Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[benjohnson]

Should we strive to make them equal in number, or should we eliminate what we can?

We should strive to make them equal: Zero.

However, I would say that it’s interesting that some of those that tend to rail against gun violence in America can seem to tend to not be so strident when it comes to abortion violence.

 

[Avdima]

I’m against any tool that provides the means of mass slaughter. But as long as that tool is out there, I’m against it being only in the hands of those in power.

So I am pro-gun, but I am also for citizens/people owning tanks, warplanes, bombs, cannons, subs.

 

[Gorgias]

Wow! What an active thread!

That really doesn’t equate (even though I have heard people say that a gun is insurance)…because the purpose of ‘insurance’ is to make people whole in the event of troubles. A gun is about gaining the upper hand over someone else.

A gun used in self-defense isn’t “about gaining the upper hand over someone else;” it’s about protecting lives against an aggressor who intends to threaten (or is threatening) lethal force. In other words, if one is in a situation in which one is at risk at being made hole, then his gun is about making him whole.

The gun is saying that anothers death is a fair and just response to their criminal intention towards me or my property. An individual is forbidden to make such a call.

As a direct intention? Agreed. As a response to lethal force? Not forbidden. See the reference from the CCC that was quoted, above.

You have the right to defend yourself with moderate force in order to make a blameless defense.

Sufficient force, not moderate force. In an extreme situation, moderate force is insufficient. Are you saying that only ‘moderate’ force is licit in defense when ‘immoderate’ force is being threatened?

To be pre armed with a weapon that is made to kill begs the question… does that form prior intent?

Interesting question. Do you have any citation from Church teaching that suggests that this is the case?

It is a given that we belong to God. We are made in His image and are His children.

In other words, there’s a counter-example to your assertion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Firstly, this is not a ‘my country verses your country’ conversation. That’s childish.

Yes it is, I’m glad you see this., however, I didn’t bring this up on the thread, apparently in your words the childish did. So who-ever bought up an Australia comparison or any other is childish or only when it seems to serve their purpose? Long as its a positive comparison and the US looks bad because of world love? Yes, I agree its Childish. And I see when the script is flipped its not appreciated now is it?

The US itself (and rightly so) has followed, conversed and even intervened in the affairs of many other nations perpetrating violations of universal human rights at one point or another.

Start a campaign for their human rights. Your soldiers fought in Vietnam with me, I don’t understand what your saying and we don’t want to be childish remember? Whats your point?

The culture of death is a global phenomenon and we are more intimately connected to and affected by each other than ever before. Global peace and prosperity depends on global unity and co-operation…

Between who? You’ll have to define the culture of death[in your words] and who “we” are and what “exactly” your idea of peace is, probably needs a good deal of elaboration since in recorded history its a fact statistically man is at war every 2-1/2 years. Safe to say its not stopping. Its a very good idea to be safe, you do agree? So how does this fact apply to your culture of death theory in application of your vision of reality, which is what btw?

Collateral damage implies tolerated death. Sacrifice of some lives so that others might live…

Like the USA Vets who fought for the US and are neglected to the tune of 22-suicides daily? Like those guys, because correctly understood they fought for the countries rights., including to bear arms.

It implies that the rights of some people are less applicable than the rights of others. .

So the Vets who indeed fought for the country are “less applicable” than others?

There are some campaigning for drugs to be legalised because everyone should have the right to choose. The fact that drugs will kill many people is irrelevant in light of the exalted ‘right of an individual’ to choose. Collateral damage.

So drugs companies are killing people intentionally and should be held responsible. It wouldn’t be to much to ask you to be more “specific” here would it? I know you would like to make this analogy work but I need to know “exactly” who and what your talking about. Thanks

In war, the more civilised emphasis on getting to an isolated target rather than in incendiary approach that used to be used sacrificing villages and whole groups. That sort of thing. The sense that something justifies the expendability of some people.

Oh now we are talking war, your rather all over the map here. Whats your war experience? And what exactly are you talking about, again is it an incident in Australian history bothering you, or what exactly are you saying?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s a baseless lie.

No, it is easily verified by statistics. More people are injured and killed by guns in their own house than are injured or killed by those protecting themselves.

 

[LongingSoul]

A gun used in self-defense isn’t “about gaining the upper hand over someone else;” it’s about protecting lives against an aggressor who intends to threaten (or is threatening) lethal force. In other words, if one is in a situation in which one is at risk at being made hole, then his gun is about making him whole.

So I understand that reasoning under warlike conditions. It’s like taking a pre emptive measure in the face of real threat by an idealogical enemy. Securing your position in readiness for iminent attack. But when we are not living in real warlike conditions… where the threat being cited is random crime. Where there is no discernable enemy to properly plan against… is mass gun ownership the appropriate response for either defense or healing?

Think about the cold war and the arms race. It was thought that being in a state of armed readiness would afford the countries a sense of security, however it did the complete opposite. There was no iminent threat so all the arms race achieved was a chronic state of high alert, suspicion and tension between nations and a constant fear of threat or an accident.

Sufficient force, not moderate force. In an extreme situation, moderate force is insufficient. Are you saying that only ‘moderate’ force is licit in defense when ‘immoderate’ force is being threatened?

When you are dealing with random crime, is there really a good way of assessing what a criminal is intendig or likely to do? Wouldn’t it mean, considering an individuals lack of expertise in crime response and criminal habits, that every act of crime is potentially a deadly situation. The Trayvon Martin case demonstrates that reality. Was the threat he posed one where a policeman or soldier would have shot him dead? Who can blame Zimmerman… he did exactly what his gun was for. But is that the best response to plan for? Is the common good served by this environment of cold war and civil arms race?

To be pre armed with a weapon that is made to kill begs the question… does that form prior intent?

Interesting question. Do you have any citation from Church teaching that suggests that this is the case?

Aquinas on self defense says… “it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.”

So soldiers and police arm themselved in expectation of killing in self defense in the line of their duties. Is an individual arming himself with the expectation of killing in self defense if he sees fit to do so, appealing to the authority granted only to soldiers and police?

 

[LongingSoul]

No, it is easily verified by statistics. More people are injured and killed by guns in their own house than are injured or killed by those protecting themselves.

I read a figure of 60 % of all gun deaths are from suicide. So while the gun murder rate was about 14 to 15,000… the actual gun death rate is more like 35,000 per year.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

We should strive to make them equal: Zero.

I agree, Ben.

However, I would say that it’s interesting that some of those that tend to rail against gun violence in America can seem to tend to not be so strident when it comes to abortion violence.

I am also curious that people who rail against abortion often seem to promote gun ownership and support the death penalty. In my opinion, the only defendable pro life platform is a ubiquitous pro life platform. “Some” life being sacred doesn’t cut it.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[LongingSoul]

and anti-drug laws don’t result in collateral damage?

I’m not sure what you mean? Restricting these sorts of drugs can only be good for everyone in the long run.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So I understand that reasoning under warlike conditions. It’s like taking a pre emptive measure in the face of real threat by an idealogical enemy. Securing your position in readiness for iminent attack. But when we are not living in real warlike conditions… where the threat being cited is random crime. Where there is no discernable enemy to properly plan against… is mass gun ownership the appropriate response for either defense or healing?

No response again by you, war is a statistical fact in recorded history every 2-1/2 years. So we are “always” living in this state. Its a reality, and its a reality we should acknowledge the truth or it automatically works against you. Let us not talk foolish and submit ourselves to a false sense of security which statistically speaking will not be coming.

Think about the cold war and the arms race. It was thought that being in a state of armed readiness would afford the countries a sense of security, however it did the complete opposite. There was no iminent threat so all the arms race achieved was a chronic state of high alert, suspicion and tension between nations and a constant fear of threat or an accident.

Thats right, and now we have madmen with nuclear weapons, bit late for the genie to go back in the bottle? So we have this “reality” to contend with.

When you are dealing with random crime, is there really a good way of assessing what a criminal is intendig or likely to do? Wouldn’t it mean, considering an individuals lack of expertise in crime response and criminal habits, that every act of crime is potentially a deadly situation. The Trayvon Martin case demonstrates that reality. Was the threat he posed one where a policeman or soldier would have shot him dead? Who can blame Zimmerman… he did exactly what his gun was for. But is that the best response to plan for? Is the common good served by this environment of cold war and civil arms race?

Addressed, you would like the read the intent of someones mind, you can read minds? Trayvon Martin isn’t indicative of but only the state which upholds “Stand your ground” Perhaps an example not so narrow minded would be more helpful? Your post also neclected required training. Your grasping at straws now.

Aquinas on self defense says… “it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.”

Addressed, no response. you convoluted “intent” and twice.

So soldiers and police arm themselved in expectation of killing in self defense in the line of their duties. Is an individual arming himself with the expectation of killing in self defense if he sees fit to do so, appealing to the authority granted only to soldiers and police?

This was answered with no response by you, and was above. Repetition without response does little for your position

 

[pnewton]

Do you realize how many rights, other than the right to privacy, that will violate?

I do not agree that it would violate any rights. I consider the right not to be slaughtered by a crazy guy with a gun pretty high. Already, one cannot enter a school without a criminal background check being run. All the people on the other end see is a “yes” or “no”.

I think this will come about as a common sense way of ending mass shootings by the mentally unstable. I think once it is possible, the vast majority will be in favor of it, except for the most extreme gun rights advocates.

 

[pnewton]

That’s a baseless lie.

Believe? So you’re guessing?
At least you didn’t say you knew it or that it’s a fact, because it’s not true and you’d be lying.

Lie? I think that word comes too easily from your lips. I do not think it means what you think it means, or else you have severe issues both in charity and the ability to discuss issues rationally. There is no need to perpetuate a pro-gun stereotype here. Most of us can discuss intelligently.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I read a figure of 60 % of all gun deaths are from suicide. So while the gun murder rate was about 14 to 15,000… the actual gun death rate is more like 35,000 per year.

I see no links, perhaps you were reading about Australia?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see no links, perhaps you were reading about Australia?

Here you go…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.chicagotribune.com%2F2013-01-18%2Fopinion%2Fchi-the-failure-of-gun-control-in-australia-20130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths&ei=7PaJU_-sK46ysAStxIH4CA&usg=AFQjCNFSKi8KuMbcxBoqM_dvfdSNsQX7SA

You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.

It’s true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect – but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn’t accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn’t budge. At most, they conclude “there may” – may – “have been a modest effect on homicide rates.”

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. “There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides,” they wrote.

Howard says the country has had no mass shootings since 1996. But mass shootings are such a tiny share of all homicides that any connection may be purely a matter of chance.

We learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban that modest gun control measures don’t work. What Australia suggests is that even if radical ones could be passed, they wouldn’t work either.

 

[GaryTaylor]

OH…I almost forget. Thomas Aquina’s -Australia and self defense.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSelf-defence_(Australia)&ei=2viJU-TlGcLLsASTzoKICA&usg=AFQjCNHyd4rd_0312I1E39t2CNlwhkIs5w

“full acquittal was achieved if the jury found that the accused had reasonably believed they were threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger.”

WOW!!! So what intent did the victim have who was found innocent? To survive when threatened with death or serious bodily harm?

LongingSoul perhaps you would care to elaborate on this moment by moment sequence and how this intent actually works in Australia according to you and St Thomas.

Wait, wait, in case you “missed” the US similiar situation…

“A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.-CT”

I’m sorry I fail to see what you are saying unless you apply a narrow minded paradigm which of course you have done? Care to elaborate, this time?

 

[dogen]

No, it is easily verified by statistics. More people are injured and killed by guns in their own house than are injured or killed by those protecting themselves.

Oh really? What statistics? The ones from that study by Kellermann, the liar?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle View Post
No, it is easily verified by statistics. More people are injured and killed by guns in their own house than are injured or killed by those protecting themselves. \

Reply from Dogen:

Oh really? What statistics? The ones from that study by Kellermann, the liar?

Good Afternoon Dogen:

-In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.

-73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

-Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

-Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

-In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

-From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.

-Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.

-Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.

-Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.

-White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2010.

-A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.

-Firearms were used in nearly 44% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2010

-More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.

-People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

-On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

A- federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.

My question is this: Why would a modern human with an average or even marginal IQ want to even play in this venue? I’m curious about that. The whole affair seems like an intelligence test to me. I wonder if it’s a sort of inbuilt evolutionary process. If so, I wonder if we should just let it take its course.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[benjohnson]

I am also curious that people who rail against abortion often seem to promote gun ownership and support the death penalty.

Where your correlation doesn’t quite hold in my estimation is that promoting gun ownership is entirely different than promoting violence - we only have the right to defend our loved ones from violence, and guns are just a reasonable tool for defense.

Just as the Bible verse “Lives by the sword, dies be by the sword” not “Owns a sword, dies by the sword”

 

[Annie39]

Reply from Dogen:

Good Afternoon Dogen:

-In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.

-73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

-Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

-Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

-In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

-From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.

-Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.

-Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.

-Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.

-White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2010.

-A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.

-Firearms were used in nearly 44% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2010

-More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.

-People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

-On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

A- federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.

My question is this: Why would a modern human with an average or even marginal IQ want to even play in this venue? I’m curious about that. The whole affair seems like an intelligence test to me. I wonder if it’s a sort of inbuilt evolutionary process. If so, I wonder if we should just let it take its course.

Thank you,
Gary

Would you tell me where you got those statistics and where I can read them?

Annie

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Would you tell me where you got those statistics and where I can read them?

Annie

-Nat’l Ctr. for Injury Prevention & Control, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

-U.S. Department of Defense, Statistical Information Analysis Division, Personnel & Military Casualty Statistics, U.S. Military Casualties in Southeast Asia: Vietnam Conflict – Casualty Summary As of May 16, 2008, at siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/vietnam.pdf (last visited Feb. 10, 2012);

-U.S. Department of Defense, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) U.S. Casualty Status, Fatalities as of: March 12, 2012, 10 a.m. EST, at defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf (last visited Feb. 10, 2012);

-Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael & David Hemenway, Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988-1997, 92 Am. J. Pub. Health 1988 (2002).

-David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 65 (2004).

-Garen J. Wintemute et al., Mortality Among Recent Purchasers of Handguns, 341 New Eng. J. Med. 1583, 1585 (Nov. 18, 1999).

-David C. Grossman, Donald T. Reay & Stephanie A. Baker, Self-inflicted & Unintentional Firearm Injuries Among Children & Adolescents: The Source of the Firearm, 153 Archives Pediatric & Adolescent Med. 875 (Aug. 1999), at archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/153/8/875.

-Matthew Miller & David Hemenway, The Relationship Between Firearms and Suicide: A Review of the Literature, 4 Aggression & Violent Behavior 59, 62-65 (1999) (summarizing the findings of multiple studies).

-U.S. General Accounting Office, Accidental Shootings: Many Deaths and Injuries Caused by Firearms Could Be Prevented 17 (Mar. 1991), at 161.203.16.4/d20t9/143619.pdf.

-Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence