Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation

[Inisfallen]

To the extent I participated in this, I apologize

No need whatsoever. I was only speaking for myself.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

But I don’t think you are going to find any support for the right to have and use a gun as an inherent right in the Catechism.

JonNC . . . .

I’m not going to look in the Catholic Catechism,any more than you would look in an Anglican or Lutheran one.

That’s OK Jon. I will look it up for Leaf.

.

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but
a grave duty
for one who is responsible for the lives of others.
The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.
For this reason, those
who legitimately hold authority also have
the RIGHT TO USE ARMS to repel aggressors
against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

(Emphasis mine)

People who “legitimately hold authority” includes the military abroad, the police in a civic situation, and domestically of course citizens.

(Notice it does not say ONLY those in GOVERNMENT authority.
Notice also citizens are responsible for others (for example a parent is “responsible” for the lives of their own children. So it is an injustice for a single mom, whose ex-boyfriend is ignoring his restraining order and threatening the mom AND HER KIDS lives, to have some artificial blocks put up in her way.
Now I agree, some parents LOST that right by crime etc.
But to take their rights away for NO REASON other than “bad guys are bad” . . . so we will put up roadblocks against the “good guys” . . . is unjust.)

Now I agree. This is not “inherent” for “arms” per se but rather “defense”. Yet given the country was built with “arms” as a Constitutional proviso, and the proliferation of armed criminals is well-known, and the history of rogue Governments around the world is obvious for those who look, I think it is inappropriate to . . . selectively attack good law-abiding citizens.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but
a grave duty
for one who is responsible for the lives of others.
The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.
For this reason, those
who legitimately hold authority also have
the RIGHT TO USE ARMS to repel aggressors
against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Please support your interpretation that everybody holds authority. I don’t think that is possible. If everyone is an authority, who are they an authority over? This empties the word “authority” of all meaning.

Also, the “right to use arms” in the Catechism does not imply the right to own arms. It just means if you have access to a weapon, you can use it for self defense. There is no implied right to carry a gun around wherever you go in the Catechism.

Now I agree, some parents LOST that right by crime etc.
But to take their rights away for NO REASON other than “bad guys are bad” . . . so we will put up roadblocks against the “good guys” . . . is unjust.

That statement is not in the Catechism.

Now I agree. This is not “inherent” for “arms” per se but rather “defense”. Yet given the country was built with “arms” as a Constitutional proviso, and the proliferation of armed criminals is well-known, and the history of rogue Governments around the world is obvious for those who look, I think it is inappropriate to . . . selectively attack good law-abiding citizens.)

It is well that you included the qualifier, “I think.”

 

[1cthlctrth]

JonNC, you’re doing such a good job with this discussion (I like your addiction to facts) that there is no reason for me to get back into this discussion. I can’t help myself, though.

Findings from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) show that 97.8 percent of mass shootings over a 68-year period occurred in “gun-free zones.”​

The study covers 1950 through May 2018. Otherwise, it would also include the November 7, 2018, mass public attack at Borderline Bar & Grill, in which 12 were killed. The November 19, 2018, attack at Chicago Mercy Hospital, where three were killed, would not be listed because it does not meet FBI criteria for a mass shooting, but it should, nevertheless, be noted that Borderline Bar and Mercy Hospital were both state-mandatedgun-free zones.
According to CPRC, 97.8 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to May 2018 occurred in gun-free zones. These include the Virginia Tech University attack, which killed 32 (April 16, 2007); the Fort Hood attack, which killed 13 (November 5, 2009); the Aurora movie theater attack, which killed 12 (July 20, 2012); the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack, which killed 26 (December 12, 2014); the D.C. Navy Yard attack, which killed 13 (September 16, 2013); the Chattanooga military base attack, which killed 5 (July 16, 2015); the Umpqua Community College attack, which killed 9 (October 1, 2015); the San Bernardino attack, which killed 14 (December 2, 2015); the Orlando Pulse attack, which killed 49 (June 12, 2016); the Parkland high school attack, which killed 17 (February 14, 2018); and the Santa Fe High School attack, which killed 10 (May 18, 2018).
Nobody reads the links for the rest of the story, but here it is, anyway:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ent-mass-shootings-since-1950-gun-free-zones/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

JonNC, you’re doing such a good job with this discussion (I like your addiction to facts) that there is no reason for me to get back into this discussion. I can’t help myself, though.

Findings from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) show that 97.8 percent of mass shootings over a 68-year period occurred in “gun-free zones.”​

As has been pointed out numerous times, this statistic is not surprising, and does not imply the causality you may think. The reason 97.8 % of mass shootings occurred in gun-free zones is that gun-free zones are established in areas where mass shootings are likely.

It is like saying that 98% of robberies of huge sums of money occur where armed guards are present. This is likely true, not because armed guards encourage robberies, but because where there is are large sums of money, armed guards are posted.

Here is how you could construct an experiment to see if gun-free zones encourage mass shootings (your implied thesis). Establish new gun-free zones in the sorts of areas that have never had a mass shooting, such as farms, wetlands, mountains over 15,000 feet, national parks, Salvation Army thrift stores, etc. Then sit back and see if mass shootings in those new gun-free zones start cropping up. On second thought, don’t bother, because it would be silly to think that just by establishing a place as a gun-free zone, that mass shootings would increase in that place. Yet I think that is what you would have us believe. Am I right?

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

Please support your interpretation that everybody holds authority.

Except I didn’t say that.

I specifically gave examples when people DON’T have that authority (when they surrender it via crime).

No LeafByNiggle.

I am going to put the burden on YOU.

I want YOU to show ME where parents do NOT have protective authority over their children (the example I gave) in ordinary law-abiding circumstances.

I’ll be waiting . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

Also, the “right to use arms” in the Catechism does not imply the right to own arms.

I want all the readers here to think about this statement from LeafByNiggle.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

That statement is not in the Catechism.

It doesn’t need to be.

We do not teach “collective guilt” LeafByNiggle.

 

[graciew]

He is right.
The Cathecism is for all of us all over.
" I am Catholic so I have the right to own a gun" doesn t exist. It isn t an argument per se.
And I daresay not even fostered at home level…
Every means of prevention,yes,but owning guns,not really. Never heard nor read it from our Bishops or priests ever…
It is very much into your culture,and it isn’t disputing your Constitution or rights or whatever an American issue,but owning guns isn t a Catholic thing per se.

 

[graciew]

We do not teach “collective guilt”

Collective guilt??
Why lumping us all from other places into gun ownership and also guilt?

This topic is about New York,guns and social media. Better stay on topic

 

[Cathoholic]

graciew . . . .

" I am Catholic so I have the right to own a gun" doesn t exist. It isn t an argument per se.
And I daresay not even fostered at home level…

Well there you go.

You admit the Church teaches the right to use arms but not to own them.

To readers of this thread . . .

Keep this “reasoning” in mind.

graciew. If you are going to think this way, then I guess you will have to do it without me.

 

[Cathoholic]

graciew . . . .

Every means of prevention,yes,but owning guns,not really.

Why are you denying good police officers, secret service agents that guard politicians, and brave military the right to use weapons.

After all. They work for the Government.

And if the Government has no right to own arms (as per your thesis carried out to its logical extreme), must the police lay down their arms right now in order to fulfill what you are attempting to sell here (in principle) as “Catholic”?

 

[graciew]

Why are you denying good police officers, secret service agents that guard politicians, and brave military the right to use weapons.

I am not denying anyone anything.
Just saying that the right to own guns isn t in the Cathecism as Leaf explainwd already… Which means that I cannot as a Catholic claim that I have a " right" to own guns.
If we own one because we choose to ,we have a right to use it’ in self defense.
It is a choice to own one,not a right we can claim as Catholic per se.
It is absurd to mix the Police or the Military ,it is their job…

 

[Cathoholic]

graciew . . . .

Collective guilt??
Why lumping us all from other places into gun ownership and also guilt?

Think about it graciew.

The arguments against gun ownership (at least by and large and here on CAF) is, . . . .

Gun grabber mentality: “. . . people should not have guns.”

Constitutionalist: Why?

GG: Because all those criminals have mis-used guns.

Constitutionalist: Yes but the GOOD GUYS did NOT mis-use guns.

GG: Take them away from everyone anyway!

(Or some will just argue for incrementally taking them away from everyone while attempting to deny this. Or think they themselves have some sort of non-existant authority over the gun-grabbers who DO want ALL 2nd Amendment Right recognitions removed illicitly.)

Constitutionalist: You are proclaiming the “good guy” guilty because of the “bad guy” here.

GG: Proclaim ALL unfit for gun ownership!

(Now you are not going to put it quite this way. But I have had enough conversations to see, this type of thing is exactly where your arguments take you.)

That is an example of collective guilt graciew.

 

[Cathoholic]

graciew . . .

I am not denying anyone anything.

Well go ahead then and admit you are not denying gun ownership rights to law-abiding citizens.

Because it seems to me, you ARE denying this.

I am not denying anyone anything.
Just saying that the right to own guns isn t in the Cathecism as Leaf explainwd already

Well graciew. If citizens don’t have that right, then by extension Governments would not have that right either in the argument you seem to be making.

Are you saying people and Governments DO have the right to own arms, but it just isn’t EXPLICIT in the CCC?

Or are you saying there is NO RIGHT to own arms according to the CCC, for citizens (in which case, I will take your principle and extend it to the Government)?

Or are you saying something else?

LeafByNiggle’s statement isa mere partial truth. Or if you or Leaf want to defend it, I am OK with that too.

 

[graciew]

These are American discussions over guns.
It has not to do with the Cathecism.
We may very well live under different Constitutions and none be more Catholic or less
Catholic because we own or we do not own a gun.
That was what you asked us to consider,and I gave my answer: Leaf is right.
But keep it New York,guns and social media which is the topic.

 

[Cathoholic]

graceiew . . . .

These are American discussions over guns.
It has not to do with the Cathecism.

Yet I just showed you where the CCC explicitly affirms our right to use “arms”.

You are saying I have a right to use them, but NOT OWN them to use, I think you should defend that with something more substantive.

 

[graciew]

Well go ahead then and admit you are not denying gun ownership rights to law-abiding citizens.

I am not American,and law abiding citizens abide by the law of their places.
I am just trying that you see the American gun culture isn t " universal",neither your Constitution or your laws which I am not disputing.
EDITEDlease understand,that for example,where I live ,guns are to be registered so that the owners are known and registered. That would be law abiding here,but it would make you cringe there.
The Cathecism doesn t claim we have a right to own guns,but it supports the means for self defense as nations organize them.

 

[Cathoholic]

graciew . . .

I am not American,and law abiding citizens abide by the law of their places.

I know you’re not American.

But I am. And I have the right to defend myself in my environment. And I have the right (the Church teaches) even to use arms to do so.

And you not being American is also irrelevant because you are going to have to unpack the same principles to me (that you are attempting to use against citizens) and apply them to your police who ARE armed.

At least if you want to be persuasive.

Or maybe you are just airing your opinion, and don’t care if your argument is unpersuasive.

I am OK with that too.

But then your position is going to have to be we have the right to use arms, but no right to own them. (At least that is the only argument I can see here so far)

And you can either attempt to support that, or leave it unsupported.

 

[Cathoholic]

graciew . . .

EDITEDlease understand,that for example,where I live ,guns are to be registered so that the owners are known and registered.

OK. I am going to turn the tables on your argument.

I want you to show me where the Church teaches the need for gun registration.

The Cathecism doesn t claim we have a right to own guns,but it supports the means for self defense as nations organize them.

The CCC that I cited said nothing about this being “nations” or limited to “nations”.

I am just trying that you see the American gun culture isn t " universal",neither your Constitution or your laws which I am not disputing.

But I did not appeal to the Constitution with CCC 2265.

And my “Constitutionalist” example was just that. An example of a discussion.

I could think of other examples that fulfilled the same principles.

CCC 2265 is an example here that goes against gun-grabbing mentality. (I am not saying YOU have this mentality by the way.)

Gun-grabbing mentality is against the Church whether it is displayed by individuals, Government, or from Facebook and other social media Giants.

It is NOT a Catholic ethos.