Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[LongingSoul]

Don’t believe a word about the fictional drop bears that fall on you from the trees and suck your blood dry before you can cry out. (They are only in the outback.)

Traiter!! Spoiling our best fun with the two wrists.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Guns are too associated with violence of one sort or another; let us forget guns, and seek the peace and wisdom of Christ. If you’re worried about protecting yourself, pray to your Guardian Angel! Trust in God!

LOVE!

 

[Melissa]

No one would claim that privately arming civilians with guns would actually reduce criminal use of handguns so what use would privately arming civilians be in relation to criminals?

Well, suppose you are a criminal. And suppose you really want to get money and think that robbing someone at gunpoint is a good way to achieve that goal. Now, if you know for a fact that there are no guns in your target area (let’s say the corner store–the store and anyone who happens to be inside)–no deterrence there.

Now, let’s suppose you are a criminal. And suppose you really want to get money and think that robbing someone at gunpoint is a good way to achieve that goal. But now either you know for a fact that someone in the corner store is going to also be armed with a gun. Or that you have no idea if that person perusing the candy aisle might haul out a gun if you make a move on the cashier.

Or this: Armed citizen stopped mall shooting

Yes, trust in God. But remember the story of the man who prayed for rescue from a flood?

A man was trapped in his house during a flood. He began praying to God to rescue him. He had a vision in his head of God’s hand reaching down from heaven and lifting him to safety. The water started to rise in his house. His neighbor urged him to leave, and offered him a ride to safety. The man yelled back, “I am waiting for God to save me.” The neighbor drove off in his pick-up truck.

The man continued to pray and hold onto his vision. As the water began rising in his house, he had to climb up to the roof. A boat came by with some people heading for safe ground. They yelled at the man to grab a rope they were ready to throw and take him to safety. He told them that he was waiting for God to save him. They shook their heads and moved on.

The man continued to pray, believing with all his heart that he would be saved by God. The flood waters continued to rise. A helicopter flew by and a voice came over a loudspeaker offering to lower a ladder and take him off the roof. The man waved the helicopter away, shouting back that he was waiting for God to save him. The helicopter left. The flooding water came over the roof and caught him up and swept him away. He drowned.

When he reached heaven and asked, “God, why did you not save me? I believed in you with all my heart. Why did you let me drown?”

God replied, “I sent you a pick-up truck, a boat and a helicopter and you refused all of them.”

Armed law-abiding citizens can be those means that God uses to protect other innocent lives.

 

[Brendan]

Okay. I believe the difference here is that you are not talking about weapons that are designed to kill other humans.

Interestingly enough, very few guns are actually designed to kill other human beings.
And those are generally in the hands of the military, sniper rifles.

Even assault rifles are designed for suppressive firepower and to render the target combat ineffective. The assault round used by the US Military (5.56mm), for example, was originally developed as a ‘varmint’ round,(Rem .223) for hunting possum, coyote and raccoon. It’s considered too underpowered to hunt deer with here in MI.

It’s advantages are that it is an accurate round ( has to be to hunt rabbit) and it’s small and light, so a solider can carry lots.
But that’s about it.

And then there are all the target and hunting firearms, that are designed to either punch holes in paper, or to hunt animals with. So, by definition, those are not designed to kill humans with either.

And even handguns, a decided claim can be made that they are designed for deterrence. The Clinton administration DoJ conducted a study that 98% of the civilian defensive uses of firearms did not involve the firearm actually being discharged. The presence of the firearms either dissuaded the criminal or the criminal was held at bay until police arrived.

 

[AnnieHall]

I really am undecided on the whole thing.

For starters, I think people do and should have the right to owning a gun. But, I also think that it’s a good idea to not allow the immediate purchase of a gun. Background checks and waiting periods are smart, in my opinion. Then again, that won’t stop a criminal from getting a gun. And, it is a good idea to be able to protect your family from an intruder. But, then again, it’s at least 5 times a year in my city alone that a story comes out of a child being killed in their home from an accidental firing of the gun either by a sibling or the parent or themselves, bless their heart. So you would have to keep your gun locked in a safe place. But then if someone breaks into your house, do you really have time to go to your safe, punch in the code, quietly remove the gun and defend yourself? It seems unlikely to me. But, they’re great and necessary for hunting and I fully support hunting. But does one necessarily need an assault weapon for any real reason? Well, I suppose for militia if the government were to take over and go corrupt. But, they’ll likely wipe out your militia army with drones or biochemical warfare which renders those assault rifles relatively useless.

…In other words, totally undecided.

Haha, you sound a lot like me when I try to wrap my head around what my opinions are on this matter! It’s a complicated issue for me as well.

I think everybody should be required to own a gun and keep it on them. Maybe that’s totally wrong, but everybody would be able to defend themselves, and if anybody pulled a gun on you, you’d have a gun, too. Rape rates would plummet.

I will say that I feel that I should have the right to NOT carry a gun, and still feel safe. I grew up in an area where plenty of people are hunters and go to shooting ranges, and where I live now, that is even more true. I don’t have a problem with people hunting of course (especially when they share their venison with me! ) but I don’t think I should HAVE to have the responsibility of a weapon - either by law or in order to feel safe in a public place. For me personally, I think I would be more anxious by knowing there was a gun in my apartment (even locked up) or on my person than I would being nervous about a potential attack and need to defend myself. I realize that I would go through training and need to feel confident in my skills, but in general, I think I’d be more worried about someone hitting me in the back of the head and stealing my gun than I would feel protected by carrying it. Which, of course, is why I don’t have one and don’t intend to have one.

I also feel like encouraging people to carry regularly, while it could decrease the likelihood of some crimes (rapes, robberies, people not feeling like “gun free zones” are easy targets, etc.) I think it could also increase the severity of other situations - I’m thinking along the lines of road rage being quickly elevated to a shoot out, or more situations like this one: abcnews.go.com/US/texting-triggers-movie-theater-shooting-retired-police-captain/story?id=21517988
I realize this is an isolated occurrence, and I don’t think it would be High Noon all over the place if more people carried, but I do think the more guns there are, the more likely it will be for people to lose their tempers and reach for their guns while being caught up in the moment.

Obviously there are benefits and consequences to both having more and fewer guns out there, but I tend to err on the side of keeping them at home/for hunting/at shooting ranges, etc.

 

[Captain_America]

FWIW, I’m confused as all heck by this “poll.”

WHAT does it mean to be “anti-gun”?

In many NON-URBAN parts of the United States, a gun can be considered a tool.

so. . .

IF you mean “anti-gun” being in favor of controls on guns specifically designed to shoot human beings, I’m in this group—although the fanaticism of many “anti-gun” righteous leaves me cold (bit a pun, eh?)

I’m “pro-gun” if you mean hunting and relevant cases connected to personal safety.

I just don’t see the issue here as being so durn STARK.

 

[signit]

I chose “other”. I am not a gun owner but I have been in the past and I hope to be again very soon. I am not sure I would call myself “pro-gun” but I am “pro 2nd amendment” and “pro gun ownership” and “pro concealed carry”.

I also don’t own a gun but I’m “pro-gun” in that I’m “pro-2nd amendment.”

I’m not convinced gun laws are the answer as criminals will get guns.

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, suppose you are a criminal. And suppose you really want to get money and think that robbing someone at gunpoint is a good way to achieve that goal. Now, if you know for a fact that there are no guns in your target area (let’s say the corner store–the store and anyone who happens to be inside)–no deterrence there.

Now, let’s suppose you are a criminal. And suppose you really want to get money and think that robbing someone at gunpoint is a good way to achieve that goal. But now either you know for a fact that someone in the corner store is going to also be armed with a gun. Or that you have no idea if that person perusing the candy aisle might haul out a gun if you make a move on the cashier.

Or this: Armed citizen stopped mall shooting

Yes, trust in God. But remember the story of the man who prayed for rescue from a flood?

But it doesn’t seem that anywhere in that reasoning is the desire to respect human life or hope for discouraging violence. Those should be valued high on the governments agenda for the common good of all. You’re saying that put guns in everybodies hands and when the robbers get bigger guns and use more violence, we get bigger weapons and just keep matching weapon for weapon. An arms race. When does it stop.

In countries that ban guns for self defense, this is the madness that seems so inevitable from a civil arms race. We go the other way. Get guns out of the communities altogether and leave them with the sporters, farmers and police. That way the robbers have limited access to weapons and when they do use guns in the commission of a crime, the penalties are hugely serious because nobody has the right to own a gun in town. That makes more difference to a criminal than you might think.

That’s the way we think when we contemplate being the victims of a crime. No one thinks they would be truly better off with a gun under their pillow.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=LongingSoul;11897775]Well the gubmint is the people. I live in Australia so not a dictatorship.

For now, and it’s good that AU has a conservative PM, but Muslim immigrant desires to overthrow the government and institute sharia law shouldn’t be overlooked, and I’ll warrant some AU secularists would join that out of sheer fear and political correctness that will go a long way in the West committing cultural suicide. :yup:

The pro gun voice is mainly young (and some older) redneck lads of the likes of Oscar Pistorius.

:tsktsk:

Such bad language.

Apart from that it is a dead issue and we sigh a collective sigh of relief that sense prevailed here.

I’m sure the immigrants who started riots as well as other criminal elements there also breathed a sigh of relief knowing it’s open season.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I believe criminals do not pay attention to speed limits or road rules either, but we still have them.

Thank you for reading
Josh

They also don’t pay attention to rape and theft. Should we repeal those laws, too?

By the logic in the previous post, should we should ban vehicles?

Gun control has proven not to work. Why legislate something that is against the common good?

 

[SuperLuigi]

No one would claim that privately arming civilians with guns would actually reduce criminal use of handguns so what use would privately arming civilians be in relation to criminals?

Most crimes are crimes of opportunity, and if resistance is encounter, the success rate of crimes goes down, and the more resistance or deterrence, the better.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Thanks for the information. But what may work in a township would be difficult, to say the least, in a large urban center such as New York City or Chicago.

No it wouldn’t. Chicago has lots of gun violence because of gun control.

 

[Eruvande]

I see the arguments for gun ownership in the US, but I’m still glad to be in the UK where it’s simply a non-issue in terms of whether or not we carry. Largely because I would be utterly terrified to have a gun in the house.

 

[LongingSoul]

For now, and it’s good that AU has a conservative PM, but Muslim immigrant desires to overthrow the government and institute sharia law shouldn’t be overlooked, and I’ll warrant some AU secularists would join that out of sheer fear and political correctness that will go a long way in the West committing cultural suicide. :yup:

One of the aspects of the western world that is undervalued by nature is national and international Intelligence. We do have trust in the resources available to the governments in keeping tabs on subversive activity. Sure there will be pockets trouble here and there, but hopefully they serve to keep people awake and alert. Arming people against the potential for subversive attacks is an over reaction. It does more harm than good to the community.

:tsktsk:

Such bad language

. I did not know that was bad language. Sorry.

I’m sure the immigrants who started riots as well as other criminal elements there also breathed a sigh of relief knowing it’s open season.

17 years of strict controls and it hasn’t happened yet. Most immigrants assimilate peacefully and actually appreciate the safe and peaceful environment for a change. Nobody seriously believes in a civil arms race to bring a better world.

 

[ringil]

I am not Pro-gun or anti-gun.

I guess I am anti- fully automatic weapon though- at least for civilians.

I am also for increased gun registration requirements. If someone wants a gun they should be willing to go through the steps to get one.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

My apologies, It’s my attempt at showing how weaponry is constantly advancing and becoming capable of more and more destructive power, so my question would be, If it were up to you RC Sojourner, may I ask, where would you darw the lines on gun control? may I ask what kind of gun control you would like to see if any?

What gun control I’d like to see? I mean, as you’ve alluded to, the government has nuclear weapons, and is already violating Catholic teaching in that regard. So… the only gun control I support is background checks… making sure guns don’t get into the hands of those who have mental problems, and also I believe it should be illegal for felons and ex-cons to have guns. Also, anyone who has ever been on a sexual predator list shouldn’t have a gun.

Everyone else that I can think of should be able to have firearms. No matter where they live. And they should be able to have handguns, shotguns, rifles, semi-automatic weapons, and fully automatic weapons.

josh987654321:

I agree, but I have heard many people say “Weapons don’t kill people, people kill people.” So may I ask why that defense wouldn’t work when it comes to neuclear weapons?

Yes, nuclear weapons kill indescriminately, which necessarily contradicts the moral law. Jus Ad Bellum could never allow for the use of nuclear weapons. Jus Ad Bellum, (Just War Theory), which is Catholic doctrine, accepts that war will involve the loss of innocent life, but it still sets a bar that the participants (if they want to follow Just War Theory) should try to limit the loss of innocent lives.

Nuclear weapons always violates those provisions of Jus Ad Bellum.

josh987654321:

I believe that not every man should have the right to keep and bear arms, because weaponry I believe is getting to the stage where some men should not have the right to weild that kind of destructive power, so I believe lines need to be drawn.

Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other. - Albert Camus

Yeah, I think I’ll stick to the Founding Fathers, before I start quoting the French

josh987654321:

May I ask what happens when people fear their very neighbours? I believe the government will fear the people so long as the people are the ones who decide who is in government.

Well, again, you’re the one who was so quick to point out that the government has nuclear weapons.

I don’t think there’s a way to codify fear into law. As a Catholic, I’m afraid of my neighbors. Most Americans hate the Catholic Church (or will very soon). What kind of laws will protect me? Most Americans use contraception, and hate the Catholic Church’s teaching on it… what am I supposed to do? Those are my neighbors, and I have no recourse. I have to live next to people who ridicule me for my Catholic faith. That’s just how life is.

Christ calls us to persevere in suffering.

josh987654321:

I tend not to think about it a great deal. But one thing is for sure, if war does break out again with the likes of WWII in this day and age, it will be something new altogether. I believe if war ever broke out among the neuclear world … heaven help us, we shouldn’t be in the mindset of ‘preparing’ for that, but rather ‘preventing’ that I believe.

I believe that’s why we are not living in dictatorships.

I mean, if we still had the weapon technology that Thomas Jefferson had in his day and age, than I would be all for the right for every American to keep and bear arms, but the weaponry is far too advanced for that nowdays I believe, the destructive capabilities of these weapons falling into the wrong hands are too great nowdays I believe, so with greater power comes greater responsibility I believe.

Just like the faster and more powerful vehicles become, the greater need there is for road rules.

Right… I’ll just address all of this. What I’m trying to say is this: Ok, you don’t believe our government is a tyranny yet, I don’t either.

But, if it were to become tryannical, it would have nuclear force. Your position seems to be: “well, resistance is futile, so why bother?” I mean, that’s just your opinion. There are a number of people on this thread who’s opinion is that they would want to resist that tyrannical state, even if they possessed nuclear weapons.

Should our freedom to own assault weapons, be tied to your personal belief that resistance is futile to such a tyranny? Because, that is the reason we’d want to own them. For the overthrow of the government.

By the way, that’s what the Declaration of Independence in our country explicitly says: “When any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is within the right of the people to alter or abolish it. And to institute new government as they see fit”.

Our right to bear arms wasn’t enshrined by the founders so we could go hunting, and skeet shooting. Also as Thomas Jefferson said, “Blood waters the tree of liberty”.
**
So, just to say that clearly: Our Right to bear arms was intended as a last resort, in order to violently overthrow the government, if it became tyrannical.**

 

[RC_Sojourner]

That was one of my points as well, OCG. It would have been more insightful, perhaps, to ask if we are pro- or anti- the right to keep and bear arms. However, I respect and thank the OP for creating this thread and hindsight is wonderful.

Hmm, well, I’d definitely have to agree with that. The gun is a tool which has been used throughout much of human history. I don’t think guns have been so politically charged until liberalism rose in the 1960s and such. I mean, in the frontier days, most people would’ve depended on guns, or their neighbors to have guns for protection.

And, all the way up to the 1950s many schools in the U.S. taught kids in gym class how to handle firearms (basically exactly how kids will sometimes still do archery in gym class).

So, yeah, I agree with you. But, unfortunately, people now are “pro gun” or “anti gun”… it is rather sad when you reflect on it…

 

[TEPO]

Blanket rules always reflect a lack of trust in others. This lack of trust stems from a lack of love -in seeing others as ‘cold’ who aren’t like ‘we’ are.

…but then again, a lot of people fall into statistics, and focus on what little Johnny or jimmy did last summer and abandon seeing the big picture. Personally, I’m not interested in statistics at all.

 

[FrDavid96]

… Personally, I’m not interested in statistics at all.

Neither are 99% of other people (myself included).

 

[Brendan]

I see the arguments for gun ownership in the US, but I’m still glad to be in the UK where it’s simply a non-issue in terms of whether or not we carry. Largely because I would be utterly terrified to have a gun in the house.

You are terrified of an inanimate object? That is a hallmark of an irrational fear. I don’t think national policies should be basis of an national policy.