San Francisco Approves Gun, Military Recruiting Ban

[Philip_P]

wabrams:

So you would have no problem walking through Brooklyn or Hell’s Kitchen at 1am, unarmed, if your car happened to break down?

Well, Hell’s Kitchen’s quickly turning to expensive coops these days, but Brooklyn - I’ve been in Bushwick and Crown Heights late at night. Also up in the Bronx. My own apartment is in a decent part of town, but has its share of crime and what a suburbanite would probably call urban blight.
Vern Humphrey:

That is an unethical argument – you are asking me to do something the Catholic Church forbids, equate an unborn child with an unjust aggressor.

No, I’d like you to think a bit deeper about why abortion is immoral. I maintain there is a deep connection between the acceptance of abortion, the acceptance of torture, the acceptance of the death penalty, and the embrace of guns in this country.

The gun debate is really more about culture than crime (since gun laws make little difference either way on crime rates). Abortion is relevant to debates on American culture. I’m interested - why do you believe abortion is immoral?

 

[Arba_Sicula]

rlg94086:

Interesting, so you believe that we are only allowed to do something if the Catechism says it is okay? That is illogical.

I didn’t say that we are only allowed to so something if the Catechism says it is okay.

The Catechism says we have a right to self-defense, but it does not tell us how. This means it is up to our discretion, unless you can tell me where it say we should not carry a concealed weapon.

Arguing from the negative, my friend. “Listen to me, Arba, I say the moon is made of green cheese. I’ll believe that unless you show me that it isn’t.” One can’t, you see, prove a negative, so your proposition is invalid.

I’m not sure what courts you hang around, but if you are going to tell someone they are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, you should be able to tell them what law they are breaking.

Come visit me, and when you drive through the tunnels from New Jersey, you’ll see big signs put up by the NYPD telling drivers that it is forbidden to have a concealed (or any, for that matter) weapon with them. Sorry, I can’t cite the exact statute forbidding the guns, but, believe me, the cops will tell you what it is when they see your gun.

Where in the Catechism does it say carrying a concealed weapon is a sin?

We’re not talking about any sinfulness, but about the Church’s positive approval of going strapped.

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

Well, Hell’s Kitchen’s quickly turning to expensive coops these days, but Brooklyn - I’ve been in Bushwick and Crown Heights late at night. Also up in the Bronx. My own apartment is in a decent part of town, but has its share of crime and what a suburbanite would probably call urban blight.

Are you going to answer my question or not?
Philip P:

No, I’d like you to think a bit deeper about why abortion is immoral. I maintain there is a deep connection between the acceptance of abortion, the acceptance of torture, the acceptance of the death penalty, and the embrace of guns in this country.

Abortion is wrong because you are killing a human that can’t fight for itself and the person having the abortion deciedes that the baby doesn’t have a righ tto life simply because it exists. Not anywhere close to sef defense.
Philip P:

The gun debate is really more about culture than crime (since gun laws make little difference either way on crime rates). Abortion is relevant to debates on American culture. I’m interested - why do you believe abortion is immoral?

Liberal gun laws cause the crime rate to go down. It’s been argued ad nauseum and had plenty of proof to go with it.

You know you’re wrong about the gun debate, so you’re trying to bring something else that isn’t even related into the discussion.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

wabrams:

So you would have no problem walking through Brooklyn or Hell’s Kitchen at 1am, unarmed, if your car happened to break down?

1. Don’t knock Brooklyn. I live there.
2. I have never had any trouble whatsoever walking through Brooklyn after midnight, unarmed. Never. There are some rough sections of town, but not as many as you out-of-towners fantasize. And, who would want to go there? No one should look for trouble even if he’s a gun-nut with a machinegun on a hair trigger in each arm.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Philip P:

Well, Hell’s Kitchen’s quickly turning to expensive coops these days, but Brooklyn - I’ve been in Bushwick and Crown Heights late at night. Also up in the Bronx. My own apartment is in a decent part of town, but has its share of crime and what a suburbanite would probably call urban blight.

Where do you live? Manhattan? West Side? I live in Gravesend near Avenue U, and my mother lives in Greenpoint. No crime to speak of, except a few drug pushers, there.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

wabrams:

Liberal gun laws cause the crime rate to go down. .

If you really believe that, then vote in “carry” laws in South Carolina. I don’t believe that, and will support keeping guns out of NYC - just as the majority of New Yorkers including, “suprise, suprise”, conservatives do.

 

[wabrams]

1. Don’t knock Brooklyn. I live there.

1. I have never had any trouble whatsoever walking through Brooklyn after midnight, unarmed. Never. There are some rough sections of town, but not as many as you out-of-towners fantasize. And, who would want to go there? No one should look for trouble even if he’s a gun-nut with a machinegun on a hair trigger in each arm.

I’ve got some friend from college that are on the NYPD and their beat is in Brooklyn. Both of them would give their right arms to get out of there and go anywhere else in the city. BTW, both grew up in Hell’s Kitchen and still don’t feel safe in some parts.

The point wasn’t whether you would voluntarily go there, but if your vehicle broke down and you had no choice but to walk through those rough areas.

 

[wabrams]

Arba Sicula:

If you really believe that, then vote in “carry” laws in South Carolina. I don’t believe that, and will support keeping guns out of NYC - just as the majority of New Yorkers including, “suprise, suprise”, conservatives do.

We’ve had them for years here in SC. When they passed, the robbery and homicide rates dropped a substantially.

 

[Philip_P]

Are you going to answer my question or not?

You need it explicit, so you can quote me? Ok: I’ve been in Bushwick, unarmed, late at night, and had no desire for a gun. Also, rents in Hell’s Kitchen are too high (and you can quote me on that, too )

Liberal gun laws cause the crime rate to go down. It’s been argued ad nauseum and had plenty of proof to go with it.

Actually, no they don’t. Link: Either you accept the data or you don’t, but I’d like to hear your explanation for why crime dropped so dramatically in states with strict gun laws.

You know you’re wrong about the gun debate, so you’re trying to bring something else that isn’t even related into the discussion.

If the claim is that guns affect crime, neither side is right. The gun debate isn’t about crime, it’s about culture. I’m moving past the rhetoric and into the heart of the real discussion, which abortion helps us talk about (since that is something Catholics on both the Left and Right agree is wrong).

Abortion is wrong because you are killing a human that can’t fight for itself and the person having the abortion decides that the baby doesn’t have a right to life simply because it exists. Not anywhere close to self defense.

You’re right that it’s not about self defense. The key is your first sentence. Another way of stating it would be that abortion is wrong because the unborn child is vulnerable, and to kill it is a violation of that vulnerability entrusted into our care. It is precisely it’s life which is vulnerable at that point. Note that this has nothing to do with innocence or guilt (in fact, technically the child is not innocent as prior to baptism it retains original sin). It’s about most vulnerable, not most innocent.

Similarly, a prisoner is vulnerable, at the mercy of his or her captors. The prisoner’s very existence and right to life is vulnerable. To torture that prisoner is to violate that vulnerability, that right to life and bodily integrity. Ditto for execution.

Now, we must ask, where does that right come from? It is intrinsic – all human beings have this by their very nature. When we say we violate this right, then, what we are doing is treating them as less than human. We see this in our language. It’s never “They tortured John to get a confession” but “they tortured the suspected terrorist.” It’s never “they killed Jane” but “the fetus was aborted.” In order to kill, we must first dehumanize.

Look at the logic of the pro-gun argument. It’s not “I need to be able to shoot Mike if he tries to mug me” but “we need to defend ourselves against attackers.” The humanity is stripped, the person reduced to a function, a role.

My argument is not that carrying guns is a sin. I don’t believe that. Rather, it is that carrying guns fosters a culture which dehumanizes, and which therefore makes it easier for sin to take hold

 

[Philip_P]

Arba Sicula:

Where do you live? Manhattan? West Side? I live in Gravesend near Avenue U, and my mother lives in Greenpoint. No crime to speak of, except a few drug pushers, there.

I’m not native to the city, but I’ve been living up in Harlem for a few years now. I’ve never made it as far as Gravesend, but Brooklyn’s great. Best cheescake in the city

 

[Philip_P]

wabrams:

The point wasn’t whether you would voluntarily go there, but if your vehicle broke down and you had no choice but to walk through those rough areas.

I’d recommend a cell phone. Much cheaper, and less chance of accidental discharge.

 

[MikeWM]

Philip P:

Look at the logic of the pro-gun argument. It’s not “I need to be able to shoot Mike if he tries to mug me”

Good - I’ve never mugged anyone

But a very good post nevertheless.

Mike

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

You need it explicit, so you can quote me? Ok: I’ve been in Bushwick, unarmed, late at night, and had no desire for a gun. Also, rents in Hell’s Kitchen are too high (and you can quote me on that, too )

Look at post #195.
Philip P:

Actually, no they don’t. Link: Either you accept the data or you don’t, but I’d like to hear your explanation for why crime dropped so dramatically in states with strict gun laws.

Those are recent events. Police finally started to get tough on crime. States with conceal-and-carry laws already had there dramatic drops in crime years earlier when the statutes were passed.
Philip P:

If the claim is that guns affect crime, neither side is right. The gun debate isn’t about crime, it’s about culture. I’m moving past the rhetoric and into the heart of the real discussion, which abortion helps us talk about (since that is something Catholics on both the Left and Right agree is wrong).

If you want to use that angle then why do the of so civilized European nations with anti-gun laws have nearly the same abortion rates per capita as the USA?
Philip P:

You’re right that it’s not about self defense. The key is your first sentence. Another way of stating it would be that abortion is wrong because the unborn child is vulnerable, and to kill it is a violation of that vulnerability entrusted into our care. It is precisely it’s life which is vulnerable at that point. Note that this has nothing to do with innocence or guilt (in fact, technically the child is not innocent as prior to baptism it retains original sin). It’s about most vulnerable, not most innocent.

Similarly, a prisoner is vulnerable, at the mercy of his or her captors. The prisoner’s very existence and right to life is vulnerable. To torture that prisoner is to violate that vulnerability, that right to life and bodily integrity. Ditto for execution.

Yeah, you are correct. But neither of these have a thing to do with gun control.
Philip P:

Now, we must ask, where does that right come from? It is intrinsic – all human beings have this by their very nature. When we say we violate this right, then, what we are doing is treating them as less than human. We see this in our language. It’s never “They tortured John to get a confession” but “they tortured the suspected terrorist.” It’s never “they killed Jane” but “the fetus was aborted.” In order to kill, we must first dehumanize.

So when John Q. Public shoots someone trying to rob him he is dehumanizing his attacker?
Philip P:

Look at the logic of the pro-gun argument. It’s not “I need to be able to shoot Mike if he tries to mug me” but “we need to defend ourselves against attackers.” The humanity is stripped, the person reduced to a function, a role.

Oh, so instead of John Q. Public shooting his attacker, he should ask for a name first and begin a discussion about what turned him to a life of crime? Personally, I couldn’t give a rats rearend about humanity if someone is attacking me.
Philip P:

My argument is not that carrying guns is a sin. I don’t believe that. Rather, it is that carrying guns fosters a culture which dehumanizes, and which therefore makes it easier for sin to take hold

So shooting someone in self defense is a sin now? You better call the Vatican and let them know.

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

I’d recommend a cell phone. Much cheaper, and less chance of accidental discharge.

What are you going to do, throw the cell phone at the attacker or just call 911 while you’re getting robbed or attacked?

 

[wabrams]

MikeWM:

Good - I’ve never mugged anyone

But a very good post nevertheless.

Mike

But you have been mugged, though. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1082964&postcount=19

Didn’t you feel defenseless? Wanted to protect yourself but had no means to? Why don’t you share that with us.

 

[Philip_P]

wabrams:
If you want to use that angle then why do the of so civilized European nations with anti-gun laws have nearly the same abortion rates per capita as the USA?

I do want to use that angle. It’s the one I think most relevant. Note, though, that I’m not arguing causality (i.e. abortions cause gun violence, or vice versa). Rather, I’m arguing that both gun violence and abortion are consequences of the same source - namely, a dehumanizing culture.

I would expect that in countries with high rates of abortion, you find many dehumanizing elements within the culture. Europe’s stats seem to support this. Overall, it has a higher rate than the US (which is 22.9/thousand). Breaking it down, though, we find this is mostly due to high rates in Eastern Europe (90/thousand). Given the long experience of dehumanizing Soviet domination, we should perhaps not be surprised. In Western Europe, by contrast, the overall rate is **lower **than the US, by a lot, at 11/thousand.

(link: guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html. Note that these are 1996 figures)

Now, if someone can find stats on gun laws in these regions, let’s put that up alongside these and see what happens. Remember, we’re not arguing casuality, but congruence.

 

[Philip_P]

MikeWM:

Good - I’ve never mugged anyone

But a very good post nevertheless.

Mike

Cheers.

 

[dkward2]

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Allow me to break it down.

"A well regulated Militia,…"
Introductory clause (not main point of sentence).
Well regulated means that the members of the militia are accurate with their shots. (Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Papers)
Militia refers to every able-bodied, adult person. (George Mason said “the whole people”)

"being necessary to the security of a free State"
Dependent clause (not main point of the sentence).
A large portion of the population being “well-trained” with firearms is necessary for the defense of the people against other citizens AND the aggression of the State.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Independent clause (main idea of the sentence).
Notice it is the right of the people which is the subject, not the right of any state. Thus, it is not talking about the right of the state to create militia. The Bill of Rights, by and large, does not refer to the rights of states, but people. In the 9th and 10th amendment, when they mean state they say state.

In conclusion, it’s probably useful to see what the people who actually wrote the Constitution thought:

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

And finally, just for fun, what did Adolf Hitler say concerning gun control?
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
– Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)

As you can see, San Francisco is in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[MikeWM]

wabrams:

But you have been mugged, though. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1082964&postcount=19

Indeed (I’ve mentioned it before, in I think the last big gun control thread we had a few months ago).

Didn’t you feel defenseless? Wanted to protect yourself but had no means to? Why don’t you share that with us.

It was late at night (or rather early in the morning, about 3am) and I was walking somewhere I wouldn’t normally go. Yes, I wasn’t happy about it, and yes I’d like to have done something about it, but I kept my head and lost little more than a handful of pocket change and a few other small items. Fortunately they weren’t the most competent muggers around, and they completely overlooked the fact that I had a brand new camera in my other jacket pocket.

If I’d tried to fumble around getting a weapon out, I guess I may have scared them away, but equally I may have just escalated the situation, especially if they had pulled a gun first (not likely in the UK, thank goodness) or grabbed their knife (if they had one) as I was fumbling in my pockets.

I was somewhat inebriated too (this was about 5 years ago, I don’t drink at all nowadays), which rather helped in my confidence in dealing with them, but would quite possibly have been somewhat of a disaster if I’d been trying to use a gun in that state.

As to the other time I was attacked in the street (about 2 years ago), it was more a random act of violence than anything, and happened so quickly I didn’t have time to react, let alone pull a gun. Fortunately the idiot seemed satisfied just to whack me to the floor and run off in guffaws of laughter, without even trying to steal anything from me.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Philip P:

In Western Europe, by contrast, the overall rate is **lower **than the US, by a lot, at 11/thousand.

Indeed. The UK has a high rate by Western European standards, but if the USA had the same rate as the UK, there would be almost half a million fewer abortions in the USA every year, which seems pretty significant to me.

Mike