Evidence? Ok, why is it that the USA has the highest gun crime rate in the world? Do you believe that more guns in the hands of its citizens will go some way to diminishing this rate? If you do, I want to hear the argument.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
Yes, I do. If you put guns into the hands of people with proper safety training and temperament, gun crime will go down. Criminals are far less likely to pick on people when they’re afraid of having a gun pulled on them. Also, look to Wabrams’ post for the answer to your second question.
Moving on the the CCC passage: no, it does not mention the use of guns anywhere in the passage. That is because the church didn’t think it necessary to include a list of acceptable weapons with which to defend oneself. They would have singled out guns as unacceptable, just as they have singled out the death penalty for special treatment, distinct from all other penalties. Therefore I believe it was not the intent of the church to ban the use of guns, and that means that they are fair game for argument. On to the next topic.
Forgive me, I did not see your last post. At the time I wrote mine, I think only your reply to stanmaxkolbe was posted, or at least I did not see the other one. I am referring once again to your arguments about the catechism. It seems to me that you are equating guns apart from all other weapons as the place from which violent thought flows. Am I correct? This is not credible because of the fact that all other weapons are capable of doing the same thing as guns, and many things that are not guns are also capable of doing harm. I will refer to the hammer analogy. Also, I believe it has already been said here that more people are murdered, or at least attacked, in the US with knives than with guns. If someone really wants to kill another, the type of weapon probably will not stop them. They will probably not think about it any more if they used a knife than a gun.
Your arguments about paranoia: It appears you are shifting your argument. Do you defend that guns are the only weapon capable of causing this “paranoia?” Also, I would contend that this is not paranoia: it is just being prepared to defend oneself. There are, sadly, cities and places where one truly does need to be able to defend themselves, and I don’t think carrying a gun would be called paranoia. Out of at least the people I know who carry, including my father, the mindset is more one of “if anyone tries to hurt me, I’m ready.” Not even necessarily to kill, just to scare away, which is pretty feasible if you have a gun and your attacker doesn’t, or even if he does. Criminals will always be deterred by the possibility of an armed target, and this prevents that target becoming a victim. It is not paranoia, but sadly, sense in this fallen world we live in.
Your arguments about “evidence” and “better arguments”: If you do not defend that your argument is better, then you have conceded it. But on the substance of the “evidence” debate, you still have none of your own while saying that another does not. Even if he cannot claim to know the “vast majority of gun owners,” he still knows more than you even claim to do. He has myself, many others on this forum, and the residents of his town to back him up, while you have only your disturbing reaction to a gun used on a set. I defend that our evidence has more weight than your lack thereof. If the onus is on “those who believe in guns to defend their position,” we have.
And yes, freedom can be won through the barrel of a gun, by fending off violent oppressors. Please explain this argument further.
And yes, sorry if I sounded a bit hot-headed last night, but I do take this as somewhat of a personal affront. You have quite plainly suggested that I only like to shoot inanimate targets because I have some violent obsession with power. I would call that an insult, and also very much against church teaching. Who are we to judge the hearts of others?
).