What can be done to stop gun violence

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Yes, but remember, we were talking about violent overthrow of the government. Anything less than that does not make the point about getting guns for that purpose.

Sure it does. We don’t ban people for saying that the requirements for violent overthrow have been met. We don’t ban them from spreading word or gathering allies. As long as they don’t incite it to happen right now, the government can do nothing to stop them from encouraging its violent dissolution. They only cross that line when they make the actual call for imminent, lawless action.

When they pull the trigger, so to speak.

And how exactly does this prove that people have an inherent God-given right to keep a gun and that the state has no right to restrict that ownership? (Keeping within Catholic teaching, if you can.)

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Add to that video games were killing people and committing other acts of violence get you points (think Grand Theft Auto) and we have a couple of generations of people who think that life is like a video game, and you just hit “reset” to start over.

The youth aren’t that naive.

 

[CilladeRoma]

They are when they are 5 & 6 y.o.

Far too many young children are playing these games with and without parental knowledge.

 

[njlisa]

Overall, the homicide rate is declining in the U.S.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

We need to look at social factors influencing homicides. These figures are broken down in the broken down in the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics reports.

That said, Christians shouldn’t be complacent. Guns are used in 75 percent of homicides. But guns don’t cause the deaths. We need to look to the who and the why. I believe if somehow, families and community leaders could steer young people away from a life of violence, we could make a dent in the crime rate. And the Church should be part of that effort.

 

[Inquiry]

And how exactly does this prove that people have an inherent God-given right to keep a gun and that the state has no right to restrict that ownership? (Keeping within Catholic teaching, if you can.)

Firstly, it proves that it is entirely reasonable to ask a government to protect a right that is a threat to it’s very existence. You are the one who brought that element into this, after all:

Since they are challenging the authority of the current government, they might as well break the rules of that current government and get themselves some guns and keep them hidden. It is irrational to ask a government to protect your right to overthrow that government by force.

And note that whether a government stifles it or not, free speech is a necessary component of violent rebellion. So yes, it is entirely reasonable to expect governments to protect the rights that enable their own violent overthrow. We already do.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And how exactly does this prove that people have an inherent God-given right to keep a gun and that the state has no right to restrict that ownership? (Keeping within Catholic teaching, if you can.)

Firstly, it proves that it is entirely reasonable to ask a government to protect a right that is a threat to it’s very existence.

It may be reasonable to ask that, but that was not the question. The issue was whether the right to keep a gun is an inherent human right. Do you have an answer for that?

 

[Inquiry]

It actually was the question, since the very thing that got me involved in this was your comment that it was irrational to ask a government to protect your right to overthrow it. You tried to use that to show that arms were not a right, but that doesn’t work. I’m not sure how you went from trying to prove it isn’t a right to insisting others have to prove it is, but that doesn’t change what we were talking about.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then to satisfy you I will specify that it is rational to ask a government to protect your right to overthrow it. It was a side point anyway. I only care about the main point.

 

[Aquinas11]

2243 is talking about actions God permits when considering violent overthrow of a government.

False. 2243 says nothing about violent overthrow of a government. It discusses “resistance to oppression”.
Violent overthrow of government doesn’t even require oppression, let alone resistance to oppression.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

2243 is talking about actions God permits when considering violent overthrow of a government.

False. 2243 says nothing about violent overthrow of a government. It discusses “resistance to oppression”.
Violent overthrow of government doesn’t even require oppression, let alone resistance to oppression.

Do you have a Catechism citation for when violence may be employed to overthrow a government? I think 2243 is the only one that deals with that question.

Remember, in the context of the gun debate, we are talking about violence involving armed resistance. Catholic teaching requires obedience to legitimate authority acting for the common good. The only time disobedience is allowed is when that government becomes oppressive and demands immoral action of its citizens. So 2243 is exactly the paragraph that gives the conditions under which one may take up arms against his government.

 

[Nihilo]

Sounds to me like you’re advocating armed resistance… Or do you just misunderstand the 2nd Amendment?

That’s what it sounded like to me, too.

Cruciferi:

Sounds to me like you’re advocating armed resistance… Or do you just misunderstand the 2nd Amendment?

No, not particularly an advocate of armed resistance personally.

It did sound that way though.

Just wondering why all those guns that you claim to have right to own for defence, including defencde against tyrannical/oppressive governments, aren’t then being used in the one situation where it seems to me the government is being MOST oppressive and tyrannical.

And we’re back to it sounding that way again.

It is not morally licit to use force to obligate people to obey Catholic moral law. We are handling abortion lawfully, not criminally, which is what you are in fact advocating, even if it’s not deliberate on your part.

We need to amend the Bill of Rights to create the legal right to life for human embryos, using guns to achieve this is incorrect.

The population of the US might be much greater today if abortion was a felony all along. Perhaps more marriages would still be together. Maybe appeal to the prurient interest wouldn’t be handled as loosely and recklessly as chastity is.

There’s a lot of harm that abortion has done to us as a nation, with so many presumably healthy pregnancies terminated who would have been counted among our population today but instead they are dead before they take a breath, empty spaces all around us, that should be filled with all the victims of indiscriminate abortion.

We can’t blame the mother if circumstances rendered her choice as anything other than indiscriminate, I think we agree. We’re not agreed what to do with gray areas, but we agree abortion is killing, 100%, but there is a difference between justified and murder also.

 

[AlNg]

What i have read is that most of the Hollywood celebrities are Democrats and quite liberal. Now, the Democrats are known for wanting strict gun controls. Even Beto said that he would confiscate certain types of guns. But wait a minute! If most celebrities in Hollywood are Democrats and favor strict gun control, why is it that so many of the movies coming out of Hollywood recently are so violent with people getting shot all over the place?

 

[LilyM]

Cruciferi:

Sounds to me like you’re advocating armed resistance… Or do you just misunderstand the 2nd Amendment?

That’s what it sounded like to me, too.

Cruciferi:

Sounds to me like you’re advocating armed resistance… Or do you just misunderstand the 2nd Amendment?

No, not particularly an advocate of armed resistance personally.

It did sound that way though.

Just wondering why all those guns that you claim to have right to own for defence, including defencde against tyrannical/oppressive governments, aren’t then being used in the one situation where it seems to me the government is being MOST oppressive and tyrannical.

And we’re back to it sounding that way again.

It is not morally licit to use force to obligate people to obey Catholic moral law. We are handling abortion lawfully, not criminally, which is what you are in fact advocating, even if it’s not deliberate on your part.

We need to amend the Bill of Rights to create the legal right to life for human embryos, using guns to achieve this is incorrect.

The population of the US might be much greater today if abortion was a felony all along. Perhaps more marriages would still be together. Maybe appeal to the prurient interest wouldn’t be handled as loosely and recklessly as chastity is.

There’s a lot of harm that abortion has done to us as a nation, with so many presumably healthy pregnancies terminated who would have been counted among our population today but instead they are dead before they take a breath, empty spaces all around us, that should be filled with all the victims of indiscriminate abortion.

We can’t blame the mother if circumstances rendered her choice as anything other than indiscriminate, I think we agree. We’re not agreed what to do with gray areas, but we agree abortion is killing, 100%, but there is a difference between justified and murder also.

Uh … no. Just no. I am not a US Citizen, have no 2A and wouldn’t want one.

However, why are you asserting, in the US context, that using guns to achieve an amendment to the Bill of Rights is incorrect?

The Bill of Rights only came to be the law of the US in the first place because guns were used to put and keep in power the government that framed it.

Guns were also used in the Civil War, if I remember rightly, to settle and enforce the power of the US government to abolish slavery (and more generally the rights of the Federal government to impose laws on the States in such matters).

And abortion, being murder, is not an issue of Catholic theology, but of universal human rights. Similar to the Germans murdering Jews in WW2. No-one said at that time that because the moral consciences of most Germans, as well as the law of their land, was OK with the genocide, that armed resistance was “incorrect”. It didn’t work, unfortunately, without foreign intervention, which is one reason I wouldn’t ordinarily advocate it.

 

[Nihilo]

Uh … no. Just no. I am not a US Citizen, have no 2A and wouldn’t want one.

You didn’t sound like an American.

However, why are you asserting, in the US context, that using guns to achieve an amendment to the Bill of Rights is incorrect?

Because that’s anarchy.

The Bill of Rights only came to be the law of the US in the first place because guns were used to put and keep in power the government that framed it.

Yep.

Guns were also used in the Civil War, if I remember rightly, to settle and enforce the power of the US government to abolish slavery…

Guns were used in all wars.

(and more generally the rights of the Federal government to impose laws on the States in such matters).

Government /“Leviathan” has power, and civilians have rights. Power and rights are pitted against each other. It is true that what we now call the United States was fully formed during that period in history and not before. It was then that under President Lincoln’s leadership, the American Leviathan exerted its power to forcibly defend the rights of poc. Lincoln’s Republicans also presided over the occupation of the South to finish the job, but they were ultimately thwarted and the South plunged into abject racism against poc, which is still a grave problem for us to this day.

And abortion, being murder

Here, you are making a religious claim. What you’re advocating for is taking up arms to force other people to abide by Catholic morality. A modern day Crusade.

There are lots of people who don’t believe that abortion is killing. And since the truth of the matter is unanswerable by medicine or science, it is a matter of philosophy, and there is no uniform agreement on the philosophical question, that, for theists, does also involve theology, and therefore religion.

, is not an issue of Catholic theology, but of universal human rights. Similar to the Germans murdering Jews in WW2.

Begging the question. Note though that I agree with Catholicism that abortion is killing, but in the sphere of political philosophy this Catholic teaching is a religious teaching.

No-one said at that time that because the moral consciences of most Germans, as well as the law of their land, was OK with the genocide, that armed resistance was “incorrect”.

Who then had arms to take up in an armed resistance?

It didn’t work, unfortunately, without foreign intervention, which is one reason I wouldn’t ordinarily advocate it.

Supra, who had arms?

 

[steve-b]

Maxirad:

What do CAF members think of this opinion piece?

As the video states, fewer guns doesn’t equal less gun crime.
My link just above shows how gun crime can be reduced in the USA.

What wasn’t mentioned in either video is all the gun violent video games out in the market.

One spending hours upon hours playing such games AND to up their score by how many one can kill in the shortest amount of time, ultimately has to desensitize one to violence and violent behavior that either has a disposition to violence NOW or learns it from a video . In the public discourse on this issue,

One says it doesn’t cause violence https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/09/no-evidence-that-violent-video-games-are-causing-mass-shootings.html

One says it does Violent video games' tie to physical aggression confirmed in study

Guns by themselves don’t do anything. It’s the one behind the trigger.

 

[njlisa]

You make a good point.

However, I propose a look at the reasons why people are killing one another.

In the U.K., teens are knifing each other. Glasgow, Scotland had the worst problem. But Glasgow authorities have addressed the social factors and greatly reduced the homicide rate. According to NPR, Glasgow’s solution, in part, is “helping offenders find a place in society.”

Here’s a documentary about knife violence in the U.K. I warn you, it’s graphic.

+++++++++++

I’m sure you’re aware of the Supreme Court’s 2008 landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Here are the basics for those who don’t know.

Primary Holding

Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

Without a constitutional amendment, individual gun ownership will remain a basic right.

+++++++++++

Let’s look at the numbers in the U.S.

St. Louis is the murder capital of the U.S. In 2018, the homicide rate was 66 per 100,000 residents. In 2017, the national rate was 5.3 per 100,000. In my town, it’s 0 per 100,000.

Let’s compare two cities.

Why is a St. Louis resident 12.4 times more likely to be killed than the average American?

Why was New York City’s 2018 homicide rate 3.1 per 100,000?

Glasgow, a homogeneous city, isn’t a road map for change in the U.S. But it is a place to start. The problem is far more complex in the U.S. We have a long journey to address the culture of violence that plagues some parts of the U.S.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let’s look at the numbers in the U.S.

St. Louis is the murder capital of the U.S. In 2018, the homicide rate is 66 per 100,000 residents. In 2017, the national rate is 5.3 per 100,000. In my town, it’s 0 per 100,000.

Why is a St. Louis resident 12.4 more likely to be killed than the average American?

Why was New York City’s 2018 homicide rate 3.1 per 100,000?

When we answer those questions, then we’ll be on the road to solving the problems.

It’s no mystery. Homicides correlate positively with population density and negatively with prosperity and homogeneity. So all you need to do to fix St. Louis is make all the residents look the same, spread out on 5 acre estates, and get high-paying jobs. Easy peasy, right?

 

[njlisa]

@LeafByNiggle

Thanks for your feedback.

I’m sorry if my viewpoint seemed simplistic. I used St. Louis as an example. I compared it with New York City’s low murder rate. I’ve reworded my post to address your comments.

Demographics can tell us a lot. Addressing commonalities and differences can help us address the problem. A close look at the Bureau of Justice Statistics and FBI crime reports can help us move forward.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

@LeafByNiggle

Thanks for your feedback.

I’m sorry if my viewpoint seemed simplistic. I used St. Louis as an example. I compared it with New York City’s low murder rate.

Demographics can tell us a lot. Addressing commonalities and differences can help us address the problem. A close look at the Bureau of Justice Statistics and FBI crime reports can help us move forward.

I realize you weren’t criticizing St. Louis per se. My only point was that recognizing a cause for a high homicide rate is not always helpful in finding ways to reduce that rate - unless the cause is something that can be easily addressed. But how do you force low population density? There is only so much land, and people want to live in cites close to their jobs and stores etc. How to you force homogeneity? We tried that in the 20th century, and now forced segregation is illegal (as it should be). And finally, how to you make everyone prosperous? Communism? (That would just make everyone poor.)

 

[Aquinas11]

Curious to see out of wedlock birthrate in those cities. My guess is it exactly tracks the murder rate (cities with highest murder rates also have highest out of wedlock birthrates)

When young boys don’t have father in the house, they seek a male role model on the streets.

I believe in past 50 years , out of wedlock birthrate has increased 500% (from about 8% to about 40%)