for committing violent acts of self defense or even national defense?

Why do you think that God turned His back on Saul for FAILING to commit violent acts of self defense?

… And didn’t Jesus say that He was ALWAYS in PERFECT agreement with His heavenly Father?

… And doesn’t scripture tell us that God does not change from one generation to the next?

 

[Sir_Knight]

the Church approves of gun possession. NO NO NO and for the FINAL UMPTEENTH TIME NO!

The Church APPROVES of gun possession. YES YES YES and for the FINAL UMPTEENTH TIME YES! 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).​

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.

 

[ddarko]

Why do you think that God turned His back on Saul for FAILING to commit violent acts of self defense?

Just so that people get the right Theology and not some second rate private ideas, Saul got condemned for NOT OBEYING God’s command.

Not because he refused to act violently.

As for God being unchanging, that was the old testament. In the NEW, everyone has become brothers and sisters in Christ and claimed in to the family of God, through the blood poured out on the cross.

So Scripture hasn’t changed. But humanities relationship with God has been changed by Christ

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

The Church APPROVES of gun possession. YES YES YES and for the FINAL UMPTEENTH TIME YES! 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).​

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.

Ok, learn to first be honest. Maybe you stopped reading as soon as you saw something that supported your position. If you read the Vatican website properly, it also says the following:-

“Of particular significance are the mechanisms for prevention, reduction, accountability and control, such as the creation of systems of marking, tracing, and record-keeping; the defining of criteria for the export of arms or for determining when there is effectively a surplus; the regulation of brokering activity; the inclusion of mechanisms for collecting and destroying arms in peace processes; the establishment of adequate standards for the management and security of the stocks of these weapons.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010711_trade-arms_en.html

So first, I advice you to really, and I mean really, take a honest look at what is made available on the Vatican site. Alright?

Because you are misleading people theologically too (as seen from your previous post about Saul, violence and God) which can have deeper implications beyond gun control.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Just so that people get the right Theology and not some second rate private ideas, Saul got condemned for NOT OBEYING God’s command.

Which was failing to take his sword to the enemy SHOWING that non-violence is not always pleasing to God.

Not because he refused to act violently.

In this example, they are one and the same.

As for God being unchanging, that was the old testament. In the NEW, everyone has become brothers and sisters in Christ and claimed in to the family of God, through the blood poured out on the cross.

Are you saying that God does not change from generation to generation in the OT but does from OT to NT? I think that you need to brush up on your own Theology and stop leading people astray.