M
mgrobertson79
Guest
I don’t mean to get off topic here, but that is a nice area. I was a truck driver for the last 3 years or so and have been through Allentown quite a few times going to NYC.
- Status
D
DL82
Guest
The issue with gun control is that, yes, criminals and gangs would still have guns, but the kids who take a gun in to school and shoot the place up are not usually career criminals, nor do they have any gang connections. If handguns were banned, then these people would not be able to get them. If handguns were banned, it would also aid citizens in reporting armed and dangerous people to the police, because you could assume that anybody who was armed on the street was dangerous.
Shotguns and rifles are useful for hunting and target practice, handguns are only for one purpose - killing other people - they also wouldn’t be of any use in taking on a professional army in the event of a totalitarian government taking over and the American people having to take back control. Handgun bullets are easily stopped by bullet-proof vests, to say nothing of tanks, APC’s and aircraft.
Britain banned handguns 15 years ago after the shootings at Dunblane primary school, we haven’t become a dictatorship, nor are we at the mercy of gun-toting gangs.
Shotguns and rifles are useful for hunting and target practice, handguns are only for one purpose - killing other people - they also wouldn’t be of any use in taking on a professional army in the event of a totalitarian government taking over and the American people having to take back control. Handgun bullets are easily stopped by bullet-proof vests, to say nothing of tanks, APC’s and aircraft.
Britain banned handguns 15 years ago after the shootings at Dunblane primary school, we haven’t become a dictatorship, nor are we at the mercy of gun-toting gangs.
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
Nor do you have any hope if a dictator should take control either. We actually can defend the freedom we won from England 230 years ago. I believe that if the civilians need to be disarmed, the police and military do as well. If everyone can’t own a firearm, then no one should be allowed to own a firearm. Then you would just be at the mercy of the criminals who would still get them.
Forget school shootings for a moment. The kids who were in possession of the firearms used in both the Columbine and VT(though not a kid)were in violation of an already existing law prohibiting the possession, forget purchasing for a moment, of a firearm. The issue here isn’t handguns or rifles or assault rifle(that seems to be a catchall now). The issue is people, including minors, illegally in possession of firearms. They have at that point already broken the law, making them criminals. What is going to make a criminal obey the law, another law? I don’t think that is the answer.
We know that criminals, including minors, will do what ever they have to do to obtain the tools needed to carry out their crimes. Whether this be a can of spray paint, a baseball bat or a gun. Do we stand by and let them commit these crime or do we defend ourselves? Though that is a personal question and can only be answered by each individual person, The Church says there are some who have a grave duty to protect, i.e. the police, teachers and other who are entrusted with the care of other people. How can anyone in light of this teaching allow such tragedies. Not only are the criminals responsible, but those whose job it was to protect and were unprepared.
It is ok if having no one in your charge, you decide not to defend yourself(i.e. turn the other cheek). This is the teaching of our Lord and many Saints. It does not include sacrificing the children to the criminals.
I must say that guns and kids do not mix, just look at the school shootings. They think they are toys and it is all a game, or worse. No laws will prevent kids from obtaining guns for nefarious reasons. Gangs still get kids addicted(at least in the US), so I figure they can still provide heat as well.
Mace works if you are not willing to own a gun, taser’s work as well. If you choose to lay down your life, may God bless you richly for it. If however your actions or lack thereof lead to the death of someone in your charge, then God have mercy on your soul.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Not really – mace is difficult to use under stress (more than one rape victim has maced herself) and its effectiveness is diminished by drugs and training (and yes, some criminals train to commit crimes.) Tasers and similar devices have problems as well – note that Rodney King was still fighting after being hit repeatedly with tasers.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Yep. I maced myself once trying to figure out how to use it and that wasn’t even under stressful conditions. A gun is much simplier to operate and it is more effective.
Yes, it is a beautiful area. Rolling hills & valleys as far as the eye can see. Early morning puffs of fog. Clear night skies with hundreds of stars. Yet only a few minutes drive from civilazation.
I
Iowa_Mike
Guest
DL82,
How are you cousin? I lived in your country for many years. Having done so gives me an appreciation for the differences in which the British and Americans view gun ownership.
In the United States over 80,000,000 people own guns. The idea that American’s will voluntarily give up their guns pure fantasy, it will never happen. Our culture is very different than yours and yours is changing rapidly. Today the biggest threat to security is radical Islamists. England has it’s share. These people aren’t going to invade your country with cannons, machine guns, etc. Many of these killers are already living in our neighborhoods and are intent on killing as many of us as possible. I believe an armed population is more important today than anytime in history.
Iowa Mike
F
Flopfoot
Guest
'Scuse my ignorance, but isn’t a mace an ancient weapon which is basically just a big metal club?
That’s a hell of a lot harder to use effectively (and hence protect yourself effectively with) than a gun.
Besides - how are you supposed to protect yourself against a gun, which has range, with a melee weapon?
Unless you have something like a +1 mace of throwing and returning - but that starts to cost a lot of gold pieces.
That’s a hell of a lot harder to use effectively (and hence protect yourself effectively with) than a gun.
Besides - how are you supposed to protect yourself against a gun, which has range, with a melee weapon?
Unless you have something like a +1 mace of throwing and returning - but that starts to cost a lot of gold pieces.
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
You obviously lead a sheltered life. It is also known as pepper spray. Oleoresin Capsicum I believe is the main ingredient. You spray it in an attackers eyes, which start to burn, and disable him. Police around here use it, in fact police across the US use it, along with the tasers.
For more info visit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace_%28spray%29
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Dante, Vern,
Boys, boys, boys, spit the sand outa yer mouths, and just focus on the topic (which has strayed considerably from the O.P. but no matter).
Vern, if you check out my post making an attempt to understand Dante’s position, then Dante’s response, which was mature and civil BTW, which clarified it a bit - you’ll find something worth responding to.
Dante has a point. And this is something worth discuss among gun owners. To illustrate the point, I will use an example, though this isn’t intended to put words into Dante’s mouth.
The CCC says you have a legitimate duty to self defense and the defense of those in your care. But the legitimacy hinges on a little six-letter word - intent. You cannot intend the death of your aggressor. You can deliberately deal a lethal blow, but it has to be entirely for the purpose of stopping the attack.
Suppose a guy has a gun, and knows how to use it, the CCC would certainly not condone that he go around throwing himself into self-defense situations. It would not be appropriate to arm yourself, and intentionally park your rice-burner outside a tavern with a line of Harleys in front and prance into the bar wearing pink tights and a rainbow sash. Then, when the smoke clears, claim, “it was legitimate self-defense!”
I think it probably would serve the folks like Dante well to read/hear discussion amongst gun owners about how to discern the fine nuances of legitimate self-defense and say a self-defense situation that was provoked.
Instead, I think Dante et.al. get the impression that we buy our guns, go to the shooting range and blast holes in humanesque sillhouettes with a big bare-teeth grin. And secretly hope for the day we get to “defend” ourselves.
Boys, boys, boys, spit the sand outa yer mouths, and just focus on the topic (which has strayed considerably from the O.P. but no matter).
Vern, if you check out my post making an attempt to understand Dante’s position, then Dante’s response, which was mature and civil BTW, which clarified it a bit - you’ll find something worth responding to.
Dante has a point. And this is something worth discuss among gun owners. To illustrate the point, I will use an example, though this isn’t intended to put words into Dante’s mouth.
The CCC says you have a legitimate duty to self defense and the defense of those in your care. But the legitimacy hinges on a little six-letter word - intent. You cannot intend the death of your aggressor. You can deliberately deal a lethal blow, but it has to be entirely for the purpose of stopping the attack.
Suppose a guy has a gun, and knows how to use it, the CCC would certainly not condone that he go around throwing himself into self-defense situations. It would not be appropriate to arm yourself, and intentionally park your rice-burner outside a tavern with a line of Harleys in front and prance into the bar wearing pink tights and a rainbow sash. Then, when the smoke clears, claim, “it was legitimate self-defense!”
I think it probably would serve the folks like Dante well to read/hear discussion amongst gun owners about how to discern the fine nuances of legitimate self-defense and say a self-defense situation that was provoked.
Instead, I think Dante et.al. get the impression that we buy our guns, go to the shooting range and blast holes in humanesque sillhouettes with a big bare-teeth grin. And secretly hope for the day we get to “defend” ourselves.
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Dante,
Yes, I will dare to challenge you on your stance to refuse to own/carry a gun.
If my child was entrusted to your care, and he/she died from such an attack, and had you been carrying a weapon you would have had ample opportunity to stop the attacker and save my son or daughter. You would have a lot of questions to answer for me.
There was a time, not to long ago, when it was plain and simple that it was every able bodied man’s DUTY to be capable of operating weaponry for the security of those around them. Yes, in some colonies before the War of Independence there were laws requiring gun ownership among males.
Yes, I will dare to challenge you on your stance to refuse to own/carry a gun.
If my child was entrusted to your care, and he/she died from such an attack, and had you been carrying a weapon you would have had ample opportunity to stop the attacker and save my son or daughter. You would have a lot of questions to answer for me.
There was a time, not to long ago, when it was plain and simple that it was every able bodied man’s DUTY to be capable of operating weaponry for the security of those around them. Yes, in some colonies before the War of Independence there were laws requiring gun ownership among males.
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Flat out not true. I live in an area where there are black bears and wolves. Just recently the DNR established a wolf cautionary zone where they do not recommend that you walk and especially don’t take your dogs for a walk, because the wolves are no longer intimidated by humans. A newspaper article reported that a man took his dogs out for a jog, one of the older dogs dropped back 50 feet, and that was enough. A pack of wolves attacked and killed this man’s pet right in front of his eyes.
Black bears are also opportunists and will kill anything they perceive as easy prey. Little kids would fall into the easy prey category. Black bears also like the same berry patch my children and I like. A revolver is so much easier to tote while I have a berry bucket in one hand and another hand free to pick berries.
And for the large part the revolver I own was purchase mainly to blast pop cans. It’s fun! Like playing golf - only better.
B
Brendan
Guest
Coyotes are making a strong rebound in Michigan. Many farmers I know carry handguns to handle these and other large varmits.
One other point, the round (bullet) used by the American M-16 assault rifle was originally devolped as a ‘varmit’ round to deal with large varmits. What is now called the 5.56mm NATO was originally the .223 Remington.
B
Brendan
Guest
F
Flopfoot
Guest
To say that we have the intent to kill when we buy a gun is like saying we intend for our house to be broken in to when we get insurance. A gun is the sort of thing you buy, planning to never use - so you don’t have the intention to kill or even have the intention to defend when you buy the gun - how can you intent for a situation to come up when you don’t plan for it to ever come up? A gun owner’s intentions may always be peaceful, and he only has the gun just in case. Then, when he does use it in a moment that is needed, his intention is defence. So nowhere along the line is he doing something wrong.
Oops, I think I just repeated what Black Jaque was saying, but in different words.
To mg - Ah, I have heard of pepper spray before, just never heard it called “mace” - maybe that term is not popular in Australia. Besides, I’m not a woman, so not as likely to carry pepper spray. What do you mean I ahve a sheltered life, though? Just because I live in the suburbs not the urban blight?
Oops, I think I just repeated what Black Jaque was saying, but in different words.
To mg - Ah, I have heard of pepper spray before, just never heard it called “mace” - maybe that term is not popular in Australia. Besides, I’m not a woman, so not as likely to carry pepper spray. What do you mean I ahve a sheltered life, though? Just because I live in the suburbs not the urban blight?
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Nah… You just translated it in Australian.
I would say that it is POSSIBLE for some gun owners to buy the gun with the hope of using it. Using my biker-bar analogy just to illustrate. Knowingly, and voluntarily walking headlong into self-defense situations isn’t legitimate.
But we agree, that it is possible to buy a gun with the hope of never having to use it on people. (Unlike smoke alarms, I fully intent to use every gun I purchase - just not on people)
R
rstegeman
Guest
I still have questions for those that are entirely opposed to guns and say that violence is never an answer. Are police wrong when they use their guns and/or tasers in violent situations? Were the Allied forces wrong in fighting the Axis powers? I am not trying to instigate a heated argument, I’m just curious as to your position on this.
While I agree that we live in a civilization that is increasingly willing to use some kind of violence as their only means of solution and that is extremely unfortunate. However, I believe that there are times when violence might be justifiable and required in defending your family.
While I agree that we live in a civilization that is increasingly willing to use some kind of violence as their only means of solution and that is extremely unfortunate. However, I believe that there are times when violence might be justifiable and required in defending your family.
F
FightingFat
Guest
I think that is the point that is made in the Catechism. It is not good, nice or in any way desireable, but there are times when good men have to stand up against the tide of violence and protect the innocent & those who are incapable of protecting themselves. They are commisioned to that purpose. I think that anyone would expect that to be the case.
The trouble is as Catholics, we should understand that God’s greatest work was done through surrender, through frailty, through love. Our greatest heros are people like Mother Teresa. We cry out against crimes like abortion. How are we to be heard if our philosophy pro-life is not consistant? If not every life is important? If some life is dispensible???
I
Iowa_Mike
Guest
I am a Catholic and hold that every life from conception through to natural death is precious. However, I think there is a risk on this forum of misunderstanding Catholic beliefs with regard to the use of guns in war and self-defense.
The RCC does not prohibit owning guns.
The RCC does not condemn just wars.
The RCC does not condemn the use of violence, including death, in defense of self or other innocents.
No one ever brings up the tens of thousands of times that guns are used to thwart crime.
Removal of guns from society, as England and Australia are sadly learning, has meant an increase in many kinds of crimes against the person.
From the Austrailian Bureau of Statistics:
In 1996 gun ownership was banned in Australia as a result of an incident in Port Authur where 35 people were shot to death. Since then:
Murder by Firearm as a % of total:
1996 - 17.8%
1997 - 31.7%
1998 - 23.4%
1999 - 18/1%
2000 - 19.0%
2001 - 16.0%
Other weapons:
1995 - 42.6%
1996 - 41.3%
1997 - 49.5%
1998 - 49.1%
1999 - 44.0%
2000 - 40.0%
2001 - 42.8%
Attempted Murder by firearm:
1995 - 26.7%
1996 - 31.0%
1997 - 28.3%
1998 - 19.4%
1999 - 31.5%
2000 - 30.5%
2001 - 28.8%
Murder attempts using other weapons increased from 47.7% to 51.5%.
Assault with firearm:
1995 - 0.7%
1996 - 0.6%
1997 - 0.7.%
1998 - 0.5%
1999 - 0.5%
2000 - 0.6%
2001 - 0.6%
Other weapons to commit assauts increased from 8.8% to 10.6%.
Sexual Assault using firearm
1995 - 0.2%
1996 - 0.1%
1997 - 0.2%
1998 - 0.2%
1999 - 0.2%
2000 - 0.2%
2001 - 0.2%
Kidnapping/abduction using firearm
1995 - 2.8%
1996 - 5.2%
1997 - 3.7%
1998 - 3.9%
1999 - 7.8%
2000 - 7.1%
2001 - 9.1%
It is interesting to note that the use of other weapons to commit this crime rose from 7.8% in 1995 to 12.4% in 2001.
Robbery using firearm
1995 - 10%
1996 - 9.6%
1997 - 10.3%
1998 - 8.0%
1999 - 6.4%
2000 - 5.7%
2001 - 6.3%
It is interesting to note that robberies committed using other weapons increased from 21.6% to 31.1% between 1995 - 2001.
I think the above statistics point to a couple of things:
- The reduction of gun related crime is almost non-existant. Murders by gun may have gone down slightly but other gun related crime rates have remained flat or have increased.
- The use of other weapons to commit crimes has sored.
- Overall crimes against the person have increased across the board.
Some famous sayings about the sixgun, “God Created Men But Sam Colt Made 'em Equal” and "Be Not Afraid Of Any Man No Matter What His Size. …
I simply don’t understand why anti-gun people are against a 130 lb person using a gun to protect themselves from a 250 lb assailant using any weapon!
Iowa Mike
F
FightingFat
Guest
Ever heard of the Nexus Mysteriorum Mike?
I
Iowa_Mike
Guest
- Status