On gun control for LongingSoul and others

[Annie39]

Note to LongingSoul and others who may be interested,

I read your note in which you wrote “I’m definitely not implying that I’m more continental or superior to Mexicans at all. I’m just saying I’m safer.” I wondered why. I realized that I know almost nothing about the history of Australia. (I had an outline of an idea in my head. I thought that Anglo-Saxon descendents founded penal colonies)

This discussion started between those who are for and those who are against gun-control I thought that I would deal with the USA first. I know of course more about my country than Mexico and it seems that it may be true that you are safer than people of some parts of the USA as well as Mexico.

I have completed a little research about Australia and discovered that the Dutch founded colonies there first then the Brits. Apparently they moved in to take possession of the land without even a thought to the indigenous people. Yep, I thought, sounds like our history. Notice that I don’t refer to the indigenous people as “Aboriginal”. That’s because many years ago I engaged in Catholic Apologetics on the internet. I met, if that is the proper word for it in cyberspace, a member of the Australian Indigenous folks who told me that they do not like to be referred to as “Aboriginal” so I don’t use that term.

It is my guess that the indigenous Australians could be compared more to the American Indians than to the African-Americans of the US. When Columbus “discovered America” there were already people here. The Europeans both the Anglos and Spanish just moved in. The Spanish were looking for land and gold the Anglos were among other things looking to escape the Anglican Church. I believe that those folks were Calvinists for the most part. The Anglican Protestants were doing a number on Erin’s Isle too. (me ancestors)

My thought is that you are safer maybe because the indigenous people were decimated and have been subdued. This describes our indigenous people as well. I don’t know of any problems with American Indian tribes as a whole. Every group has its bad apples. Note a couple of quotes from the Anglos who were among those who took over Australia:

1845, settler Charles Griffiths sought to justify this, writing; "The question comes to this; which has the better right – the savage, born in a country, which he runs over but can scarcely be said to occupy … or the civilized man, who comes to introduce into this … unproductive country, the industry which supports life.

Early commentaries often tended to describe Aborigines as doomed to extinction following the arrival of Europeans. William Westgarth’s 1864 book on the colony of Victoria observed; "the case of the Aborigines of Victoria confirms …it would seem almost an immutable law of nature that such inferior dark races should disappear. If you are a little suspect of the ellipsis I am as well so if these quotes don’t represent the attitude of the people who took over AU please bring me up to speed by perhaps other quotes that more accurately reflect the attudes of the Europeans in AU.

I did some research on the internet to try to determine if those who invaded Australia ever enslaved the indigenous people. The answer I discovered is no. (Please correct me if I’m wrong).

The African-Americans of my country for the most part are descended from slaves. A small percentage of A.A. is involved in gang activity. The first street gangs in America were Irish BTW in the 1700s.

The A.A. were pretty much downtrodden in the US particularly in the south for most of our history. Things began to change in the 50s and 60s with the American Civil Rights movement. A minority of the descendents of those who were granted their civil rights are in violent gangs. Many of those folks say that they are redressing the balance. There are also Mexican gangs but like the AA those in gangs are in the minority. Most Mexicans and African-Americans are normal everyday hard working people. Although I don’t know very much about the drug culture, I understand that it is at least in part what perpetuates the gang violence.

I did research on the internet to attempt to determine if there was a drug problem in Australia. It seems that AU doesn’t have as big a problem as we do. Please note the quote I got from the internet below. I don’t know how accurate it is.

As I see it the bottom line it seems that there is not as much violence in AU than in parts of the USA and I pray (literally) that it remains so. And I pray that the violence here will subside. That seems to be the reason that there are more gun control advocates in AU

As for Mexico the drug cartels have taken over that country. That is the reason that you are safer than they are. The need for self protection is greater in Mexico and parts of the USA as I see it. It seems the need in South Africa is great as well .I have read accounts of recent violence in that country. According to an article that I read many South African middle class hire armed guards for protection.

Annie

Alcohol and drug related violence
The harm and high economic cost associated alcohol-related violence presents major challenges to all levels of government. In Australia around half of all homicides are alcohol-related. One in four Australians surveyed were found to be victims of alcohol-related verbal abuse. Today the impact of alcohol consumption, particularly among young people, is of growing concern. AIC research has identified key issues relating to alcohol-related violence and has advised on approaches to curb this behaviour. aic.gov.au/crime_types/violence/alcohol%20and%20drug%20related%20violence.html

 

[LongingSoul]

There’s no doubt that every country has a unique history and set of current circumstances that need to influence public policy, for sure. I read on wiki that gun regulations in Mexico are only regarding carrying your firearm in public and not to do with obtaining one in the first place which I think is a strange way to deal with the criminal use of guns.

A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them.[3] This belief originates due the general perception that only members of law enforcement, the armed forces, or those in armed security protection are authorized to have them. While it is true that Mexico possesses strict gun laws,[4] where most types and calibers are reserved to military and law enforcement, the acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents;[5] given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law.[6]

The right to keep and bear arms was first recognized as a constitutional right under Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution of 1857.[7] However, as part of the Mexican Constitution of 1917, Article 10 was changed[8] where-by the right to keep and bear arms was given two separate definitions: the right to keep (derecho a poseer in Spanish) and the right to bear (derecho a portar in Spanish).[9] The new version of Article 10 specified that citizens were entitled to keep arms (own them) but may only bear them (carry them) among the population in accordance to police regulation.[10] This modification to Article 10 also introduced the so-called …[arms] for exclusive use of the [military]… (in Spanish: …de uso exclusivo del Ejército…), dictating that the law would stipulate which weapons were reserved for the armed forces, including law enforcement agencies, for being considered weapons of war.

In 1971, Article 10 of the present Constitution was reformed[11] to limit the right to keep arms within the home only (in Spanish: …derecho a poseer armas en su domicilio…) and reserved the right to bear arms outside the home only to those explicitly authorized by law (i.e. police, military, armed security officers). The following year, the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives came into force[12] and gave the federal government complete jurisdiction and control to the legal proliferation of firearms in the country; at the same time, heavily limiting and restricting the legal access to firearms by civilians.

As a result of the changes to Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution and the enactment of the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives, openly carrying a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon in public is virtually forbidden to private citizens, unless explicitly authorized by the Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA). For purposes of personal protection, firearms are only permitted within the place of residence and of the type and caliber permitted by law.

The angle of my argument against armed civilians (and the use of the death penalty also), is to do more with group mentality and how it can undermine the cause of human dignity whilst claiming to promote it. I’m definitely not what you could describe as strictly pacifist and advocate for a complete ban, but I think there are reactions that are appropriate for temporary ‘war’ conditions, that are inappropriate reactions in a time of peace. Arming civilians as a civil defense solution, would seem to me to be a reaction of wartime or war conditions. I believe it’s breeding kids to be urban soldiers with a warped sense of what it is to be a fighter for justice and a sense that there is no hope for a truly peaceful existence. A gun is an instrument of domination, purpose made and quite distinct from any other household implement that could be used dangerously. It demands regulation that respects the charismatic influence that it has over the people both behind it and in front of it. It needs to be strictly used as part of a serious commission in the pursuit of justice and peace such as is bestowed on police and soldiers and not to come with it’s own personal ‘commission attached’ to any civilian who can clear a simple security check.

In a nutshell that’s my strong but personal opinion about why there are a growing numbers of gun related deaths in a peaceable nation like America.

You mentioned Australia’s alcohol problem and I really believe that relates in a similar way to guns. There is growing support for increasing the legal consumption age from 18 to 21 and I’m 100% behind such a move to arrest the group mentality about alcohol. As we’ve become less and less bound by Christians values, other hedonistic secular values start to guide the nations psyche and that’s where it become all the more important to guide the young (and old) not just as individuals, but the (illusive but influencial), group psyche of the country, to respect their own and others dignity through laws as the last line of defense.

PS. Australia was first charted by the Dutch explorers but they didn’t settle here. They tried but the native Australians were successful in beating them off. We weren’t officially settled until 1788 as a penal colony of Britain.

 

[Annie39]

There’s no doubt that every country has a unique history and set of current circumstances that need to influence public policy, for sure. I read on wiki that gun regulations in Mexico are only regarding carrying your firearm in public and not to do with obtaining one in the first place which I think is a strange way to deal with the criminal use of guns.

The angle of my argument against armed civilians (and the use of the death penalty also), is to do more with group mentality and how it can undermine the cause of human dignity whilst claiming to promote it. I’m definitely not what you could describe as strictly pacifist and advocate for a complete ban, but I think there are reactions that are appropriate for temporary ‘war’ conditions, that are inappropriate reactions in a time of peace. Arming civilians as a civil defense solution, would seem to me to be a reaction of wartime or war conditions. I believe it’s breeding kids to be urban soldiers with a warped sense of what it is to be a fighter for justice and a sense that there is no hope for a truly peaceful existence. A gun is an instrument of domination, purpose made and quite distinct from any other household implement that could be used dangerously. It demands regulation that respects the charismatic influence that it has over the people both behind it and in front of it. It needs to be strictly used as part of a serious commission in the pursuit of justice and peace such as is bestowed on police and soldiers and not to come with it’s own personal ‘commission attached’ to any civilian who can clear a simple security check.

In a nutshell that’s my strong but personal opinion about why there are a growing numbers of gun related deaths in a peaceable nation like America.

You mentioned Australia’s alcohol problem and I really believe that relates in a similar way to guns. There is growing support for increasing the legal consumption age from 18 to 21 and I’m 100% behind such a move to arrest the group mentality about alcohol. As we’ve become less and less bound by Christians values, other hedonistic secular values start to guide the nations psyche and that’s where it become all the more important to guide the young (and old) not just as individuals, but the (illusive but influencial), group psyche of the country, to respect their own and others dignity through laws as the last line of defense.

PS. Australia was first charted by the Dutch explorers but they didn’t settle here. They tried but the native Australians were successful in beating them off. We weren’t officially settled until 1788 as a penal colony of Britain.

Hi LS
You write: “The angle of my argument against armed civilians (and the use of the death penalty also), is to do more with group mentality and how it can undermine the cause of human dignity whilst claiming to promote it.”

My reply: I read over the statement above several times and I don’t quite understand it. Would you give me an example which shows that armed civilians promoting group mentality undermines the cause of human dignity?
I’m having a problem understanding much of your note so I may have other questions but I thought it would help if I can understand your first point before replying to your entire post.

Annie

 

[Michael57]

In a nutshell that’s my strong but personal opinion about why there are a growing numbers of gun related deaths in a peaceable nation like America.

From the US Center for Disease Control MMWR report for 2010 (the latest final analysis that I could find, 2011 being preliminary and still under statistical analysis):

“Firearm—In 2010, 31,672 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.5 percent of all injury deaths in that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2010 were suicide (61.2 percent) and homicide (35.0 percent). The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) was 10.1 in 2010,* unchanged from the rate in 2009*. The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide increased 3.4 percent in 2010 from 2009, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.3 percent.” (Italics, and bold are mine)

You can review this for yourself at: This Link

Hope this helps.

 

[LongingSoul]

Hi LS
You write: “The angle of my argument against armed civilians (and the use of the death penalty also), is to do more with group mentality and how it can undermine the cause of human dignity whilst claiming to promote it.”

My reply: I read over the statement above several times and I don’t quite understand it. Would you give me an example which shows that armed civilians promoting group mentality undermines the cause of human dignity?

What I’m saying is that granting the general population lethal force/the licence to kill, in protecting themselves and their property, is promoting every individual to judge, jury and executioner without the normally strict and serious conditions that regulate a judge a jury and an executioner. Granting the general population that right to kill based on their own subjective perspective, values, emotions, fears, perceptions… grants human beings a God like discretion over who should live and who should die. When we give legitimate authorities that right to determine who lives and who dies, they are very strictly bound by an objective standard. Lethal force in the hands of any uncommissioned individual doesn’t require any objectivity at all. That lethal right is granted to them solely on the basis of how they are experiencing the situation from inside themselves, as it unfolds.

I hope that is more understandable. I’m just saying that human life is an innately precious thing and so many factors abound even in the midst of crime taking place, where even though it seems justifiable in the circumstances to negate the fact of a persons worth in Gods eyes, over time, that mentality demeans everyones worth in Gods eyes. That is the subtle mentality where I think the Church sees the right to abortion and euthanasia and suicide, finding justification and why the Church needs to voice her position in the interests of human value and the salvation of souls.

 

[Annie39]

What I’m saying is that granting the general population lethal force/the licence to kill, in protecting themselves and their property, is promoting every individual to judge, jury and executioner without the normally strict and serious conditions that regulate a judge a jury and an executioner. Granting the general population that right to kill based on their own subjective perspective, values, emotions, fears, perceptions… grants human beings a God like discretion over who should live and who should die. When we give legitimate authorities that right to determine who lives and who dies, they are very strictly bound by an objective standard. Lethal force in the hands of any uncommissioned individual doesn’t require any objectivity at all. That lethal right is granted to them solely on the basis of how they are experiencing the situation from inside themselves, as it unfolds.

I hope that is more understandable. I’m just saying that human life is an innately precious thing and so many factors abound even in the midst of crime taking place, where even though it seems justifiable in the circumstances to negate the fact of a persons worth in Gods eyes, over time, that mentality demeans everyones worth in Gods eyes. That is the subtle mentality where I think the Church sees the right to abortion and euthanasia and suicide, finding justification and why the Church needs to voice her position in the interests of human value and the salvation of souls.

Hi LS
I’ll try to get to a longer reply later this evening (it is 4:30pm Wednesday) but there is something that happened recently that I’d like to add to the discussion. I’ll add the url at the bottom of this post. You may say that everything turned out alright because the police got there and took care of business. It is my guess that getting shot by the police or someone was the man’s goal. It’s called “suicide by cop” and happens with some regularity. It is interesting that the man waited for the police before counting from 60. He knew the police wouldn’t let him slit the baby’s throat. If the man who stopped him with a shopping cart had a gun he could have taken the guy out. Many people, including you would probably point out that the man didn’t have to do that. But what if there had been an armed citizen at Port Arthur or Sandy Hook. The fact that the man didn’t take the baby’s life doesn’t mean that the next one will not as you can see from the incidence in both of our countries.
ktsm.com/news/man-holds-2-year-old-hostage-knifepoint

 

[LongingSoul]

But what if there had been an armed citizen at Port Arthur or Sandy Hook.

I tend to automatically think in the big picture of things rather than try to apply general meaning to individual situations. I tend to think that if the general population is more plentifully armed with the view to taking out a criminal gunman in a given situation, the increased number of weapons and increased licenses to kill, create even more potential criminal gunman. It creates a self perpetuating cycle; more criminals means more guns needed in the general population for defense- more guns in the general population means more criminal access to guns - more criminals needs more guns - more guns means more criminals and so on and so forth.

After Port Arthur, in 1996 Australia decided to step of that vicious self perpetuating cycle and start pulling guns out of the general community. Since that time, the death rate has dropped from .57 deaths per 100,000 to .13 per 100,000. The rate of gun suicides has gone from 2.09 per 100,000 people to .73 per 100,000 people. The result is indisputable and that’s why there is little opposition to gun controls in Australia. Having lots of guns around the community will undoubtably stop some gunmen but at the cost of creating many times more to create exorbitant murder and suicide figures, which will ironically be used in the gun lobbies argument for more guns.

gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

 

[Annie39]

I tend to automatically think in the big picture of things rather than try to apply general meaning to individual situations. I tend to think that if the general population is more plentifully armed with the view to taking out a criminal gunman in a given situation, the increased number of weapons and increased licenses to kill, create even more potential criminal gunman. It creates a self perpetuating cycle; more criminals means more guns needed in the general population for defense- more guns in the general population means more criminal access to guns - more criminals needs more guns - more guns means more criminals and so on and so forth.

After Port Arthur, in 1996 Australia decided to step of that vicious self perpetuating cycle and start pulling guns out of the general community. Since that time, the death rate has dropped from .57 deaths per 100,000 to .13 per 100,000. The rate of gun suicides has gone from 2.09 per 100,000 people to .73 per 100,000 people. The result is indisputable and that’s why there is little opposition to gun controls in Australia. Having lots of guns around the community will undoubtably stop some gunmen but at the cost of creating many times more to create exorbitant murder and suicide figures, which will ironically be used in the gun lobbies argument for more guns.

gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

I’m not quite ready to reply to your posts I have some more research to do first. Tomorrow is a holiday here the Fourth of July or Independence Day so I’ll be busy for a while but I plan to get back to you ASAP. I have been doing a little more research on gun control in Australia and have a question for you. Before 1996 did all Australians have a right to bear arms or were guns restricted?

Annie

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m not quite ready to reply to your posts I have some more research to do first. Tomorrow is a holiday here the Fourth of July or Independence Day so I’ll be busy for a while but I plan to get back to you ASAP.

No problem. Take your time and enjoy your holiday!

I have been doing a little more research on gun control in Australia and have a question for you. Before 1996 did all Australians have a right to bear arms or were guns restricted?

Annie

Put it this way. There’s never been a ‘right’ to bear arms per se as in having either constitutional or divine, or any other justification, than their utility or recreational uses. There has never been a right to bear a gun specifically for self defense purposes outside of wartime, but if one had a gun for another purpose and happened to use it in genuine self defense, the act wasn’t subject to legal action. Handguns have never been ‘ordained’ so to speak, as self defense weapons and have been always actively restricted or regulated because of their appeal to gangs and subversive type groups that desire to overcome and dominate as their mission.

So after 1996, the legislations wasn’t perceived so much as a crushing of an inalienable ‘rights’ issue, it was moreso the fears of rural users and recreational users that their activities would be restricted. There was also a legitimate fear that those legal gun owners would be at added risk of criminals looking to pinch their guns. That hasn’t been a huge problem and the huge drop in gun deaths and crime has given everyone that greater sense of security anyway.

Its more than just the figures though. It’s the reaffirmation of the principle that guns don’t belong in civilised society as a staple of personal protection. By their nature, they only perpetuate hate and violence rather than defuse it. The aim is to minimise their availability within the community.

 

[Annie39]

Hi again LS

I have am having a bit of a difficult time understanding what you have written. It may be that or our individual minds process information completely differently. This reply is my effort to reply to your note as I understand it.

You wrote: I tend to automatically think in the big picture of things rather than try to apply general meaning to individual situations.

My response: My interpretation of the above is that you look at statistics as it relates to the overall populace rather than individual instances. See below for some statistics on this topic.

LS: What I’m saying is that granting the general population lethal force/the licence to kill, in protecting themselves and their property, is promoting every individual to judge, jury and executioner without the normally strict and serious conditions that regulate a judge a jury and an executioner. Granting the general population that right to kill based on their own subjective perspective, values, emotions, fears, perceptions… grants human beings a God like discretion over who should live and who should die.

A: If I were advocating armed citizens going out vigilante style to take care of business I could see your point. But I am not doing that. Referencing the article that I posted about the man holding a knife to a little girl’s throat: I believe that at the time most anyone would agree that rather than a “subjective perspective….” It was objectively a situation where it was the toddler’s or the perpetrator’s life. Moreover I think that the mother’s as well as any sane person’s emotion and fears were justifiable.

LS: When we give legitimate authorities that right to determine who lives and who dies, they are very strictly bound by an objective standard. Lethal force in the hands of any uncommissioned individual doesn’t require any objectivity at all. That lethal right is granted to them solely on the basis of how they are experiencing the situation from inside themselves, as it unfolds.

A: Would you have recommend to the mother at the time her daughter’s life was hanging in the balance that she wait for the judge to determine objectively if it would be proper to save her daughter?

LS: I hope that is more understandable. I’m just saying that human life is an innately precious thing and so many factors abound even in the midst of crime taking place, where even though it seems justifiable in the circumstances to negate the fact of a persons worth in Gods eyes, over time, that mentality demeans everyones worth in Gods eyes. That is the subtle mentality where I think the Church sees the right to abortion and euthanasia and suicide, finding justification and why the Church needs to voice her position in the interests of human value and the salvation of souls.

A: There are crucial moments when there is no time for theology lessons. The Church is against murder. So am I. Here are the pertinent passages in the CCC catholiclane.com/the-catechism-on-the-right-of-self-defense/

Below are the statistics to which I referred the url is included for you to be able to read it in context and see the references.

“Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7%.
Now for the rest of the story

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault–Australia’s equivalent term for rape–increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women (whom ABC reports are arming themselves at record rates because of safety concerns): More women, from soccer moms to professionals like the ones at the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun range in Chantilly, Va., are packing heat for sport, self-empowerment and protection.

While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Moreover, for groups like Peace Movement Aotearoa, it’s apparently social justice when more people are raped, robbed, and assaulted, as long as they cannot defend themselves with firearms. This highlights the most important point: Gun banners promote failed policy irregardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them.”
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts

Annie

 

[LongingSoul]

You wrote: I tend to automatically think in the big picture of things rather than try to apply general meaning to individual situations.

My response: My interpretation of the above is that you look at statistics as it relates to the overall populace rather than individual instances. See below for some statistics on this topic.

It’s more than that. The Church and Pope John Paul especially, have groomed us to consider the ‘culture’ in discerning what is moral and immoral, not just the conclusions that you’d draw from statistics or from personal emotions. He used the terms ‘culture of life’ and ‘culture of death’ in relation to almost all contemporary moral issues. There is a bigger picture. Even an atheist like Richard Dawkins has quantified ‘culture’ as having blind influence over the group, in his theory of memetics. When 2 or more people come together in relationship, there is new entity created that encapsulates the relationship. (Really it’s the principle behind Democracy.)

So when I’m thinking about the morality of gun ownership, I’m thinking about what that mentality contributes to the cultures view of the human being also. When the community are granted the right to use lethal force at their own discretion, which is what the right to ‘private gun ownership for self defense’ really is, it feeds the cultural belief that a person has the right to kill another if that person is threating them lives or their way of life. That’s the mentality behind abortion.

The Church has always taught that legitimate defense is the right and duty to defend yourself, but if in the process of protecting your life, another’s life is lost, then by virtue of double effect principle, it is not murder and not against the Fifth commandment. The right to defend oneself, is not the right to use direct lethal force against another. Lethal force should only be the consequence of the effort to protect oneself, not the primary goal.

LS: What I’m saying is that granting the general population lethal force/the licence to kill, in protecting themselves and their property, is promoting every individual to judge, jury and executioner without the normally strict and serious conditions that regulate a judge a jury and an executioner. Granting the general population that right to kill based on their own subjective perspective, values, emotions, fears, perceptions… grants human beings a God like discretion over who should live and who should die.

A: If I were advocating armed citizens going out vigilante style to take care of business I could see your point. But I am not doing that. Referencing the article that I posted about the man holding a knife to a little girl’s throat: I believe that at the time most anyone would agree that rather than a “subjective perspective….” It was objectively a situation where it was the toddler’s or the perpetrator’s life. Moreover I think that the mother’s as well as any sane person’s emotion and fears were justifiable.

But being fore armed one already establishes permission to use lethal force as an option but primarily a ‘right’. That’s how the humans’ mentality works. Think of the way that contraception came into the Protestant psyche. All Christian Churches were against artificial contraception up until the Lamberth Conference of 1930. The Anglican conference entered into the teaching that artificial contraception was an exception and acceptable in cases of personal hardship, at one’s own discretion. Once that exception had entered into the Protestant psyche, of course everyone with their own discretion deemed themselves qualified under the Church’s teaching. Now artificial contraception is a right of passage for most Protestants. There is no process of discerning ‘do I meet the criterior for the use of artificial contraception or not’. It’s actually come into the mentality as a defense against hardship rather than the exception if there is hardship. That’s where I see that the gun ownership for defense mentality has gone.

 

[Annie39]

It’s more than that. The Church and Pope John Paul especially, have groomed us to consider the ‘culture’ in discerning what is moral and immoral, not just the conclusions that you’d draw from statistics or from personal emotions. He used the terms ‘culture of life’ and ‘culture of death’ in relation to almost all contemporary moral issues. There is a bigger picture. Even an atheist like Richard Dawkins has quantified ‘culture’ as having blind influence over the group, in his theory of memetics. When 2 or more people come together in relationship, there is new entity created that encapsulates the relationship. (Really it’s the principle behind Democracy.)

So when I’m thinking about the morality of gun ownership, I’m thinking about what that mentality contributes to the cultures view of the human being also. When the community are granted the right to use lethal force at their own discretion, which is what the right to ‘private gun ownership for self defense’ really is, it feeds the cultural belief that a person has the right to kill another if that person is threating them lives or their way of life. That’s the mentality behind abortion.

The Church has always taught that legitimate defense is the right and duty to defend yourself, but if in the process of protecting your life, another’s life is lost, then by virtue of double effect principle, it is not murder and not against the Fifth commandment. The right to defend oneself, is not the right to use direct lethal force against another. Lethal force should only be the consequence of the effort to protect oneself, not the primary goal.

But being fore armed one already establishes permission to use lethal force as an option but primarily a ‘right’. That’s how the humans’ mentality works. Think of the way that contraception came into the Protestant psyche. All Christian Churches were against artificial contraception up until the Lamberth Conference of 1930. The Anglican conference entered into the teaching that artificial contraception was an exception and acceptable in cases of personal hardship, at one’s own discretion. Once that exception had entered into the Protestant psyche, of course everyone with their own discretion deemed themselves qualified under the Church’s teaching. Now artificial contraception is a right of passage for most Protestants. There is no process of discerning ‘do I meet the criterior for the use of artificial contraception or not’. It’s actually come into the mentality as a defense against hardship rather than the exception if there is hardship. That’s where I see that the gun ownership for defense mentality has gone.

You write: But being for armed one already establishes permission to use lethal force as an option but primarily a ‘right’. That’s how the humans’ mentality works. Think of the way that contraception came into the Protestant psyche.

Me: The above is a non sequitur and an unsubstantiated opinion.

LS: All Christian Churches were against artificial contraception up until the Lamberth Conference of 1930. The Anglican conference entered into the teaching that artificial contraception was an exception and acceptable in cases of personal hardship, at one’s own discretion. Once that exception had entered into the Protestant psyche, of course everyone with their own discretion deemed themselves qualified under the Church’s teaching. Now artificial contraception is a right of passage for most Protestants. There is no process of discerning ‘do I meet the criterior for the use of artificial contraception or not’. It’s actually come into the mentality as a defense against hardship rather than the exception if there is hardship. That’s where I see that the gun ownership for defense mentality has gone.

Me: The above argument does not use facts regarding gun control but contraception therefore your conclusion is irrelevant to the discussion.

I presented evidence to support that violent crime goes up, not down with more gun control.

In Aristotle’s RHETORIC he writes: “the member of the public assembly and the dicast have to decide present and definite issues, and in their case love, hate, or personal interest is often involved, so that they are no longer capable of discerning the truth adequately, their judgement being obscured by their own pleasure or pain.” (dicast = One of the 6,000 citizens chosen each year in ancient Athens to sit in the law courts, with functions resembling those of a judge and juror)

We of course are not in a court of law but the principle is still valid IMHO. One must present an argument that is free from tugging at people’s emotion.

I believe that we can end this discussion unless you feel compelled to go on. It is clear that you believe that taking guns from law abiding citizens would make things safer somehow. It has been shown that this is not so, and it is true that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.

God bless,

Annie

 

[LongingSoul]

We of course are not in a court of law but the principle is still valid IMHO. One must present an argument that is free from tugging at people’s emotion.

Which is why I didn’t want to get into posting violent gun related links to counter yours.

I believe that we can end this discussion unless you feel compelled to go on. It is clear that you believe that taking guns from law abiding citizens would make things safer somehow. It has been shown that this is not so, and it is true that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.

I believe that the worldwide statistics that put the US way to the top of all violent gun related deaths within the Western world, is one of the worst indictments of a country I otherwise give much credit to. I believe along with most of my countrymen that gun control and restrictions, along with other controls and restricitions of dangerous and addictive products, (whether they have other legitimate uses or not) is a sign of a civilised and compassionate humanity. Mostly though, I strive to think with the Church on all matters of human wellbeing and honestly, if the Church were saying what you are saying… I probably would remain silent on the subject. But the Church is making constant urgings for greater controls and restrictions of guns in America.

But thankyou for the discussion. I agree with you that we are diametrically opposed on this issue and it has no where else to go on the thread.

 

[Annie39]

Which is why I didn’t want to get into posting violent gun related links to counter yours.

I believe that the worldwide statistics that put the US way to the top of all violent gun related deaths within the Western world, is one of the worst indictments of a country I otherwise give much credit to. I believe along with most of my countrymen that gun control and restrictions, along with other controls and restricitions of dangerous and addictive products, (whether they have other legitimate uses or not) is a sign of a civilised and compassionate humanity. Mostly though, I strive to think with the Church on all matters of human wellbeing and honestly, if the Church were saying what you are saying… I probably would remain silent on the subject. But the Church is making constant urgings for greater controls and restrictions of guns in America.

But thankyou for the discussion. I agree with you that we are diametrically opposed on this issue and it has no where else to go on the thread.

Below are the statistics to which I referred the url is included for you to be able to read it in context and see the references.

Sigh… I just can’t help me self you posted “I believe that the worldwide statistics that put the US way to the top of all violent gun related deaths within the Western world…. I posted the statistics below before showing that your belief is based on that which you would like it to be but your belief is erroneous.
It is simply NOT TRUE that gun control lowers crime.

Please read:

“Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7%.
Now for the rest of the story

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault–Australia’s equivalent term for rape–increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women (whom ABC reports are arming themselves at record rates because of safety concerns): More women, from soccer moms to professionals like the ones at the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun range in Chantilly, Va., are packing heat for sport, self-empowerment and protection.

While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Moreover, for groups like Peace Movement Aotearoa, it’s apparently social justice when more people are raped, robbed, and assaulted, as long as they cannot defend themselves with firearms. This highlights the most important point: Gun banners promote failed policy irregardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them.”
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts

 

[LongingSoul]

In Florida, a guy makes a complaint about his apartment. The two elderley landlords come over to address his complaint. The guy shoots 'em dead. Insane. Shakes head

 

[Annie39]

In Florida, a guy makes a complaint about his apartment. The two elderley landlords come over to address his complaint. The guy shoots 'em dead. Insane. Shakes head

I don’t know what point you are trying to make here.

Annie

 

[SamH]

A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them.[3] This belief originates due the general perception that only members of law enforcement, the armed forces, or those in armed security protection are authorized to have them. While it is true that Mexico possesses strict gun laws,[4] where most types and calibers are reserved to military and law enforcement, the acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents;[5] given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law.[6]
.

Mexican’s have the same right to own firearms as the citizens in Washington DC. First the local authorities have to approve the permit (subject to their discrection and bribe request), then the person may only buy a .22 rifle or a pistol smaller than a .380. By why do that why Obama was shipping AK47s over the border to anyone that wanted one?

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

 

[Annie39]

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.

LongingSoul,

I thought about you when I saw this on the news. A person in Oklahoma must be twenty-one years old to obtain a license to carry a gun. So by definition a “teen” cannot carry a gun legally. I don’t know why you don’t blame the people who gunned down your countryman. I was sick. The gun did not jump up and kill that man; the teenagers who have free will took a gun illegally and murdered him because they were bored. There is no jurisdiction in the USA that gives a license to kill. I think that you may have seen too many James Bond movies. I also I thought about you a week ago when I discovered that I probably have kin in Brisbane. Small world don’t you think?

Annie

 

[LongingSoul]

LongingSoul,

I thought about you when I saw this on the news. A person in Oklahoma must be twenty-one years old to obtain a license to carry a gun. So by definition a “teen” cannot carry a gun legally. I don’t know why you don’t blame the people who gunned down your countryman. I was sick. The gun did not jump up and kill that man; the teenagers who have free will took a gun illegally and murdered him because they were bored. There is no jurisdiction in the USA that gives a license to kill. I think that you may have seen too many James Bond movies. I also I thought about you a week ago when I discovered that I probably have kin in Brisbane. Small world don’t you think?

Annie

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.)