Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

[Ender]

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

That a particular bishop has expressed his personal opinion on a political issue hardly means that the Church has spoken. His comments are not doctrines of the church; they are his views alone.

I’ll repeat this point: this is one of my primary objections to bishops opining on political issues - people seem unable to distinguish personal, prudential judgments from eternal moral doctrines. Too many people do not recognize that when bishops speak on practical matters their words do not carry any obligation to assent, and to disagree with them is not to disagree with the Church.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

Their right to carry a gun has been mitigated. Their right to defend themselves against other prisoners who threaten their life has not.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Morally I’d agree with you, in practice if two inmates fight they’re both punished.

That being said part of the right to self defense is using appropriate force. In a society (and prison is a society of sorts) they are all on a relatively equal footing for self defense because none have access to weapons other than hands and fists (ideally, some fashion weapons themselves illicitly obviously).

In free society, there is no feasible way to completely disarm everyone, because of that restrictions on the type of weapons only work to the detriment of people who would use them lawfully. Thus, gun control is in itself a violation of moral law.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

Not all. Some are incarcerated awaiting trial. They may not have done anything. Yet we take away their guns too.

They have forfeited their rights by their own actions.

Not all their rights. They still have a right to clean air, food, clothing, human dignity. And they did not forfeit their right to self-defense, as described in the Catchism. Look it up. The Catechism does not give any exceptions to who has the right to exercise self-defense. Do you honestly believe that if I am in a cell awaiting trial and my cell mate attacks me, it would be a sin for me to grab a sharp pencil and stab him in the face to make him stop?

Again, that does not negate the argument about most people having a right to guns for self defense.

There is no argument to negate, except one based on human law - the second amendment. That is all you have.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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 three of these can happen in prison.

 

[jfz178]

The right to keep and bear arms is not based on the Second Amendment. The Constitution states and courts have consistently held that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are pre-existing natural rights that are protected by the Constitution.

Again, your theoretical arguments are tiresome and I can refute them all day, but why don’t you have the guts to put real solutions on the table that can be discussed? All this clever intellectual discussion is just mental masturbation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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!

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.

The fact that the state can punish a person does not mean a prisoner has to put up with being punished by another inmate. I am not talking about prisoners defending themselves against their captors. I am talking about prisoners defending themselves against other prisoners. Is it a sin? Or does a prisoner have the moral right to use lethal force in prison if necssary?

 

[jfz178]

They can. And people in prison have roughly equal access to the weapons that everyone else in prison does, fists, shivs, etc., but not guns. Out on the street, it is a different story.

Are you seriously proposing people in prison have guns, or are you just trying to be clever? Are you suggesting anything real about any of this, or are you just trying to be clever?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The right to keep and bear arms is not based on the Second Amendment. The Constitution states and courts have consistently held that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are pre-existing natural rights that are protected by the Constitution.

So they say. I take my moral guidance from Catholic teaching in the Catchism - not from the Constitution.

Again, your theoretical arguments are tiresome and I can refute them all day, but why don’t you have the guts to put real solutions on the table that can be discussed? All this clever intellectual discussion is just mental masturbation.

They are tiresome because you have no answer to them.

 

[jfz178]

That is because I choose intellectual intercourse to intellectual masturbation. But to each his own.

Again. propose something, anything. This is serious stuff and you are treating it like some word game.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

They can. And people in prison have roughly equal access to the weapons that everyone else in prison does, fists, shivs, etc., but not guns. Out on the street, it is a different story.

Are you seriously proposing people in prison have guns, or are you just trying to be clever? Are you suggesting anything real about any of this, or are you just trying to be clever?

I am asserting that the argument for gun rights based on moral right to self-defense is void. One does not imply the other.

 

[jfz178]

It is void only in your mind. I say it is open for debate. You declaring something void does not make it so.

 

[Ender]

The fact that the state can punish a person does not mean a prisoner has to put up with being punished by another inmate. I am not talking about prisoners defending themselves against their captors. I am talking about prisoners defending themselves against other prisoners. Is it a sin? Or does a prisoner have the moral right to use lethal force in prison if necssary?

And I was talking about the justification for the abridgment of rights. No, a prisoner does not lose his right to self defense against other prisoners trying to kill him, but he does lose his right to self defense against the guards taking him to the death chamber. Just because one has a general right does not mean that he has that right in all circumstances, and the argument that “since prisoners don’t have a right to carry guns this means owning guns cannot be a right” is invalid.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Morally I’d agree with you, in practice if two inmates fight they’re both punished.

That being said part of the right to self defense is using appropriate force. In a society (and prison is a society of sorts) they are all on a relatively equal footing for self defense because none have access to weapons other than hands and fists (ideally, some fashion weapons themselves illicitly obviously).

In free society, there is no feasible way to completely disarm everyone, because of that restrictions on the type of weapons only work to the detriment of people who would use them lawfully. Thus, gun control is in itself a violation of moral law.

Well, this is the best attempt so far to address my point. Thank you for taking it seriously.

In your first paragraph you give good reasons why it is moral to take guns away from prisoners, and I agree with those reasons. However I was not trying to argue that prisoners should be given guns. My question is about the morality of the actions of a prisoner who exercises self-defense. That’s what the Catechism is addressing regarding this right. It is addressing the fact that when a person acts in self defense with reasonable force, he never sins. The Catechism does not say anything about the duties of governments to ensure everyone has equally-matched weapons. That is not moral law.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The fact that the state can punish a person does not mean a prisoner has to put up with being punished by another inmate. I am not talking about prisoners defending themselves against their captors. I am talking about prisoners defending themselves against other prisoners. Is it a sin? Or does a prisoner have the moral right to use lethal force in prison if necssary?

And I was talking about the justification for the abridgment of rights. No, a prisoner does not lose his right to self defense against other prisoners trying to kill him, but he does lose his right to self defense against the guards taking him to the death chamber. Just because one has a general right does not mean that he has that right in all circumstances, and the argument that “since prisoners don’t have a right to carry guns this means owning guns cannot be a right” is invalid.

My argument is narrower than that. My argument is just a refutation of another argument, which is that because there is a moral right to self defense, there is a moral right to carry weapons of self defense.. That specific argument, I claim, is invalid because the premise is always true but the conclusion is sometimes not true. So people who argue for gun rights will have to find a different avenue of supporting them.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

“The Catechism does not say anything about the duties of governments to ensure everyone has equally-matched weapons. That is not moral law.”

I agree. However, we agree the right to self defense is moral law. That moral law is enshrined under secular law in the constitution as the right to keep and bear arms - it doesn’t say guns. It says arms.

Arms 1000 years ago would have swords, bows, and arrows, staffs, spears, etc. as those were the common arms. Today, that has been supplanted by firearms.

100,000 years ago it was sticks stones and fists.

The tools change, the right does not. Therefore, whatever the common tools of self defense are, is what is covered under moral law.

 

[Ender]

My argument is narrower than that. My argument is just a refutation of another argument, which is that because there is a moral right to self defense, there is a moral right to carry weapons of self defense… That specific argument, I claim, is invalid because the premise is always true but the conclusion is sometimes not true. So people who argue for gun rights will have to find a different avenue of supporting them.

This was precisely the argument I was addressing. The right to life is our most fundamental right, yet dependent on circumstances we can have even that right abridged, and what is true of the right to life must surely be true of all other rights, including the “moral right to carry weapons of self defense” (assuming such a right exists).

Your argument does not support your conclusion.

 

[jfz178]

There are so many things I need to be doing than taking part in these vapid intellectual arguments. I don’t actually even care who wins points here and who doesn’t. It is an internet message board, for heaven sakes! In future, I will be happy to respond to people with real world arguments, but no longer this cerebral nonsense. I should be:

• Actually doing some work. I am self employed, so every minute I spend here is money I don’t earn.
• Working with one of my gun rights groups, including a sub-group on allowing greater freedom to carry guns in churches. I am not making that up, BTW.
• Getting to the range for some target practice.
• Setting up my planned laser target practice range in my man-cave.
• Planning my next gun buy. Probably a military-style, hi-capacity rifle, probably a Colt 6920, similar to the M-16 I shot expert with in the military.
• Applying for yet another non-resident carry permit.
• Practicing other means of self-defense in my home kickboxing gym in my man-cave. I have over 25 years’ hand-to-hand combat training and I like to stay sharp.
• Real world arguments on the defensive shooting message board I am on.
• Oh, and practicing the mandolin for my Catholic church choir.

Carry on with the intellectual stuff without me!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“The Catechism does not say anything about the duties of governments to ensure everyone has equally-matched weapons. That is not moral law.”

I agree. However, we agree the right to self defense is moral law. That moral law is enshrined under secular law in the constitution as the right to keep and bear arms - it doesn’t say guns. It says arms.

Nevertheless, this is the right to self defense plus… It is the “plus” part that I object to. That is not moral law.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

If self defense itself doesn’t cover the tools necessary for efficient self defense than what good is the moral law?