I don’t talk about gun control a lot since it’s a very complex issue and when I do it’s usually when somebody evades an issue like neo-Nazism or Islamic jihad to talk about gun violence. Peter New, the voice of Big Macintosh in My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, believes if you support “gun proliferation then in small measure” you are guilty of violence. Honestly I’m in the middle on this subject: I’m for moderate gun control policies; e.g. allow people who can pass a gun safety test and successfully undergo a background check (both in regards to violent criminal records and psychiatric evaluation) to allow responsible citizens to possess firearms either for hunting, self-defense or for sport.
I have an issue with two extremes: one extreme wants so much gun control that every time a tragedy does happen they want more restrictions; the other extreme wants no gun control. One extreme apparently wants so much gun control that they want their country to become like the U.K. where police are not allowed to be armed under normal circumstances: this of course ignores that a situation can quickly get out of hand and often unexpectedly. The other extreme does not seem to acknowledge that many shooters did have a gun permit. Then there’s us in the middle ground who feel some restrictions are necessary but feel the strict anti-gun types are trying to take it too far. They make it about the gun rather than the person. As the saying goes, “Guns don’t kill people; I kill people”. This sentence is on Happy Gilmore’s ex-boss’ shirt.
These fierce anti-gun types ignore that terrorists won’t pay attention to signs. Their lobbying efforts have successfully made many corporations adopt anti-gun policies and many of them don’t even have police, not to mention their security guards are unarmed. The victims of San Bernardino and a host of other public places weren’t saved by radical anti-gun policies. They seek to make it almost impossible to possess a firearm; some of them want it to be literally impossible to legally possess one. They want to make increasingly difficult tests for people to pass, in addition to making guns more expensive to buy, and yes even gun insurance. This would consequentially mean the poor would be less likely to afford a firearm which is pretty ironic how the left claims to stand up for the little guy. How do they expect a poor family to defend themselves if somebody violently trespasses? And yes, most gun violence occurs in impoverished cities and districts.
I hear a lot of Catholics say Mark Shea has qualms about possessing a firearm. Apparently he claims it is against Church doctrine. Yet nothing in Church doctrine says Catholics cannot possess a weapon for self-defense. The Catechism does say that “public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them” (n. 2316), but that’s not the same as banning them. Our Lord Jesus Christ, when told by the disciples they wanted nothing, said that whoever does not have a sword should sell his cloak to buy one (rf. Luke 22:36); and when they found two swords He said, “That is enough” (v. 38). For biblical, traditional and philosophical reasons the Catechism states “legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing” (n. 2263). Of course, that’s not to say that you have to kill an aggressor to defend yourself, your family and your country. Thus it says anyone who “in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful” (ibid). So, it’s all about what force is necessary.