Obama: Working On Gun Control Under The Radar

[Aloysius]

what Migliore said is indeed consistent with Church teaching, as in it is not inconsistent with Church teaching. but it is also consistent with Church teaching to be opposed to governmental gun control, correct?

Edited June 1, 2011 by Aloysius

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306937959' post='2248664']
Well it's interesting that suggesting you've had help is somehow mocking you or putting you down. Considering that Nihil has been getting it on threads when he has needed help, I wouldn't think that you would call him a simpleton. But whatever.

Actually I'd be fine if you got 20 people helping you. It doesn't matter to me at all. [/quote]


Couldn't even go one post. I don't suggest I assert, and the [i]grammatically correct[/i] proved it. To bad you cant be honest about it. Lame but completely predictable.

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306937959' post='2248664']So we're in agreement that what Migliore says is in fact consistent with Church teaching.[/quote]

I believe that his statements aren't against Church teaching but I don't believe his statements are binding upon the faithful.

Edited June 1, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Jaime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306906401' post='2248601']
So Jamie did we put to bed your consequentialist arguement about numbers of deaths?




Jamie, can you explain why YOU think gun control is a good thing?
[/quote]


Nope I think statistics are good for deciding the behavior of a society. Which by the way is NOT a consequentialist argument.A consequential argument would be "You shouldn't download copyrighted music without paying for it. You might get caught" This argument states that IF YOU DIDN'T get caught, then it would be fine. Arguing gun deaths is not the same thing. It would have to be pragmatic for it to be consequential. Not driving while intoxicated lowers the amount of automotive deaths. Most people don't shout "consequentialist" to this stat. It's pretty much accepted as an obvious benefit for society. (also not pragmatic) Societies with gun control have less deaths caused by guns. So I think its a good thing.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1306938593' post='2248667']
what Migliore said is indeed consistent with Church teaching, [b]as in it is not inconsistent with Church teaching[/b]. but it is also consistent with Church teaching to be opposed to governmental gun control, correct?
[/quote]

Correct not against, but neither is being opposed to government gun control.

[Winchester]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306938995' post='2248669']
Societies with gun control have less deaths caused by guns. So I think its a good thing.
[/quote]
Mexico has a higher gun death rate than the US and it has strict gun control.

The gun death number alone doesn't tell the story. In a society with gun control, are the murder rates higher than the self defense rates? Are other crimes higher in rate? Our crime rate continues to drop, even though Clinton's "That gun looks scary to me" Ban has expired.


Fewer guns will mean fewer deaths by gun. It doesn't mean you've become safer. Just that there aren't as many guns to kill people.

[quote]In Britain based on year 2000 statistics supplied by UK Home Office the following percentages of the population of these countries were exposed to crime. Among the countries compared the USA has the lowest number of incidents. The UK and Australia do not allow ownership of handguns. About 3% of the Germany population own firearms.

The lowest rate - for the year 200 period in the USA there were 11,605,751 incidents of reported crime based on a population of 300,000,000 (06) - 3.87% of the population was exposed to crime
Australia which does not allow ownership of handguns had a reported crime rate of 1,431,929 based on a population of 20,000,000 - 7.16% of the population was exposed to crime.
Germany with a population of 82 million (05) has a reported 6.264,723 crimes or 7.64% of the population was exposed to crime.
In Britain there were 5,170,843 incidents of reported crime to the police based on a population of 60, 587,000 (06) - 8.5% of the population was exposed to crime.
Highest rate - New Zealand with a population of 4,000,000 (06) had a reported crime with 427,230 incidents - 10.68% of the population was exposed to crime.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics.php#9"]Source[/url]

moar:
[quote]Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.[/quote]

Edited June 1, 2011 by Winchester

[Jaime]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1306939760' post='2248673']
Mexico has a higher gun death rate than the US and it has strict gun control.

The gun death number alone doesn't tell the story. In a society with gun control, are the murder rates higher than the self defense rates? Are other crimes higher in rate? Our crime rate continues to drop, even though Clinton's "That gun looks scary to me" Ban has expired.


Fewer guns will mean fewer deaths by gun. It doesn't mean you've become safer. Just that there aren't as many guns to kill people.


[url="http://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics.php#9"]Source[/url]

moar:

[/quote]

I agree that there are exceptions to the rule. However I look at gun control much like I look at abortion. I would be happy if both were more restricted or illegal.

[Winchester]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306941437' post='2248685']
I agree that there are exceptions to the rule. However I look at gun control much like I look at abortion. I would be happy if both were more restricted or illegal.
[/quote]
There were more statistics to be had, though.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Winchester

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306938620' post='2248668']
Couldn't even go one post. I don't suggest I assert, and the [i]grammatically correct[/i] proved it. To bad you cant be honest about it. Lame but completely predictable.

[/quote]

Ok so your buddy Nihil getting help is demeaning. I get it. I wouldn't put it that way but whatever


[quote]
I believe that his statements aren't against Church teaching but I don't believe his statements are binding upon the faithful.
[/quote]

There are many things that aren't binding to the faithful. And you are giving him more credit than your buddy. Nihil thinks he's actually not competent. If he's stating things that are consistent with Church teaching, (as you agree) then he's showing competency.

[Winchester]

[url="http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html"]There's more to murder rates than gun ownership.[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

This thread. Therefore, Lovecraftian cosmicism is true.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1306937221' post='2248659']
Lol great argument for the past 2-3 pages! Internet Catholic debating at it's finest! Nothing like correcting error with the sledgehammer of charity.
[/quote]
This made me lol.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1306941633' post='2248686']
There were more statistics to be had, though.
[/quote]

I think you've posed a more sound argument than others.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306941666' post='2248687']
Ok so your buddy Nihil getting help is demeaning. I get it. I wouldn't put it that way but whatever

There are many things that aren't binding to the faithful. And you are giving him more credit than your buddy. Nihil thinks he's actually not competent. If he's stating things that are consistent with Church teaching, (as you agree) then he's showing competency.
[/quote]

Nihil is a friend, but you're being demeaning you love being demeaning you love to hate, it brings you great joy, clearly. I pray for you, knowing you'll mock that too. And I don't fully agree with your clearly bias and one sided view of what consistent with Church teaching means. It is only consistent in that it is not inconsistent with Church teaching, or that it does not conflict or reject Church teaching.

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306943802' post='2248714']
I think you've posed a more sound argument than others.
[/quote]

Certainly more sound than your own. That much is clear.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/STP/cthulhu.jpg[/IMG]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306938995' post='2248669']
Nope I think statistics are good for deciding the behavior of a society. Which by the way is NOT a consequentialist argument.A consequential argument would be "You shouldn't download copyrighted music without paying for it. You might get caught" This argument states that IF YOU DIDN'T get caught, then it would be fine. Arguing gun deaths is not the same thing. It would have to be pragmatic for it to be consequential. Not driving while intoxicated lowers the amount of automotive deaths. Most people don't shout "consequentialist" to this stat. It's pretty much accepted as an obvious benefit for society. (also not pragmatic) Societies with gun control have less deaths caused by guns. So I think its a good thing.
[/quote]


Actually it is the same thing, you are saying that the consequences of possession of guns is so terrible that it should be illegal. You make no arguement beyond that, your arguement is pragmatic in the strictest sense and has nothing else to it.

The fact is, that outlawing drunk driving is also a consequentailist arguement. The consequences of drunk driving are so terrible that we out law it. As there is no prior Right to drive nor to be drunk, this is morally acceptable. However gun control and drunk driving are not analgous. Drunk driving is a limitation on irresponsable action with legally owned property. There is no car ownership control, nor is there any any alcohol ownership control except age. We already have such a limitation on firearms.


Gun Control is nothing like laws against drunk driving, it is more like Prohabition.

However there is a prior right to own the means of self defence, therefore restriction on thier ownership is a violation of this most basic of human rights. Violating human rights is immoral.



And if you think consequences are a good way of making societal decisions then you should be against gun control, I have already shown that if your 31,000 number is right then more than 1 1/2 times as many villians are killed, as all murders and accidental killing combined.

Statistically more than a 1,500,000 crimes are stop yearly by firearms in the US the vast majority of these events have no discharge of the weapon and even fewer have causaulties, butthey are reported to the police. Consequencially speaking they are aviolence reducer.

[quote]Societies with gun control have less deaths caused by guns[/quote]


This is simply an objectively false statement.

Switzerland has the one of the highest gun ownership reate in the world (higher than the US) yet they have fewer than 1 gun death per 250,000. Despite required gun ownership among adult males most murders occur with bladed weapons, more than 10 times the number of gun deaths.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306943802' post='2248714']
I think you've posed a more sound argument than others.
[/quote]


I used your on number and analysed it... if it was not sound it is your own fault for citing a BS number.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306941666' post='2248687']

There are many things that aren't binding to the faithful. And you are giving him more credit than your buddy. Nihil thinks he's actually not competent. [b]If he's stating things that are consistent with Church teaching, (as you agree) then he's showing competency.
[/b] [/quote]

Again False. Use of antibiotics is consistent with church teaching but if his Excellency wereto get up and say we should use amoxicillian to treat cancer, while completly consistent with Church teaching, it would be incompetant.


His Excellency is not a doctor, therefore, his is not competent to make medical judgements, even if they are in keeping with CHurch teachings.

His understanding of small arms could be, and probably is similarly disadvantaged.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306941666' post='2248687']
There are many things that aren't binding to the faithful. And you are giving him more credit than your buddy. Nihil thinks he's actually not competent. If he's stating things that are consistent with Church teaching, (as you agree) then he's showing competency.
[/quote]
I said he's more than competent in Church teachings, but he may very well not be in secular disciplines such as criminal justice.
Once again: He Is Competent In Church Teaching.

I've said that literally this entire time. He may have every single tiniest bit correct about Church Teaching, but if any of his position is being modified by bad assumptions or invalid arguments in secular subjects, then his conclusions may end up being incorrect. So while it is consistent [i]with Church teaching[/i], it may be flawed as a whole.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306949673' post='2248759']
Again False. Use of antibiotics is consistent with church teaching but if his Excellency wereto get up and say we should use amoxicillian to treat cancer, while completly consistent with Church teaching, it would be incompetant.


His Excellency is not a doctor, therefore, his is not competent to make medical judgements, even if they are in keeping with CHurch teachings.

His understanding of small arms could be, and probably is similarly disadvantaged.
[/quote]

How would the use of imoxicillin to treat cancer be consistent with Church teaching? Where in Church teaching would you see treat a artery bleed with a bandaid? It doesn't make sense.

However let's look at this

[quote][indent]Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican's permanent observer to the U.N., spoke in October to a committee working on disarmament and international security. There had been a U.N. Small Arms Review conference in July - it closed without agreement. The archbishop said that debates on weapons were undertaken "in abstract concerns from preconceived positions." Let's move from the abstract to the human dimension, he suggested, and perhaps then we can get an Arms Trade Treaty.[/indent] Weapons "kill and maim tens of thousands, spark refugee crises, undermine the rule of law and spawn a culture of violence and impunity." He said they had deep impact on children. [/quote]

Ever heard of any Church teaching talking about the human dimension or speak against violence? Ever hear the Church speak out on refugees or children?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306953375' post='2248778']
How would the use of imoxicillin to treat cancer be consistent with Church teaching? Where in Church teaching would you see treat a artery bleed with a bandaid? It doesn't make sense.

However let's look at this



Ever heard of any Church teaching talking about the human dimension or speak against violence? Ever hear the Church speak out on refugees or children?
[/quote]


You are not very good at this whole understanding of how analogies work do you. Regardless you are attributing an improper attachment to Church teaching to the statement.

For starters his statement is objectively false, Weapons have never done anything, ever, I have yet to se a rifle get up and shoot anyone, just like I have never seen a hammer get up and buil a house. Where are the miraculous house building hammers anyway? Regardless Weapons are tools that are sometimes used to to kill people, they are alsoused to feed people, protect them from harm and other more esoteric uses ( for example 8 gauge shotguns, with lead shot are used in oil refineries to clear scale of the inside of certian equipment). They have no power by themselves they are used by people ( and chimpanzies, but we will leave that be for now). So his statement is inaccurate from the beginning.

However, let us give him the benifit of the doubt.
The statement does not fit within Church teaching, all men have the right to self defence... that is Church teaching since ancient time, removing thier ability to defend themselves with a reasonable chance of success is not in keeping with that teaching.

THe context was somewhat helpful however, he was on a committee trying to get a particular treaty accomplished...... HMMMM , sounds like he was acting exactly as I said he wa, as a diplomate not as a bishop, and certianly not as a speaker for the Church. You do realize that diplomates use Pathos to accomplish goals all the time, this hardly means
Since his statment was not formally made on behave of the Church, an not even made in the context of his offie of bishop, it is not a particularly compelling statement.



I do want to say, I'm impressed, you have managed to turn this entire arguement to a discussion of a trivial statment by an single cardnil whose statement is no more binding that " kill them all, God knows which ones are his".

THe statement has been discussed to death, are you capable of making an actual arguement about why Gun control is just, or even remotely good?

Are you capable of presenting an arguement at all:?

Or are you indeed just a troll?