Of arms I sing

Usually, when there is an outbreak of senseless, nihilistic gun-related violence, many people start wailing about how many guns Americans have, and can't we do something about this? Strangely enough, even though a cowardly pair of D.C.-area snipers have shot eight people, those voices aren't being heard. Maybe the Sept. 11 attacks affected people's views of armed self-defense; hard to say. You'll recall that after the Columbine massacre, the air was thick with gun control schemes, but three years later, the anti-gun lobby is still trying to sneak their sad little "gun-show loophole" bill through Congress.

Nevertheless, we will start hearing calls for firearms restrictions of some kind, I'm willing to bet. I have often toyed with the idea of starting a group called "Catholics for the Second Amendment," which would attempt to bolster support among Catholics for our civil right to bear arms. Here's a short case for gun rights, from a Catholic perspective:

Every person has the right to defend his life, even to the point of using lethal force -- i.e., an action against another person that could reasonably be expected to kill that person. Moreover, everyone has not just a right, but a duty to protect the weak from the depredations of the strong, and lethal force can again be employed. (I'm going to spare you the references in the Catechism, because I'm too lazy to read them for the eleventh time.) You don't have to be a policeman or security officer in order to justifiably employ force -- you can be a private citizen. This right to self-defense is a part of natural law, and is inalienable. You may not choose to exercise it, but that's your choice.

We also have the right to freedom of worship under natural law (and again, the Church recognizes this as a fundamental right.) What would happen if a government told us that we have the freedom to worship, but we cannot build or use churches? Or hold religious gatherings in public spaces? We would complain that freedom of worship, while primarily spiritual, has an implied, essential material aspect. So it is with any other true freedom you can name, like freedom of speech -- if the government said you couldn't own a printing press, Web server, or any other device to publish your views, then your right is effectively nullified.

You probably see where I'm going with this. It is patently absurd, given that serious criminals use guns as their everyday tools, to tell people who wish to defend themselves that they can't have the object that makes their right to self-defense meaningful. With her bare hands, a 110-pound mother can't defend her kids against a drunken 200-pound man. A 78-year-old man wouldn't have a chance against a 20-year-old thug with a knife. In either case, the victims need an equalizer: a gun. Nothing else will stop someone intent on harming the innocent, and most of the time you don't even need to shoot the attacker -- merely pointing the gun at him is an effective deterrent.

Given that, I wish I knew why the bishops persist in their support -- albeit tepid and de rigeur -- for gun control. It's a question of justice: should we let the bad guys victimize the innocent, or should we arm ourselves to repel such attacks? Fewer guns won't mean a more peaceful society, because depraved monsters like those snipers will find weapons. (We can't keep drugs out of the country, so how could we keep guns out?) In my personal judgment, responsible gun ownership is fully consistent with the Gospel, and indeed, for people in many circumstances, I would say it is an obligation.