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

[Sir_Knight]

The part that is false, if you interpreting it as God punishing Saul for the inability to use the sword. What actually happened was punishment for NOT OBEYING God.

And you need to stop ignoring the obvious that being a pacifist was displeasing to God and God turned His back on Saul.

You need to get your interpretations in line with rest of Scripture. As I am sure you are well aware as a Knight of Columbus, we interpret Scripture and Tradition in it’s entirety. No part may contradict the other. But your interpretation here contradicts God’s very nature.

My interpretations ARE in line not only with scripture but with the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

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 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

No you’re not offending anyone here; we are having a discussion.

You said studies? What studies?

 

[Sir_Knight]

First, did you bother to read the rest of that document you just cited? It says the following below.

“This is not an absolute right, since there are specific conditions placed on the licitness of the production, possession and acquisition of arms. Nonetheless, in our meeting today the topic is fairly limited. Here we are discussing illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. This is, in a manner of speaking, a negative statement of the fundamental question of the legitimacy of the international arms trade.”

And none of that changes the directive that we have a right and even a duty to defense with arms.

Secondly, please refer to my Post #111.

Academic studies have proved that you having a gun in the house is more detrimental to your family compared to those who do not.

Academic studies are flawed. Please explain why communities with the most restrictive guns laws also have the most gun violence?

So yes, if you are a responsible father, you would get that Gun out of your house.

Right. And if faced with a home invasion, which according to crime stats are on the rise, and I am overpowered by someone younger / bigger / stronger and unable to defend my family, how will I have fulfilled my DUTY as a husband and father to protect them?

Also, please answer the question, did the Apostles of Christ EVER take up the sword against the persecuting Roman Empire?

Christ’s mission was not to over throw the Roman Empire. If Christ did not intend for us to be well armed, why did He command His followers to purchase weapons even at the expense of selling their cloaks?

 

[Sir_Knight]

From what I gather, this posts is not referring to me?

And you are certainly correct. Authorities do need guns given the world condition. But if the gun was never invented and was not so common place among criminals, our authorities won’t need it either.

But if I may point out something about ‘‘evidence’’, please refer to my post #111. I have given academic sources to support the claim that Gun ownership in homes increase the likelihood of homicide and suicide.

God Bless

Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.270 For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:

• Four times more likely to burn to death or drown

• 17 times more likely to be poisoned

• 19 times more likely to fall

• And 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident

By your logic, a Father who has a gun is not responsible but a Father who takes his family for a ride where they are 53 TIMES more likely to die IS responsible?

 

[Sir_Knight]

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)

Fact: In 2001, there were only 65 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. About 11 times as many children die from drowning.

Fact: In 1993, there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm-related accidental deaths from ages 0-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1. Thus, the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500 times for ages 0-5.

Fact: Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year – the equivalent of almost three fully loaded Boeing 747 jet crashes per day – or about 286 times the rate of all accidental firearm deaths. This translates into 1 in 6 doctors causing an accidental death, and 1 in 56,666 gun owners.

Fact: Only 3% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all.

Fact: Around 2,000 patients each year – six per day – are accidentally killed or injured in hospitals by registered nurses.

 

[Sir_Knight]

From what I gather, this posts is not referring to me?

And you are certainly correct. Authorities do need guns given the world condition. But if the gun was never invented and was not so common place among criminals, our authorities won’t need it either.

Then what would stop the big and the strong from imposing their will on the small and the weak?

But if I may point out something about ‘‘evidence’’, please refer to my post #111. I have given academic sources to support the claim that Gun ownership in homes increase the likelihood of homicide and suicide.

Fact: 15 states that passed “safe storage” laws saw 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults in the first five years. On average, the annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and property losses. “The problem is, you see no decrease in either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides when such laws are enacted, but you do see an increase in crime rates.”

 

[ddarko]

I am reading what happened. If anyone has colored glasses on, then it would be you
Showing that taking up the swords is not always wrong.
Not all but is shows that it can apply to some when appropriate.
Have you received instructions from Christ to the contrary? Christ did instruct His followers to arm themselves with a sword – the equivalent of what a gun would be today.

Yes, I have received a command from Christ that contradicts your interpretation.

Ex: Matthew 26:52

I am sorry Sir Knight but I really think you are picking and choosing what you want to believe.

Jesus said that because Peter was attempting to stop Jesus from carrying out His mission – the MAIN reason why He came into this world.

This is obviously false. Then why does Jesus follow it up with

“for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

That doesn’t look like Jesus saying anything about his mission.

Let’s not forget that earlier, Jesus instructed them to buy swords if they did not have one even if they had to sell their cloaks to do so. Jesus, a strong supporter of the poor instructed them to sell their cloaks and not give the proceeds to the poor but to buy swords – showing that being well armed was more important than caring for the poor … keeping in mind that a sword has only ONE purpose – to be used as a weapon … either offensively or defensively. Jesus would not have commanded them to buy a weapon if He did not intend for them to use it – otherwise that would have been very wasteful.

Sure Jesus did say that. But your interpretation of this saying is obviously incorrect. If Jesus did indeed mean it the way you said it, then to tell Peter “if you take up the sword you will die with the sword” means Jesus is suffering from multiple personality disorder.

So the problem once again is with your interpretation of the passage. If you truly are interested, here is a passage that presents a correct interpretation.

ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/how-can-jesus-be-nonviolent-didnt-he-say-take-sword

So in short, while War is Just at times, God never tells us to live as if we are in war with our neighbour.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Then what would stop the big and the strong from imposing their will on the small and the weak?

Once again, without going in to some deep theological issue, how did you think the Roman Persecution of the Early Christians stopped? Did some Christian stick a sword in to Nero or any of the emperors?

Fact: 15 states that passed “safe storage” laws saw 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults in the first five years. On average, the annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and property losses. “The problem is, you see no decrease in either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides when such laws are enacted, but you do see an increase in crime rates.”

Did you read my Post #111?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Fact: In 2001, there were only 65 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. About 11 times as many children die from drowning.

Fact: In 1993, there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm-related accidental deaths from ages 0-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1. Thus, the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500 times for ages 0-5.

Fact: Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year – the equivalent of almost three fully loaded Boeing 747 jet crashes per day – or about 286 times the rate of all accidental firearm deaths. This translates into 1 in 6 doctors causing an accidental death, and 1 in 56,666 gun owners.

Fact: Only 3% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all.

Fact: Around 2,000 patients each year – six per day – are accidentally killed or injured in hospitals by registered nurses.

Well for your information, this is why those academic studies I cited involved two controlled groups.

What you just gave me were numbers which are totally useless. Those numbers you presented, for an example, with respect to medical accidents apply to gun holders and non-gun holders. So academically they reveal nothing.

The studies I refer to performed with a group that loves and own guns just like you and people that don’t. Then the results can be analyzed.

So in short, you just cited academically inconclusive results. Always rely on solid academic work.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Once again, without going in to some deep theological issue, how did you think the Roman Persecution of the Early Christians stopped? Did some Christian stick a sword in to Nero or any of the emperors?

Are you saying that we should just let violence happen to us? That is contrary to official church teaching.

Did you read my Post #111?

God Bless

I did and I provided data showing that the information which you posted to be flawed.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well for your information, this is why those academic studies I cited involved two controlled groups.

What you just gave me were numbers which are totally useless. Those numbers you presented, for an example, with respect to medical accidents apply to gun holders and non-gun holders. So academically they reveal nothing.

The studies I refer to performed with a group that loves and own guns just like you and people that don’t. Then the results can be analyzed.

So in short, you just cited academically inconclusive results. Always rely on solid academic work.

What I provided is actual raw data showing that every day common things are much more deadly than firearms.

Always rely on what actually happened instead of someone doing a study to prove a hidden agenda.

 

[ddarko]

Are you saying that we should just let violence happen to us? That is contrary to official church teaching.

No absolutely not. I am also not advocating a tooth for tooth type of mentality.

I am simply showing you that violence is not considered the JUST Christian response to violence. You and I first need to get this straight since you are under the impression that Christ taught to pick up a sword.

I did and I provided data showing that the information which you posted to be flawed.

Well unfortunately your information is inconclusive. Which is why no proper academic work would arrive at your conclusion. I explained why it is the case. Please let me know if its still not clear and I would be happy to clarify.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

What I provided is actual raw data showing that every day common things are much more deadly than firearms.

Always rely on what actually happened instead of someone doing a study to prove a hidden agenda.

Haha ok it appears that you are not very proficient in how empirical studies are performed to come up with conclusive results.

For a study, you need two control groups. One containing the variable under study and one that does not.

In this case the variable under study is gun ownership. So you need two groups, one that owns them and ones that don’t.

Then you see if the results show any statistical significance with respect to each other.

The studies you showed were simply number accumulations. They apply to those who own guns and don’t own guns. So the variable of gun ownership is not properly tested.

To see if owning guns do any extra harm or good, you first need to consider only two controlled groups. Otherwise the study is a failure.

This is just a basic description of how empirical studies are carried out but I hope it clarified things for you.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yes, I have received a command from Christ that contradicts your interpretation.

Ex: Matthew 26:52

Living by the sword refers to those who take things into their own hands – not to defending oneself or another innocent individual. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword because a few poor fishermen could not accomplish much even with swords on the night of his arrest.

I am sorry Sir Knight but I really think you are picking and choosing what you want to believe.

Funny, I see you as doing the same thing.

This is obviously false. Then why does Jesus follow it up with

“for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

That doesn’t look like Jesus saying anything about his mission.

Because, as I said above, Jesus knew that a few poor fishermen could not accomplish much even with swords on the night of his arrest.

Sure Jesus did say that. But your interpretation of this saying is obviously incorrect.

Then share with us the correct interpretation.Why would Jesus command His followers to buy something that could only be used as a weapon if He did not intend for it to be used? Would that be extremely wasteful?

If Jesus did indeed mean it the way you said it, then to tell Peter “if you take up the sword you will die with the sword” means Jesus is suffering from multiple personality disorder.

No, it means that you have misunderstood the meaning of the passage.

So the problem once again is with your interpretation of the passage. If you truly are interested, here is a passage that presents a correct interpretation.

ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/how-can-jesus-be-nonviolent-didnt-he-say-take-sword

The Apostles, who spent three years with Jesus understood Jesus to mean actual swords. The gospel passages were written many years later AFTER their minds were opened to the truth of the Gospel message and they STILL understood Jesus to refer to actual swords. That blows your interpretation completely out of the water on this one.

So in short, while War is Just at times, God never tells us to live as if we are in war with our neighbour.

Jesus does tell us that the strong man who is prepared for an attacker is in the better position. A gun puts an old man in a wheel chair on equal footing with a young gangbanger.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No absolutely not. I am also not advocating a tooth for tooth type of mentality.

And yet that is what God taught and Jesus clearly said that He did NOT come to abolish the old law,

I am simply showing you that violence is not considered the JUST Christian response to violence. You and I first need to get this straight since you are under the impression that Christ taught to pick up a sword.

Jesus DID instruct His followers to arm themselves with a weapon.

Well unfortunately your information is inconclusive. Which is why no proper academic work would arrive at your conclusion. I explained why it is the case. Please let me know if its still not clear and I would be happy to clarify.

I am drawing stats from actual government numbers. How is that inconclusive?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Haha ok it appears that you are not very proficient in how empirical studies are performed to come up with conclusive results.

For a study, you need two control groups. One containing the variable under study and one that does not.

In this case the variable under study is gun ownership. So you need two groups, one that owns them and ones that don’t.

Then you see if the results show any statistical significance with respect to each other.

The studies you showed were simply number accumulations. They apply to those who own guns and don’t own guns. So the variable of gun ownership is not properly tested.

To see if owning guns do any extra harm or good, you first need to consider only two controlled groups. Otherwise the study is a failure.

This is just a basic description of how empirical studies are carried out but I hope it clarified things for you.

God Bless

Controlled studies are just that “controlled” and the results are also “controlled”. What I have presented is what actually happened under one set of circumstances and what actually happened under a different set of circumstances. – clearly disproving the conclusions in your “controlled” study.

 

[ddarko]

Living by the sword refers to those who take things into their own hands – not to defending oneself or another innocent individual. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword because a few poor fishermen could not accomplish much even with swords on the night of his arrest.

My dear Sir, you are making me feel glad that I did not join the KoC.

What kind of poor biblical exegesis is this?

Christ said if you take up the sword you will die by the sword. That is the reason he gave. It wasn’t that, “Pete you are too tired and you guys are too weak, don’t fight it”

Funny, I see you as doing the same thing.

As I said to you once, I follow the Catholic Church’s interpretations. Not personal interpretation like you

Because, as I said above, Jesus knew that a few poor fishermen could not accomplish much even with swords on the night of his arrest.

Yea, joke of the day.

Then share with us the correct interpretation.Why would Jesus command His followers to buy something that could only be used as a weapon if He did not intend for it to be used? Would that be extremely wasteful?

I gave you a link to the correct interpretation. Don’t know how you missed it but here it is again:-

ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/how-can-jesus-be-nonviolent-didnt-he-say-take-sword

No, it means that you have misunderstood the meaning of the passage.

WHAT? I was just showing the inevitable conclusion of your incompetent exegesis. Now you tell me that I misunderstood the passage? I am not the person who was doing the exegesis there. You did??

The Apostles, who spent three years with Jesus understood Jesus to mean actual swords. The gospel passages were written many years later AFTER their minds were opened to the truth of the Gospel message and they STILL understood Jesus to refer to actual swords. That blows your interpretation completely out of the water on this one.

Ooooh, yes Sir Knight the theologian. I thought atheist were insane when they thought they got the Bible right

Jesus does tell us that the strong man who is prepared for an attacker is in the better position. A gun puts an old man in a wheel chair on equal footing with a young gangbanger.

Yea, thats definitely what Jesus said.

If you think that your theological exegesis is superior to that of the Church, no one can help you. The only shame is that you are a 4th degree Knight and call yourself a Catholic. That is certainly a disgrace.

God Help you!

 

[ddarko]

Controlled studies are just that “controlled” and the results are also “controlled”. What I have presented is what actually happened under one set of circumstances and what actually happened under a different set of circumstances. – clearly disproving the conclusions in your “controlled” study.

Sir Knight, in light of what you just wrote right here, I am going to have to stop arguing any further with you.

You just demonstrated blatant scientific ignorance and an inaptitude to understand empirical studies and their results. I for one do not know how to approach a man who does not understand Reason.

Someone else might be more capable.

May God guide you to see the light!

 

[Sir_Knight]

My dear Sir, you are making me feel glad that I did not join the KoC.

Maybe you should reconsider so that you can learn the error of your ways.

What kind of poor biblical exegesis is this?

The CORRECT kind.

Christ said if you take up the sword you will die by the sword. That is the reason he gave. It wasn’t that, “Pete you are too tired and you guys are too weak, don’t fight it”

You, again, have a complete misunderstanding of what it means to live by the sword.

As I said to you once, I follow the Catholic Church’s interpretations. Not personal interpretation like you

So when the Church tells us that we have a right and even a duty to self defense with arms and I support that and you argue against it, you are following the Church and I am not? Boy, are you confused.

Yea, joke of the day.

The joke is that you are following the Church when you are clearly opposing it and that I am using my personal interpretation when I am the one following the teaching of the Church.

I gave you a link to the correct interpretation. Don’t know how you missed it but here it is again:-

ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/how-can-jesus-be-nonviolent-didnt-he-say-take-sword

I saw it and I explained where the flaw in logic was.

WHAT? I was just showing the inevitable conclusion of your incompetent exegesis. Now you tell me that I misunderstood the passage? I am not the person who was doing the exegesis there. You did??

As I showed above, you are clearly the one who is confused.

Ooooh, yes Sir Knight the theologian. I thought atheist were insane when they thought they got the Bible right

I may not be a theologian, but I clearly have a better understanding of Church teaching on thi point than you do.

Yea, thats definitely what Jesus said.

If you think that your theological exegesis is superior to that of the Church, no one can help you. The only shame is that you are a 4th degree Knight and call yourself a Catholic. That is certainly a disgrace.

I never said that my opinions were superior to the Church. On the contrary, I have demonstrated that they are in keeping with Church teaching. And to pass judgement on someone else when it is your own understandings that are flawed is really shameful and reflect negtively upon you.

 

[ddarko]

I never said that my opinions were superior to the Church. On the contrary, I have demonstrated that they are in keeping with Church teaching. And to pass judgement on someone else when it is your own understandings that are flawed is really shameful and reflect negtively upon you.

I just had to reply to this.

The theological interpretation I gave you the link was of a Jesuits priests. You are telling me that YOUR interpretation is in keeping with the Church?

Please, get off your gun loving pedestal and open up your eyes. You are behaving in a way worse than some Atheist I’ve met. At least they understand the results of an empirical study

You will be in prayers. Good BYE!

God Bless