Recently, I engaged in a conversation concerning gun control in this election and found myself sinking into an inescapable quicksand that finally forced me to concede complete ignorance on the topic and its place within Catholic teaching. In a speech from 2007, McCain stated his opposition to strict gun control using the constitution as means of defense, asserting, ""I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control,". By means of a refresher, let me provide the Second Amendment in it's original form: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Moreover, in a recent CNN article, nearly two-thirds of Americans agreed with Senator McCain and his support of private gun ownership; however, what I can't seem to reckon or understand is the connection between private gun-ownership, and the role of guns within a Christian community. On one hand, I fully understand the desire to own something that can protect and defend oneself, loved ones, family, etc., and the power felt through owning something that can efficiently and effectively reach an ultimate end: the termination of life. What I also understand is the moral groundwork underlying the necessity to fight evil and therefore the use of said object to reach that end. In fear of sounding too pacifistic, I will assert the importance of guns in appropriate situations; however, I am merely wondering why this object should be allowed within the private hands of free-willing human beings who, by their very nature, have proved to killing others without a present threat or evil.
As always, McCain supports and endorses issues that follow suit with his morals and principles, despite how appealing or effective they may be. An example of this can be seen in his stance on the issue of abortion. His moral conscious trumps the desire to appease those advocating pro-choice within America. However, turning to the issue of gun-control, I question the source from which he draws from in regards to this specific moral issue. Firearms in their material nature are not bad, therefore, is it just for any human being to own a firearm, correct? Logically speaking, yes. Is it then right to assume these said owners will use their firearms in a just and responsible manner? Hypothetically speaking, it should be easy to conclude. Nevertheless, the United States is plagued with school-shootings, irresponsible gunfire, and murder caused by a guns on an near daily basis. Therefore, I believe it is a moral obligation, religious and secular, to control distribution and use of guns in America. Unfortunately, research has turned up nothing in terms of the Catholic Church's stance and moral position on gun control; And, while I understand McCain must look through a secular, constitutional lens when developing his stance on no further need for gun control, I believe it is the moral duty of the Church to guide it's followers towards a life devoid of such deadly objects by endorsing heavier gun control laws in America.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Claire's post raises some really important questions, and I am thankful that she has brought up this issue. I admit that I, too, know very little about the Church's stance on gun control. I would be really interested find out if any official Church documents have been written concerning this issue. We have countless writings on the just war theory, but how does this come into play on an individual level?
What keeps coming to mind is a scene from the movie Romero, which portrays the life of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador. Romero is known for being a very social-justice minded bishop, even going to prison for speaking up on behalf of the rights and dignity of his flock. There is a scene in the movie where two of his fellow priests begin carry arms to defend themselves and the people who are being exploited. Archbishop Romero admonishes them for their behavior, seeing it as unfit especially for Catholic priests who are supposed to proclaim a Gospel of love.
I would hope that any documents/statements articulating the Church's stance would advocate for heavier gun control (and perhaps even for a course of action that is more pacifist). I personally have never been in a position where I or anyone in my family felt the need to carry a gun for protection, so I cannot identify with the experiences or arguments of people who have been in such a situation. I would be interested to hear what they have to say. At the same time, when looking at the life and teachings of Jesus, I cannot help but lean towards a more pacifist response. Again, I am thankful to Claire for bringing up this issue, and I think it would be great for us to research it a bit more and discuss it together in class.
Jennifer,
I think you make an excellent example of Romero in this post. His life alone stands as the quintessential Christian example of what to do in the face of injustice and how to rightfully handle it. It is truly fascinating to see his martyrdom in light of the present situation concerning gun control within this election.
This is a difficult issue to raise because I think it's impossible to put a label on the Christian community as a whole as to what stance they take on gun control. As I'm sure we're all aware, the Christian community is unfortunately an extremely divided one. Fundamental and conservative Christian groups will definitely lean towards looser gun control, but there are a large number (and a growing number) of Christian groups and denominations that are more pacifist in nature who will absolutely oppose it. As a Christian, I personally believe we need tighter gun control laws, and I firmly believe the majority of my friends would agree. So, again, it's very hard to put the entire Christian world into one label. It's important to look at each individual denomination and even church sometimes. It's a sad realization, but true nonetheless.
With due respect, I think that the post misses the main point a bit. I think the main issue is how to curb gun violence, and what type of gun control is most effective to do that, rather than if gun control itself is a moral obligation. The real moral obligation seems to be preventing violence. It seems according to the link that McCain endorses background checks, so obviously he believes in some type of restrictions. Though it may be anecdotal evidence, the memory of a former co-worker and Hell's Angels motorcycle member constantly talking about his easy access to guns, including assault rifles ("easier to get one on the street than in the store") sticks out. While I've gotten sufficently off track, it seems that effective restrictions must target gun companies and not individuals. I think this raises a very interesting conversation though, of how do we curb gun violence. Since I have not really investigated the issue, if the evidence suggests that heavy restrictions are the best way, then I'm all for it, and I think just about everyone else would be too, special interest groups be damned.
The last six months have been historic in terms of gun control in the United States. The recent Supreme Court ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia marks the first Supreme Court decision regarding the second amendment in nearly a hundred years. In this unprecedented decision the Supreme Court declared that there was an individual right to bear arms, striking down a D.C. ban on handguns. This decision, while not yet incorporated to the states, opens the floodgates for the possibility of court challenges to all kinds of regulations on the possession of firearms. In the wake of Heller, it is likely that gun regulation will not reflect a religious question but rather a constitutional question. The process of weighing state and national interests against the individual right to bear arms is a battle that will undoubtedly be waged in the courtroom, not the chapel.
I agree with drew wh. that the issue of gun control, the degree to which the possession of guns should be regulated by the government, requires a discussion more based on constitutional rights than the specifics of a moral dilemma. I think that all Christians would agree that if guns are key factors in violence, then gun control is a necessary preventative measure. So, now our attention should focus on safety locks and other measures to keep guns out of children’s hands.
Maggie P is dead wrong when she says, "I think that all Christians would agree that if guns are key factors in violence, then gun control is a necessary preventative measure."
I can assure you with absolute certainty that "all Christians" do not agree. I do not. Nor do many other Christians of my acquaintance.
In Luke 22:16, Jesus makes he curious remark: “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one" in relation to preparing for the events leading up to his crucifixion Clearly from the context, Jesus is telling the Apostles to be ready to escape from persecution at a moment's notice and to procure weaponry with which to be able to defend themselves. The modern equivalent would be to say, "go sell that leather jacket of yours and buy a Glock."
Jesus knew what was going to happen to him and knew what was going to happen to his disciples.
I suspect that there is so little Church teaching on gun control because it is a secular, rather that sacred issue. "Render unto Caesar..." and all that.
The real concern here is with violent crime, and rightly so. Violence truly does plague our country, but the source of the problem is in the Violent Criminal Actor (VCA), and not in he tools used to perpetrate the violence.
Far from being a moral obligation, advocating further gun control is immoral. There are already over 2000 gun control laws in the United States. Not one of them has made out communities safer. The Center for Disease Control and the Department of Justice have both found that there is no evidence to suggest that any gun control laws have any effect on violent crime. Disarming law-abiding citizens only makes them more vulnerable to the violent predators in our society.
One measure that has worked is Project Exile, a program in Richmond, VA that uses already existing Federal laws to prosecute criminals who use guns in the commission of their crimes. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile38.html Project Exile has since been supplanted by a statewide program called Virginia Exile. http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/exile/ Both programs have resulted in a dramatic reduction in guns being used in the commission of other crimes. Similar programs in other areas have had similar results.
Criminals by definition break the law. Washington DC and Chicago, the two cities with the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, have the highest rates of gun crime. Obviously, the criminals are still able to obtain guns. Taking them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens only makes the pickings easier for the criminals. Thirty-nine states have enacted "Shall-issue" concealed carry permit laws. In every one of those sates, violent crime has decreased.
Firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for self-defense up to an estimated 2.5 million times per year (Fall, 1995 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology). On a Monthly basis, the NRA publishes news accounts of ordinary citizens like yourselves who use their firearms to fend off attackers. http://www.nrapublications.org/ac/Index.html
Why do we hear so little of this? John Lott, in his book The Bias Against Guns documents how the mainstream media systematically ignores the positive aspects of firearms ownership and usage. To be fair, he points out that since the vast majority of firearms usage is to prevent crime, it doesn't get coverage. No crime = no story.
Post a Comment