Why is the Catholic Church Anti-gun?

[Isidore_AK]

Every once in a while I begin to think that what we need is a terrible murder spree that gets committed with teddy bears or plastic spoons, something so rediculously ‘harmless’ that the liberals finally take note that its not the tool thats the problem, but the person who wields it.

If I want to, I can kill with any common object. If I’m mean to murder, then I will murder. Reducing the number of tools available doesn’t even make it less convieniant…it’s generally easier to get close to someone if they think that you don’t have a weapon.

A screwdriver, sharpened on a piece of concrete. A steak knife. A bat, a stick. A chair. A spoon. My bare hands. All can be lethal with the proper application of force.

My point is that you need to stop blaming the tool, and begin blaming the fool.

If there are accidents involving firearms, then the people who didn’t properly store them, or educate their kids about them need to be confronted. If there are people deliberately mis-using firearms, then they need to be prosecuted as criminals. It’s the people that are the problem, not the gun.

If a kid was playing with a power saw and cut his/her leg off, would you blame the saw, or the idiot who didn’t teach his kids how to properly respect the tool? Or maybe the idiot who left a power tool out and unattended. Its not the guns fault, the gun is just a tool.

I like what I said earlier…
myself:

You need to stop blaming the tool, and begin blaming the fool.

 

[Black_Jaque]

You know, I think the USCCB ought to be disciplined by the Vatican, for it’s position on gun control. Not for the stance per se, but because of the hypocritical nature of it’s stance.

The second amendment is clear. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

Attempting to read all sorts of silly nuances into this is as rediculous as a Catholic trying to read nuances into the Churches teaching on contraceptives or abortion. What part of “inherently evil” don’t you understand?

I can grasp the reasoning behind gun-control, and to a certain extent sympathize with it. But we have a moral obligation to obey the laws of our land. And if we now see the need to regulate personally owned nukes and RPG’s we ought to Amend the Constitution.

 

[DreadVandal]

Libero:

Gees I hate it when this happens (I am sooo bad at expressing myself)

Rarely can guns be used for good purposes, and I do not believe that they can ever be used for explicitly good purposes by a civillian.

I suppose that another issue with trying to establish a defined church teaching on this, is that you are very likely to be swayed by your own viewpoint or opinion. Which further back is determined by your upbringing.

What are you saying is simply false. You yourself listed numerous explicitly good reasons for owning and using a gun.

 

[Libero]

What are you saying is simply false. You yourself listed numerous explicitly good reasons for owning and using a gun.

Yes but you see that is your opinion.

Even though these are supposed reasons, they are ones that do not appeal to me.

I would hate to have to use a gun.

For defence I would rather have a dog or an alarm or gate or something.

My family were all farmers, and none of them had guns for their live stock.

I would just engage in a different sport to shooting (I would probably be really bad at it anyway)

To you, guns seem logical, to me they don’t.

I really doubt that either one of us can sway the others viewpoint

 

[Isidore_AK]

Writer:

PS. I do, however, disagree with individuals being able to own assault rifles so easily.

By ‘Assault Rifle’ do you mean a rifle that fires an intermediate powered cartridge in a semi-automatic mode (a .223 or 7.62mm for example), that includes a pistol grip? This would include ALL civilian models of ‘Military’ rifles. Semi-auto only.

Or do you mean a rifle that is capable of firing ‘fully automatic’ or in ‘burst’ mode, which is classified by the BATF as a machine gun, and therefore illegal to own without the proper (and pain-in-the-butt to get) Federal permits? ie. Actual ‘Military’ arms.

I have found that most people don’t have a friggin clue what the term ‘Assault Rifle’ means. Did you know that most deer rifles are more powerful than the ‘Assault’ rifles?

The military chose a smaller round for their rifles because the soldier on the battlefield could carry more ammunition that way, as well as being cheaper. Part of military doctrine is to use weapons that wound, but don’t kill as easily as the older more powerful rifles of WWI & WWII so that the enemy will have to spend time & resources on their wounded. Military assault rifles are not more powerful than civilian rifles, they are usually much LESS powerful than civilian rifles. A good example of this is the military sniper rifles…many of them are adapted from civilian hunting weapons because the civilian weapons are more likely to kill in one shot, and are substantially more accurate.

Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine. People throw around terms like ‘Assault Weapons’ when they don’t even know the definition…the worst offenders are the news media & members of Congress.

 

[Isidore_AK]

Libero:

Yes but you see that is your opinion.

My family were all farmers, and none of them had guns for their live stock.

I would just engage in a different sport to shooting (I would probably be really bad at it anyway)

To you, guns seem logical, to me they don’t.

I really doubt that either one of us can sway the others viewpoint

Thats because your ancestors already wiped out all the large predators in the British Isles.

Over here we have wolves, bears, mountain lions, etc. So do wild (& pet) dogs. They will kill your livestock. Would you prefer that we hack them to death with blades? I know a guy who kills raccoons with a machete…it makes quite the mess, let me tell you!

Have you never had to kill your own food before? You should try ‘real’ hunting sometime. Whether its with bow, spear, or firearm, the result is the same…a freezer full of meat that will feed the family for months. Its cheaper by far to kill a moose or caribou once a year than to buy meat at the store. Down south people tend to take deer…up here we have bigger game, but the same principle applies. Not at all like the English fox-hunts.

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

Do you never worry that one day there may be an accident, or that someone may get hurt. That your son may use a gun against someone thinking it is okay, and that it is for defence, but when he has killed a person he suddenly begins having terrible psychological consequences. What if you/ your family were threatened with a gun? Do you think you may feel differently then?

I own a car. Do I ever feel there might be an accident, or that someone might get hurt with my car. That my son might injure someone with it erroneously, and even suffer trama from it.

Sure.

All the things you mentioned equally apply to the steak knifes in the kitchen drawer, the chain saw in the garage, even the inflatable pool we use in the summer.

Should I get rid of those too?

 

[Black_Jaque]

Gees I hate it when this happens (I am sooo bad at expressing myself)

Not to worry. I do my best to be patient and try to understand your point of view. But forgive me for not exactly understanding and needing to ask questions in order to better understand your POV.

To you, guns seem logical, to me they don’t.

OK, I think I’m getting it. Your opinion is that guns are wrong. That you hold such an opinion is a fact. I’m fine with that.

Opinion is a subjective truth. The Church’s moral teachings are based on objective truths. That means that abortion is wrong regardless of a person’s opinion. Abortion is wrong for everyone, not just Catholics.

So is it possible that there is no CCC teaching regarding the immorality of guns because there is no objective truth to it? The Church cannot say that guns are objectively wrong, in other words they are wrong for everybody.

There is a CCC passage that states that persons holding legitimate authority have the right to use arms in their duty of defense.

 

[Libero]

Thats because your ancestors already wiped out all the large predators in the British Isles.

Never doubt the power a fox has over chickens. Besides my family are Western Irish You should see my grandad ranting and raving when one of his chickens has gone again

Have you never had to kill your own food before? You should try ‘real’ hunting sometime.

Errm no thanks

Not at all like the English fox-hunts.

Hey I am in Manchester, there aint many fox hunts going on through the middle of the city. Anyway, hunting is a no no at any stage, I would however like to learn how to ride.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Isadore-AK,

Er, ah, I’m a vehement anti-gun, bunny hugging, city-dude. But I have an open mind, and am willing to give you a chance to convert me. You’re right I should “try it before I knock it”.

Any chance you’d invite me up to AK for one o’ them there moose hunts? Would my .35 Whelen be sufficient? Oh wait, ahem, what kind of gun would you be loaning me?

 

[Isidore_AK]

Black Jaque:

Isidore-AK,

Er, ah, I’m a vehement anti-gun, bunny hugging, city-dude. But I have an open mind, and am willing to give you a chance to convert me. You’re right I should “try it before I knock it”.

Any chance you’d invite me up to AK for one o’ them there moose hunts? Would my .35 Whelen be sufficient? Oh wait, ahem, what kind of gun would you be loaning me?

Well, I like to blast at the Moose with my full-auto AK-47. But then I fish with dynamite too…so I guess it’s just Par for the course…

(I’m just kidding, no need for anyone to freak out!).

Actually, I’d carry a .375 H&H. Moose country is also Bear Country…what will kill a Moose may not stop the bear that charges out of the undergrowth…we have ALOT of bears. Brown Bears. Big, mean ones.

What kills the Bear will also kill the moose.

Oh, a .50 BMG will also do wonders…

 

[Libero]

So is it possible that there is no CCC teaching regarding the immorality of guns because there is no objective truth to it? The Church cannot say that guns are objectively wrong, in other words they are wrong for everybody.

Exactly!!

P.S. Are you trying to be humourous with the entire bunny hugging city “dude” :ehh:

 

[Isidore_AK]

Y’know, after reading my own posts again, I’ve probably convinced the anti-gun people here that we’re all a bunch of psycho paranoid right-wing gun nuts…

…good thing we’re the ones with all the weapons!

I’m actually quite sane. I’ve got the gov’t tests I’ve taken to prove it!

 

[Suudy]

thistle:

What is immoral is someone hunting and killing animals for sport and to claim that doing so gives someone a better understanding of his food is absolutely ridiculous.

Your assumpting that hunting is always for sport is not the norm (as Ray_Scheel pointed out in another post). You assume that we go around shooting animals for the fun of it. While it is true that there is some “sport” involved in hunting, it is only one aspect. The sport of it is trying to overcome any adversary, but in this case an animal that is frequently quite clever in avoiding detection.

Your rejection of the notion that hunting can provide better understanding of food is the ridiculous point. When you have dressed out an animal, then butchered it, you learn a significant amount about your food. You start to understand where the different cuts of meat come from and which parts taste the best (and the more you do it, you begin to understand why). Also, the taste of wild meats is vastly different than farm raised meat. Not only is this different and interesting, it starts you wondering why it tastes different. Compare a blacktail deer from the forests in the Cascade mountains of western Washington to the whitetail dear that lives in the wheat fields of eastern Washington. Huge difference. And the more you think about it, you start understand why. So it does provide understanding of food.

Second, hunting is more than just driving to an open space, shooting an animal, and going home. There is scouting out areas months in advance of the season. Then hiking into an area. The patience involved in waiting for animals to come by can be a test in itself. Then packing the animal out of an area, frequently several miles from your vehicle or home, is another challenge. Being outdoors, exercising while hiking in and out, and exhibiting patience are all good things.

One point I will concede is that hunting with rifles is much less challenging than hunting with a traditional bow and arrow (even compound bows aren’t much less challenging). In that regard, I see hunting with rifles much less meaningful. But regardless of the challenge, it is still more than just about the “sport” of it.

 

[Libero]

Y’know, after reading my own posts again, I’ve probably convinced the anti-gun people here that we’re all a bunch of psycho paranoid right-wing gun nuts…

…good thing we’re the ones with all the weapons!

I’m actually quite sane. I’ve got the gov’t tests I’ve taken to prove it!

Besides, as I have already stated, my family are crazy Irish people.

 

[DreadVandal]

Libero:

Yes but you see that is your opinion.

Even though these are supposed reasons, they are ones that do not appeal to me.

I would hate to have to use a gun.

For defence I would rather have a dog or an alarm or gate or something.

My family were all farmers, and none of them had guns for their live stock.

I would just engage in a different sport to shooting (I would probably be really bad at it anyway)

To you, guns seem logical, to me they don’t.

I really doubt that either one of us can sway the others viewpoint

Well now, I will say that I’m glad to see that you have a sense of humor. That makes me smile I don’t prefer guns either. I don’t own one. Instead, I am in the process of turning my arms and legs (actually my whole body) into a force of mass destruction through the study of Kung Fu.

 

[DreadVandal]

Brendan:

I own a car. Do I ever feel there might be an accident, or that someone might get hurt with my car. That my son might injure someone with it erroneously, and even suffer trama from it.

Sure.

All the things you mentioned equally apply to the steak knifes in the kitchen drawer, the chain saw in the garage, even the inflatable pool we use in the summer.

Should I get rid of those too?

Heck, we might as well ban the martial arts too . In fact, lets just all have our arms and legs surgically removed and our teeth pulled out.

BTW, I love boxing, UFC, cock fighting, movies about gladiators, the movie “Fight Club”, and Hong Kong Kung Fu flicks Oh and “Freddy vs. Jason.”

 

[Fitz]

thistle:

Why would anyone want to kill innocent animals?
Its barbaric!!

There are many Catholics that are not vegetarians. Read Genesis. The animals were made for people, and not the other way around.

 

[2shelbys]

Writer:

I agree with you… I also grew-up around guns and even was licensed to carry a concealed one for a time while I was planning to enter a federal law enforcement filed. My goals changed, and I no longer feel a need to have one at this time. That said, every law-abiding and legal citizen of the country should have the right to carry one under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. I don’t fear licensed and law-abiding people with guns; I fear the criminal element which will obtain firearms whether, or not, it is legal for them to do so.

Education is important. It is also important to understand the element rural life plays in the US. There are remote sections of Eastern Oregon, for example, which don’t have 24-hour law enforcement. A deputy would certainly respond as quckly as possible, but even an in-progress felony might require near an hour response time in some remote areas and at particular times of day. We are a large country, and we all have the right to defend ourselves and our families if the need were to arise. As someone who did have to use non-deadly weapon to save another person’s life years ago (whose head was being pounded into the concrete by an assailant), those who say there is no need for anyone to be armed fail to understand or accept the fallen nature of mankind and the dangers around us.

PS. I do, however, disagree with individuals being able to own assault rifles so easily.

A good point. A friend of mine lives in Idaho and in his area there are no police on duty from 11pm until 7am.

I do not understand your last comment though, unless you are confused about what an “assault weapon” is. An “assault weapon” is a gun that combines the best attributes of a service rifle with those of a submachine gun. If the gun does not fire full automatic (is not a machine gun) then it is not an “assault weapon”. The press and anti-gunners have intentionally used that term incorrectly to scare people. The guns that they refer to as “assault weapons” are only semi-automatic and thus fire no faster than a double-action revolver from the 1800’s. Also, most of them fire pistol-caliber ammunition and all of them fire ammunition that is much less powerful than that which a common hunting rifle would use. Semi-automatic AK 47’s and AR 15’s are not anywhere near the danger that you have been led to believe and they are very rarely used in crime because even a folding stock model is simply not concealable. The last statistic I saw on “assault weapon” use in crime stated that they were used in less and one tenth of one percent of gun-related crime.

 

[2shelbys]

Libero:

Rarely can guns be used for good purposes, and I do not believe that they can ever be used for explicitly good purposes by a civillian.

So I guess you feel that competitive target shooting like that which is found in olympic competition is evil?