- Status
T
tafan2
Guest
I have a question for those who are opposed to additional gun control laws:
Is it desirable that everyone who is a law abiding citizen carry a gun?
Is it desirable that everyone who is a law abiding citizen carry a gun?
It would certainly make criminals think twice.
M
Matthew25
Guest
Early church father Tertullian “A just Man May not be a soldier”. Following that he also said “The Lord, by taking away Peter’s sword disarmed every soldier thereafter”.
From historian Alex Kreisler, “no Christian theloligian befire Constantine justified Christian participation in warfare”.
Though some may have joined, or became Christian while in the military, it was not thought to be “holy” until Constantine.
From historian Alex Kreisler, “no Christian theloligian befire Constantine justified Christian participation in warfare”.
Though some may have joined, or became Christian while in the military, it was not thought to be “holy” until Constantine.
G
GKMotley
Guest
It is desirable that such folk have the legal option to do so.
R
redbaron162
Guest
Whats your point?
Firstly there are Church fathers who do speak of military services in not only not a negative way but even as a positive way: Ex: Leo the Great, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Basil, and Athanasius. (All saints, which Tertullian is not)
Secondly you stated that there were no Christians in the military, which is objectively false. I did not state anything about the concept of military service in general. In addition the Church obviously allows military service…hence the Archdiocese of the Military.
Firstly there are Church fathers who do speak of military services in not only not a negative way but even as a positive way: Ex: Leo the Great, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Basil, and Athanasius. (All saints, which Tertullian is not)
Secondly you stated that there were no Christians in the military, which is objectively false. I did not state anything about the concept of military service in general. In addition the Church obviously allows military service…hence the Archdiocese of the Military.
R
redbaron162
Guest
I wouldn’t say it is desirable that everyone who can legally own a weapon to do so. An individual may have a host of legitimate reasons they do not wish to own a weapon. I admit I have not heard of anyone sincerely advocating for universal armament. No one is out there forcing people to own a weapon.
Bad case of quoting a church father instead of actual church teaching.
E
Ender
Guest
Tertullian appears to have been ambivalent, or at least to have changed his mind:
…in that book, On the Crown of a Soldier, he admits that those who were soldiers before baptism could remain soldiers even after baptism, and he teaches merely that he who is free should not adopt the military life after baptism: “Clearly,” says he, “if faith afterwards comes to those who have already entered upon a military career, their condition is different from that of those whom John admitted to baptism, as those most faithful centurions, one of whom Christ commends, and the other St. Peter instructs, when he had received the faith and been baptized, he should either have given up his military life immediately, as was done by many, or else he should have taken care in every way lest he commit any sin against God.” (St. Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 14)
There is also this:
Then, as Tertullian teaches, where he narrates the great miracle worked by Christian soldiers when they were waging war in Germany under Marcus Aurelius, after the Ascension of Christ into heaven there were in military life some Christians holy and pleasing to God, even under pagan rulers; these men certainly would not have been fighting if it were evil, nor, if they had been fighting in this circumstance, would they have been so pleasing to God that they could work miracles. (Ibid)
This is not exactly the same thing as saying the Early Fathers condemned it, or that the church was right then but has been wrong for the subsequent 1700 years.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
If they choose to do so.
L
LilyM
Guest
Seriously?tafan2:
It would certainly make criminals think twice.
If law-abiding citizens carrying weapons is such an effective deterrent to violent crime, why doesn’t the US, which has the highest rate of gun ownership on the planet, have the lowest (or among the lowest) rate of violent crime on the planet? Instead of being (at the most generous interpretation of the stats I’ve seen) on the higher end of the scale for violent crime?
And why are people so opposed to background and mental health checks for gun owners? Or mandatory training in weapons? They are required for so many professions and activities that involve high risk, either to the public or to oneself - and there is no doubt that owning a gun does involve high risk to the owner and those around them.
Certainly much higher risk than the knives that people like to compare guns to - which are owned at a much higher rate than guns but are NOT killing people at a proportionately higher rate.
In fact after some cursory research the statistics linked below show that handguns ALONE kill more murder victims than knives, so not accounting for other types of firearm.
Number of homicides by weapons used in the U.S.| Statista
Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 6,246 homicides in 2024.
www.statista.com
L
LilyM
Guest
What does that even mean?
Gun ownership obviously has some sort of effect (no doubt in combination with many other factors) on rates of “crime and aberrant behaviour”, so if we’re looking to reduce the latter we need to look into what effect the former is having.
One quick explanation.
The majority of the weapons are not I’m the hands of law abiding citizens.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
That’s literally impossible and totally infeasible. Not to mention unconstitutional.
L
LilyM
Guest
And you think that the lack of licencing and regulation isn’t at least part of the reason that those guns end up in the hands of those non-law-abiding citizens? At least a percentage of them are certainly not going to bother stealing something that they can get perfectly legitimately with no background checks or permits or what have you. As demonstrated by some of the more recent mass shooters who had caches of legit weapons.LilyM:
One quick explanation.
The majority of the weapons are not I’m the hands of law abiding citizens.
We are not guilty until proven innocent.
No, I do not.
I believe crime is responsible for that.
Where exactly are you getting this.
A background check is mandatory everywhere I know of.
L
LilyM
Guest
The Mandalay hotel gunman committed no crime before he started shooting - but checks into his mental health before he legally acquired his cache of weapons (or limits on the number of guns or amount of ammunition an individual may purchase or the like) might well have stopped him or at least minimised the damage.LilyM:
No, I do not.
I believe crime is responsible for that.
- Status