10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"36 He(Jesus) said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. " (Luke 22:36)
 
Timothysis said:
Wait a minute, Robert; did Christ “turn the other cheek” when the crowd tried to throw Him off of the cliff? Why did He “pass through them” instead of suffering at their hands? Also, during His trial, did Christ turn the other cheek to the man who struck Him when he asked why did he do such a thing since Christ had done nothing to him? I suggest you research the true meaning behind turning the other cheek. It isn’t about being a pacifist to another’s unjust aggression.
Click to expand...
I think that Christ was using the term, “Turn the other cheek” figuratively, and was meant as a key lesson for us to put into practice the best we can. Christ escaped from the crowd because His time had not yet come.

LOVE! ❤️
 
Mr. Sock,

I don’t agree with you on this subject, but I admire your fortitude.

Blessings,

Shockerfan
 
shockerfan said:
Mr. Sock,

I don’t agree with you on this subject, but I admire your fortitude.

Blessings,

Shockerfan
Click to expand...
That’s to be expected! My only intention for starting this thread was to make people aware of the potential negative consequences of owning a gun. Thanks!

LOVE! ❤️
 
Robert_Sock said:
That’s to be expected! My only intention for starting this thread was to make people aware of the potential negative consequences of owning a gun. Thanks!

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
Yes, and forget about the possible positive aspects of owning a gun like, oh I dunno, protecting oneself or family from violent criminals. Not everyone desires to lay down their lives or the lives of their family for your idea of Christian perfection. The Church doesn’t teach as much and there is no reason to accept your point of view.
 
Robert_Sock said:
That’s to be expected! My only intention for starting this thread was to make people aware of the potential negative consequences of owning a gun. Thanks!

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
I basically refuted all of those points, or pointed how they don’t really have anything to do with it… but you sort of ignored that… it was hard to miss, I made a fairly detailed pots.

Oh well.
 
I am reminded of the fox and the grapes. I have run into a few people who lost the right to own, possess, and/or use a gun, and since then they do not think anyone should have them. I have also run into those people who feel they do not have the emotional stability to own a gun, yet think they are “normal”, and that all others would be tempted as they are to use a gun in a fit of rage. One man remarked while gesturing to his wife, “I couldn’t own a gun, because I might shoot her.” He can’t legally own one anyways due to multiple felonies.
 
I never did a survey, but I’ll bet that the vast majority of CAF members are pro-gun.

Speaking from my life-long urges to commit suicide, I feel certain that I would have carried it out if I had a gun.

LOVE! ❤️
 
maryjk said:
Catholics are not pacifists.
Click to expand...
Being against guns for private defense is not pacifist. Australia does not allow privately owned guns for defense but has a well armed police force and defense forces. What anti-privately owned guns means is that we are entrusting defense to the authorities highly trained in responsible gun use and subject to an ethical standard and oaths to bind their use of weapons.

Private owners are left to their own discretion to determine if a death shot is warranted from their subjective perspective. It means that everyone is in a permanent warlike frame of mind. Ready and armed for defense. That can be like a subtle disease. On an international scale that was shown by the state of Cold War between Russia and the US. Nothing good came of it except distrust and propagandising. ‘Not supporting privately owned guns equating with pacificism’ is the stuff of propagandising.
 
LongingSoul said:
Private owners are left to their own discretion to determine if a death shot is warranted from their subjective perspective.
Click to expand...
No they aren’t; they are still subject to the law. If you shoot someone without legal justification, then you are charged with a crime. Kill them and you will go to jail for a long, long time.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Would Christ have at all resisted if somebody came up to Him with a sword and tried to kill Him?

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
Um, Christ, in His omniscience, fled cities before they killed Him.

Also… are you saying that it’s God’s Will for 150,000 Christians to be murdered in 2011?

All you said, was that it would be better for people to turn to God, then to have guns and defend themselves.

Well… those people did die. So, was that the better outcome for them then?

If you don’t want children to die from starvation, I would imagine you wouldn’t want Christians to die at the hands of violent Islamists, am I not correct?
 
LongingSoul said:
Being against guns for private defense is not pacifist. Australia does not allow privately owned guns for defense but has a well armed police force and defense forces. What anti-privately owned guns means is that we are entrusting defense to the authorities highly trained in responsible gun use and subject to an ethical standard and oaths to bind their use of weapons.
Click to expand...
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. 👍
 
Objective rules and moral clarity are very easy to uphold in theory, but less so when one’s own fears and fantasies – like the fantasy that one will be able to gun down a mass killer just as he starts his spree but won’t be able to do it if deprived of a weapon which is as likely in discharge to strike down innocents as it is to hit the target.

The Church took centuries before it could persuade men that duelling with swords or pistols was immoral. Since defense always has to be proportional to an assault, a weapon that may take more lives than simply that of an aggressor doesn’t remotely fall under a justified, moral means of defending oneself.

I’ve met exactly one gun owner who ever actually used a firearm in self-defense, and that was a woman who was a former Marine sergeant who was able to get to her .22 while under sexual assault and didn’t actually have to fire it.
 
RC_Sojourner said:
Um, Christ, in His omniscience, fled cities before they killed Him.

Also… are you saying that it’s God’s Will for 150,000 Christians to be murdered in 2011?

All you said, was that it would be better for people to turn to God, then to have guns and defend themselves.

Well… those people did die. So, was that the better outcome for them then?

If you don’t want children to die from starvation, I would imagine you wouldn’t want Christians to die at the hands of violent Islamists, am I not correct?
Click to expand...
I’m deeply distressed by the killings of Christians in the Middle East, and just like I pray for the starving children in the world, I would encourage everyone to pray for those Christians. And just like I would rather die than have to kill someone, or have my gun used to kill an innocent person, this is my suggestion to persecuted Christians.

LOVE! ❤️
 
Timothysis said:
No they aren’t; they are still subject to the law. If you shoot someone without legal justification, then you are charged with a crime. Kill them and you will go to jail for a long, long time.
Click to expand...
But if a private citizen finds himself faced with drawing his weapon with the option to kill a criminal, what resources does he have to draw on in making that determination. Police are highly trained to shoot to wound or shoot to kill. They are trained with some psychological profiling and negotiating skills. They also take oaths that are not just legally but professionally binding. Private citizens don’t have very many of these types of skills or at least not with any depth of training. If a person is faced with a police officer training a gun on them their reaction is necessarily different to having a private citizen who could have any manner of deficiency in reacting in highly stressful situations regardless of his mental state or gun handling ability. I really think the US aren’t giving the overall environment of private gun ownership due considerations.
 
JackVk said:
In other words, give them to Big Brother like a good little comrade. Oh, the intruder butchered you and your family while you waited for the cops to get there? Too bad, sucks to be you.
Click to expand...
No, in other words, “If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns” has no application in reality since no one is trying to outlaw all guns. The best we can hope for is that all gun owners will legitimately pass effective gun control checks and be thus authorized to protect against those who are unauthorized.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
No, in other words, “If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns” has no application in reality since no one is trying to outlaw all guns. The best we can hope for is that all gun owners will legitimately pass effective gun control checks and be thus authorized to protect against those who are unauthorized.
Click to expand...
Politicians in Chicago tried to ban all guns, or they would if they had the chance. Such moves were deemed unconstitutional.

cnn.com/2014/01/06/us/chicago-gun-ban/

No one is trying to ban all guns? Um, HERE THEY ARE!!! I FOUND THEM!!! 😉

Looks like they’re in Chicago.
**
“Chicago’s ban of virtually all sales and transfers of firearms”…**

No sales or transfers of firearms? How would I be able to get my hands on a firearm if those people got their way?
 
CarmelJerome said:
Objective rules and moral clarity are very easy to uphold in theory, but less so when one’s own fears and fantasies – like the fantasy that one will be able to gun down a mass killer just as he starts his spree but won’t be able to do it if deprived of a weapon which is as likely in discharge to strike down innocents as it is to hit the target.
Click to expand...
This article has been debunked so many times, it seems crazy to have to do it myself.

Ann Coulter isn’t my favorite columnist but her list works.

Here are a few mass shootings that have been stopped.
– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
Click to expand...
– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
Click to expand...
– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
Click to expand...
– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates – as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
Click to expand...
– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
Click to expand...
– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
Click to expand...
Are there more? Yep. But do your own research.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top