Why is the Catholic Church Anti-gun?

[Isidore_AK]

Don’t despair, Black Jaque, there are plenty of us around that are pro-gun, pro-self defense, & pro-hunting.

I get extremely frustrated with the USCCB, but then I personally think they’re a bunch of idiots (kind of like the US Congress). They are NOT experts on firearms, nor on crime. They need to keep their noses out of things that they don’t understand. If the Pope infallibly defines that we aren’t allowed to own firearms, then I’ll have to leave the Church. Until that time I’ll be a gun-toting Catholic who carries concealed everywhere I go (including Mass).

Try to take my guns, it’ll be one round at a time…then it’s time to taste cold steel…

 

[LeahInancsi]

Brendan:

The FBI crime stats show that there were 1.5 million cases of a private person ( not police) defending themselves with a firearm in 1998 (Clinton Justice Dept figures).

In that time there were 30,000 firearms fatalities, including suicides and accidents.

1.5 million vs. 30,000

50 time more likely to stop a crime using a gun than to die by one, even by your own hand.

During the '90, gun ownership INCREASED by 40 million firearms, but the murder rate went DOWN by 40%

Britain and Austrailia outlawed guns and their murder rate INCREASED.

Kennesaw GA passed a city ordinance requiring a household to own a gun, and it’s burgulary rate dropped by 87%. Which is a no brainer, what criminal would try and break into a house where he knows the owner is armed.

If you’re going to use statistics, then use them all. How many stolen guns were used to kill innocent people or drug deals gone bad, etc, etc.?

I will never have a gun in my house. If God wants me, he can take me with a gun or a heart attack. It doesn’t matter to me, but I’m not going to have a robber use my gun on me or anything else of that nature.

 

[my_agatha]

Black Jaque:

Are you saying that a right, something that comes from God, is evil? I don’t think the Church would agree with that.

What part of the Bible defines your right to bear firearms? Just 'cause Heston played Moses, doesn’t mean he is Moses. When Jesus talked about “swords,” he meant the spiritual kind.

 

[DreadVandal]

Isidore_AK:

Don’t despair, Black Jaque, there are plenty of us around that are pro-gun, pro-self defense, & pro-hunting.

I get extremely frustrated with the USCCB, but then I personally think they’re a bunch of idiots (kind of like the US Congress). They are NOT experts on firearms, nor on crime. They need to keep their noses out of things that they don’t understand. If the Pope infallibly defines that we aren’t allowed to own firearms, then I’ll have to leave the Church. Until that time I’ll be a gun-toting Catholic who carries concealed everywhere I go (including Mass).

Try to take my guns, it’ll be one round at a time…then it’s time to taste cold steel…

Isidore, God bless you. We need more people to stand up to the current fuzzy political thinking of the bishops. And though I personally don’t tote a gun (my hands and feet are my lethal weapons ) I respect and support those who do. I am proud to say that a girl in our parish was a finalist in the NRA rifle shooting championships. We all congratulated her and celebrated after Liturgy in the parish hall.

 

[DreadVandal]

my agatha:

What part of the Bible defines your right to bear firearms? Just 'cause Heston played Moses, doesn’t mean he is Moses. When Jesus talked about “swords,” he meant the spiritual kind.

The right to bear arms is not a biblical right but a Natural law right. The right to self defense and the sufficient means to secure it is guaranteed by God’s law in nature. I hardly think that a police force is sufficient.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Hmm the church anti-gun? that would be a surprise to my dad who owns a dozen or so guns and is very traditional old fashioned Catholic. I think we shouldnt mix up left wing movemnts in the church, with authentic Catholic teaching.

 

[JCPhoenix]

I have ben reading this thread with great interest.

I am a woman, I am a gun owner, I am an ex-cop, and I am a great shot!

I own 2 handguns and one rifle which I have used for hunting.

None of my weapons are registered, nor are they required to be. I inherited my .30-.30 and my Ruger .22 from my father when he died. I purchased my HK .9mm while I trained to be a police officer.

I had to pass a background check and I’ve likely had more training than the average citizen in gun handling/shooting…and the funny thing is that I grew up in a home somewhat terrified of guns. Why? Because my mother’s brother died when she was 5. He was shot by a sniper in Korea and killed. That’s all.

With my work in the criminal world, I have learned a few things.

• Legislation does NOTHING to control gun crime. If you take guns away from the populace, they get murdered by butcher knives, screwdrivers, boxcutters, forks, or toothpicks…or whatever other object is handy or useful in the crime.
• Criminals don’t think they’ll get caught. Therefore, increasing penalties does nothing to deter them. A criminal doesn’t plan his/her crime, and stop to think, “Oh, that’s right, MN Stat 609.xx of the criminal code says that if I pop a cap in this guy’s a**** while wearing a bullet proof vest I’ll do more time”
• Police will write up charges for several offenses, and focus on the worst offenses. The County Attorney looks at the list, the investigation, and charges according to what he or she thinks will actually stick, which may or may not be the most serious charge, or a weapons charge, etc. I’m sure the current populare political crime takes precedent…like gang crimes in some areas, hate crimes over gun crimes…etc.

But the key is this: is is SENTENCING that determins the level of crime. For example, the CA may charge a felony crime, but the court may hand down a sentence either based on a plea bargain or something based upon the evidence, and the sentence then may actually fit a misdemeanor or gross mis. level of crime.

And criminals know this, so this is yet another reason why increased legislation against crime and gun crime don’t work.

The only thing legislation does is inhibit the ability of the lawful public to protect themselves. The only thing is does is increas civil penalties against lawful citizens allowing criminals to do whatever they want, suffer natural consequences and then sue for contrived wrongful harm of some sort. The only thing legislation does is hurt those who are electing the officials who hurt them the most.

It does nothing to deter gun crime.

I am a HUGE supporter of education, training, etc. I support background checks. I support gun safety. And I support the right of every American citizen to either bear arms or not bear arms according to their own conscience.

And I support the idea that I can go out, buy a gun, and go shoot at a paper target shaped in the silhouette of a human, or in a circle, or in a flying orang disk, any time I want and that others can do the same thing.

And if anyone comes up my stairs in the middle of the night I support my own right as a citizen to fire a round and end the life of whatever misguided soul decided it would be a good idea to take my life by unjust violence.

Don’t take my guns away from me. I pray I’ll never need them (and in fact I have dogs to help ensure I will never need them), but the reality is that we live in violent times…and we have a moral right to be able to protect ourselves.

Fine if you don’t want to own guns. No problem. My Mom still hates guns…and I respect her rights to hate them and I will never bring them into her home. Nor will I bring them into yours.

We do ask for the same respect to our own opinions regarding guns. Yes they are dangerous. Yes, they take life if used in that manner.But so does a boxcutter…so what’s your point? Gun accidents aren’t the only type of stupid cause of death out there.

 

[Isidore_AK]

JCPhoenix:

I have ben reading this thread with great interest.

I am a woman, I am a gun owner, I am an ex-cop, and I am a great shot!

I own 2 handguns and one rifle which I have used for hunting.

None of my weapons are registered, nor are they required to be. I inherited my .30-.30 and my Ruger .22 from my father when he died. I purchased my HK .9mm while I trained to be a police officer.

I had to pass a background check and I’ve likely had more training than the average citizen in gun handling/shooting…and the funny thing is that I grew up in a home somewhat terrified of guns. Why? Because my mother’s brother died when she was 5. He was shot by a sniper in Korea and killed. That’s all.

With my work in the criminal world, I have learned a few things.

• Legislation does NOTHING to control gun crime. If you take guns away from the populace, they get murdered by butcher knives, screwdrivers, boxcutters, forks, or toothpicks…or whatever other object is handy or useful in the crime.
• Criminals don’t think they’ll get caught. Therefore, increasing penalties does nothing to deter them. A criminal doesn’t plan his/her crime, and stop to think, “Oh, that’s right, MN Stat 609.xx of the criminal code says that if I pop a cap in this guy’s a**** while wearing a bullet proof vest I’ll do more time”
• Police will write up charges for several offenses, and focus on the worst offenses. The County Attorney looks at the list, the investigation, and charges according to what he or she thinks will actually stick, which may or may not be the most serious charge, or a weapons charge, etc. I’m sure the current populare political crime takes precedent…like gang crimes in some areas, hate crimes over gun crimes…etc.

But the key is this: is is SENTENCING that determins the level of crime. For example, the CA may charge a felony crime, but the court may hand down a sentence either based on a plea bargain or something based upon the evidence, and the sentence then may actually fit a misdemeanor or gross mis. level of crime.

And criminals know this, so this is yet another reason why increased legislation against crime and gun crime don’t work.

The only thing legislation does is inhibit the ability of the lawful public to protect themselves. The only thing is does is increas civil penalties against lawful citizens allowing criminals to do whatever they want, suffer natural consequences and then sue for contrived wrongful harm of some sort. The only thing legislation does is hurt those who are electing the officials who hurt them the most.

It does nothing to deter gun crime.

I am a HUGE supporter of education, training, etc. I support background checks. I support gun safety. And I support the right of every American citizen to either bear arms or not bear arms according to their own conscience.

And I support the idea that I can go out, buy a gun, and go shoot at a paper target shaped in the silhouette of a human, or in a circle, or in a flying orang disk, any time I want and that others can do the same thing.

And if anyone comes up my stairs in the middle of the night I support my own right as a citizen to fire a round and end the life of whatever misguided soul decided it would be a good idea to take my life by unjust violence.

Don’t take my guns away from me. I pray I’ll never need them (and in fact I have dogs to help ensure I will never need them), but the reality is that we live in violent times…and we have a moral right to be able to protect ourselves.

Fine if you don’t want to own guns. No problem. My Mom still hates guns…and I respect her rights to hate them and I will never bring them into her home. Nor will I bring them into yours.

We do ask for the same respect to our own opinions regarding guns. Yes they are dangerous. Yes, they take life if used in that manner.But so does a boxcutter…so what’s your point? Gun accidents aren’t the only type of stupid cause of death out there.

Well said!

I get so angry when dealing with this subject that I often get incoherent…

 

[otm]

thistle:

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

Maybe you could say that if you are a vegetarian, but for those of us who eat meat, it is not barbaric; it is simply honest.

And the use of innocent is completely misplaced, as innocence has nothing to do with the issue except to try to make an emotional appeal.

Animals are neither innocent nor not innocent. They are simply animals. Reducing one to food is has nothing to do with innocense; it has to do with where in the food chain they are.

 

[JCPhoenix]

otm:

Maybe you could say that if you are a vegetarian, but for those of us who eat meat, it is not barbaric; it is simply honest.

And the use of innocent is completely misplaced, as innocence has nothing to do with the issue except to try to make an emotional appeal.

Animals are neither innocent nor not innocent. They are simply animals. Reducing one to food is has nothing to do with innocense; it has to do with where in the food chain they are.

Nicely stated. I hoped to address this, got incoherent (IsadoreAK, I love your compliment, but I have to admit I am a bit incoherent myself…especially in trying to summarize my reaction to the numerous comments on this thread!)

Sure, animals are innocent in the sense that they cannot sin because they don’t have the ability to reason…only we can sin.

So innocence is not a part of this conversation. Sin might be, though…so maybe the bigger question is: is it a sin to own or use a gun?

I don’t think so. Unless the intent of the use of the weapon is immoral…ie: murder.

Personally, I love a good venison steak and I have an awesome marinade. It works well with a good porterhouse or t-bone also, but I can buy the latter in the grocery store. If I want venison, which is leaner, has fewer steroids and growth hormones, etc…then I have to pick up a gun, buy a license, invest in some practice time and ammo, dress in blaze orange, and head out to the north woods to get me a new buckskin coat. And some healthy meat.

It’s all fine and dandy to excuse the systematic slaughter of cows, lambs, pigs, and chickens, but then to suggest that an even healthier source of meat, (venison, ie deer) should be taboo’d is a bit hypocritical.

I would also like to try squirrel and rabbit and other small game which may be appropriate for the table. After all, our financial institutions could collapse at any time, so I’d like to know if I need to shoot my next meal for the week, how best to prepare it.

Guess I need a gun for that because a bow and arrow might completely decimate a small creature. Or is a bow, as a projectile weapon, on par with a gun?

Would it be better if we raise deer for slaughter? All fat and corn and growth-hormone fed? Would it be ok to shoot them in a pen, then, instead of fair and square in a remote clearing somewhere in Montana?

 

[thistle]

Isidore_AK:

Don’t despair, Black Jaque, there are plenty of us around that are pro-gun, pro-self defense, & pro-hunting.

I get extremely frustrated with the USCCB, but then I personally think they’re a bunch of idiots (kind of like the US Congress). They are NOT experts on firearms, nor on crime. They need to keep their noses out of things that they don’t understand. If the Pope infallibly defines that we aren’t allowed to own firearms, then I’ll have to leave the Church. Until that time I’ll be a gun-toting Catholic who carries concealed everywhere I go (including Mass).

Try to take my guns, it’ll be one round at a time…then it’s time to taste cold steel…

Wow! Interesting that your faith is based on whether you are allowed to have a gun or not!!

 

[she_he]

thistle:

You shouldn’t mention the two wars. Yes Europe is grateful but if you had come sooner there would have been less dead. As it was in WWII the UK had to stand alone waiting for your help after Europe had been taken over by the nazis…

In all fairness the USA was supplying firearms,ships,munitions to the UK LONG BEFORE we got pulled into the war.and lets not forget our USA pilots that were helping at Dunkirk,that were not even allowed thier own flag patches, No I do not think you were standing alone,

thistle:

Then you go back nearly 300 years when you were our colony. What relevance has that to present day.
…

simple when another country invades a country that needs help with getting guns we wont have to rely on the French to supply them… and I am also of the understanding you in the UK are allowed the ownership of “shotguns” for hunting. is this not true?
Our constitution was founded on the principle that citizens were allowed the right to bear arms. so on that principle if they are trying to take them away it is assumed they are also taking away our freedoms,country etc.the funniest thing is ,that being the news papers here they have taken for the most part an anti gun approach, now how long do they think they will enjoy freedom of the press once all the guns are removed from the people so that this cannot be protected as well…

And assuming the worst scenario Freedom of religion would also go by the way path as has been proved in almost every dictatorship…

John

 

[Isidore_AK]

thistle:

Wow! Interesting that your faith is based on whether you are allowed to have a gun or not!!

My faith isn’t based upon it…but frankly, I’m the type of Barbarian that refuses to be part of any sort of pacifistic religion. I’m proud of the Crusades…they were a war against an evil aggressor. I’m proud of the Inquisition…we purified the Church. If the Pope ever called for Crusade my rifle would be his to direct.

 

[thistle]

Isidore_AK:

My faith isn’t based upon it…but frankly, I’m the type of Barbarian that refuses to be part of any sort of pacifistic religion. I’m proud of the Crusades…they were a war against an evil aggressor. I’m proud of the Inquisition…we purified the Church. If the Pope ever called for Crusade my rifle would be his to direct.

Really!!??
What was it Christ said? Not only love your neighbour but love your enemy and pray for them.
Your comments don’t seem in synch with the teaching of Jesus!

 

[wabrams]

thistle:

Really!!??
What was it Christ said? Not only love your neighbour but love your enemy and pray for them.
Your comments don’t seem in synch with the teaching of Jesus!

Christ did say that, but he didn’t say that one had to be a door mat for their enemies.

 

[thistle]

wabrams:

Christ did say that, but he didn’t say that one had to be a door mat for their enemies.

Okay then!!
Tell me what Jesus meant when he said (in Matt 6:43-44) “You have heard that it was said ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy’. But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you”.

I’m keen to hear your interpretation.

 

[steveandersen]

wabrams:

That’s a cop out: crime doesn’t happen in a vaccum, totally independent of other factors.

did I say it was totaly independant of other factors? no

I said that “they are cyclical things that are often frustratingly independent of many of the expected variables”

Thus you could probably point to stats where crime rates went up after the passage of restrictive gun laws as well as times when they went down. so it is probably meaningless to do so.

I’m no expert but IFAIK factors such as the percentage of the population under 25, the general economic situation, and even the weather are more indicative of crime rates than gun control laws.

My point is regardless of crime statistics there is a separate but to my mind more important statistic of accidental death or injury with guns. And that is something that can clearly be affected by laws that make sure that people who have guns know how to use them.

After all we test folks to see if they if they can properly manage a car before they get a license don’t we?

 

[DreadVandal]

thistle:

Okay then!!
Tell me what Jesus meant when he said (in Matt 6:43-44) “You have heard that it was said ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy’. But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you”.

I’m keen to hear your interpretation.

I’ll give you an interpretation. To love means to will someone’s good and act for someone’s good if possible. This means that it is not only permissible, but obligatory, to do things that might be painful or unpleasant to others, if it is for their own good. I would also say that we have an obligation to love and respect ourselves as human beings. So self defense is not only a natural right, it is a moral obligation. That is why pacifism is heretical and immoral. So, if my killing an assailant in self defense is good for myself and for the assailant, then it is a good thing to do. Now how can killing an assailant in self defense be good for the assailant? Well, there are at least two goods that are achieved here.

First, there is the objective good of protecting my own life. But second, there is the objective good of preventing the assailant from committing an even worse crime, murder, instead of attempted murder. Also, if the killing of the assailant is seen as an act of justice, then the assailant, to some extent, expiates his crime. It is a painful truth but one that needs to be said. Sometimes true love demands that we kill others. Self defense, capital punishment, and killing in just war, when just, are acts of love. We could even argue that killing a wicked person could be both a corporeal and spiritual work of mercy.

 

[bones_IV]

DreadVandal:

The right to bear arms is not a biblical right but a Natural law right. The right to self defense and the sufficient means to secure it is guaranteed by God’s law in nature. I hardly think that a police force is sufficient.

Consider that ancient Israel was always at war with other nations. You just somehow skipped over that point.

 

[wabrams]

steveandersen:

did I say it was totaly independant of other factors? no

I said that “they are cyclical things that are often frustratingly independent of many of the expected variables”

And you know this from what experience?

steveandersen:

Thus you could probably point to stats where crime rates went up after the passage of restrictive gun laws as well as times when they went down. so it is probably meaningless to do so.

Yeah, it would be a shame for the facts to get in the way.

steveandersen:

I’m no expert but IFAIK factors such as the percentage of the population under 25, the general economic situation, and even the weather are more indicative of crime rates than gun control laws.

You need to do more research.

steveandersen:

My point is regardless of crime statistics there is a separate but to my mind more important statistic of accidental death or injury with guns. And that is something that can clearly be affected by laws that make sure that people who have guns know how to use them.

After all we test folks to see if they if they can properly manage a car before they get a license don’t we?

You’ve got a better chance of getting killed in a car wreck than shooting yourself or someone else accidentally.