A New Jersey man gets seven years for being a responsible gun owner!

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex246 said:
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.

Hi alex,
I never made the claim about “better” argument because it is not mine or yours to make. Your society already backs up your views; I am arguing against the use of guns because the vicious cycle must be broken.
I have already mentioned Nortern Ireland. This was once a state in the grip of armed violence. But talking, civilised reasoning, prevailed.

And yes, freedom can be won through the barrel of a gun, by fending off violent oppressors. Please explain this argument further.

**We were talking history. I pointed out about the ambivalent attitude in the USA towards the gun. On the one hand you are aghast at the level of gun crime and on the other you take pride in a history that was built upon guns. **

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?
Click to expand...
Where exactly did I suggest that you “have some violent obsession with power”?
And the question “Who are we to judge the hearts of others?” may be more profitably addressed to the various gun-loving anti-government groups in the USA.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
Sir_Knight said:
colmcille1,

I refer you to Luke 22:36-38 where Our Lord commanded His followers to purchase a sword even if they had to sell their cloak to do it. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equivalent of what a gun is today. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

Let us also not forget that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23 … clearly showing that being a pacifist was NOT pleasing to God and sometimes a sword or a gun is the correct response.
Click to expand...
Hi knight,
Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. Turned his life around, didn’t it?
God Bless you in your fears,
Colmcille.
 
Alex246 said:
while you have only your disturbing reaction to a gun used on a set. QUOTE]

Hi Alex,
I drew the distinction in that post. I said I experienced “power”. I then asked: what about someone with “blood lust”? The power is what a previous poster says distinguishes someone armed from someone unarmed. For example, a policeman and an unarmed burglar. That situation could turn bad or it may end peacefully. In a scenario where someone has “blood lust” he/she is not thinking straight and chances are he/she will blow your head off.
I have never experienced blood lust.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
Click to expand...
 
LDNCatholic said:
I think not

I believe Sir Knight was referring to King Saul, of the OT, not Saint Paul.
Click to expand...
Hi LDN,
This is true. He was referring to King Saul.
I, on the other hand, was referring to Paul to illustrate the point that a man can be converted away from blood lust.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
colmcille1 said:
Hi LDN,
This is true. He was referring to King Saul.
I, on the other hand, was referring to Paul to illustrate the point that a man can be converted away from blood lust.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
Click to expand...
Violence is not necessarily blood lust.

Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip.

Jesus was not bloodthirsty.
 
While I’m at it there are loads of Biblical figures whose violence was ordained by God Himself as necessary.

David slew Goliath.

Moses performed a miracle at God’s command that ended the lives of countless Egyptian soldiers.

Ehud assassinated a king.

Samson killed Philistines by the thousand.

God would not command people to do evil.
 
stanmaxkolbe said:
A New Jersey man gets seven years for being a responsible gun owner!!!

Man you won’t believe this?


The Article:
A New Jersey man gets seven years for being a responsible gun owner.

Sue Aitken called the police because she was worried about her son, Brian. She now lives with the guilt of knowing that her phone call is the reason Brian spent his 27th birthday in a New Jersey prison last month. If the state gets its way, he will be there for the next seven years.
Read rest of article:
reason.com/archives/2010/11/1…tkens-mistake/
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to sound insensitive but why on earth do you want to keep Guns?

Many studies have shown that having a gun in the house increases the rate of homicide AND suicide. So really people, as Catholics we are called to love our enemy and turn the other cheek. Not put a bullet between the eyes of our enemies :o So even an argument of keeping a gun for self-defence feels wrong.

But that is just my two cents. Didn’t mean to offend anyone.

God Bless 🙂
 
vz71 said:
OK, evidence that gun ownership causes crim rates to drop:
freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts
“Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia — Crime Rate Plummets”

Of course, this has already been pointed out in this thread.
Click to expand...
You asked for evidence for why Guns are bad to have in a home. Here is evidence that having a gun in the household increases the rate of Homicide and Suicide:-

Those who kept a gun in the house was 2.7 times more likely to be murdered by a family member or a close acquaintance compared to homes who do not own a gun.:

Kellerman, A.L. (1997) “Gunsmoke-changing public attitudes toward smoking and firearms”, American Journal of Public Health, 87, 910-912

Kellerman, A.L. (1993) “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home”, New England journal of medicine, 329, 1984-1991

**Those who kept a gun in the house were 5 times more likely to commit suicide compared to those who do not:-
**
Taubes, G. (1992) “Violence epidemiologists tests of hazards of gun ownership”, Science, 258, 213-215

Wintemute et al (1999), “Firearms and Suicide”
nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM200005183422014

Or to quote the words of David G. Myers & S. J. Spencer, ‘‘having a gun in the home has often meant the difference between a fight and a funeral or between suffering and suicide’’ (Social Psychology)

This also reminds me of Christ’s words,

“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” - Matthew 26:52

God Bless 🙂
 
Sir_Knight said:
Is that really the kind of world that you want to live in? Think about it.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force or fear of force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 120-pound policewoman on equal footing with a 300-pound criminal, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger. Without a gun to level the playing field, force and the fear of force does enter the equation and there is nothing separating us from uncivilized animals where the young and the strong dominate the weak and the old.**

Is that the kind of society that you want to live in where somebody younger / bigger / stronger can FORCE you to do their bidding?**
Click to expand...
Dear sir,

Considering your are a Knights of Columbus, I find this deeply disturbing.

The apostles of Christ were persecuted to death during their time. None of them took up the sword. None of them decided to level the playing field with the Roman Empire using a sword. But you do?

While it is noble to defend the helpless, but one should never live in fear of thy neighbour or with a notion of levelling the playing field against those that might be more powerful. You can’t truly love your neighbour when you are carrying a gun around.

I can understand if its your personal opinion, BUT I am sorry, that is simply not an acceptable Christian way of thinking.

(I also noticed you are missing Matthew 26:52 from your list of Bible quotes. It’s always good to know the full story 👍)

God Bless 🙂
 
Sir_Knight said:
A “grave” duty implies that the BEST means will be used to accomplish it – otherwise, it can not be considered a GRAVE duty. The BEST means of personal self defense is with a firearm. Period.

As to why someone would bring a gun to mass, because, our DUTY to protect ourselves does not stop at the church doors.
Click to expand...
You do not have “Legitimate Authority”. Legitimate Authority in the Catechism refers to Governments and law enforcement in this respect i.e. those with authority given by God.

You have to read the Catechism properly and the meaning of all the words. Not just the word “Grave” and stop there.

God Bless 🙂
 
Sir_Knight said:
colmcille1,

I refer you to Luke 22:36-38 where Our Lord commanded His followers to purchase a sword even if they had to sell their cloak to do it. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equivalent of what a gun is today. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

Let us also not forget that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23 … clearly showing that being a pacifist was NOT pleasing to God and sometimes a sword or a gun is the correct response.
Click to expand...
Another misinterpretation. God was displeased with Saul for NOT OBEYING HIS INSTRUCTIONS/COMMAND. Not because Saul didn’t like to use a sword. In fact, the stress is continuously laid on the word “OBEY”.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
You do not have “Legitimate Authority”. Legitimate Authority in the Catechism refers to Governments and law enforcement in this respect i.e. those with authority given by God.
Click to expand...
You think God gives authority to Governments and police? Big fan of King Louis of France, I bet. In reality, citizens of nations give authority to the government.
 
wabrams said:
You think God gives authority to Governments and police? Big fan of King Louis of France, I bet. In reality, citizens of nations give authority to the government.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Is that the same view you have about the Pope and the teaching magestirium of the church?

If the answer is no, then your point is useless. That is what the church teaches. So you either follow it’s infallible words or you are really not a Catholic.

So if your answer is yes, then at that point, you can believe in anything.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
Sigh. Is that the same view you have about the Pope and the teaching magestirium of the church?

If the answer is no, then your point is useless. That is what the church teaches. So you either follow it’s infallible words or you are really not a Catholic.

So if your answer is yes, then at that point, you can believe in anything.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
The Pope gets his authority from God; he is over a religion, not a government.

You have a lot of nerve twisting the Catechism to suit your agenda then telling someone that if they don’t agree with it, they are not really Catholic.
 
wabrams said:
The Pope gets his authority from God; he is over a religion, not a government.

You have a lot of nerve twisting the Catechism to suit your agenda then telling someone that if they don’t agree with it, they are not really Catholic.
Click to expand...
Aah you misunderstood.

I meant that the Catechism defines those with authority. It is the Catholic belief that no one can get authority unless they are blessed by God. So the Church teaches that governments do have authority in the case of defending it’s citizens.

So unless you state that the church teaching is false, for you to debate who this “authority” refers to is invalid. That was my point.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
Aah you misunderstood.

I meant that the Catechism defines those with authority. It is the Catholic belief that no one can get authority unless they are blessed by God. So the Church teaches that governments do have authority in the case of defending it’s citizens.

So unless you state that the church teaching is false, for you to debate who this “authority” refers to is invalid. That was my point.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. The Catechism doesn’t say that only a government has the duty to protect someone. Even here in the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no legal responsibility to protect anybody.

Second, it doesn’t say that those with authority must be blessed by God. My manager has authority over me at work; I do not believe it came from God.
 
Again, forgive me for paraphrasing. You consistently maintain that people love guns because of the power they give. I do not. I think that is an insult to responsible gun owners. We are also not paranoid.

Yes, the United States was founded by the gun. And we do have a high level of gun crime. However, there has been evidence brought forward clearly showing the correlation between less gun control and the decrease in violent crime. You have what appears to be, from my limited knowledge of the subject, a highly opinionated account of conflict between the British and Irish. Bring forth evidence to back up your claim, and I will consider it.

As to the “mindset” you are continuously talking about: in high school policy debate, there is a common argument called the Security Critique. It hinges on the idea that violence and war is solely caused by expecting a need to defend oneself. I believe this is your argument’s essence, am I correct? The argument I would make against that is this: the argument only works assuming ALL OF THE WORLD’S PEOPLE adopt this view, because otherwise, there are still those who would make “preemptive strikes,” so to speak, and ignite real conflict and cause real threats. Can you propose a way to reach this conclusion? If you can, I think many people would be interested, including myself.

As for the better or worse arguments, it most definitely is ours to determine that. If, by educated debate, we are not trying to determine whose opinion/argument is the better one, how would decisions ever be reached? I do not understand your opinion of debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top