was right Bugsy, I knew you'd come good with a reasoned post.

It's not what I think the Catholic Church says it's what the Church says is binding on all Catholics, it's right there in their Catechism for all to read.

Giving a battered wife the means of defending herself from her husband if he again attacks her, after having been deemed a threat to her life by the Law is not only morally defensible it is the only moral position to take.

Any other stance, including police protection can fail.
When crisis point is reached only she can defend herself and those who would deny her the means are guilty of contributing to her fate. Simple as that.

What I said about DC goes with your equation,
if
<gun crime = criminals with guns>
then
<low gun crime = the law-abiding with guns>

The gun laws of the states surrounding DC allow their citizens to defend themselves, as criminals don't like armed victims their crime rates are lower than DC.

What I wrote above about Washington DC bears repeating (with one small correction):

"The law banning pistols for self defence was passed in 1976.
The homicide rate for the 16 years prior to the ban was 24.125 per 100,000.
The rate for the 16 years after the ban was 43.456 per 100,000.

Let's just say an 80% increase. Success by any measure?"
I presume that only the law-abiding observed the new laws and with the above result.

Really I don't think that literacy or general education has ought to do with the problem in DC or anywhere else. I've been in cities, ( DC would make but a suburb), where literacy is low and so is the crime rate
I wonder what would happen in East Timor if we disarmed the Australian troops?
Remember the great success we had in the Solomons?
We disarmed the shopkeepers and then under our 'protection' their homes and shops got burnt by the mob.

Thanks for your kind remarks, I think that most shooters are decent, same as most broad groups in society.

Mate, you need to brush up on your logic skills.
Your statement:
"if
<gun crime = criminals with guns>
then
<low gun crime = the law-abiding with guns>"

Does not follow logic at all. It's a statement that has no basis in actual fact. We can see this in regions across America with high crime rates and also high gun ownership rates. What generally characterises crime these regions is low literacy rates, low education standards and generally poor socio-economic groups.

Your idea that literacy or general eductaion standard has nothing to do with crime rates is laughable as are your examples of East Timor and the Solomon Islands that both have a history of ARMED tribal gang warfare. A group of shopkeepers opening fire on an angry mob, that would have gone down well. I can see why you would probably not be asked to spearhead a task force in any of these regions anytime soon. You cannot seem to understand that arming people generally also means giving criminals access to those same arms.

And what the catechism says about defence, try rereading the last paragraph that you posted elsewhere. I'll save you time:
"Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge."

I believe the key phrase here is: "those holding legitimate authority". I cannot think of a better way to describe it, and it also makes an important distinction between "those holding legitimate authority" and the "civil community entrusted to their charge". A distinction that you yourself do not. What the Catholic Church is saying here is that it upholds the moral duties of a police force to use armed force against criminals.It does NOT what mean what you think it does, which is allowing every man and his battered wife to own a lethal weapon if they think they are in danger.

Bugsy,

One man's equation is as good as another's. It's well proven that where the citizens are armed crime drops.

Literacy has nought to do with it.

We have been using Washington DC.

Why did the murder rate in that city rise by 80% after the disarming of the law-abiding? The people were just as literate.

From the Catholic Catechism,

"Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not.

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.".

2263 clearly refers to the actions of individuals and societies,
2264 refers to the rights and actions of the individual,
2265 does likewise and in the last sentence extends the individual right to those in lawful authority. It in no way limits the rights of the individual.

This is the interpretation of Australian law by our courts. There's no doubt that the right of self defence exists in Australian Law.

Is Mise: "One man's equation is as good as another's. It's well proven that where the citizens are armed crime drops."

I think that you need a reality check here. I find it surprising that you of all people would argue from a cultural relativist standpoint. Personally, I find that while one some statements can be supported, others cannot. While it is logical to find that guns crime is commited by criminals with guns, it is absurd to assert that the statement lower crime occurs when law abiding citizens have guns logically follows from that premise. In fact that statement is just an assertion that allows you to continue a line of argument that is far from "proven" that this occurs with just these variables, except maybe by a couple of pro-gun authors from the US. If you want to look at Switzerland again, then look hard. What is different in Switzerland to say, Sierra Leone? Or even the United States? Gun ownership by general citizenry is quite high in the US, why are their crimes rates larger than ours? Why are they larger than Switzerlands? Why is Japans lower than the US? Arming the population does not reduce the crime rate, educating the youth, investing the culture with strong values and reducing social alienation is what reduces the crime rate. But add guns to cultures without those values and see what you get.

And I am not arguing that illiteracy is a cause of crime, it is merely an indicator of cultural and social problems within the community of Washington DC. Reminding you of course that it is the capitol city of the most powerful country on earth, with a functional illiteracy rate of 30% in its adult population. Obviously something is wrong there, the opportunities for social alienation are rife. Low socio-economic status is well linked to violent crime, perhaps you should read more.

In case you haven't noticed much of US crime is drug related and the one thing that the USofA has that Switzerland and Japan and Australia do not have is a hundreds of miles long land border with a drug producing and drug trafficking facilitating neighbour, nor do we have the same degree of people smuggling.
The feeble attempts at people smugglng which Australia has to face in one year would not equal what the US has to face in one week.

Well done, now you're thinking. Lets give all the drug dealers and addicts guns eh? Oh wait, they already have them thanks to a rampant gun culture generated by a clause embedded in their constitution from the 18th century as well as a military industry that produces millions of weapons a year and needs someone to buy them. Aren't they lucky?

We have drugs here too you know.