10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

[Gary_Sheldrake]

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

Good Morning Lost Sheep: Your analysis of the outcomes in this situation is rather curious. Referencing the article you posted, the person died because there was in fact a gun in the house. If you would, could you elucidate a bit on how you came to the conclusion that it produced some benefit?

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Brendan]

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? .

Generally, in most US jurisdictions, the firearm practice requirements for Concealed Pistol License holders actually exceeds that of the police.

 

[Brendan]

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

LOVE!

Here are quite a number of people who are alive BECAUSE they had guns in the house
huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/detroit-homeowner-shooting-intruder_n_5128271.html

 

[Brendan]

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

That is true, but it DOES consider the right of Self Defense to be part of the Sacred Right to Life

For those who are responsible for others, such as parents, that is not just a Right but a DUTY

legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family, or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to
the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason

Pope John Paul II - Evangelicum Vitae

 

[Robert_Sock]

Here are quite a number of people who are alive BECAUSE they had guns in the house
huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/detroit-homeowner-shooting-intruder_n_5128271.html

We need to know the likelihood where guns are used to protect oneself from a violent crime versus where owning a gun results in homicide, suicide or accidental killing of the gun owner or some other innocent bystander.

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

LOVE!

 

[Lost_Sheep]

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

Not having a gun in the house only means that he could not have killed her with a gun. That’s all.

Good Morning Lost Sheep: Your analysis of the outcomes in this situation is rather curious. Referencing the article you posted, the person died because there was in fact a gun in the house. If you would, could you elucidate a bit on how you came to the conclusion that it produced some benefit?

The issue is not the gun per se. The issue is forgoing the means to protect yourself and expecting the police to protect you instead.

The woman called 911. After 13 minutes the police had still not arrived. The husband was hell-bent on killing her. If there had been no gun in the house, the husband could have used a kitchen knife or a baseball bat to kill her as well. If she had had a gun handy, she might still be alive and the husband would be dead. Suppose the husband had no weapon at all and just started beating her with his fists? Would you expect her to just take a pounding until the police got there?

My point is, you cannot always rely on law enforcement for personal defense.

 

[Brendan]

Not having a gun in the house only means that he could not have killed her with a gun. That’s all.
.

That was my thoughts as well. What would have prevented that person from killing his wife via other means. Choking, baseball bat, kitchen knife?

The woman would have most likely been killed regardless of the presence of a gun in the house

 

[Mark121359]

We need to know the likelihood where guns are used to protect oneself from a violent crime versus where owning a gun results in homicide, suicide or accidental killing of the gun owner or some other innocent bystander.

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

LOVE!

Robert, if you don’t mind me asking. Is it handguns you want to see banned or limited, or guns in general? Are you o,k, with people being allowed to hunt…and the firearms they use to hunt with?

Peace, Mark

 

[Robert_Sock]

probabilˈity noun (pl probabilˈities)

The quality of being probable, likelihood

The appearance of truth

That which is probable

The chance or likelihood of something happening

A measure of the likelihood of something occurring, expressed as a ratio of positive cases to total potential cases

LOVE!

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert, if you don’t mind me asking. Is it handguns you want to see banned or limited, or guns in general? Are you o,k, with people being allowed to hunt…and the firearms they use to hunt with?

Peace, Mark

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11901965&postcount=124

LOVE!

 

[Brendan]

probabilˈity noun (pl probabilˈities)

The quality of being probable, likelihood

The appearance of truth

That which is probable

The chance or likelihood of something happening

A measure of the likelihood of something occurring, expressed as a ratio of positive cases to total potential cases

LOVE!

Correct, which is why the woman would probably have been killed regardless of the presence of a gun.

The subtraction of one potential case (firearms) does not reduce the intent of the attacker. It simply eliminates the probability that a firearm would have been used, and increases the probability that another tool would be used.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

That’s what strikes non-Americans each time there is a mass shooting event reported… that the horror of the deaths is obscured by the defense of gun rights by a very vocal and forceful voice. There never seems to be any situation that warrants a serious re-think of the gun laws by that force.

God bless the USCCB and the other voices of reason.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Correct, which is why the woman would probably have been killed regardless of the presence of a gun.

The subtraction of one potential case (firearms) does not reduce the intent of the attacker. It simply eliminates the probability that a firearm would have been used, and increases the probability that another tool would be used.

^^^This

 

[Brendan]

^^^This

Exactly.

If a teen went into a liquor store with the intent of shoplifting some booze, the fact that the store did not stock Cutty Sark would not have prevented the teen from shoplifting Dewars instead.

The probability of a shoplifting occurring would have be substantially the same, regardless of the target object.

 

[Sochi]

All such assessments are anecdotal, but I’m not persuaded this is true. …
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.

Of course you have a point, Ridgerunner.

What kind of baffles me is that my post dropped what, for me, are some major bombshells about our culture, backed up by studies and numbers, and what you pick up on and run with is an opinion!

Honest to goodness, I think that between the fluoride in people’s water and toothpaste (it was used in concentration camps to pacify inmates and is classified as a neurotixin) and the general FOX “news”* corporate sponsored dumbing down, we are really in serious trouble, now that we know beyond a shadow that this Nation is in fact a functioning oligarchy.

*Anyone wishing to argue: read this and this and this It’s been going on for years!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I think it comes down to what culture we are brought up in, hunting or non-hunting. Non hunters are usually unfamiliar with guns and thus uncomfortable with them unless they become aquainted through military or police work.

 

[Faithdancer]

Truly interesting to juxtapose those two statements.

I have no idea what your “neck of the woods” is. In mine, there are undoubtedly more guns than people. Shooting is allowed anywhere in the county, but one rarely hears it except during deer season. Yes, there are people with 4WD trucks. That would include my son and most bankers around here. (Got to go inspect property and livestock, you know.). Some young men, and some young women do sport confederate flags, and there are Tea Party people (mostly professionals and business people…not a very scary crowd unless one fears one’s own dentist)

But the polarization is entirely political, and almost entirely contrived by the left. This is a very conservative part of the country, and people don’t appreciate being called things like “racist” when they aren’t. They don’t appreciate the derogation of marriage or being forced to pay for abortifacients. They know exactly what the liberal elites think of them as well.

And shootings are virtually nonexistent.

I wish more of California was like your area.

 

[DMC12]

You expect to tell people, “give me your weapons and love each other” ad that they actually do it. but that is not how things work. there is a way to stop violence, and is trough love and education.

I think i understand why are you so sad Robert, you want an utopia achieved by utopic means, and you get frustrated because none of them works. I would dare to say that your desire is blinding you of the beautiful stuff that this planet has. take some time off from wanting to change the world, just go out and see what is beautiful, meet people, have time for yourself, forget about the worlds problems for a while so when you get better you get to work in a best way, a tired worker does not works as well as a good rested one.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

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.

So no mandatory training in the legalities regarding ‘only shoot to kill’ rules or the type of stress response capabilities that police and military undergo mandatorily? There is no national standard of use but its up to each State to make their own rules. The gun culture is blinded to the lawlessness of it all. No where else would tolerate the volume of mass shootings without ever examining the role that guns play in that phenomenon.

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.

But doesn’t that sound crazy when you read it back? Being that you can only fire a shot to kill, why is it not imperitive to make training in negotiation and psychological tactics in the way the police are trained, mandatory to at least add to the sentiment that you intend to defend your life which may as a last resort result in a death… rather than you intend to kill to defend your life. That’s what a gun says from the outset. You aren’t allowed to shoot to wound or even brandish menacingly or you’ll be charged yourself, but you must kill when you take a shot. Your law requires that you kill if you use your gun. That is not the mentality that Aquinas was promoting at all.

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.

That really does explain a lot but its mindblowing to read.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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!

I am not sure that clarifies it. ‘Attemped suicide?’ The article said ‘overall suicide.’

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

There does not appear to be a correlation with gun ownership and suicide rates in some other countries, so it needs to be determined what the differences are in those countries, to America.