Pope says weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian

[LongingSoul]

I realize that some people may choose to shut off their brains when the subject of weapons comes up but I’m just trying to follow your “argument” that things that criminals prefer, or which make crime expedient, or which were originally designed for war, need to be banned. If you have a better criteria in mind, let’s hear it.

I don’t get that you don’t get it. You could equally argue why are some drugs banned and some are legal medications. Well some drugs are preferred by abusers. They are an expedient way to escape reality. They were originally designed as trippers and not medication.

You could say individuals should have a right to choose their own relief from reality… however the correlation between those types of drugs and the drain on health dollars and the police time and energy due to drug induced behaviour and crime etc… warrants their banning in the interest of the common good.

Some things cause more harm than good to the community and that warrants restriction and legal consequences.

But, yeah, self defense, and the defense of the innocent, is an inalienable and divine right.

The fact that many countries don’t allow guns and knives for self defense and still maintain a high level of safety and sense of security in the community, proves that personal weapons are not intrinsically good. They serve a purpose in warlike conditions but they are a blight on a peaceful society. Most people want peace without the threat of weapons in the mix.

 

[graciew]

Jesus made a weapon and used it. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say He struck people with the whip, but He drove the animals and people from the Temple area. Common sense tells us that people aren’t driven from an area by someone popping a whip in the air.

You also seem to forget that Jesus commanded His apostles to buy a sword.

I am thinking . Just that. Going through Scripture to make a connection with the railways.
I really do not mean to argue about interpretation of Scripture or anything.

 

[Brendan]

The correlation between certain weapons and increased crime and death is a no brainer. .

Once again, the is no correlation. As handgun purchases in the US have increased, crime has decreased.

As concealed carry laws have increased, crime has decreased.

How exactly is that a correlation ( other than being an inverse correlation)

 

[LongingSoul]

Once again, the is no correlation. As handgun purchases in the US have increased, crime has decreased.

As concealed carry laws have increased, crime has decreased.

How exactly is that a correlation ( other than being an inverse correlation)

That correlation can’t work because crime rates have fallen all across the western world.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...mary&prodno=4530.0&issue=2009%9610&num=&view=

statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015001-eng.htm

theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/23/crime-rate-ons-lowest-level-england-wales-police

nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11230189

That’s generally attributed to the downturn in the crack cocaine and the other drugs market that exploded onto the scene from the 80’s.

The fact that remains is the nearly 5 times higher rates of murder and injury associated with US crime.

 

[Tbrightson]

Self-loading rimfire rifles, pump action and self loading shotguns, self loading centrefire rifles, machine guns, full automatic self loading rifles and handguns. Those designed for war conditions.

I see you found my list for Santa!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t get that you don’t get it.

I get you just fine. You want to ban things that:

1. Are preferred by criminals (e.g. gangster plaid)
2. That were oringally designed for war (e.g. spam and triage)
3. That expedite crime (e.g. fast cars)

I think that’s insane.

 

[LongingSoul]

I get you just fine. You want to ban things that:

1. Are preferred by criminals (e.g. gangster plaid)
2. That were oringally designed for war (e.g. spam and triage)
3. That expedite crime (e.g. fast cars)

I think that’s insane.

No I don’t want to unilaterally ban any of those things. I’m advocating that all things should be subject to examination as to whether they do more harm than good to the community. If they are doing more harm than good, they should be banned. A piece of equipment is not invested with any supernatural quality which protects it from accountability to the common good. ie. owning a gun can never be an inalienable right. Not even the constitution suggests that. It is a right based on the welfare of the community it is used to serve.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No I don’t want to unilaterally ban any of those things. I’m advocating that all things should be subject to examination as to whether they do more harm than good to the community. If they are doing more harm than good, they should be banned. A piece of equipment is not invested with any supernatural quality which protects it from accountability to the common good. ie. owning a gun can never be an inalienable right. Not even the constitution suggests that. It is a right based on the welfare of the community it is used to serve.

But do you at least agree that individuals have an inalienable and divine right of self defense? Or do you really believe that only communities have rights? And if the later, how big must the community be before it attains these rights? (I’m guessing familes don’t count.)

 

[LongingSoul]

But do you at least agree that individuals have an inalienable and divine right of self defense? Or do you really believe that only communities have rights? And if the later, how big must the community be before it attains these rights? (I’m guessing familes don’t count.)

Individuals have the right to self defense that is moderated. It is not an unconditional right. According to Aquinas…

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.”

So there are limitations attached to that right to self defense that require that we evaluate the circumstances and the object of the act. The question is being asked… outside of an actual environment of war, is it legitimate for a civilian to arm yourself with a weapon that will cause certain death, prior to making that evaluation of a given circumstance? I would say no. By arming oneself, a course of action is already decided here prior to any event.

As for the communities rights, absolutely they should prevail over the rights of the individual where safety is concerned. What does the ‘common good’ mean if not that the safety and security of every person is served equally. I would get it if those entitled to weapons ie. the militia… were well organised and trained in defense enough that they were committed to defending the defenseless in the community as in having guards posted around schools and Churches and other targets of massacres. But gun owners don’t seem to care about the vulnerable as long as they feel safe themselves.

 

[Brendan]

Individuals have the right to self defense that is moderated. It is not an unconditional right. According to Aquinas…

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.”

So there are limitations attached to that right to self defense that require that we evaluate the circumstances and the object of the act. .

Does Aquinas state that the police have a different set of obligations than anyone else?

Are they permitted by Aquinas to use a level of force that is unnecessary?

 

[LongingSoul]

Does Aquinas state that the police have a different set of obligations than anyone else?

Are they permitted by Aquinas to use a level of force that is unnecessary?

Well yes. Following on from that quote regarding private self defense, he continues…

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.

So ‘minister of the judge’ can be assumed to be the public authority we now refer to as the police. They have a special commission in regards to the common good, which is of course held accountable for their actions, but in a different way to the individual.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Individuals have the right to self defense that is moderated. It is not an unconditional right. According to Aquinas…

Every legal definition of self-defense that I am aware of takes into account this concept of proportionality but where the defense of life (and often grave injury) is concerned, there is no moderation. Defense of property, of course, is more moderate. Additionally, every definition of legal self defense requires that the self defense halt once the attack has been stopped.

So there are limitations attached to that right to self defense that require that we evaluate the circumstances and the object of the act. The question is being asked… outside of an actual environment of war, is it legitimate for a civilian to arm yourself with a weapon that will cause certain death, prior to making that evaluation of a given circumstance? I would say no. By arming oneself, a course of action is already decided here prior to any event.

Perhaps you would say ‘no’ but every legal defintion of self-defense allows the use of deadly force (force that may cause death or great bodily harm) in defense of life (and grievous injury, e.g. rape). Weapons obviusly fit with this legal defition but so too do unarmed self defense actions such as a punch to the head or the neck which can cause death. Posession of a weapon is no different, legally, from the capability of a deadly strike with your fist or the ability to pick up a rock or a chair in the situation.

 

[Brendan]

Well yes. Following on from that quote regarding private self defense, he continues…

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.

So ‘minister of the judge’ can be assumed to be the public authority we now refer to as the police. They have a special commission in regards to the common good, which is of course held accountable for their actions, but in a different way to the individual.

But police can INTEND the death? In that that is the their end goal when they go after the offender?

Is how the police in Australia operate? That they have the intent to kill? That is actually forbidden to police in the US. In order for the State to have the intent of causing death, the accused must be brought to trial and duly sentenced to death.

I’m surprised that Australian police can execute people.

Aquinas prefaced II-II 64 with this

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.

So if one acts to save one’s life, there is no injustice, as long as the intent (the end goal of the act) is to stop the attack.

Correct?

Hence why Pope St John Paul II specifically refereed to II-II 64 in Evangelicum Vitae

Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason (45)

Footnote 45 states: Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 64

So do you concur with the Pope’s assessment of II-II 64

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In order for the State to have the intent of causing death, the accused must be brought to trial and duly sentenced to death.

This is a subtilty that is hard for some people to grasp.

In a self-defense situation (which is different from an arrest situation), you are morally and legally allowed to use deadly force. In spite of this, your intent is not to cause death but to stop the attack even if the predictable risk of the weapon is death. The offender always has the option to cease his attack and be spared further harm.

Oddly enough, this also applies in warfare where the protocols of surrender are quite rigid, though not always followed to the letter.

The sole situation where one is permitted to have the intent to kill is capital punishment which, as Brendan notes, must follow due process of law.

Arrest situations (by the police) are, in some ways, actually more restricted than self defense situations (by police or civilians). Although the police are allowed to pursue an offender to arrest, which is generally not allowed in self defense, the police are more limited in their use of force.

 

[LongingSoul]

But police can INTEND the death? In that that is the their end goal when they go after the offender?

Is how the police in Australia operate? That they have the intent to kill? That is actually forbidden to police in the US. In order for the State to have the intent of causing death, the accused must be brought to trial and duly sentenced to death.

I’m surprised that Australian police can execute people.

Police have a special commission to protect the community (similar to soldiers whose commission extends to the broader community again). In the course of that duty they are armed to kill if necessary with the most prudent weapons ie. handguns. They are commissioned to act with deadly force in the course of their commission. They do have to be highly accountable of course to ensure they acted according to their training, for the common good and not from any private agenda. Luckily in Australia police shootings are rare. They are highly trained to diffuse situations with both tactical and psychological measures. Nevertheless, they are permitted to use the deadly force of a gun for the protection of the community.

In Australia, civilians are not permitted to kill to defend themselves with a gun acquired for self defense. They are permitted to defend themselves with appropriate force even if in doing so the aggressor may be killed, but not to premeditate killing a person by carrying a gun. Those are two different commissions.

Aquinas prefaced II-II 64 with this

So if one acts to save one’s life, there is no injustice, as long as the intent (the end goal of the act) is to stop the attack.

Correct?

In Australia, to carry a gun is to have a premeditated intent to kill. That is restricted to the legitimate public authorities ie police, soldiers.

Hence why Pope St John Paul II specifically refereed to II-II 64 in Evangelicum Vitae

Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason (45)

Footnote 45 states: Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 64

So do you concur with the Pope’s assessment of II-II 64

You are assuming that both StJPII and Aquinas are authorising the use of guns for self defense by private citizens here. That isn’t the case. While defense of the common good has pretty detailed conditions and requirements for police and soldiers who are held accountable for the shootings they conduct… self defense can mean different things to different individual untrained civilians. When someone isn’t highly trained at reading a situation or using different diffusing tactics against an aggressor in the way the police are… they deem shooting dead, as necessary by degrees according to their own temperament and lots of other variables.

That is why guns are forbidden for self defense in Australia. They are known to cause more harm than good to the community. They breed cardboard badge sheriffs and vigilantes and then of course the psychos with grudges are also ‘commissioned’ by the ‘right of the gun’.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In Australia, to carry a gun is to have a premeditated intent to kill.

This is not merely false, it is rabid propaganda. The police do not walk around with the intent to kill, even in Australia.

As for the rest, here is an illuminating case:

findlaw.com.au/articles/5022/self-defence-law-in-australia.aspx

Even in Australia a gun is a legitimate means of self-defense.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is not merely false, it is rabid propaganda. The police do not walk around with the intent to kill, even in Australia.

As for the rest, here is an illuminating case:

findlaw.com.au/articles/5022/self-defence-law-in-australia.aspx

Even in Australia a gun is a legitimate means of self-defense.

You’ve pulled an antique out of the archives there. The case mentioned was back in 1987 however since the strict legislation around gun ownership that occurred in 1996, forbids owning a gun for the purpose of self defense and gun use that is not in accordance with the license is severely penalised. If a case like the one you cite were to happen today, the outcome would be much different.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You’ve pulled an antique out of the archives there. The case mentioned was back in 1987 however since the strict legislation around gun ownership that occurred in 1996, forbids owning a gun for the purpose of self defense and gun use that is not in accordance with the license is severely penalised. If a case like the one you cite were to happen today, the outcome would be much different.

No offense, but absent a more recent case to the contrary I’ll trust the legal experts.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Police have a special commission to protect the community

Yeah, but in the US they have no obligation or duty to protect any individual. It is the individual’s responsibility to protect themselves according to the law. Think I’ve posted this to you before-

Warren vs DC
Ballesteri vs Pacifica PD
Linda Riss vs the City of New York
Castle Rock vs Gonzales

For police to protect everyone they would have to be everywhere all the time. 1/4th of us would have to be police. The law acknowledges the police can’t be everywhere, they can’t even be held liable for failing to respond to a call at all, much less for delayed response.

In Australia, to carry a gun is to have a premeditated intent to kill. That is restricted to the legitimate public authorities ie police, soldiers.

Sorry, but that’s a bit of twisted reasoning there. If I have a fire extinguisher is it because I have an intent to light my house on fire? Same with smoke detectors, escape ladders. If I have life insurance, is it because I have an intent to die? If I have car insurance is it because I have an intent to crash? If I wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle is it because I have an intent to crash? I guess it’s ok that the police have the intent to kill, since they can carry a firearm?

ETA: You do know that in the US, law abiding CCW holders have a lower rate of crime than law enforcement officers?

Why is taking a prudent measure to protect oneself in case of catastrophic incident you DON’T want to have happen construed as an intent for that to occur? I have safety equipment to minimize the negative consequences of bad things happening— not because I want them to happen.

Of course, where I live in the US it’s impossible for the average citizen to get a CCW and carry a firearm. If I have what the sheriff would say is ‘good cause’ by the time I get the permit I’d have been killed. Kind of like a woman recently in New Jersey, got killed while waiting two months for her permit to even own a gun…

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

To suggest that no civilians should have a moral or a legal right to a gun for protection purposes is wrong. It puts women at risk from a rapist. Can endanger children from a home invader.

Getting back onto topic here I would attribute the Pope’s comments as off the cuff again because clearly you can’t be the sovereign leader of a country where guns are used (Vatican Swiss Guard) where the weapons industry is not being employed. He probably meant weapons of mass destruction (chemical or biological weapons) but it didn’t come across like that.

He made a mistake. He isn’t a heretic. Let’s move on.