Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[Anomaly]

4 minutes ago, Anselm said:

No, guns are offensive weapons; you cannot claim that lethal force is defensive.

You're right, Jesus didn't instruct them to make ploughshares, that's elsewhere in the Bible. Still there though!

Turn the other cheek etc...

I guess the Popes with armed Pontifical Swiss Guards are just faking it. 

[Anselm]

3 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Yes you can. lethal force can be licitly used defensively, see CCC 2263.

The point I'm making is that in the majority of circumstances in which lethal force is used it is not proportional.

Also, you don't seem to be arguing that you NEED a gun, simply that you'll have one because it's your right to do so and that that right should remain.

[Anomaly]

3 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Yes you can. lethal force can be licitly used defensively, see CCC 2263.

Just quoting to bring things back on topic and bring this to the current page.  

[Amppax]

Just now, Anselm said:

The point I'm making is that in the majority of circumstances in which lethal force is used it is not proportional.

That's not what you said, but thanks for clarifying. That's still a very debatable point. 

[Anselm]

It's already on this page.

We all have our own experiences and opinions, of course, and in my experience of guns and of theology the two are incompatible and any attempt to reduce the number of guns in circulation is a positive thing.

[Anomaly]

2 minutes ago, Anselm said:

The point I'm making is that in the majority of circumstances in which lethal force is used it is not proportional.

Also, you don't seem to be arguing that you NEED a gun, simply that you'll have one because it's your right to do so and that that right should remain.

 

Our citizens have not lived for centuries under the armed boot heel of the ruling class.   We were also allowed to hunt for sustenance without the Kings permission.  Different circumstances. 

Again. It's about the proper use of a gun.   You aren't going to magically eliminate 300,000,000 guns with words on paper.  

[Anselm]

'The armed boot heel of the ruling class'? Um, I'm sure you haven't, but who has? Hunting for sustenance hardly comes into it now does it? 

And no, 300,000,000 guns wouldn't be 'magically eliminated'; it would begin a long and torturous process, but one by which thousands of lives would be saved.

[Amppax]

10 minutes ago, Anselm said:

The point I'm making is that in the majority of circumstances in which lethal force is used it is not proportional.

Also, you don't seem to be arguing that you NEED a gun, simply that you'll have one because it's your right to do so and that that right should remain.

I'm responding to the second part, because I didn't see it earlier. I don't own a gun personally, nor am I a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment (therefore, I'm not pro-gun). In fact, I think there's a case to be made that the modern gun lobby misinterprets the 2nd amendment, though that's a different debate than the current one. The problem that I have, and which others have, with your statements is that they are overly simplistic and show that you know little about the American political context. You have shown you know next to nothing about the historical, cultural, and legal context of the debate over gun control in this country, and also that you don't really understand the issue from the standpoint of moral theology. 

[Anselm]

Thank you for your detailed assumptions about many elements of my knowledge and experience; the reason none of this has gone very far is that I struggle to see why you and others appear to have no desire to attempt to reduce the number of gun deaths in the U.S. So far I've seen no indication that any of you believe the number to be in any way strange, let alone unacceptable. 

I'd be very grateful if you could explain exactly what it is I apparently don't understand.

[Anomaly]

3 minutes ago, Anselm said:

'The armed boot heel of the ruling class'? Um, I'm sure you haven't, but who has? Hunting for sustenance hardly comes into it now does it? 

And no, 300,000,000 guns wouldn't be 'magically eliminated'; it would begin a long and torturous process, but one by which thousands of lives would be saved.

The British Government has a long tradition of laws to keep citizens disarmed so the void dominate, such as the Disarming Act in 1716.   That helped keep the Scots under Protestant rule. 

So now it's not theology, it's about saving lives?    Whose lives?   The sane law abiding citizens?  Who suffers during the "torturous process"?   Who realistically remains armed?  Who realistically has a means of self defense doring this process?  We're all to just rely on the State to protect us?    How's that working?

[Anselm]

Just now, Anomaly said:

The British Government has a long tradition of laws to keep citizens disarmed so the void dominate, such as the Disarming Act in 1716.   That helped keep the Scots under Protestant rule. 

So now it's not theology, it's about saving lives?    Whose lives?   The sane law abiding citizens?  Who suffers during the "torturous process"?   Who realistically remains armed?  Who realistically has a means of self defense doring this process?  We're all to just rely on the State to protect us?    How's that working?

That's a very different thing to the state of oppression that you implied. It has also led to the situation where we have a fraction of the number of the gun deaths per capita that the U.S. has, so which is the preferable situation?

I didn't say that it's not about theology did I? Even so, no, it's not simply about theology. It's about saving all lives; the innocent, the criminals who would find it harder to get guns and all those, criminal or not, who would not be killed by trigger-happy policemen. You paint a picture in which every American citizen needs to protect themselves daily against armed attack; reducing the number of guns overall reduces their availability to criminals without tangible danger to society as a whole.

[Amppax]

4 minutes ago, Anselm said:

Thank you for your detailed assumptions about many elements of my knowledge and experience; the reason none of this has gone very far is that I struggle to see why you and others appear to have no desire to attempt to reduce the number of gun deaths in the U.S. So far I've seen no indication that any of you believe the number to be in any way strange, let alone unacceptable. 

I'd be very grateful if you could explain exactly what it is I apparently don't understand.

I'm not making an assumption, I'm stating an observation based on what you've said in this thread and the other one. Additionally, like Anomaly pointed out, you're switching your claim here. First it seems you're claiming it's immoral to own a gun, but then you switch the argument to stating that it's a matter of saving lives. Those are different arguments. I do think that gun violence in this country is a terrible problem, but I think that the solution you propose is simplistic, and would not help very much. 

[Anselm]

Just now, Amppax said:

I'm not making an assumption, I'm stating an observation based on what you've said in this thread and the other one. Additionally, like Anomaly pointed out, you're switching your claim here. First it seems you're claiming it's immoral to own a gun, but then you switch the argument to stating that it's a matter of saving lives. Those are different arguments. I do think that gun violence in this country is a terrible problem, but I think that the solution you propose is simplistic, and would not help very much. 

Three things: firstly, it is an assumption as it's based on a few short posts on an Internet forum.

Secondly, yes, it is a different claim, but one that I have made elsewhere on this site and, if you read my post above, I believe that both are important. I'm sure that's allowed.

Thirdly, of course it's simplistic, it's an Internet discussion and we haven't touched on exactly how it would happen. The arguments on both sides are simplistic by virtue of the medium.

[Amppax]

9 minutes ago, Anselm said:

Three things: firstly, it is an assumption as it's based on a few short posts on an Internet forum.

Secondly, yes, it is a different claim, but one that I have made elsewhere on this site and, if you read my post above, I believe that both are important. I'm sure that's allowed.

Thirdly, of course it's simplistic, it's an Internet discussion and we haven't touched on exactly how it would happen. The arguments on both sides are simplistic by virtue of the medium.

I apologize, I re-read my post, it does state an assumption that you know little about the topic. That was not my intention per se, though based on your posts that seems to be the case. Given the fast paced nature of this discussion, there perhaps hasn't been time to more fully develop ideas. 

Anyway, I disagree with you about the morality of gun ownership, quite strongly. I don't think you could possibly prove that with Catholic moral theology. There's certainly room for prudential political policies aimed at reducing violence, but gun ownership is, I think, morally neutral, as it is a tool like many others. 

[Anselm]

Well I'm afraid I'm going to leave it there for now, as it's nearly 11pm here!

[Amppax]

30 minutes ago, Anselm said:

Well I'm afraid I'm going to leave it there for now, as it's nearly 11pm here!

Though I've argued with you vigorously, thank you for your contribution, and for your civility. I look forward to continuing the discussion. 

[Socrates]

On 8/3/2016 at 8:18 AM, Anselm said:

Socrates, your argument seems to focus almost exclusively on your right to carry firearms. What about the huge numbers of people killed by guns each year? Does that not bother you? Are those lives not more important?

Anomaly already answered much of your question for me (and these issues have already been covered in depth in many previous gun threads on here), but anyway . . .

If "gun control" laws were really so effective at saving lives, then Chicago would be the safest place to live in the US, but the opposite is true.  The US cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest gun homicide rates.  The idea that more guns = more deaths is also false; while gun ownership has risen steadily over the past several decades, the number of gun deaths has declined.

As cities like Chicago demonstrate, "gun control" would take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, leaving them helpless and emboldening violent criminals, while criminals intent on violence would still manage to illegally keep and obtain guns, or kill without guns.  (The two biggest massacres in US history, 9-11 and the Oklahoma City bombings, were committed without guns.)  Neither did strict anti-gun laws prevent terrorists from shooting people in European countries.  If more people carried guns, perhaps many shooting massacres in "gun-free" areas could have been stopped.

The vast majority of the hundreds of millions of gun owners have never killed anybody.  I've never killed anyone with my guns, nor have any of the people I know, most of whom own guns.  Taking away their guns would unjustly punish them for the crimes committed by a lawless minority.  Gun control would leave many (particularly the physically weak, such as the elderly) helpless against attackers, and vulnerable in the case of a widespread societal breakdown (a scenario a lot less far-fetched than you might think).

To forcibly deprive innocent people of means to self-defense, or to forcibly confiscate their legitimate property, is wrong and tyrannical.

On 8/4/2016 at 3:51 PM, Anselm said:

No, guns are offensive weapons; you cannot claim that lethal force is defensive.

The Church teaches otherwise.  It can be used if necessary to stop an attacker.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Socrates

[LittleWaySoul]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

If "gun control" laws were really so effective at saving lives, then Chicago would be the safest place to live in the US, but the opposite is true.  The US cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest gun homicide rates.  The idea that more guns = more deaths is also false; while gun ownership has risen steadily over the past several decades, the number of gun deaths has declined.

Isn't that because surrounding areas have really lax gun laws, though? Like, sure, Chicago might have strict gun laws, but the surrounding areas don't (see: Indiana). Gun shows in particular, I've heard, are relatively unregulated a lot of the time.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-06/the-problem-with-using-chicago-to-make-the-case-against-gun-control

[Anomaly]

3 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Isn't that because surrounding areas have really lax gun laws, though? Like, sure, Chicago might have strict gun laws, but the surrounding areas don't (see: Indiana). Gun shows in particular, I've heard, are relatively unregulated a lot of the time.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-06/the-problem-with-using-chicago-to-make-the-case-against-gun-control

That is more support as to why three hundred million guns won't be eliminated by wiling participation.  Too many people want them for crime and intimidation.  Gang members still get them.  With three hundred million guns, what difference does it make if two hundred million are turned in?

Lax gun laws are not a significant matter after 300,000,000 guns are out there...

If anti-gun persons were to rein in the emotional extremism and stop with the silly goal of trying to remove all guns, pro-gun persons may stop stonewalling on everything.   Maybe the reasonable people would have the opportunity to possibly figure out how a compromise to close loop holes at gun shows, foster gun handling training, and save the tax dollars for mental health and other things that would have a greater positive impact on society. 

Edited August 6, 2016 by Anomaly

[dairygirl4u2c]

i wouldn't put down phatmass too much. just look at the poll. a strong majority of people are on the stronger side of gun control. it's basically like the rest of the country, even majoritries of republicans and NRA members want more gun control, such as more background checks, but the minority voice is too strong. you even see that here cause most of the sensible among us just pop there head up from time to time with only a few of us tackling the opposition. they are always there and fighting. 

i wouldn't listen to socretes's stats. apparently he's stubborn to factucal data. here are the facts.....
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/142176-more-guns-mean-more-homicide-more-gun-control-mean-less-homicide/

anslem, how do you propose reducing the number of guns in cirulation?

i'm a big gun control proponent but even im skeptical of banning guns locally, and it's considered unconstitutional anyway. 

maybe a handgun ban and confiscation like england?  some people would no longer have a gun when they go on their sudden temper tantrum. the confiscation would be necessary otherwise it leaves too many of them in circulation. 

 

i mean if we were to reduce the number of guns in circulation by like half, i'm sure it'd have a measureable effect, but i dont know how you go about this with our laws. and it'd ideally include some sort of ban on producing more of the removed guns. 

gun control in general as it is currently pushed only reduces the number of guns at the edges, it doesn't have huge effects. i dont know how and i'm skeptical about massive efforts. the only massive effort id entertain is banning all guns, and confiscating them. that might have some positive effect. 

Edited August 6, 2016 by dairygirl4u2c