Gun Totting Catholic? Disagree with The Church on Gun Control

[benjohnson]

even when it conflicts with their religious views? Thus trampling on your alleged constitutional religious freedoms?
.

We do have religious freedom, they are not “alleged.” Indeed they are under attack by socialists, but they haven’t won yet, nor will they as long as I can defend them.

 

[bearer]

Funny. In most countries police (many times unarmed) do so. And in not a few they do a better job at it than your armed police and armed civilians combined.

Don’t confuse low crime reporting with high preventative efficacy. One thing that global criminologists have realized is that statistics on paper, especially in the developing world, but also in liberal countries such as Sweden, for example, don’t tell the whole story. Many crimes, rape in particular, don’t go reported, giving the illusion of low crime rates overall. Not only are police sometimes slow, or perhaps even nowhere to be found, but they can also be just plain incompetent. Whatever they are, you can be assured that they’ll tout their successes no matter what their failures have been.

 

[LilyM]

We do have religious freedom, they are not “alleged.” Indeed they are under attack by socialists, but they haven’t won yet, nor will they as long as I can defend them.

Just like your right to life … that is until the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade, since then millions of unborn have found out just how real and unalleged that right is. And citizens like yourself have found out just how useful your guns are in preventing violation of your rights.

 

[LilyM]

Don’t confuse low crime reporting with high preventative efficacy. One thing that global criminologists have realized is that statistics on paper, especially in the developing world, but also in liberal countries such as Sweden, for example, don’t tell the whole story. Many crimes, rape in particular, don’t go reported, giving the illusion of low crime rates overall. Not only are police sometimes slow, or perhaps even nowhere to be found, but they can also be just plain incompetent. Whatever they are, you can be assured that they’ll tout their successes no matter what their failures have been.

And citizens, even armed ones, are never slow, never nowhere to be found, never plain incompetent? Sounds like you’d rather do away with the police altogether, like in a Wild West film, and let ‘justice’ come at the point of whoever’s gun is quickest.

 

[benjohnson]

Just like your right to life … that is until the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade, that is, since then millions of unborn have found out just how real and unalleged that right is.

If you’re arguing for a larger government with a disarmed populous, you’re not helping your cause.

The only reason that bad decisions like Roe v Wade persist is because the people have lost their power to a larger government that has grown apart from it’s own people. A government so big that it’s doesn’t even think that the lives of it’s own children are important.

No one person sits around the living room and think on how to kill millions of people - but get a group of people together and call it a government and you can see what madness is unleashed.

 

[LilyM]

If you’re arguing for a larger government with a disarmed populous, you’re not helping your cause.

The only reason that bad decisions like Roe v Wade persist is because the people have lost their power to a larger government that has grown apart from it’s own people. A government so big that it’s doesn’t even think that the lives of it’s own children are important.

No one person sits around the living room and think on how to kill millions of people - but get a group of people together and call it a government and you can see what madness is unleashed.

And please remind me exactly how an armed populace could or did prevent any of this? Weren’t you insisting that that was the point of gun ownership after all, prevention of government tyranny? So why persist in the myth when it hasn’t it worked? Not even in this very egregious case?

 

[bearer]

And citizens, even armed ones, are never slow, never nowhere to be found, never plain incompetent? Sounds like you’d rather do away with the police altogether, like in a Wild West film, and let ‘justice’ come at the point of whoever’s gun is quickest.

No, police and other citizens need to work together to complement and overlap each other. I don’t care who brings justice and long as it comes sooner rather than later.

 

[someperson555]

And citizens, even armed ones, are never slow, never nowhere to be found, never plain incompetent? Sounds like you’d rather do away with the police altogether, like in a Wild West film, and let ‘justice’ come at the point of whoever’s gun is quickest.

in a highly organized society like most of the west, there is no need for private gun ownership anymore, it does more harm than good. in fact it doesnt really do any good at all. it just gives criminals access to lethal weapons

 

[LilyM]

No, police and other citizens need to work together to complement and overlap each other. I don’t care who brings justice and long as it comes sooner rather than later.

I think there are better ways to have police and citizens ‘complimenting’ and ‘overlapping’ each other than by simply letting most of the citizens pack weaponry.

I put justice in quotes for a reason. When there is no or ineffective state law or state law enforcement, it is likely that the armed citizen with the quickest gun gets to label their version of events as ‘justice’, however unjust the outcome may be.

 

[bearer]

I think there are better ways to have police and citizens ‘complimenting’ and ‘overlapping’ each other than by simply letting most of the citizens pack weaponry.

I put justice in quotes for a reason. When there is no or ineffective state law or state law enforcement, it is likely that the armed citizen with the quickest gun gets to label their version of events as ‘justice’, however unjust the outcome may be.

Your distrust of the average person is noted. Millions of Americans carry weapons every day, and since concealed carry started to be legalized across the country in the mid-90’s, violent crime rates have in fact fallen. Lawful gun use has always surpassed unlawful use by a large margin. I suppose it is possible, however, that those murderers, rapists, and armed robbers all together started having a change of heart regardless.

Trying to explain guns in America to you is like trying to explain Catholicism to a Fundamental Independent Baptist. I’ll leave you to your hoplophobia.

 

[LilyM]

Your distrust of the average person is noted. Millions of Americans carry weapons every day, and since concealed carry started to be legalized across the country in the mid-90’s, violent crime rates have in fact fallen. Lawful gun use has always surpassed unlawful use by a large margin. I suppose it is possible, however, that those murderers, rapists, and armed robbers all together started having a change of heart regardless.

Trying to explain guns in America to you is like trying to explain Catholicism to a Fundamental Independent Baptist. You just don’t get it…

Well yes, I trust well trained professionals over not-so-well trained amateurs when it comes to competent gun handling in stressful situations. Heck yes. You have a problem with that?

Newsflash - violent crime has fallen in my country since the mid 90s too. Without citizens being allowed to carry concealed weapons. Tougher legal penalties for crime are one part of the explanation. Gun and knife laws if anything are stricter now though.

So it’s more than possible.

I’d liken it more to explaining Fundamental Independent Baptist theology to a Catholic … not only will I not get it, I probably won’t even lose sleep trying to get it (joke) And it’s not the result of phobia, any more than my lack of interest in ‘getting’ FIB theology is.

 

[_Abyssinia]

So I’m having a hrad time with this. I joined CA after years of just reading posts I dug up on google, I had to come on here and ask about gun control.

I believe iN Christ, I believe He founded our Church for the good of all mankind, and rarely find myself disagreeing with Holy Mother Church, but this has got me going nuts.

Almost 2 years ago I received a call from an unknown person threatening to kill me. The threat was real, it was scary, and I was freaked out. I went out and bought a shotgun for my home. I live in NYS and getting a long gun outside of the city is no problem, getting a handgun, and esp. a handgun for concealed carry is a different story, what’s more I work in NYC and that is not at all easy.

I have always believed in the 2nd amendment, I believe in self defense, but this was the first time I felt I needed a gun.

Now I am a big gun buyer, guns have always fasinated me, they are tools, and in many cases, beautifully crafted machines. What’s more, a gun could one day save my life, and the lives of my family. I pray to God that never has to happen, but if it does, I want to be ready. In researching, I have found that US Bishops favor gun control, even want to one day eliminate guns entirely from our society, that is almost a direct quote. How can Catholic Bishops be this way? I understand the role of the Church as peace maker, and I wish the world were perfect and guns were NOT necessary, but they are. There are evil people out there, and sometimes one guy with a gun is all it takes to stop evil.

How can the Bishop who made the above statement say that the police and military should be the only ones to have guns? Are we not allowed to defend ourselves when the police or military are not an option? Are we not granted by the founding father this basic right in order to prevent tyrants from taking over our nation?

Did Jesus not say;

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

?

We are meant to preserve life are we not? Are our own lives not worth preserving? Must we coward and wait for the govt to come and rescue us?

This and the economic lean to the left of the Church in recent times as left me questioning some of our leaders, not Gods instrument on earth, but those who are leading her.

Vatican on the right to bear arms:

Catechism:

…the right of legitimate defence 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 or transfer of arms". (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).

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

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… The one is intended, the other is not.”

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

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.

kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getsection.cfm?partnum=3&SecNum=2&ChapNum=2&articlenum=5&ParSecNum=0&subSecNum=1&headernum=2&ParNum=2265&ParType=a

 

[maryjk]

I think there are better ways to have police and citizens ‘complimenting’ and ‘overlapping’ each other than by simply letting most of the citizens pack weaponry.

Like what?

 

[shipwrkd]

Funny. In most countries police do so. And in not a few they do a better job at it than your police and armed civilians combined.

I don’t live in “most countries” I live in the USA. In our present economy the police force has been significantly reduced and is no longer “minutes away”. My son is a LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) and his average responds time is 12 minutes and that is IF the victim is able to call. He and his fellow LEO’s do not mind in the least having armed civilians in the community. I’ve seen references to “toy guns” and any officer will tell you they are more dangerous then the real ones when facing a criminal. Most LEO’s believe it’s the toy ones that should be banned, that way they know what they are facing. Liken it to a soldier facing an armed person out of uniform. Is he friend or foe…do you shoot or risk being shot.

Several very fine weapons are the SIG Sauer P220 handgun, the Heckler and Koch sub-machine gun and the SIG SG550 Assault Rifle. These are the weapons of choice of the Vatican Swiss Guard. I wonder if Our Holy Father minds that they are carrying such firepower…

 

[Brendan]

it just gives criminals access to lethal weapons

Huh? Criminals will always have access to lethal weapons.

Take a look at illegal drugs like crack cocaine. That is both illegal and requires special chemicals and university level chemistry knowledge to process. But criminals (or anyone else for that matter) can get a hold if it.

Now compare that to a firearm. The only thing it takes to construct one is high school level shop knowledge and materials that can easily purchased ( steel), with tools one can get at any good hardware store.

I myself made a replica 16th century flintlock from scratch using a dremel tool, vice and files in an apartment . It would have been just as easy ( actually even easier) to build a revolver or even a submachine gun ( see below).

During the post WW-II British occupation of Palestine, Israeli Zionists built submachine guns and ammo in the basement of a laundry shop that served British officers. They built the British Sten gun, which was designed to be mass manufactured in small shops, even garages.

Any criminal so interested could turn those out by the crate load in a way that would be much harder to trace or prevent that a drug lab.

The primary reason they don’t is that it is generally easier to smuggle in any of the millions of AK-47’s that are floating around the third world.

So the effect of gun laws is really only to deny firearms to regular citizens.

 

[Cristiano]

Funny. In most countries police do so. And in not a few they do a better job at it than your police and armed civilians combined.

Most countries means a majority of countries. Would you please provide evidence for your statement.

 

[shipwrkd]

I personally do not like guns, though I own one. I prefer to rely on less lethal means of protection. But this is not a Church issue. The Catholic Church has always supported the right to use deadly force to protect yourself or others. It can even be a grave duty in some situations. ** I think the OP is concerned about something that doesn’t exist.** Practically speaking, an armed populace is the greatest deterent to crime and tyranny, in my opinion. Really, most of the practical application is just opinion and we can all disagree.

This is spot on. There are those who would never think of owning a gun and there are those that will only give them up when they are pried from their cold, dead hands. That’s what makes this country so great, we are allowed to disagree, to bear arms, to vote and to choose our religion. It’s unfortunate, but it will take a gun in someone’s hand, to preserve these rights

This thread could go on longer then I can, I enjoyed all the opinions…

 

[benjohnson]

And please remind me exactly how an armed populace could or did prevent any of this? Weren’t you insisting that that was the point of gun ownership after all, prevention of government tyranny?

The tyranny you mentioned is done with the general content of the governed. Obviously America needs moral lessons. The tyranny that firearms prevents is external tyranny, or try any imposed by a few.

As a modern examples of this theory working:

Switzerland - Swiss were so heavily armed to a man that the Nazi’s avoided the whole country. To this day, most Swiss homes have a semi automatic gun and significant ammo.

Israel - Israel’s surrounded by enemies, and is pretty much the only democracy in the region and it’s population is heavily armed.

Finland - The Soviet Union quickly learned to leave Finland alone when even the citizens fought back. At the time, the Soviets had the largest army in the world right on Finland’s borders.

Counter examples:

Pol Pot disarmed his citizens and killed millions of them. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did the same thing after disarming their citizens.

Given the track record and the evidence, I would think it logical to want to be in the former category (Switzerland, Finland, USA, and Israel) and not the latter (USSR, China, Cambodia, Nazi Germany)

 

[Cristiano]

…I personally do not like guns, though I own one. I prefer to rely on less lethal means of protection. But this is not a Church issue. The Catholic Church has always supported the right to use deadly force to protect yourself or others. It can even be a grave duty in some situations…

I really like guns and I really like safety. However, I always amazed when people rely on a firearm as a first line of defense in a house. Any reasonable security expert will tell you that you always need to layer your security. For a house I think that layers would be: thorny bushes in front of windows, illuminated and clear entryways, solid locks and doors, alarm system, dogs, and a firearm as the last line.

 

[partypilot1]

My wife posed an excellent question to me during a discussion about total reliance on Gods will and our action. She asked, “If you have total trust in God, then why do you carry a gun?” My response leaned heavily toward (Matthew 25:14) the servant who buried his talents instead of using them to make more. The Catholic interpretation of this is “Faithful use of one’s gifts will lead to participation in the fullness of the kingdom” and in this case I see it as God gave me the gift, drive, enjoyment, and pleasure of guns and the healthy understanding the consequences they can pose. A gun is only a tool, same as a knife, shovel or an axe. Furthermore, he calls everyone to the grave duty of protecting the sanctity of human life. I carry a gun because I, maybe one day but hope never, will be called to need this tool to protect the loss of human life. God gave me the intellect to determine if all alternate options have been exhausted, if the circumstances calls for and if the action will directly be responsible for the protect human life.

Taking a human life, whether justified or not, is a grave matter. Beyond the legal ramifications, justifiable or not, there are also psychological ones which are much more restrictive. The gap between these two have been responsible for many destroyed lives and sleepless nights (note George Zimmerson). The story of the prisoners’ nightmares is a constant reminder to me that in order for me to end a human life (and accept the psychological consequences) I must be absolutely sure that there are no other options. The intent is always to protect human life, even if there is an unintentional loss of one.