San Francisco Approves Gun, Military Recruiting Ban

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the role of Police is to protect society as a whole and they have no legal requirement to provide personal protection. That said, each person is ultimately responsible for their own personal protection. Carrying a concealed firearm is the best way to accomplish this.

Your opinion. In my city, New York, vigorous police action and prompt prosecutions brought down the crime rate spectacularly. There was no need - and more importantly, there was no public call - for the citizenry to go about their daily business carrying guns, whether concealed or out in the open in a holster.

If rural areas find it valuable to go around armed, urban areas don’t. I, and the vast majority of the people of New York City - including the Police, don’t want handguns to be more accessible here. I’m not at all bothered if every man, woman, and child in Cheyenne, Wyoming wears a six-shooter and carries a shotgun as well; I will resist such or anything like it in my hometown.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

It is not my understanding of the Catechism that is deficient but your for it CLEARLY states that not only do we have a RIGHT but a GRAVE DUTY to protect ourselves and other innocent individuals from harm.

Go to the passage that I referenced and read it for yourself. Not only do we have a duty but a GRAVE duty!

It’s pathetic that you think that the Catechism calls for every Catholic on earth to carry guns. What Pope or theologian ever has called for such? What other nation has called for such? Who, except for right-wing American gun-lovers, could come up with such a peculiar notion?

Weird and scary is all I can say.

 

[gilliam]

Philip P:

Interesting. As far as how that relates to the discussion, my point is that gun ownership really doesn’t. Talking about guns as a way to lower crime doesn’t seem to pan out, but I’m doubtful that removing them helps much either. I think, on the gun debate, the question has to be, what end are we trying to achieve, and how can we best get there? If the end is to reduce crime, a focus on an effective police and improved economic opportunity seems to work very well (see, for instance, NYC).

Makes sense to me

 

[MikeWM]

Arba Sicula:

It’s pathetic that you think that the Catechism calls for every Catholic on earth to carry guns. What Pope or theologian ever has called for such? What other nation has called for such? Who, except for right-wing American gun-lovers, could come up with such a peculiar notion?

Weird and scary is all I can say.

The Catechism doesn’t anyway.

Look on the USCCB website, and their position on ownership of guns is quite clear.

Mike

 

[Sir_Knight]

Arba Sicula:

It’s pathetic that you think that the Catechism calls for every Catholic on earth to carry guns.

What’s pathetic is that your fear of guns is causing you to not fulfill the duties that are expected of Catholics … “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, 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 someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the community.”

Please make the connection with what Jesus, Himself, instructed His followers to protect themselves when He encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27 – a plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense). Here the “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equilavent of what a gun is today.

But if you refuse to listen to the Catechism, why bother listening to what the Son of God said either.

Oh, and let’s not forget the action of St. Gabriel Possenti who used a pistol to defend the village his seminary was located in from marauding Garibaldi soldiers (he was a noted marksman prior to entering the seminary).

I guess that according to you, he would have never been officially declared a saint because he used a gun. Fortunately our church leaders think more rationally.
Arba Sicula:

What Pope or theologian ever has called for such?

St. Thomas Aquinas was quoted as saying “And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; (ST II, 40)”

 

[Sir_Knight]

MikeWM:

The Catechism doesn’t anyway.

Look on the USCCB website, and their position on ownership of guns is quite clear.

The Catechism tells us that we have a GRAVE DUTY to protect ourselves and others from harm. To tell us that we have a duty to do something and deny us the means by which to do it, is hypocritical to say the least.

 

[MikeWM]

Sir Knight:

The Catechism tells us that we have a GRAVE DUTY to protect ourselves and others from harm. To tell us that we have a duty to do something and deny us the means by which to do it, is hypocritical to say the least.

shrugs Tell that to your Bishop next time you see him.

Mike

 

[wabrams]

shrugs Tell that to your Bishop next time you see him.

Mike

Personally, I would be more than happy too!

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

St. Thomas Aquinas was quoted as saying “And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; (ST II, 40)”

You haven’t, I’m afraid, any idea of what you are speaking about. Aquinas was speaking of the lawfulness of the public authorities using the death penalty to punish evil-doers, and that passage, along with the second has always been used as a justification for capital punishment. It is not an argument for every person to carry a gun.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

What’s pathetic is that your fear of guns is causing you to not fulfill the duties that are expected of Catholics

Please cite Papal pronouncements that say that one of the duties of individual Catholics is to carry a concealed weapon, or any weapon for that matter.

… “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, 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 someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the community.”

Elucidating principles of self-defense, not promoting carrying a handgun. For, if it were the latter, we’d hear about our “duty” to carry a handgun in Bishops’ Letters, in Vatican statements, and from our church pulpits.

But if you refuse to listen to the Catechism, why bother listening to what the Son of God said either.

It is no less than blasphemy to say that Jesus wants all Christians everywhere to carry handguns. Why have the Vicars of Christ over the centuries, especially in modern times, failed to instruct Catholics to pack a handgun?

Oh, and let’s not forget the action of St. Gabriel Possenti who used a pistol to defend the village his seminary was located in from marauding Garibaldi soldiers (he was a noted marksman prior to entering the seminary).

Legitimate self-defense, and if I remember correctly, he went into his house to retrieve the weapon. He didn’t go about his town wearing a holster and a six-shooter.

I guess that according to you, he would have never been officially declared a saint because he used a gun.

Is that what I said? Keep your fantasies to yourself.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

It doesn’t help crime rates. I’m not convinced there’s no harmful affect in other areas. Two likely areas would be 1)gun-related violence and 2)increased cultural acceptance of violence as solution to problems.

It is proven to reduce violent crime rates. Read Lott’s massive studies on the subject.
Philip P:

For the first, one interesting question would be whether the percentage of crimes guns are involved in has been going up, especially in conceal-carry states. We know the crime rate overall has been going down nationally. Of crimes that are committed, though, has there been a change in the percentage in which firearms are involved? Anyone have this data?

Percentage based on what? The violent crime rate, measured against population goes down in states that have liberalized concealed carry laws.
Philip P:

On the second, cultural arguments are difficults to prove, but I would put forward that, in a society where the answer to a problem is “shoot it”, it’s not surprising that an accepted answer to the “problem” of an unwanted pregnancy is also “kill it.”

Ahh, Phillip? Are you saying that the Florida “Shall Issue” law that was passed in 1987 caused the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Philip P:

In this view, abortion and gun violence are merely two sides of the same problem in American culture.

In that view, time runs backward, and causes occur a decade and a half after the effect!!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Philip P:

If this is true, arguments over whether which is “worse” are pointless, as this fails to address the actual problem (American embrace of violence as a solution). You can’t get the right answer if you’re not asking the right questions.

And before you can ask the right questions, you need an understanding of cause and effect!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Sir_Knight]

Arba Sicula:

Please cite Papal pronouncements that say that one of the duties of individual Catholics is to carry a concealed weapon, or any weapon for that matter.

I already quoted Christ, who instructed His followers to sell their very cloak, if need be, and purchase a WEAPON.
Arba Sicula:

Elucidating principles of self-defense, not promoting carrying a handgun.

And how do you propose that an elderly man effectively protect himself from someone half his age and twice his size and strength? Or a 110 pound woman from a 300 pound rapist? A handgun gives one the ability to APPLY the principles of self defense on an equal playing field.
Arba Sicula:

It is no less than blasphemy to say that Jesus wants all Christians everywhere to carry handguns.

Scripture records Christ telling His followers to purchase a sword. The sword of that time period is the equilavent of what a gun is today. The fact that when the Apostles showed to Jesus the swords that they had and He said that it would be sufficient, is a clear sign that He was not talking symbolicly but was making reference to real physical swords. To deny what Christ said and what is recorded in sacred scripture is no less than blasphemy.
Arba Sicula:

Legitimate self-defense, and if I remember correctly, he went into his house to retrieve the weapon. He didn’t go about his town wearing a holster and a six-shooter.

Keep your fantasies to yourself.

And you think an attacker is going to wait while you go home to retrieve a firearm? Maybe you should keep your fantasies to yourself because by following your ideas, someone is liable to get themselves hurt or killed.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Ahh, Phillip? Are you saying that the Florida “Shall Issue” law that was passed in 1987 caused the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973?

No, but rather that they both spring from the same source.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What same source? One takes innocent life while the other allows for the PROTECTION of innocent life.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

I already quoted Christ, who instructed His followers to sell their very cloak, if need be, and purchase a WEAPON.

Your selective use of a single verse of Scripture avoids reading the verse in context and in context of Christ’s overall message. And you didn’t answer my question. Why haven’t the Vicars of Christ, and their bishops and priests over the centuries and especially today, called over and over for people to buy daggers and swords and now handguns? There should be at least several Encyclicals on it, especially in the last two centuries. Name one.

And how do you propose that an elderly man effectively protect himself from someone half his age and twice his size and strength? Or a 110 pound woman from a 300 pound rapist? A handgun gives one the ability to APPLY the principles of self defense on an equal playing field.

I’m not really sure if you are serious or just putting us on.

Scripture records Christ telling His followers to purchase a sword. The sword of that time period is the equilavent of what a gun is today. The fact that when the Apostles showed to Jesus the swords that they had and He said that it would be sufficient, is a clear sign that He was not talking symbolicly but was making reference to real physical swords. To deny what Christ said and what is recorded in sacred scripture is no less than blasphemy.

What counts is interpretation, and your interpretation is as far out as fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture. If it were a command of Christ, it would have been repeated by Him (as were other of His commands), reinforced by His Apostles in their Letters, and repeated by the Successors of the Apostles. They haven’t done so.

And you think an attacker is going to wait while you go home to retrieve a firearm?

If you believe that little story about that saint, then you have to admit that he did just that - went home to retrieve his firearm. Or was that just some pious fairytale?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Arba Sicula:

Your selective use of a single verse of Scripture avoids reading the verse in context and in context of Christ’s overall message. And you didn’t answer my question. Why haven’t the Vicars of Christ, and their bishops and priests over the centuries and especially today, called over and over for people to buy daggers and swords and now handguns? There should be at least several Encyclicals on it, especially in the last two centuries. Name one.

As I said earlier, it is hypocritical to tell us that we have a GRAVE DUTY to do something and then deny us the means by which to do it.
Arba Sicula:

I’m not really sure if you are serious or just putting us on.

No, I’m completely serious. Saying that we have a right to self defense but denying us the means to do it is pretty much the same as denying that right to self defense.
Arba Sicula:

What counts is interpretation, and your interpretation is as far out as fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture. If it were a command of Christ, it would have been repeated by Him (as were other of His commands), reinforced by His Apostles in their Letters, and repeated by the Successors of the Apostles. They haven’t done so.

Just because something is referenced in scripture only once does not diminish it’s importance because the bible states that all of scripture is for man’s benefit.

And the “Successors of the Apostles” have repeatedly taught that we have a GRAVE DUTY to defend ourselves.
Arba Sicula:

If you believe that little story about that saint, then you have to admit that he did just that - went home to retrieve his firearm. Or was that just some pious fairytale?

Are you questioning what the church has recorded to be the history of this saint and calling it a fairytale?

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

As I said earlier, it is hypocritical to tell us that we have a GRAVE DUTY to do something and then deny us the means by which to do it.

An Encyclical, Papal Letter, Bishop’s Letter, or such, please. Not your personal opinion.

Just because something is referenced in scripture only once does not diminish it’s importance because the bible states that all of scripture is for man’s benefit.

All of Christ’s teachings have been repeated by Him in the Gospels, in the Apostles’ Letters, and in the Encyclicals.

And the “Successors of the Apostles” have repeatedly taught that we have a GRAVE DUTY to defend ourselves.

That doesn’t equate to carrying a concealed handgun. Please provide a citation from Church documents calling for Catholics to carry handguns.

Are you questioning what the church has recorded to be the history of this saint and calling it a fairytale?

There are pious legends associated with many saints.

 

[wabrams]

Arba Sicula:

That doesn’t equate to carrying a concealed handgun. Please provide a citation from Church documents calling for Catholics to carry handguns.

Well, in Jesus’ time people armed themselves with swords, as it was the normal weapon of self defense. Today a handgun is considered a normal weapon of self defense. I guess the Church figured people had enough common sense that it’s followers would know to change with the times with regards to weapons of self defense; perhaps they were wrong. I guess instead of hand guns we could use foul language.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

wabrams:

Well, in Jesus’ time people armed themselves with swords, as it was the normal weapon of self defense.

Not for ordinary people. Not for the Jews of Jesus’ time. Maybe for the Romans. That’s a matter of fact that would have to be researched.

Today a handgun is considered a normal weapon of self defense.

Normal? Among what people? Handguns aren’t available to the populace in most of the world, and even in the United States, it is not the norm to carry a handgun.

 

[wabrams]

Arba Sicula:

Not for ordinary people. Not for the Jews of Jesus’ time. Maybe for the Romans. That’s a matter of fact that would have to be researched.

Research it in the Bible. Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves with swords.
Arba Sicula:

Normal? Among what people? Handguns aren’t available to the populace in most of the world, and even in the United States, it is not the norm to carry a handgun.

A handgun is a normal weapon of self defense here in the US. And you would be very suprised at how many people carry handguns, whether on their person or in their vehicle.