Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jfz178 said:
This is an open note to all the pro-gun people on this thread. I am not talking to the rest of you. The anti-gun posters here are TROLLS. They try to poke intellectual holes in good reasoned arguments and keep the argument stirred up, but they offer no concrete solutions of their own
Click to expand...
You may see it that way. I believe your view is singular and biased. Indeed, it must be frustrating for Leaf every time she tries to get back on target with the moral issue, as this is on the statement made by the Catholic Church, it keeps getting twisted back to the Constitution, Heller, and rather worldly view of what are inalienable rights. Her being out-numbered does not make her a troll.

It also does not make her the topic here.
jfz178 said:
Not your thread, not your site. You don’t get to pull the rhetorical trick of trying to frame the discussion in your terms, so you can win an argument that you have no chance of winning based on facts.
Click to expand...
You are the one that first tried this little control trick. What is the word for criticizing someone for something you are doing?
 
Last edited:
On your first comment, I said wasn’t talking to you, so your view is not relevant to me.

On your second comment. I never said I don’t use that trick. I just wanted to make it clear I recognize it and I’m not going to fall for it.

But if you want to be taken seriously, put something on the table and I will discuss it reasonably without tricks. I have put stuff on the table, but Leaf admits to having nothing. Just criticizing others’ positions and solutions without having any of your own fits the definition of trolling.

BTW, I’m just getting warmed up, so keep 'em coming! I can do this all year! On this topic, I know every argument and every counter and I will never back down.
 
Last edited:
jfz178 said:
On your first comment, I said wasn’t talking to you, so your view is not relevant to me.

But if you want to be taken seriously,
Click to expand...
I have been here considerably longer than you and threads work by everyone giving (name removed by moderator)ut. I gave my (name removed by moderator)ut that you keep trying to redefine the topic from the moral component to the legal. I care not if you take me seriously, but I am no fan of bullying.
 
pnewton said:
I have been here considerably longer than you and threads work by everyone giving (name removed by moderator)ut. I gave my (name removed by moderator)ut that you keep trying to redefine the topic from the moral component to the legal. I care not if you take me seriously, but I am no fan of bullying.
Click to expand...
Neither am I and I so will not allow myself to be bullied. The fact that you have been here longer is irrelevant. I have almost certainly been a Catholic longer than most people here. So what? As I said before, the moral component cannot logically be discussed in isolation on this. What you call a “legal” competent is a Constitutional component, with is merely a guarantee to protect natural law, which is moral law. You calling it merely “legal” denigrates our Constitution, which I have put my life on the line for.

So again, you still haven’t put anything on the table to discuss or even discussed what I have put on the table. I would rather discuss those things. But if you want to spend your time in ad hominem attacks, fine, I can play. If you want to spent your time trying to limiting my free speech, I will continue to push back.
 
If someone is pointing a gun at you or someone else yes you can shoot them before they shoot you or that other person provided you can reasonably assume they are intent on using it.

That obviously not being the case if they are a legitimate peace keeping authority such as the police.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Strawman argument.
Click to expand...
Actually, the case regarding the mentally ill is instructive because:

The moral right of self-defense as taught by the Church is absolute and applies to everyone. That is, acting to protect yourself when you are unjustly under attack is not a sin for anyone. It is not a sin for the mentally ill to do this. It is not a sin for criminals in jail to do this. It is not a sin for anybody to protect themselves when they are under and unjust attack.

It is easy to imagine scenarios where a mentally ill person might be under attack from a criminal. Similarly, it is common for prisoners in jail be attacked by other prisoners. In both these cases, a person does not sin who acts to defend himself with any means available. Even lethal means if necessary.

Now let’s look at gun rights. We say the the mentally ill do not have the right to own a gun. We say that prisoners in jail do not have the right to carry a gun. Yet they still have the moral right to self defense according to the Catechism. How can this be? The answer is : The right of self defense does not imply the right to carry a gun!
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
Just trying to draw some lines, qualifications. How far does this right to self defense go? Can it involve pre-emotive shooting?
Click to expand...
I am up on all aspects of self defense and self defense law, but I have never heard of a “pre-emotive shooting.” What does that mean?
 
I’m assuming he means shoot someone before they shoot you. I.e. the pre-emptive war in Iraq.

Personally if someone ever threatens my life or someone else’s I get my shot off before they get theirs. I hear bullets are painful to have in you.
 
How far in advance of the other guy shooting is it licit to shoot? 2 seconds? 2 minutes? 2 weeks? What if I am quite sure someone is planning to kill me 2 months from now. Would it be sinful to shoot him now?
 
Last edited:
If someone is holding a weapon on you. In the present, and you have a reasonable fear that your life or someone else’s is in immediate danger.

Come on people use some common sense. If you know someone is planning it 2 months from now and you have evidence you go to the law. If someone’s kicking in your door with a gun you deal with it with appropriate force.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
If someone is holding a weapon on you. In the present, and you have a reasonable fear that your life or someone else’s is in immediate danger.

Come on people use some common sense. If you know someone is planning it 2 months from now and you have evidence you go to the law. If someone’s kicking in your door with a gun you deal with it with appropriate force.
Click to expand...
So there is a gray area between these two extremes. One person’s common sense may not be the same as another person’s.

However the right of self defense is not really the issue in this thread. Can we get back to gun rights vs gun control?
 
Last edited:
And if necessary that will be determined in a court of law. Most self defense law is based on there being a reasonable fear of loss of life or serious injury. The right to self defense is enshrined in moral law. Gun control seeks to strip people of their access to the tools necessary for self defense.

The gun control lobby doesn’t want “reasonable” gun control. We have that already. They want to inch by inch take away everything but single shot shotguns and 22 bolt action rifles.
 
A few points:

Mentally ill people are less likely to commit violence than the general public, but more likely to be victims. Only a small group, about two percent, have “dangerous” mental health conditions and therefore should not be allowed to have guns. And that is the law. Even though it is not fairly applied, the law generally only prohibits gun ownership from people who have been had involuntary, long-term (name removed by moderator)atient mental health care.

A federal court in PA just ruled last week that even short-term involuntary, (name removed by moderator)atient mental health care does not necessarily take away a patient’s gun rights. So we are talking only about 20,000 people in the US who are prohibited persons for that reason. They are prohibited because they are a direct and obvious danger to themselves or others. That doesn’t bear on the larger argument. You can say, for instance, that you always have to go to Mass on Sunday. But if you are sick, going to Mass is a danger to you and others, so you are exempt. That does not negate that you need to go Mass on Sunday.

Prisoners in jail are in a “gun free zone” and if they are felons, have had their gun rights revoked as part of the penalty to what they have done. They have forfeited their rights by their own actions. Again, that does not negate the argument about most people having a right to guns for self defense.

There are lots of exceptions to every right. That there are limited exceptions for solid reasons does not negate the right. You have the right to free speech. But if you have access to classified information, there is some speech you are not free to do. That does not negate free speech.
 
“Now let’s look at gun rights. We say the the mentally ill do not have the right to own a gun. We say that prisoners in jail do not have the right to carry a gun. Yet they still have the moral right to self defense according to the Catechism. How can this be? The answer is : The right of self defense does not imply the right to carry a gun!”

I personally don’t agree that the mentally ill should have their gun rights stripped away. I think they have the same rights as everyone else.

Prisoners are a totally different story, their right to self defense is mitigated by the fact that they have broken a law that has led to punishment, which includes the loss of the exercise of certain rights as necessary to ensure the safety of other prisoners and the guards placed over them.
 
Four elements are generally required for self-defense. I think they are moral as well as legal. They are: (1) an unprovoked attack, (2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and (3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to (4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.

There are three elements to determine “imminent injury or death.” All three, not just one or two, must be present:
  1. Ability: The attacker must show that he has the ability to injure or kill you. That means showing a weapon, being much bigger than you, etc.
  2. Opportunity: The attacker must actually be in a position to injure or kill you. An attacker who has a gun, he may have ability, but if he is outside your home and you are inside, his opportunity is in question.
  3. Jeopardy: An attacker has shown by his actions (words alone are not enough) that he intends to injure or kill you.
All of this is drilled into people who take defensive shooting courses, of which I have taken many, including two specifically on self defense law.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Now let’s look at gun rights. We say the the mentally ill do not have the right to own a gun. We say that prisoners in jail do not have the right to carry a gun. Yet they still have the moral right to self defense according to the Catechism. How can this be? The answer is : The right of self defense does not imply the right to carry a gun!
Click to expand...
We all have an inalienable right to life, but that doesn’t mean the state can’t take your life as punishment for a serious crime. The fact that a general right exists does not mean that it cannot be circumscribed in particular circumstances. Mental illness, and prison are two such circumstances that justify particular restrictions that would not apply generally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top