Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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).

OK, that’s my point too. The right to carry weapons can be abridged. Morally. The only debate then would be over the appropriate circumstances under which that right can be abridged. You say only for prisoners. I say any other time society deems it proper through their legitimate authority, or government.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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

It is an exemption from sin. That is all.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

" I say any other time society deems it proper through their legitimate authority, or government."

I’ll concede this point, however, in the United States that needs to be done through constitutional amendment. Congress does not have the legitimate authority at present.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

" I say any other time society deems it proper through their legitimate authority, or government."

I’ll concede this point, however, in the United States that needs to be done through constitutional amendment. Congress does not have the legitimate authority at present.

I agree. The current law of the land, as interpreted by the Heller decision, is that gun rights may not be arbitrarily taken away by legislation or regulation.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

That being said, I would not personally obey any law that seeks that alleviate me of anything I already own even if they passed an amendment. It would violate my conscience.

 

[o_mlly]

… the root cause is the moral issue: not the tool… the reason they want to kill is the moral issue; but, that doesn’t fit your agenda.

as a reminder:

950,000 abortions

To your point, the banning of guns to reduce murders is akin to banning forceps to reduce abortions. The instruments – guns and forceps – are not the problem.

 

[Ender]

The only debate then would be over the appropriate circumstances under which that right can be abridged. You say only for prisoners. I say any other time society deems it proper through their legitimate authority, or government.

No, I said it was proper to abridge a prisoner’s right in that regard. I never said that was the only circumstance that justified such a limitation. My objection was to the argument that because we are justified in denying prisoners the right to carry weapons that it therefore cannot be a right, or otherwise we could not legitimately abridge it.

 

[pnewton]

I’ll repeat this point: this is one of my primary objections to bishops opining on political issues

And I will repeat that this is not just a political issue. It is a moral issue. It is a life issue. Declaration of war is also a political and civil opinion, yet the Church has a teaching called the just war doctrine. While the specifics of how much balance is needed between the right to self-defense and safety of society as a whole from wholesale slaughter may be debated, it is a doctrine both that individuals have the right to self-defense and that government has an obligation act in the best interest of all.

The document recognizes both of these needs.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The only debate then would be over the appropriate circumstances under which that right can be abridged. You say only for prisoners. I say any other time society deems it proper through their legitimate authority, or government.

No, I said it was proper to abridge a prisoner’s right in that regard. I never said that was the only circumstance that justified such a limitation. My objection was to the argument that because we are justified in denying prisoners the right to carry weapons that it therefore cannot be a right, or otherwise we could not legitimately abridge it.

This not quite the correct statement of my argument. I was not saying that carrying weapons cannot be a right. I was saying that if it is a right, its justification for being a right will have to be something other than the moral right to self defense, since the instances were we abridge the right of carrying a gun are instances where we have not abridged the general right of self-defense.

 

[Ender]

It is a moral issue. It is a life issue.

What is the moral choice we face in addressing this issue?

As you said, there are competing interests, and the church says nothing whatever about where the balance between those interests should be drawn. This is no more a moral issue than is a dispute between two doctors about the proper treatment for a particular illness. One solution will likely be better than the other, but both are equally moral.

What sin do I commit by believing the bishops’ proposal does more harm than good? If I commit no sin no matter which side I support how can this possibly be a moral issue?

 

[CatholicSpirit]

Who is anyone to call a person a loony anyway? I trust a city full mentally disabled Veterans with guns before I trust citizens people believe are “normal” by today’s standards and their police who think a solution is having only them carry weapons. In an invasion I would love for police to stop a few tanks. They wouldn’t even get past the paratroopers. Then everyone lives the holocaust. Biggies commies on Earth.

Saint Pope John Paul II battled communism, Pope Francis accepted a Crucifix on a sickle and hammer. And now, guns which keep us free from communism are being challenged by a Catholic organization. Very inconsistent.

 

[IWantGod]

Whats the problem with gun control? Clearly there is a need for tighter laws in order to make it harder for certain kinds of people to attain certain kinds of weapons. If that means that the so called “good guy” has to make a sacrifice, surely it is a worthy sacrifice to make?

What would you rather, tighter gun laws or no guns at all?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

pnewton:

It is a moral issue. It is a life issue.

What is the moral choice we face in addressing this issue?

What is the moral choice we face in addressing the concept of just war? It is whether it is just to go to war in a specific instance. With regard to run control, the choice we face is what does justice require when faced with the suffering that is caused by the use of guns?

As you said, there are competing interests, and the church says nothing whatever about where the balance between those interests should be drawn.

But the Church does say something about the value of one of those interests, and perhaps the competing ones as well. Freedom, for the gun owners, is a moral issue. Safety, for those concerned that there are too many guns, is a moral issue for them. These two moral issues are competing. The Church does not say exactly how to balance them. But the Church does call them out as moral issues, and therefore proper subjects for discussion within the Church. (Recall that at one point in the history of the Church, the leaders debated how they should care for the Greek-speaking widows and orphans, and so appointed seven men [Acts 6: 1-6] to do that. Was this not deciding on a balance of competing interests? Or where the apostles way out of line in your opinion by even opining on this question?)

 

[IWantGod]

This is an extreme over the top example but it should put things in perspective. If a crazy man bursts into a cinema with a mini-gun pumping out a hundred rounds a second, there is little to no chance of survival. There will however be a greater chance of survival for everyone if he only has a hand gun.

so which gun should we ban? The hand gun, or the mini-gun. Clearly we should either ban or make it harder to obtain the mini-gun because there is a greater loss of life involved.

If this is not a moral qeustion then, i don’t know, call it damage control.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

We have all the regulations on guns we need.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

The mini gun is already regulated to the point of being banned. Only FFL dealers with an SOT addendum can purchase them, and they can only sell them to government agencies or other FFL dealers with an SOT.

Machine guns (anything full auto), short barreled rifles and shotguns, and suppressors, are all regulated on the national firearms act of 1934 and the process to get them in is a huge pain in the rear.

On top of that, any machine guns built after may of 1986 are not able to be added to the machine gun registry, so once again only government agencies are only able to purchase them legally.

 

[IWantGod]

So you do actually support gun control. Of course you do.

Recent events have brought into qeustion the need for tighter gun laws. I think its a legitimate qeustion because at the end of the day peoples lives or on the line and i’d hate to think that something horrendous happens only because somebody decided to have a boo-hoo over gun control.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

No I never said that. I’d like those regulations repealed. What I said was we already have everything we’d need if the gun control lobby is to be believed. But they’re not. They do not want to stop.

 

[Ender]

What is the moral choice we face in addressing the concept of just war? It is whether it is just to go to war in a specific instance.

The only moral question involved with going to war is deciding whether or not to apply the criteria for a just war. Concluding that they have been satisfied is not a moral choice; it is an entirely prudential one, and the church has spelled out who has the responsibility for making that (prudential) decision.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. (CCC 2309)

Within the boundaries set by the just war definition, the decision of whether or not to go to war is a prudential judgment; it is not a moral choice.

With regard to gun control, the choice we face is what does justice require when faced with the suffering that is caused by the use of guns?

This is another judgment call. A moral choice would be between choosing justice or rejecting it, but that’s not the question we face. The issue is to discern what works within the general guidelines defining moral and legal behavior. Again, there is no moral conundrum here. We are morally justified in choosing either side because it is not the position we choose that determines the morality of the act but only our reasons for doing so. Unless the act is intrinsically evil then all that matters is our intention (coupled with reasonable caution, etc, etc).

Continued…

 

[Ender]

Continued…

But the Church does say something about the value of one of those interests, and perhaps the competing ones as well. Freedom, for the gun owners, is a moral issue.

I can’t speak for gun owners (despite being one), but anyway this assertion is way too vague. Choices can be moral or immoral (or amoral). Issues can be serious or trivial. Problems can force us to face moral choices, although most of them do not, and simply because a problem is serious - even life threatening - does not necessarily mean choosing the best solution is a moral choice.

Safety, for those concerned that there are too many guns, is a moral issue for them. These two moral issues are competing. The Church does not say exactly how to balance them. But the Church does call them out as moral issues, and therefore proper subjects for discussion within the Church.

Where does the church define them as moral issues? I’m not even sure how one would define an issue as moral, and I have no idea where the church would have done this.

(Recall that at one point in the history of the Church, the leaders debated how they should care for the Greek-speaking widows and orphans, and so appointed seven men [Acts 6: 1-6] to do that. Was this not deciding on a balance of competing interests? Or where the apostles way out of line in your opinion by even opining on this question?)

Do not equate the recognition that one has a moral obligation to help others with the choices involved in figuring out how best to provide such assistance. Once the decision is made to help there is no moral character to the other choices.

You didn’t respond to this before so I’ll ask it again: What sin do I commit by believing the bishops’ proposal does more harm than good? If I commit no sin no matter which side I support how can this possibly be a moral issue?