10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

[Michael_Mayo]

Please be honest with me. Presently all legitimate gun owners do pass checks. Yet you still want more. You will not be happy until nobody can own a gun.

God Bless.

How do you know what will make me happy?

 

[djames99]

motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

LOVE!

In the context of collectives, it would appear that as far as arms are concerned, the Church feels that no one party should be more compromised than the other.

*CC2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. *

So, I put it to debate that at least in order to effectively defend oneself, could one be allowed on the Church’s position, to possess a weapon that can disperse similar evils and disorders?. In other words no one should own a weapon with more power than any possible threat out there.

 

[maryjk]

When States pass laws allowing concealed carry, people like you start sounding off in the media with all sorts of imaginary predictions. Some of the typical ones are, “There will be OK Corral type shootouts in the street.” “People will settle neighborhood disagreements with a gun.” “People will shoot the driver that cuts them off in traffic.”, but then lo’ and behold, those who get conceal carry permits are among the most trustworthy and law abiding people in the State, so the imaginary scenarios never play out among them. They may continue to happen with the criminal element but that was happening anyways. I consider your imaginary scenarios above to be of the same caliber.

We are still waiting for people to start having shoot outs in federal parks.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Since mass shooting occured in highschools should we let all highschool students carry guns?

There weren’t many mass shootings when schools had pistol teams and hunters safety was a mandatory class. (both of which involved the students having firearms)

 

[djames99]

Wow…judge people much, do you?

Borrow money from inlaws.

 

[Estevao]

A son of a high-ranking police officer (that’s right, the people who live off of your tax dollars and want to make it so you can’t defend yourself) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada just stabbed 5 university-aged people to death at a party. Apparently he had no history with the police whatsoever, and apparently there was no animosity between him and his victims.

How am I to defend myself from these types of people? As the gun grabbers would have it, I can’t use a gun to defend myself. As the police officers usually have it, I can’t even carry a weapon for self-defense.

“But, estevao, wrong place wrong time! You just need to be aware of your surroundings!”

Well maybe I don’t want to spend all my life indoors?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

There weren’t many mass shootings when schools had pistol teams and hunters safety was a mandatory class. (both of which involved the students having firearms)

So that is a “yes”?

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

But there was no recorded resistance at all - armed or unarmed - and some record would surely exist if Christians were indeed defending themselves.

As for not standing by and watching children being killed - St Agnes was only 13, and the adults around her to a man and woman appear to have done exactly nothing in terms of defending her apart from one of her judges who only went as far as to refuse to condemn her to death.

They surely weren’t all totally lacking the love of Christ, they merely recognised that defensive killing is not necessarily a duty, at least not always.

There is a difference between being condemned to death unjustly and being attacked by a murderer. We are to respect proper authority even when they do evil. If a judge condemns you to death for being Christian, go gloriously to your martyrdom, but if some thug is trying to kill the neighbors kid while you’re babysitting you are obligated to defend the child, even if it means killing said thug. [bibledrb]Romans 13:1-3[/bibledrb]

Haydock commentary:Let every soul, or every one, be subject, &c.[1] The Jews were apt to think themselves not subject to temporal princes, as to taxes, &c. and lest Christians should misconstrue their Christian liberty, he here teacheth them that every one (even priests and bishops, says S. Chrys.) must be subject and obedient to princes, even to heathens, as they were at that time, as to laws that regard the policy of the civil government, honouring them, obeying them, and their laws, as it is the will of God, because the power they act by is from God. So that to resist them, is to resist God. And every Christian must obey them even for conscience-sake. S. Chrys. takes notice that S. Paul does not say that there is no prince but from God, but only that there is no power but from God, meaning no lawful power, and speaking of true and just laws. See hom. xxiii. Wi.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

So that is a “yes”?

That is a yes with some reservations. Children aren’t just adults only smaller, so it should require parental permission, classes, approval and would be a privilege for them, not a civil right (as it is for adult citizens). If you want to stop mass shootings though, the best course of action would be to reinstitutionalize the mentally ill.

 

[Robert_Sock]

That is a yes with some reservations. Children aren’t just adults only smaller, so it should require parental permission, classes, approval and would be a privilege for them, not a civil right (as it is for adult citizens). If you want to stop mass shootings though, **the best course of action would be to reinstitutionalize the mentally **ill.

That would include me, and many others here on CAF. Not too many psychologists or psychiatrists would agree with you, except perhaps where the mentally ill have become unable to care for themselves, or where they are really a threat to society. Schizophrenics, for example, are less violent than the average citizen.

LOVE!

 

[Ridgerunner]

In the context of collectives, it would appear that as far as arms are concerned, the Church feels that no one party should be more compromised than the other.

*CC2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.* The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

So, I put it to debate that at least in order to effectively defend oneself, could one be allowed on the Church’s position, to possess a weapon that can disperse similar evils and disorders?. In other words no one should own a weapon with more power than any possible threat out there.

So, it’s okay then for me to have an AR-15 for some wild animals, a 30-06 for some and a .357 magnum for others. Got it.

Just as an aside, I live in an area where there are indisputably more guns than people, but gun violence is virtually nonexistent. Its not the existence or possession of guns. It’s something else.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That would include me, and many others here on CAF. Not too many psychologists or psychiatrists would agree with you, except perhaps where the mentally ill have become unable to care for themselves, or where they are really a threat to society. Schizophrenics, for example, are less violent than the average citizen.

LOVE!

I think those shrinks that deal with “street people” would probably agree with him. And probably a paranoid schizophrenic is the most dangerous person of all.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I think those shrinks that deal with “street people” would probably agree with him. And probably a paranoid schizophrenic is the most dangerous person of all.

Yes, many of the street people should probably be institutionalized.

Where have paranoid schizophrenics ever been shown to be more dangerous than ordinary citizens? Do you have any source on this, or are you simply guessing? I have a PhD in psychology, and I was taught otherwise. Plenty of solid statistics to back my view up.

LOVE!

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

That would include me, and many others here on CAF. Not too many psychologists or psychiatrists would agree with you, except perhaps where the mentally ill have become unable to care for themselves, or where they are really a threat to society. Schizophrenics, for example, are less violent than the average citizen.

LOVE!

If someone were compromised to the point that they have a chronically reoccurring urge to kill themselves or others, they should be in a place where they can be cared for and kept from harming people. The deinstitutionalizing of the mentally ill has been disastrous, and has almost alone invented the phenomenon of mass homicide as experienced today. Just look at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and sundry. If if the perpetrators of these tragedies were born 50 years ago they would have been in an institution long before they they got to that point. There was great need for better oversight and transparency in these institutions, but history has proven that they were far better than the alternative.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

**If I lived next door to you Robert, I would put up a sign that points to your house and says:

" My neighbor doesn’t believe people should own guns.
I DO…".**

I’m still chuckling as I write.

But you make a valid point by implication. We live in a violent world that is filled with predators who look for the weakest to prey upon. Police are overwhelmed with calls in most large metropolitan areas. There’s likely no way that they will arrive in time to prevent violence if someone truly wants to do harm.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, many of the street people should probably be institutionalized.

Where have paranoid schizophrenics ever been shown to be more dangerous than ordinary citizens? Do you have any source on this, or are you simply guessing? I have a PhD in psychology, and I was taught otherwise. Plenty of solid statistics to back my view up.

LOVE!

I first heard that from a physician who deals with them. I next heard it from a PhD psychologist. Paranoid schiz are a small segment of the population (about 1%), but they are responsible for 5% of all homicides in the U.S. annually, about 9% in Europe. Untreated, it appears some 42% become violent in any given year. That’s greatly reduced if they’re treated. 1 in 10 commits suicide.

treatmentadvocacycenter.org/resources/about-mental-illnesses/schizophrenia/1393-schizophrenia-research-violence-and-schizophrenia

nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/schizophrenia/index.shtml

 

[Robert_Sock]

If someone were compromised to the point that they have a chronically reoccurring urge to kill themselves or others, they should be in a place where they can be cared for and kept from harming people. The deinstitutionalizing of the mentally ill has been disastrous, and has almost alone invented the phenomenon of mass homicide as experienced today. Just look at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and sundry. If if the perpetrators of these tragedies were born 50 years ago they would have been in an institution long before they they got to that point. There was great need for better oversight and transparency in these institutions, but history has proven that they were far better than the alternative.

Counterpoint: I have been suicidal most of my life, but I have never gone through with it because I never had a gun. Sure, I could have chosen another method, which I have often considered, but by the time the planning was done, the suicidal thoughts would always subside. Again, those have a genuine desire to harm society shroud definitely be locked up. Those with self-inflictive harm, need treatment, but not necessarily be institutionalized.

LOVE!

 

[tabycat]

Life has many risks which no human being can escape. Guarding against them all is futile. The same can be said of encountering an intruder. Why not place your trust in God? Is this life really worth becoming “paranoid” about over such low probability happenings?

LOVE!

Old saying: “God helps those who help themselves.”

 

[Brendan]

I edited my post, please re-read.

LOVE!

So then, as a psychologist, you have experienced a lack of successful coping mechanisms in the teaching profession, thus making the more likely than the police to ‘flip out’ and go on murderous rampages?

Has that lack been documented in any journals?

 

[tabycat]

And what exactly are the chances of being robbed? At what trivial point does it become an unrealistic fear? (And note that I used quotation marks around the word.)

LOVE!

Could be on the high side. I’ve been robbed and had break-ins where I lived severl times.