10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

[LongingSoul]

The current gun laws *do *attempt to balance rights with safety though, as for example curtailing weapons rights for citizens with criminal histories. If one owns a gun and uses it responsibly, the public’s safety is not endangered. That person retains his right because he has given no reason for it to be revoked. The weak and the sickly also have the right to bear arms. The poor have that right as well; that is, the right to *bear *arms – not the right to be *given *one in the event they don’t have the money to pay for it.

The focus of government is necessarily more broad than particular individuals capacities and qualities though. It’s interest is in the common good of all. It can’t make laws that overall benefit one group by disadvantaging another group, even a released convicts. The right to self defense should be equally available to all private citizens with the government focused on the environment of the community it serves. Private gun ownership for defense increases the volume of guns in the community increasing violent gun crime making death as a result of crime more inevitable for all. Owning a gun is not an inalienable right of a human being so these broader considerations must impact on how the policy is serving the safety overall of the community.

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Say we are speaking health care. The ideal would be to have a system that gives all people access to health care if they need it. Health care is a basic human right. We don’t say to people only those who are responsible with their health should have access to healthcare. We recognise that there are many conditions genetic (and self imposed within reason) that are worthy of treating regardless of the a persons private capacities.

Only in the opinion of some is healthcare a basic human right. Unlike gun ownership, healthcare is a service, and the idea that someone is entitled to another person’s labor without paying for it is quite a debatable subject; hence, the uproar over Obamacare. I understand you may be theorizing about universal rights in abstract terms, but this analogy doesn’t align with the subject of protection of life. Guns protect the life of the individual from an external threat; healthcare prolongs the life of the individual who is ill.

The WHO defines access to health care as a “fundamental, inalienable human right” that governments cannot abridge, and are rather obligated to protect and uphold.

The right to bear arms is granted to American citizens because it affords people the opportunity to defend their lives and property - at their own expense and to their own capabilities. Everyone has the right to preserve their lives in ways that do not infringe upon the rights of others and do not take from others. For some people, self-protection might entail installing a security system in their homes or cars. For others, it may mean getting a really big dog. And for others, it means possessing a gun.

If you think about it, your argument that *everyone *– rich or poor – deserves equal access to gun ownership would no longer hold up if the laws meant to restrict the ownership of civilians were enacted while the very same politicians who wrote those laws walked around with armed bodyguards. That, in essence, would be an affirmation that the safety of public officials is paramount to those of us who don’t have such prestigious government jobs.

That doesn’t equate because when a position makes a person more vulnerable it is right to afford that person greater protection to have equal safety. But if it is *personal qualities *that determine if a person can have a gun for protection, their qualities don’t make them less vulnerable. Those people are in fact less safe than the rest. For example a street person with schizophrenia might not have access or qualify for a weapon, but in turn there are no greater protections afforded to them to make them equally safe as the legally armed home owner. If vigilante groups were allowed to address this for the vulnerable, that would go some way to making the disadvantaged equally protected perhaps.

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Likewise, personal safety. Everyone should have equal access to means for safety within governmental policy. If you are saying put a gun into the hands of qualifying people in order that they can feel and be safe, but let those who don’t qualify take care of themselves, that is a fundamentally unfair system.

Again, every adult *does *qualify for gun ownership, barring contingencies. It’s people who have already harmed others run that the risk of having this access taken away. And justly so.

If we were talking about guns for sporting shooters or farmers or other legitimate purposes, I understand the value and need for contingencies. But we are talking about guns for self defense which is a basic right of everyone. Limiting the qualifiers disadvantages some people in favour of others. If the police decided not to attend emergency calls to someone who has a record or was homeless or mentally ill based on their personal qualities, would that be fair? What about the ambulance? Are they allowed to discriminate about what sort of people to attend based on personal qualities? They aren’t, because governmental policy has to uphold the human standard of basic equality in serving the common good.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
It means far more guns in the community to be turned on innocent people making far greater danger for the weak and vulnerable than if no one was allowed guns. It is a fact that can’t be denied that more guns means more violent gun crimes by virtue of the availability of guns. The strong get stronger the weak get weaker by such a philosophy.

I have to resurrect the counter-argument that is always brought up, and yet which is seldom addressed by the gun control crowd: Criminals who want to use guns will get their hands on them regardless of whether they have allowance. Revoking the right for the “weak” - AKA: responsible and law-abiding - to own a gun is what deliberately creates an environment in which the lawless run amok and the innocent have no comparative method with which to defend themselves.

But the simple math shows how the common good is diminished here. Criminals with access to guns where 89% of the population owns them use far more guns than criminals with access to guns where 15% of the population own a gun. The overall safety of the environment is reduced by the sheer volume available.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Inego de Loyola: You’re making the outlandish assumption that we’ve made a mistake here.

Millions of dead people over the course of a few hundred years are a reality that puts the burden of proof that we have not made a mistake squarely on the shoulders of proponents of the use of the devices that were both designed for and caused the deaths. It is not outlandish in any way for us to start asking some questions.

Which is why you are free to try and persuade us to change, but the reasons for the second amendment haven’t changed, nor are they invalidated by more powerful weaponry.

I maintain that the destructive capability of these modern day killing machines was no way anticipated by the Framers of the Constitution who represented the farmers and wilderness explorers who owned the single shot muskets of the time. I cannot see how your argument holds any purchase, unless you can explain it better.

Yes, but such advancements, by definition, could not include restricting the availability of military grade firearms to the citizenry. (Not without a constitutional convention at least.)

Where would you propose to draw the line?

One such animal is a violent drunk, but we’ve seen just how well legislation handled that one.

A violent drunk is better off without a gun,

Legislation won’t change the criminal intent of the criminal element, nor will it greatly restrict a criminals access to firearms. If anything it will give yet another high value product to gangs.

I am not a criminal nor do I belong to a gang, nor do I frequent their company. Most of these people simply kill each other. They are not for the most part looking for you or me.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[LongingSoul]

At any rate, the Bill of Rights is either sacrosanct or it isn’t.

Is this true? Is the Bill of Rights ‘sacrosanct’? And if so, through the perspective of which religious creed was it first established into law?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

That is about where I stopped reading. Both heart attack and home invasions are reasonable contingencies to plan for. My aunt was murdered, but because of her firearm managed to save the life of the coworker who was with her; my grandfather died of a heart attack, and might have lived if there were a portable defib in the house, so I reject out of hand your assertion that these are undue preparations for unlikely contingencies.

Good Evening Loyola: I deeply regret both of your losses. For the sake of discussion, was your aunt killed with a firearm, or did her firearm fail to protect her from something less? I did mention you will recall that the aggressor nearly always has the upper hand. That anyone was saved is a very happy chance.

Thanks
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Good Evening Loyola: I deeply regret both of your losses. For the sake of discussion, was your aunt killed with a firearm, or did her firearm fail to protect her from something less? I did mention you will recall that the aggressor nearly always has the upper hand. That anyone was saved is a very happy chance.

Thanks
Gary

I do understand that this is a loaded question, as either answer I am able to imagine would hardly support the advantages of people carrying guns around. I am however, open to the possibility that you have a reply that is in some way compelling. I also understand that you have advised that you’ve stopped reading, so perhaps this would be an auspicious time to feign that you indeed have stopped reading. But I do hope that you will entertain a reply.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[JamesCaruso]

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

LOVE!

Whenever you see lists like these, you can be sure that the side that wrote them piled up the evidence in his favor. In other words, they are not disinterested studies, far from it, but facts marshaled to win the day on a particular issue. Take #4:

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

Bad guys with mass murder on their minds deliberately target places where there is little chance of anyone being armed. Take for instance the recent Ft. Hood mass shooting, the second one there, as a matter of fact. Or the Sandy Hook shooting, or the Virginia Tech murders. These came off the top of my head. But I am sure there are many more. In any of these instances, if people in those situations had been armed, teachers, adult students, etc,. not only could they have been stopped before the entire death toll was taken, but they probably would not have happened in the first place. The fact that the mass murderers picked places where there was little chance of retaliation indicates to me that they were cowardly and would not have attempted those crimes had there been a high likelihood that people were armed. This is why the fact-check found that zero mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years. There probably has not been a single case in 30 years where the targeted group was armed.

Therefore, I believe if more of the populace were armed, there would be less likelihood of mass murders. I also realize that more guns provide more convenient access for use in domestic violence and in accidental shootings. This indicates that screening for gun ownership must be tight, and that education in gun handling must be treated with greater seriousness. But in places like Ft. Hood, where the population is well trained in the proper use of handguns, it’s inconceivable to me that the army does not trust its personnel to carry their weapons on the post. The contention that the Military Police will protect them is clearly not borne out by the evidence.

I think it boils down to this, since I have a right to protect myself and my family, I have a right to possess the means to do so, unless it can be shown that others, such as Military Police, really can protect me. But who has the right to make that judgment in my stead? It’s mine and my family’s lives at stake, not some fort commander who thinks he has it all under control as at Fort Hood. Just saying. But back to you. If everyone would love we’d have no need for protection. Peace.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

private citizens bound in this way also. If you shoot it has to be with intention to kill?

Does this bind private gun owners also? Are they accused of aggravated assault for wounding and firing warning shots?

These are good questions.

Laws vary from state to state and in city to city.

Generally if you shoot someone in justified self defense you are shooting to prevent that person from harming you or someone else. Your intention would be to stop that person. If that produced a mortal wound it would be justified.

However…if your intention was to wound or warn the assailant by firing a shot and your shot hit an innocent party or damaged property…in some states you would be in more trouble than the assailant.

We know that the mere presence of a gun has deterred countless acts of violence. “I have a gun…get out of here”… or the distinctive sound of a shotgun chambering a round has sent more “bad guys” scampering than have been actually been shot at. This is a good thing…but.

Leave it to California. Here we have a “brandishing law”. That means if a licensed private citizen is legally carrying a concealed handgun and allows it to be seen (even by the “bad guy”) then he has committed the crime of brandishing.

Go figure…

 

[Fransea]

I don’t think anyone here can say that our laws for or against is the ONE SURE way to stop violence.

Some laws are good, some are bad. It is unfortunate that our lawmakers seem to ignore other country’s successful ones.

I have never seen a rifle , shotgun, or hand gun floating in the air by itself and pulling it’s own trigger. Yes, there are those instances where a woman can be overcome and have her gun taken and end up dead by it. But, those that fought back and overcame the assailant…unfortunately are seldom publicized.

One recent news article comes to mind. A white man who hit a black child and got out of his car to help the kid, only to get beaten almost to death by a gang. A black lady came to his defense. She told the gang to back off as she had a gun and wasn’t afraid to use it. They backed off, she probably saved the man’s life. As far as I know, he is still in critical condition just from the beating.

We have sooo much violence in this world but you can kill with anything…example…the woman with the high heel shoes. Oh, NO, don’t ban the heels, please!

It is NOT the weapon, it’s the person…Morality, of lack there of…Christians don’t go around killing people with anything…

Sorry, if I sound “Politically Incorrect” but when you take God out of schools, court houses, everything!!! You gonna have trouble.

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

I don’t personally own any guns, yet I am strongly pro-gun ownership.

Also, the Deacon at my parish owns a handgun.

 

[LongingSoul]

These are good questions.

Laws vary from state to state and in city to city.

Generally if you shoot someone in justified self defense you are shooting to prevent that person from harming you or someone else. Your intention would be to stop that person. If that produced a mortal wound it would be justified.

However…if your intention was to wound or warn the assailant by firing a shot and your shot hit an innocent party or damaged property…in some states you would be in more trouble than the assailant.

We know that the mere presence of a gun has deterred countless acts of violence. “I have a gun…get out of here”… or the distinctive sound of a shotgun chambering a round has sent more “bad guys” scampering than have been actually been shot at. This is a good thing…but.

Leave it to California. Here we have a “brandishing law”. That means if a licensed private citizen is legally carrying a concealed handgun and allows it to be seen (even by the “bad guy”) then he has committed the crime of brandishing.

Go figure…

That’s where there seems to be gaps in the private gun ownership policy that are tragedies waiting to happen. With so many legalities, are people made to complete police standard training in gun carrying and discharging?

The police and military must necessarily view their weapons as tools in service to their professions. They are a symbol of authority. But private people who are granted a wide margin of discretion because they have to assess danger according to their own guidelines ie. a tiny woman would be more justified in shooting an intruder than a 400lb truckie would be, since the Church says…

"And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” " - Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Murder.

A private citizen has no professional authority to back up their objection to a crime, (like the voice of a policeman), other than physical attributes. The gun to a private person is a symbol of power only. You made mention of the deterrent effect of the barrel sound as being part of the lethal mystique of a gun. An effect in a different realm to the bark of a spaniel or stabbing bread with a knife etc.

The protected status… it seems ‘sacredness’ of the gun, prevents it from being critically examined for it’s overall effects on the common good of the communities they are being used in in my opinion.

 

[Faithdancer]

All such assessments are anecdotal, but I’m not persuaded this is true. In some places Italy being a notable example, where American popularity is over 70%. Also Poland, also Hungary, particularly if you manage to learn even one word of Magyar.

Should one condemn one’s own people as loud or obnoxious just because Parisians, for example, aren’t very welcoming? (They are in Normandy, though, I have heard tourists say, and along the Rhine) After all, the French dislike Germans and Brits even more. And a lot of that is heartily reciprocated. (Americans aren’t the ones who coined the phrase “Wogs begin at Calais”) And could any Americans possibly be more loud and obnoxious than British soccer fans? And are Americans more vilified by Parisians who betimes refer to Teutons with the catchy phrase “les Autrichiens et les autres chiens”?

I realize this is entirely anecdotal, as are all such “they like us/don’t like us” stories. But I have talked to people who toured in Germany, and they say some Germans, like Saxons for example, are pretty distant, which may simply be a matter of cultural reserve, but some Germans, like Bavarians, are quite welcoming and friendly toward Americans. Someday I hope to test that out myself.

Good observations, Ridgerunner. In my several visits to Paris I’ve found the Parisians to be helpful, even friendly- and I attribute this to the effort I made at pronouncing French properly. The Parisians forgave my butchering the grammar, so long as I got the nasal and guttural pronunciation right. I also didn’t wear shorts, Hawaiian shirts, or a camera. I said please and thank you- in French. When we give respect, we get respect, in general.

 

[LongingSoul]

Good observations, Ridgerunner. In my several visits to Paris I’ve found the Parisians to be helpful, even friendly- and I attribute this to the effort I made at pronouncing French properly. The Parisians forgave my butchering the grammar, so long as I got the nasal and guttural pronunciation right. I also didn’t wear shorts, Hawaiian shirts, or a camera. I said please and thank you- in French. When we give respect, we get respect, in general.

I was travelling in France 32 years ago with some Americans we had met. The Americans figured out really quickly to say they were Aussies too and they were welcomed generously. I suspect the French have since figured out over the last 30 years that Aussies are loud and drink and swear too much so that might not work anymore.

 

[CarmelJerome]

That’s where there seems to be gaps in the private gun ownership policy that are tragedies waiting to happen. With so many legalities, are people made to complete police standard training in gun carrying and discharging?

The police and military must necessarily view their weapons as tools in service to their professions. They are a symbol of authority. But private people who are granted a wide margin of discretion because they have to assess danger according to their own guidelines ie. a tiny woman would be more justified in shooting an intruder than a 400lb truckie would be, since the Church says…

"And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” " - Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Murder.

A private citizen has no professional authority to back up their objection to a crime, (like the voice of a policeman), other than physical attributes. The gun to a private person is a symbol of power only. You made mention of the deterrent effect of the barrel sound as being part of the lethal mystique of a gun. An effect in a different realm to the bark of a spaniel or stabbing bread with a knife etc.

The protected status… it seems ‘sacredness’ of the gun, prevents it from being critically examined for it’s overall effects on the common good of the communities they are being used in in my opinion.

The Gun Culture has become a major US subculture, and the people heavily involved in it fail to recognize that it is an integral part of the Culture of Death – it belongs spiritually and emotionally to that Culture of Death, and is deeply opposed to the Civilization of Love that Paul VI first spoke of in the 1960s (the term that almost-St. John Paul II took up); a look at the gun magazines, the gun shows, and the fantasies that so many of the owners have (and I know from having known a number of them personally) all stem from the same mentality that produced the wars of the 20th century. But the advocates of the Gun Culture, like the advocates of Abortion Culture, keep everything focused on their personal rights and on the supposed ills that their exercise of this ‘right’ cures. It’s a spiritual evil; when a few weeks ago, the USCCB prayers included prayers that the sale of ammunition would be limited, a minor squall kicked up on Catholic radio and elsewhere.

It’s very sad. We need a lot of prayer to cure this ill because while it was not part of the national ethos when I was a child, it has been made so since by the revisionists of this subsection of the Culture of Death.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That’s where there seems to be gaps in the private gun ownership policy that are tragedies waiting to happen. With so many legalities, are people made to complete police standard training in gun carrying and discharging?

The Federal Government is not empowered to infringe on the ownership or possession of firearms. Therefore there are no requirements as to training. At the state and local level, governments may restrict certain types of firearms and impose training requirements for hunters and individuals who legally carry concealed handguns.

Americans are a law abiding and responsible people. Gun owners take their rights seriously. There are countless public and private training facilities offering firearms safety and law courses that are well attended.

The police and military must necessarily view their weapons as tools in service to their professions.

While that is true, the police and military receive less firearms training than most proficient private gun owners. Police Departments spend more time training officers in pursuit driving. communications and minority relations than firearms proficiency. An embarrassing number of officers do all they can to avoid regular qualifications.

Our military provides what is nothing more than familiarization training with firearms during basic training. More training time is spent on “Understanding the Cultural Differences of Our Enemies”, sexual harassment and the rights of all religions other than Christianity.

Their symbol of authority is a uniform or a badge, not the firearm they carry.

"And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” " - Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Murder.

St Thomas is right and very logical.

In some states, with proper permits and registrations, private citizens can own (and fire) modern artillery pieces. But the use of an anti-tank weapon to defend one’s home from a drug-crazed intruder would be absurd. Not only is the ammunition prohibitively expensive but collateral damage to one’s property has to be considered. American gun owners are more than willing to adhere to St Thomas.

A private citizen has no professional authority to back up their objection to a crime, (like the voice of a policeman), other than physical attributes. The gun to a private person is a symbol of power only.

I disagree.

The individual has a right, and in some cases a responsibility, to self defense.

The gun is not a symbol it is a tool or at least an “equalizer”.

“God didn’t make all men equal, Sam Colt did.”-- Old Wild West saying

The protected status… it seems ‘sacredness’ of the gun, prevents it from being critically examined for it’s overall effects on the common good of the communities they are being used in in my opinion.

Guns are not protected nor are they sacred. The RIGHT to keep and bear a gun is protected and sacred.

There is no reason for a critical examination of effects on the common good. America was founded on principals that place the individual above the community. Individual rights are sacrosanct.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Guns are not protected nor are they sacred. The RIGHT to keep and bear a gun is protected and sacred.

This is American Civil Religion, not Catholicism. Are you aware of that?

Christianity does not include the American Constitution among its Sacred Scripture. Rights to keep deadly weapons are not Sacred within Christianity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion

 

[_Abyssinia]

The rebuttal of Mother Jones, Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer, deals with only homicides from what I read. But Mother Jones includes homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths. Myth #5 is the primary issue for me, and something seems fishy with the rebuttal.

See hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/ for a literature review of increased suicides when a gun is present.

LOVE!

I have been doing some research and came across a website that noted this in the Harvard literature:

States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide.

hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use

So these states have overall suicide rates that are higher, not just suicide with guns. If those states have higher suicide rates in general, isn’t it a sad reality than gun-related suicides willl be higher in the states that have higher suicide rates in general? I am confused.

Sweden, with over twice as much gun ownership as neighboring Germany and a third more gun suicide, nevertheless has the lower overall suicide rate. Greece has nearly three times more gun ownership than the Czech Republic and somewhat more gun suicide, yet the overall Czech suicide rate is over 175% higher than the Greek rate. Spain has over 12 times more gun ownership than Poland, yet the latter’s overall suicide rate is more than double the former’s. Tragically, Finland has over 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia, and a great deal more gun‐related suicide. Estonia, however, turns out to have a much higher suicide rate than Finland overall.

law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

It does not look like in every country gun ownership is linked to an increase in suicide rate compared to countries that do not legalise guns.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I have been doing some research and came across a website that noted this in the Harvard literature:

hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use

So these states have overall suicide rates that are higher, not just suicide with guns. If those states have higher suicide rates in general, isn’t it a sad reality than gun-related suicides willl be higher in the states that have higher suicide rates in general? I am confused.

law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

It does not look like in every country gun ownership is linked to an increase in suicide rate compared to countries that do not legalise guns.

I believe that they did control for the overall suicide rates and incidences of mental illnesses.

Even after controlling for rates of attempted suicide, states with more guns had higher rates of suicide.

Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts

LOVE!

 

[Lost_Sheep]

For those of you who refuse to own a gun and would rather rely on the police for your protection, read this:

www.cnn.com/2014/04/16/us/colorado-woman-killed/index.html

 

[Robert_Sock]

For those of you who refuse to own a gun and would rather rely on the police for your protection, read this:

www.cnn.com/2014/04/16/us/colorado-woman-killed/index.html

But the reality of the tragic situation is that if there was no gun in the house, the wife would probably be alive!!!

LOVE!