Guns, Guns Guns

[TempleofVesarius]

there are way more good people than street gangs....give alll the good people the same guns that the street gangs have...you wont have a problem with street gangs anymore

[_bc]

Ok, so I'll try again with the gun control argument. The original was addressed to

Don John, so I'll keep that form.

1. To intentionally kill a person is a sin.

This includes the act of killing someone who is violating or intending to violate our property rights. For example, if you - Don John - feel, as you claimed in a post in this thread, that it is within your right to kill someone to protect your car, you are wrong and at risk of gravely sinning - especially when armed.

"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."

The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger. [...] Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.

There is a number of other pertinent citations to be made, but I did not expect this to be disputed in a Catholic forum and still hope that this axiom can be beyond questioning here.

2. A person who has a gun is more likely to kill someone than a person who has no gun.

This is what my previous posts were directed at pointing out, by appealing to common sense as well as anecdote and research.

Careful observation will reveal that this is not a utilitarian argument by the longest of stretches. Also, claiming not to believe 2. in the face of overwhelming evidence - for example by denying statistics as evidence on society - is not the same as challenging the argument. You need to find a way to actually challenge the syllogism if you want to challenge this argument.

You claim that I didn't address your argument against gun control - but in fact I did. Your argument can be boiled down to this: 'I want guns so I can protect myself against other people who have guns.' My response was, that if you take a step back and acknowledge that other people face the same incentives, it becomes apparent that your getting a gun for self protection leads to other people wanting guns for their own protection. This is called an arms race, just like the ones in Africa, the Middle East and between Taiwan and China. An arms race leads to less security, because there is always the threat of your gun being turned on other people or yourself. So while I don't deny that for each person to have a gun increases the probability that they be the first to discharge, I'm saying that this is argument is only applicable to each person if we disregard the effects on everybody else, and that while the conclusion may hold for each part, it does not hold for their sum. Add to this the fact that a gun is more than 40 times as likely to be used to kill its owner or a member of his/her family than to be used on an intruder, and you will find that prevalence of guns does not decrease the occurence of the grave sin described in 1.

To reiterate: The fact that there is no gun control leads to people getting guns who wouldn't have them if others didn't have them too. That decreases your safety and increases the risk of somebody taking a life that was never theirs to take. So gun control increases public safety which is good because it decreases the occurrence of the sin described in 1.

You also claimed that your obligation to use every means available, including moderate force, to protect your life somehow translated into a divine right to arm yourself with guns, and that this divine right took precedence over any other consideration. I do not see that this is an argument, it rather strikes me as a leap of faith.

Pretending not to understand the relation between probability and reality, or questioning my personality is not a form of argumentation I want to participate in right now. So we can either leave the argument here, or you can challenge the above argument and counterargument with logic and fact - I honestly don't care either way.

[TempleofVesarius]

owning a gun isnt murder

[TempleofVesarius]

whether you have a gun in your hand or not....the choice is still yours, not the guns

[Adam]

man how can you say gun is wrong... I am already looking at my holsters, the type of gun I want when I turn 21, step dad who is a cop even takes me to police stores and shows me different types of holsters and stuff.

I grew up where fear was a thing everyone walked the streets with, because if you didn't u'd get killed. Everynight, I always kept look out for rival gangs and such where ever I went, I been jumped, shot at, chased, ive had loads of gang bangers outside a big department store waiting for me on many occasions.... and in so many times I wish I had more protection than my fist.

Until you know fear, you'l know why a gun is good... protect your family, yourself and whatever is worth protecting, but im certain to get a gun when I hit 21.

To say "Oh, just put your trust in God" is kinda limited, since man has free will, people can kill you with free will, so when someone mugs you and puts a knife to your throat or a pistol against the side of your temple, perhaps u'd understand also why a gun is good... nothing sinful of protecting yourself, defending your life.

[TempleofVesarius]

let me clarify....

if you get to the point where you could kill someone, and the only thing that stops you is the fact that you DONT HAVE A GUN IN HAND, thats the same sin as actually shooting the person

so basically what im saying is...we dont need gun control....we need SELF-control

Edited August 5, 2003 by TempleofVesarius

[TempleofVesarius]

yeah im bumping this post....i want someone to respond before i have to leave work in an hour :P

[Don John of Austria]

Oh my this is silly first let me explain the most basic aspects of violence and the Faith--- the act of killing another human being is not a sin EVER-- The act of Killing with the intent to kill is ALWAYS a sin, it is always the sin of murder. If I find someone in my home who is not supposed to be there I will shoot them, if I find them trying to take my car I will shoot them, in niether case will my intent be to kill them( hopefully I will have control over my anger and will not want to kill him), but to protect myself and my family, someone in my home is inherantly a combatant and I have every right to remove the combatant from them, someone trying to take my Car is likewise a combatant and while more abstracted also endangers my family in that I cannot work without a car. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with owning a gun as I would use an ax or a sword or a lead pipe to do the same if I had no gun.

This is what my previous posts were directed at pointing out, by appealing to common sense as well as anecdote and research.

Careful observation will reveal that this is not a utilitarian argument by the longest of stretches. Also, claiming not to believe 2. in the face of overwhelming evidence - for example by denying statistics as evidence on society - is not the same as challenging the argument. You need to find a way to actually challenge the syllogism if you want to challenge this argument.

There is no statistics or evidence to challenge, as there was none provided, your source, as I said, had no such statistics at all there is certianly no OVERWELMING evidence, I can site studies which showed that states which introduced concealed handgun laws saw a drop in crime, as well as other studys which showed that while it was true that a gun had a very high chance ( but not higher)comparatively of shooting some one in the household instead of a stranger that more often than not this was a women defending herself or her children from a violently abusive husband or boyfriend. But you see I don't have my sources handy so I didn't bring them up. But if we are going to site statistics we cannot give clear referance to there you Go. Also I was very careful in my observation and still contend that this is a Utilitarian arguement for the reasons I stated above.

2. A person who has a gun is more likely to kill someone than a person who has no gun.

This is not a syllogism, this is an assertion, please review your philosophy text.

You claim that I didn't address your argument against gun control - but in fact I did. Your argument can be boiled down to this: 'I want guns so I can protect myself against other people who have guns.'

You see this is not really my arguement at all, but I will address that after I adress your arguement. Edited August 6, 2003 by Don John of Austria

[Winchester]

bc,

I see what you're saying about the arms race thing. However, that does not make guns themselves evil, nor does it remove my right to own weaponry capable of defending my life and the lives of others reasonably.

Whether your "40 times" statistic is correct or no, it is propaganda. My gun is not 40% likely to kill me or mine on its own, people are not statistics. Were such a number true, it would have to be broken down family to family, not quoted in a vacuum. Our lives are not run by numbers.

[_bc]

...If I find someone in my home who is not supposed to be there I will shoot them, if I find them trying to take my car I will shoot them...

I should perhaps have spelled out the syllogism in more detail. It is as such:

Premise 1: It is a sin when people murder each other

Premise 2: When guns are easily available, more people murder each other.

Conclusion: When guns are easily available, more sin is committed.

So you're absolutely right: premise no. 2 is not a syllogism, it is a premise in a syllogism. Since you appear to strongly desire to challenge the argument, I would have expected that you would find within yourself a need to challenge the syllogism. Apparently, you have chosen to reject the premises out of hand, and that's your personal choice that I will not debate.

It is within your legal, if not moral right to believe you may murder those who would steal your car. It is also within my right not to debate morality with one who would claim as true what, to me, is self-evidently ludicrous.

..one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.

You are probably welcome to take this up with Our Mother the Church; I will not be participating in the discussion.

...your source, as I said, had no such statistics at all...

Did you happen to read the article i referred to, or did you just read the abstract I linked to?

Finally, a leap of faith does not become an argument by being repeated. If you can find a passage in the Catechism or an Ex Cathedra statement that says you have an unalienable right to own guns and kill car thieves, I will change my opinion. But if you could, you probably would have already, wouldn't you?

Edited August 6, 2003 by _bc

[_bc]

bc,

I see what you're saying about the arms race thing. However, that does not make guns themselves evil, nor does it remove my right to own weaponry capable of defending my life and the lives of others reasonably.

Whether your "40 times" statistic is correct or no, it is propaganda. My gun is not 40% likely to kill me or mine on its own, people are not statistics. Were such a number true, it would have to be broken down family to family, not quoted in a vacuum. Our lives are not run by numbers.

Winchester,

I'm not saying guns are evil. Guns are not evil, they are just things. I'm saying that, because laws are made to apply to society as a whole, we need to look at society as a whole when deciding if guns should be easily available. When looking at society as a whole guns are not the best way to defend life. Even if you are not likely to kill anybody with your gun, you may be able to defend yourself and your family better by, in the long term, giving up your guns in exchange for everybody else giving up their guns too. This is where the arms race simile comes in: the US and USSR were better able to protect their populations, and the world, by agreeing to limit their ownership of nuclear weapons. Similar for guns and households.

I'm not saying guns should be outlawed today, and everybody hand them in now. I'm saying a gun free country should be a long term objective, and we should start debating how best to reach that goal with the minimum amount of disruption.

[mp15]

I'm not saying guns should be outlawed today, and everybody hand them in now. I'm saying a gun free country should be a long term objective, and we should start debating how best to reach that goal with the minimum amount of disruption.

The goal for which you speak is unattainable. Is England a gun free society? Is Australia a gun free society? They are both about as close as you are going to get, yet they still exist in the hands of criminals. If you would like to live in a country where the only people that have guns are the bad guys then I will gladly pay for a one way, first class airline ticket for you so you can live in utopia. I for one would prefer to be able to defend myself, and not to have to wait for a cop to show up when I'm already dead. Wait, I'm not sure a cop would be able to defend me in your utopia, because they wont have a gun either, seeing as how they are all banned and stuff.

_bc, what you wish for is truly unattainable. If it were attainable then bad people would just use something else, and when they start using something else (which they would, and already do), then do we ban knives and swords? Tire irons? Golf clubs? Baseball bats? You see the argument is really pretty silly. You wish for utopia. The only problem is that this world stopped being utopia the minute Eve took that first bite of apple. It will only be utopia again when Christ returns.

Peace,

Marcus

[cmotherofpirl]

Take away guns people will kill each other with sticks and stones.

You are merely exchanging weapons. Do you think Cain needed a gun?

Hearts need changed, not weapons. Only free will can do that.

[_bc]

The goal for which you speak is unattainable. Is England a gun free society? Is Australia a gun free society? ...

_bc, what you wish for is truly unattainable. If it were attainable then bad people would just use something else ...

I've lived in Australia, and I have to say I felt a lot safer in downtown Sydney than in similar areas of New York, partly because I knew that there wasn't much chance of anyone drawing a gun on me.

I'm not saying Australia is a model society, but in this aspect it doesn't compare badly.

Not once did I see anyone carrying a sword or a crossbow around Sydney. Actually I've only once seen a sword, and I think it was blunt because otherwise people would surely not have hung it on their wall where their children could reach it. Postulating that people would swap their guns for these things is pretty far out.

CMom and Marcus,

Not once have I claimed that there would be no murders or crime if there were no guns. I've just pointed out that guns make it easier to kill people, and more people get killed in areas with more guns. Do you think that's a coincidence? I would need to see something persuasive to believe that.

No doubt do hearts need to change. Until they've changed, I'll still think it's better not to make killing too easy.

[Don John of Austria]

Bc you agian make assertions rather than arguements--- I explained in detail why shooting someone was not murder, you did not address that at all, which does not suprise me as you have failed to address any arguement given to you, you make assertions those assertions are Challenged you say " my assertions are right " that is not debate.

Gun ownership is simply the modern neccessity for self defense( something which has been repeatedly pointed out but that you will not address) show me any document approved by the Church ( ex cathadra, Council document or even other non infallable documents) that says one does not have an inalienable right to self defense--- it is not my burden to show that Owning Guns is an ainalienable right, I have shown that Guns are the only reasonable manner of selfdefense in the modern world and there for protected by peoples inalienable right to self defense -- so the question goes to you, show either how one does not have the Right to self-defense or show how one can reasonable defend oneself agianst others including unjust Governments with out them.

Premise 1: It is a sin when people murder each other

Premise 2: When guns are easily available, more people murder each other.

Conclusion: When guns are easily available, more sin is committed.

This is a very poor syllogism but okay lets look at it--- it is a sin to murder people---

We have no arguement there

When Guns are easily avialablemore people murder each other..

This is an absurd statement as it is completely unprovable first one would have to have two culturaly identical groups 1 qith guns and one with out and then over a long period of time( decades ) study the accurance of murder in them. Now this is not actually possible as one can not know what someones intent is and morally speaking( which since your first primise was a moral one you have to do) murder is defined entirely on intent.

So your conclusion is invalid.

If you want to have a reasonable syllogism you need to either start out with a differant ( more general) primise such as " death is bad" or come up with provable second primise regardng sin , since thje second cannot be done, as we cannot see into another mans heart, you would be better off with the first tactic.