|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Killing kids with guns is not the same as abortion
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The NYT reports that many, probably most, anti-abortion people are also supporters of gun s, which too often lead to killing people.
Is there a difference between an aborted fetus and a 6-year-old killed by a miltary weapon? Is the "pro-life" movement actually based on *offer expires at birth?
What is it about evangelical church leaders (or members) who demand guns but hate abortion?
I still have had no answer from anyone on these boards to my question about the Christian ethics of gun ownership. Is it necessary for a Christian to carry a gun, knowing that this implies a willingness to kill someone?
But I hadn't seen such a chilling line as that uttered by the lady who gave this comment:
quote:
Jeanne Monahan, the president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, which organizes the march, said that as a Catholic in the anti-abortion movement, “We absolutely support the idea of being pro-life from conception to natural death.”
“Really, the difference between the little ones in Connecticut, which is so heartbreaking, and the little ones in the womb is their size and their age.”
But asked about the letter from the Catholic leaders, she said: “I definitely have nothing to say about gun control. That’s so out of the parameter of what we’re about.”
What is it about some American Christians? (I have to say American because I have not seen Christian commentary from any other country in support of unlimited gun access. Get over it)
[ 26. January 2013, 12:02: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is it necessary for a Christian to carry a gun, knowing that this implies a willingness to kill someone?
Of course it is not necessary for Christians to carry guns - before the advent of the 'Just War Theory' it was prohibited, according to some sources, for a Christian to maintain their military positions if they wished to be accepted into the faith.
In the op you make a tenuous link between 'trigger happy' gun carriers and Christians (I think some evidence is required to show that the majority of 'trigger happys' are also devout Christians (particularly American brand evangelical as your op sets the subgroup to that) based on the link that that group of people support gun ownership and are 'pro-life' which is, as said above, a tenuous link.)
I also question your link between carrying a gun implying a willingness to kill - it seems to have a bias towards a particular position - all gun owners are trigger happy and intent on murder.
Carrying a gun for 'self-protection' and then shooting someone does not necessarily mean you are out to kill them - incapacitate them so you can get away is quite possible too...
In a younger life, before my vegetarian and greenpeace days, I used to go hunting, attempting with all my eight year (+ - since I didn't just do it for a year) old might to shoot hares etc. with the intent on eating them... I guess your intent is to consider those who carry guns for 'personal-protection' but in the process you have implied that all gun owners are intent on killing people which is something of an over generalisation.
But to answer your question - those who do carry guns with the intent to kill people and who also hold a 'pro-life' position do seem to have a strange sort of morality that to me tries to hold two incompatible pov in unison.
[ 26. January 2013, 12:25: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... I also question your link between carrying a gun implying a willingness to kill - it seems to have a bias towards a particular position - all gun owners are trigger happy and intent on murder.
Carrying a gun for 'self-protection' and then shooting someone does not necessarily mean you are out to kill them - incapacitate them so you can get away is quite possible too... ...
"Shooting to wound" is a myth. All those great moments in movies when the good guy pings the bad guy's kneecap from 100 yards away are just that: moments in Hollywood. Even highly-trained police officers are really lousy shots in the heat of the moment:
Police: All Empire State shooting victims were wounded by officers
Every gun owner on the thread in Purg has said you should never point your gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Now you're saying they can just wave their guns around and don't need to shoot anyone. Which is it?
If someone is carrying a pack of cigarettes, I'm pretty darn sure they smoke.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
"Shooting to wound" is a myth. All those great moments in movies when the good guy pings the bad guy's kneecap from 100 yards away are just that: moments in Hollywood. Even highly-trained police officers are really lousy shots in the heat of the moment:
[snip]
Every gun owner on the thread in Purg has said you should never point your gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Now you're saying they can just wave their guns around and don't need to shoot anyone. Which is it?
If someone is carrying a pack of cigarettes, I'm pretty darn sure they smoke.
First of all, I was not making a case, just pointing out that the OP was phrased in a leading manner, giving of some false, and at best untenable, links between groups of people.
People may be pretty lousy shots, that I did not deny - they should go back to the range and practice - but that doesn't remove the fact that the intent behind might well be to incapacitate rather than kill... all your comment says is that people need more practice before using their gun rather than every time someone shoots it is to kill.
As for the second point, I have not said that waving a gun around is fine, to be honest I'm a bit perplexed at how you came to the conclusion I was saying that.
Finally, to carry on your smoking analogy - not everybody who uses a roach in their rollie smokes weed.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
People may be pretty lousy shots, that I did not deny - they should go back to the range and practice - but that doesn't remove the fact that the intent behind might well be to incapacitate rather than kill... all your comment says is that people need more practice before using their gun rather than every time someone shoots it is to kill.
I was taught, explicitly, that shooting to wound is stupid. It might as well be called shooting to miss. If you're aiming for the kneecap or the hand, you will miss your target. You will increase your odds of hitting someone else. You will increase your odds of having the gun taken away and used against you.
The third and final gun safety rule I was taught is, "Never point a gun at any living thing that you don't intend to kill." That means "Do not pull a gun out in a confrontation with another person unless you intend to kill the other person." You might not kill them. But that should be the intent.
There may be times where a Christian can legitimately do that. But those times are, I think, exceedingly rare.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
People may be pretty lousy shots, that I did not deny - they should go back to the range and practice - but that doesn't remove the fact that the intent behind might well be to incapacitate rather than kill... all your comment says is that people need more practice before using their gun rather than every time someone shoots it is to kill.
How accurate one is at a range is only one factor. Obviously, it is important to practice. However, reality oft proves a bit less clean. I have observed the aftermath of police shootings. The amount of rounds expended vs. rounds connecting to the target individual is staggering. And this includes officers with excellent range scores. Centre mass and unload your clip, this is the training most receive. Lethal Weapon is a Hollywood fantasy.
ETA: There are major arteries running in the upper arms and thighs. As well as bones which can shatter, making arterial damage all the more likely. And, contrary to popular belief, one does not know exactly where arteries and organs will be located. Your anatomy reference guide is approximate.
[ 26. January 2013, 15:51: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
If you wish, we can continue the "NYPD haven't practiced enough with their guns" tangent on the gun thread in Purg.
Getting back to this thread, though, more and more do religious leaders support increased gun regulations:
Survey: Most Evangelical Leaders Want More Gun Control
The views of the people in the pews, however, are different, and white Evangelicals want their guns:
quote:
But religious groups do not speak with one voice on the issue of gun control. On one hand, the religiously unaffiliated (60 percent), minority Protestants such as African Americans (69 percent), and Catholics (62 percent) all favor stricter gun control laws. On the other hand, a majority of white mainline Protestants (53 percent) and more than 6-in-10 (61 percent) white evangelical Protestants oppose stricter gun control laws.
3 Possible Reasons Why Catholics & Evangelicals Differ on Gun Control (Do You Agree?)
(Black Americans have always been more in favour of gun control than white Americans. Which makes perfect sense, because the 2nd Amendment was actually written to allow Southern states to have armed slave patrols, and not as the mythology would have it, a citizens' anti-tyranny "firewall".)
So ISTM most religous leaders are consistently pro-life before and after birth. It's just the ordinary white folks that don't give a rat's ass after you're born.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
It might help if some of those evangelicals who support some form of gun control actually said so.
Putting your hand in front of your mouth and coughing a lot is no help.
Quote from article linked: quote:
The National Association of Evangelicals surveyed its board of more than 100 members in December and found that 73 percent of them said that government should increase gun regulations. However, the association has not taken a position publicly.
And, obviously, the answer to that question is that they are afraid of losing members (and money), now that they have allowed or, in some cases, encouraged, their membership to worship guns.
No point in having the church take an unpopular position, is there. It isn't as if Jesus ever said anything about that.
I'm sorry my deep-seated disgust with people who worship guns is getting in the way pof expressing a simple idea.
Let's try again.
Many Catholic and mainline Protestant church leaders oppose the free flow of guns, specifically because so many people are being killed. The use of guns against people is clearly against Jesus' teaching.
Why are the evangelical leaders avoiding saying anything publicly about an issue that is something that is clearly against Jesus'/church/religious teaching?
Why are so many evangelicals all for "no abortion" but heavily against any control of guns, while championing "pro-life". Does a baby lose all consideration the moment it is born? Where's the dividing line?
Foetus? Leave it alone and let the mother suffer.
One-year-old? make the mother suffer and let the toddler starve?
six-year-old? Shouldn't be where people play with guns, like schools. Pity about the unhappy mother, but she was obviously part of a government plot.
Come on! Just how idiotically insensitive do you have to be?
But go ahead, Read for any line that allows you to get off the hook. Go on, Enjoy yourself.
And don't think of "your neighbour", because that might cause you to actually think.
ITTWACW
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The idea of "I carry a gun but I'm not willing to kill" is risible. A person carrying a gun who is not willing to kill is a (literally) deadly danger to themselves and others.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
That same dichotomy exists among non-Catholics on the religious right in the US--no abortion, but yes executions. That's the ONLY redeeming thing in my mind about the Catholic pro-life stance--they want to protect it at both ends. Beyond that...
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is there a difference between an aborted fetus and a 6-year-old killed by a miltary weapon?
I also asked myself this question after a friend posted on Facebook comparing the number of people killed by guns in the US with the number abortions there each year.
Maybe this is a slight tangent to the OP but I was thinking about what is the difference and wondering if part of it is to do with relationships. A six year old child who is killed will normally be part of a web of relationships, most intimately with their immediate family but also with their friends and community. Therefore their loss from whatever cause leaves people grieving their absence and the tearing away of that relationship they have valued. An aborted foetus is not part of a web of relationships in the same way. Of course there is a sense that every individual person is valuable in God's sight and made in his image whether they are valued in human relationships or not. And society still considers it wrong to murder a homeless person who does not appear to have people who will love and miss them. But still, the loss of the life of a foetus, even if you consider that foetus to be a person, is qualitatively different from the loss of someone who is going to be grieved by devastated ones left behind.
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
