These teens couldn’t legally own or purchase they weapon the used, one must be 21 to purchase a handgun in the US. They also couldn’t own one because of their criminal history, and they surely couldn’t get a CCW license because of their age and history. You say “barely teens” - did you read their ages?I’m not sure if this story is even covered by the American press but its so insanely mad to Aussies that it’s getting top billing at each news bulletin. A young Australian lad on a baseball scholarship in Oklahoma was doing a training run. Three barely teens, drive by him, had a gun and shot him dead… for fun.
This to me, illustrates the attitute that a gun license fosters. Why shouldn’t they have done what they did? People in the US do have a sacred right to kill. I don’t even blame those boys. They are kids. If Australia had a clause providing a right to kill, it would be happening like that here as well. The ‘right to kill’ just doesn’t have a rightful place in the type of amoral world we live in.
LS, I wonder why it is that you and other Australians seem to shout loud about the violent crime in the USA when there is plenty of the same in their own country. I have given you plenty of information regarding this subject in pervious posts and yet you, for some reason, ignore that and jump all over any crime you learn about in our country. I even gave you the url to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on self defense too but it makes no difference to you. (catholiclane.com/the-catechism-on-the-right-of-self-defense/ ). I’m at a loss. I just heard a liberal man on TV say that the crime that happened in Oklahoma could not happen in Australia. I wonder how I can get his email address so I can send the information below to him.The reality is that the boys won’t be held accountable, judged and sentenced as adults. They aren’t even ‘cooked’ yet as Judge Judy always says. How did they get such a deadly weapon? Did they save up or steal money to buy one on the black market. That at least would indict them as savvy criminals. Or did they get it from a friend, or a friends Dad, or a cousin or relative who have one in the cupboard for killing people who they deem ‘death worthy’ by legal standards. The bored teens in some way really did think that lad was ‘death worthy’ otherwise they wouldn’t have loaded, aimed and fired a deadly projectile into his body. It’s always young men who feature in these horrid US articles, and they all feel justified. That’s the mentality that I find to be most distorted. This crazy sense of rights about guns. How many injuries and deaths by guns are actually legitimate self defense situations and how many deaths and injuries are innocent victims of the sense of ‘I have a God given right to kill because that’s what this gun gives me’.
(It is a small world. More and more US expats are settled here. I hear the accent everywhere.)
LS, Its going to take a day or so for me to attempt to make heads or tails out of what you wrote. I noticed BTW that you didn’t answer the question posed to you twice about who is granted the license to kill. I would however like to deal with part of your note:The specific aspect of this that I’m trying to isolate for examination, is the cultural attitude which makes an idol of the gun, rather than a deadly weapon with serious consequences. Last year before the Olympics, 2 young male Australian swimmers posted photos of themselves in a US gun shop posing with guns. A handgun and 2 pump action things. They were severely castigated by Australian authorities and expelled from the Games immediately after their events. The gun in the photos of the boys, was not representing an image of self defense. It represented an image of virility and power over others. These 2 lads were already problems for their bullyboy potential and the image of them toting guns was really offensive.
The argument that they are justified by self defense is not borne out by the statistics and the cultural attitudes. People say condoms are justified by STD’s or abortion is justified by maternal health, to legitimise them. However, condoms and abortion are by far and away used for sexual freedom and lifestyle. They are typically bureaucratic in nature, creating the problems they purport to solve. Same with guns. All the statistics manipulating in the world is not going to cover the fact that the US has more than 4 times the murder rate of Australia, Britian, NZ and guns are idealised as a symbol of physical dominance… especially among young men who are most vulnerable to their animal instinct for physical superiority over others.
Nobody here has a ‘right’ to kill another person in self defense. We have a definite right to defend our physical self, and if in trying to do that the aggressors life is lost, then by the principle of double effect, we are blameless. But to pre-arm ourselves with a permission to kill which is what a gun is, is wrong. If the gun were genuinely regarded as a means of self defense only, that would be reflected in the cultural attitudes. Americans do have a ‘love’ of their guns and that’s what we want to fight against that influence on our teens and young men.
If those teens in Oklahoma had picked up a rock, knife, lump of wood, baseball bat and put the effort into taking that boys life, the sense of violence and the visibility of a life draining out of someone is far more real. To roll down the window, aim and ‘pop’ and then drive off, is so unnatural. They are not spent in their efforts to kill and that pent up energy is reserved for dancing and laughing at the immense power they have in one small trigger finger, over life and death. No natural consequence to civilise them in their animalistic moment.
Link after link is posted here to prove guns are good but not one link appeared at the insane thing that happened to that Aussie boy in Oklahoma. I waited a day or two just to see if one popped up that I could contribute to. But nothing. The fact is that the culture is so enamoured by guns, that it is impossible to post something that shows the massive impact that a gun death has on families. That to me is the most telling sign of all that something distorted protects ‘gun rights’.
The numerous pro gun links posted on this thread and a previous thread.You write: Link after link is posted here to prove guns are good but not one link appeared at the insane thing that happened to that Aussie boy in Oklahoma. I waited a day or two just to see if one popped up that I could contribute to. But nothing.
Me: What links are you referring to?
As I said in my first post on the subject, the story is getting top billing on every news break over here and has been since it happened on Friday the 16th, (which was Thursday the 15th in Australia). Until I’d posted my comment above, (the 21st at 9.24am Australian time) nowhere on CAF had it even been raised. It isn’t primarily even about the shocking violence and sadness for the family of the dead boy. It’s about the complete lack of humanness in this act that is so disturbing. In a society where more and more people lack or abandon normal human sensibilities, the taboos that religion used to provide, no longer apply. Only the taboos which the law provides in giving things an illegal status have any impact on the inhumane.LS: The fact is that the culture is so enamoured by guns, that it is impossible to post something that shows the massive impact that a gun death has on families. That to me is the most telling sign of all that something distorted protects ‘gun rights’.
Me: Do you mean to tell me that no one in Australia is talking about the massive impact the gun death is having on the Aussi’s family. It’s all over the place in the USA. His dad has been interviewed; his girlfriend has been interviewed over and over again. There is an impromptu memorial set up in his honor near the spot of his death similar to the one set up in Australia. That is where his girlfriend was interviewed. She is apparently an American judging by her accent. Everyone I have spoken to about this has a heavy heart for he and his family and friends.
Making gun ownership for self defense illegal, is about making it immoral to kill someone in self defense. That’s were your ‘license to kill’ comes in. In the US you are licensed to kill someone in self defense. In Australia you are permitted and even behoved to defend yourself, but not with any intention of killing them. This falls in line with Aquinas’s teaching on double effect.You write: Nobody here has a ‘right’ to kill another person in self defense. We have a definite right to defend our physical self, and if in trying to do that the aggressors life is lost, then by the principle of double effect, we are blameless
Annie: Exactly HOW is that different from our right to self defense and if the agressors life is lost……?
Summa Theologica II II Q64 Art.7Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.
My field of interest is here in the Apologetics/Social Justice section. That is about looking at the principle of things and how they influence the culture in which they exist. I’m not that interested in having a statistics debate but rather examining cultural attitudes and how they differ from country to country and especially how they either conform to or detract from Catholicity.Do pay attention to the fact that you do not deal with the information you just post emotional opinions.
I realize that you don’t wish to continue this discussion but I plan to reply just the same because othersThe numerous pro gun links posted on this thread and a previous thread.
As I said in my first post on the subject, the story is getting top billing on every news break over here and has been since it happened on Friday the 16th, (which was Thursday the 15th in Australia). Until I’d posted my comment above, (the 21st at 9.24am Australian time) nowhere on CAF had it even been raised. It isn’t primarily even about the shocking violence and sadness for the family of the dead boy. It’s about the complete lack of humanness in this act that is so disturbing. In a society where more and more people lack or abandon normal human sensibilities, the taboos that religion used to provide, no longer apply. Only the taboos which the law provides in giving things an illegal status have any
impact on the inhumane.
That’s my argument as well as the general Australian argument.
Making gun ownership for self defense illegal, is about making it immoral to kill someone in self defense. That’s were your ‘license to kill’ comes in. In the US you are licensed to kill someone in self defense. In Australia you are permitted and even behoved to defend yourself, but not with any intention of killing them. This falls in line with Aquinas’s teaching on double effect.
Summa Theologica II II Q64 Art.7
The intention to kill can not pre-exist any act of self defense for an individual person. A gun by its very nature is designed to kill. Unlike a tranquilliser or a Taser or other implement designed to immobilise, a guns premium service, is to kill.
My field of interest is here in the Apologetics/Social Justice section. That is about looking at the principle of things and how they influence the culture in which they exist. I’m not that interested in having a statistics debate but rather examining cultural attitudes and how they differ from country to country and especially how they either conform to or detract from Catholicity.
I think we’ve probably established earlier in this thread that we aren’t on the same page and not capable to carrying out a productive debate. Sorry about that, but I truly don’t want you to waste too much time researching a line that I’m not interested in going down. Peace.
LS: My field of interest is here in the Apologetics/Social Justice section. That is about looking at the principle of things and how they influence the culture in which they exist. I’m not that interested in having a statistics debate but rather examining cultural attitudes and how they differ from country to country and especially how they either conform to or detract from CatholicityThe numerous pro gun links posted on this thread and a previous thread.
As I said in my first post on the subject, the story is getting top billing on every news break over here and has been since it happened on Friday the 16th, (which was Thursday the 15th in Australia). Until I’d posted my comment above, (the 21st at 9.24am Australian time) nowhere on CAF had it even been raised. It isn’t primarily even about the shocking violence and sadness for the family of the dead boy. It’s about the complete lack of humanness in this act that is so disturbing. In a society where more and more people lack or abandon normal human sensibilities, the taboos that religion used to provide, no longer apply. Only the taboos which the law provides in giving things an illegal status have any impact on the inhumane.
That’s my argument as well as the general Australian argument.
Making gun ownership for self defense illegal, is about making it immoral to kill someone in self defense. That’s were your ‘license to kill’ comes in. In the US you are licensed to kill someone in self defense. In Australia you are permitted and even behoved to defend yourself, but not with any intention of killing them. This falls in line with Aquinas’s teaching on double effect.
Summa Theologica II II Q64 Art.7
The intention to kill can not pre-exist any act of self defense for an individual person. A gun by its very nature is designed to kill. Unlike a tranquilliser or a Taser or other implement designed to immobilise, a guns premium service, is to kill.
My field of interest is here in the Apologetics/Social Justice section. That is about looking at the principle of things and how they influence the culture in which they exist. I’m not that interested in having a statistics debate but rather examining cultural attitudes and how they differ from country to country and especially how they either conform to or detract from Catholicity.
I think we’ve probably established earlier in this thread that we aren’t on the same page and not capable to carrying out a productive debate. Sorry about that, but I truly don’t want you to waste too much time researching a line that I’m not interested in going down. Peace.
Our conservative candidate for Prime Minister in next weeks elections, Tony Abbot, has committed to imposing more strict penalties on the importers of illegal handguns used by violent criminals, especially in Sydney at the moment. Every single handgun in Australia has been legally imported by criminals. Speaking on the death of Chris Lane in Oklahoma Former Deputy PM Tim Fischer made the Australian attitude and position very clear. (Tim Fischer is one of the most conservative politicians Australia has ever had)A few days ago I did some research on crime in other countries especially Australia because that is the country that is compared to the USA in this thread but I decided not to post the results except to say that Sydney, Australia has an ongoing drive-by shooting problem. If anyone would like the URLs you can just ask. I found this article online and I think that it is important to post
breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence
Annie