Bring guns to church?

[Brendan]

I in no way fear the soldiers of my country. (Unlike those members of the gun-culture who see everything governmental as the shadow of tyranny and seek to arm against it.)

Likewise ( I used to command some of them). But likewise, I do not fear those who have Concealed Pistol Permits. I see no reason to do so.

Because the country has not used conscription in two generations, those who attend basic training are the fittest (mentally and bodily) and most highminded of its youth.

I won’t go THAT far…as I mentioned I used to command a Company and was training officer for a Battalion.

They also know that they are held to a higher standard of conduct than are the masses and that severe consequences await those who violate that standard.

Severe consequences await those in civilian life who do wrong. The military is made of humans, from the same culture as any in civilian life.

I trust them much more than average citizens who seek killing ability in order to feel empowered.

That depends on how you define ‘empowered’. In the military, the police and the CPL holder is the same. It is the power to defend those over whom you have charge. In every case, I respect that call to power.

In fact, I think that if a course of military training were required to own a firearm, everybody would be better off.

Could be

And comparing soldiers to martial artists is apples and pebbles. Martial-arts hobbyists would take years to become lethally proficient.

ICXC NIKA.

Soldiery IS a martial art. Being a good solider is an art, and it certainly IS martial, by the very definition.

 

[roadsend]

Absolutely not! Guns have no place in any church. Our President is correct here.

Then, I suppose that “Our President” instructed his Secret Service detail to remain outside when he went into the church?

 

[Gorgias]

What many people see as being distorted is the type of love or lust for guns that sees people fight against regulation or any examination of the gun problems

That’s not at all what’s going on here; rather, that’s the distortion that people cling to, in terms of what they believe is going on here in America.

When Bradski started giving his proposals about how ‘gun control’ should work (that would counteract his understanding of what the situation is, here in the States), I responded with what really is already in place here. I noticed that, once I demonstrated that what he’s asking for is already here, there was no more commentary (except for an anecdote that a museum piece drove his countrymen into a frenzied lockdown.) I would ask only the same thing of you: knowing, now, what is in place in the U.S., I would ask that you be fair and stop characterizing the States as “love & lust for guns” and “lack of regulation”. There’s plenty of the latter here, thank you very much; and if you continue to insist there isn’t, then it will be clear that what you’re interested in isn’t solutions so much as proselytizing.

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s not at all what’s going on here; rather, that’s the distortion that people cling to, in terms of what they believe is going on here in America.

When Bradski started giving his proposals about how ‘gun control’ should work (that would counteract his understanding of what the situation is, here in the States), I responded with what really is already in place here. I noticed that, once I demonstrated that what he’s asking for is already here, there was no more commentary (except for an anecdote that a museum piece drove his countrymen into a frenzied lockdown.) I would ask only the same thing of you: knowing, now, what is in place in the U.S., I would ask that you be fair and stop characterizing the States as “love & lust for guns” and “lack of regulation”. There’s plenty of the latter here, thank you very much; and if you continue to insist there isn’t, then it will be clear that what you’re interested in isn’t solutions so much as proselytizing.

It would seem that you aren’t aware of the debate in the US regarding gun control? Loads of Americans believe that it is inadequate and want to address that inadequacy to reduce the number of crimes, injuries and deaths and the type of violent massacres that keep happening. There’s a strong belief of correlation between the sheer volume of guns in society and the amount of extreme gun related crime. The examination of that question is continually shut down by appeals to the 2ndA as protecting an inalienable right to gun ownership but when you read it carefully and in the context of the spirit it was drafted in… it’s obvious that it was meant to ensure ‘security of persons’ first and foremost. It stands to reason that if the security of the people is actually diminished by the presence of so many guns, the 2nd A cannot be legitimately invoked. The situation cries out for examination as potentially offensive to the actual spirit of the 2nd A.

 

[maryjk]

After living most of my life in the UK when there were no armed police on the streets, I came to Ireland, where now in some cities eg Limerick, we have Armed Response Units on call and now the debate re tasers. I had never seen a real gun in the flesh so to speak. One day I drove a friend to a town to bank and while I was waiting for her, the car was surrounded by armed soldiers… there was a cash delivery to the bank. I knew utter terror. The sight of the guns…shudder Happened many times if I was in a town at the wrong time and I never got used to it. .Hard to imagine a country where all this happens so often. One thought occurs ( and I have not read the whole trhead) that if folk carry weapons in the street would they have to hand them in at the church door? I think I have seen that in films? Thankfully I live very rural and yet see guns carried by hunters… yukk…someone posted on a forum a thread on airport police and after seeing the photos I do not think I will ever travel again!

I have lived in the US all of my adult life.

And the only time I was anywhere near “surrounded by armed soldiers” was when I was working at a bank, and someone pulled the alarm.

Yes, police responded. And yes, they were armed.

And no, no one that I know hands over their weapon when they walk into a church building.

 

[Brendan]

IAnd no, no one that I know hands over their weapon when they walk into a church building.

The Swiss Guard certainly do not. And yes, even the ceremonial ones carry handguns along with the halberds.

 

[Brendan]

There’s a strong belief of correlation between the sheer volume of guns in society and the amount of extreme gun related crime. .

Yes there is, and the statistics have shown it. But the relationship is an inverse one. Gun ownership has increased, more states allow for concealed carry, and crime rates have DROPPED.

The areas of the US that have loose gun restrictions have significantly less crime than those that have tighter gun restrictions.

 

[Gorgias]

It would seem that you aren’t aware of the debate in the US regarding gun control?

OK, then – Bradski expressed his ideas of what adequate ‘gun control’ might be. What is your proposed solution?

Loads of Americans believe that it is inadequate

Loads of Americans believe loads of things; that doesn’t imply that they’re necessarily right.

There’s a strong belief of correlation between the sheer volume of guns in society and the amount of extreme gun related crime.

Correlation does not imply causation. Even more so, belief in correlation does not imply correlation.

The examination of that question is continually shut down by appeals to the 2ndA as protecting an inalienable right to gun ownership but when you read it carefully and in the context of the spirit it was drafted in… it’s obvious that it was meant to ensure ‘security of persons’ first and foremost.

And in its context, it provided an unambiguous right to the ownership of firearms. Thank you for reminding us of this.

Therefore, unless you’re advocating that the U.S. modify its Constitution, then the question is really how we might increase the ‘security of persons’ while continuing to honor the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

It stands to reason that if the security of the people is actually diminished by the presence of so many guns

On the other hand, the ‘presence’ of guns does not reduce security; just as the ‘presence’ of cars on a new car lot does not increase the incidence of auto accidents. Rather, the improper and illegal use of guns might reduce security.

the 2nd A cannot be legitimately invoked.

That doesn’t stand to reason. The presence of fatal auto accidents does not argue for restricted auto ownership, but rather, it argues for a solution along the vector of the problem: unsafe use of automobiles.

 

[Hans_W]

But the point still remains. On any given street, there is a probability that someone has the ability to kill you. How much level of fear should there be. …

That’s the problem in your country. We don’t have this fear when we walk in the streets, simply because nobody carries a gun around.

 

[Brendan]

That’s the problem in your country. We don’t have this fear when we walk in the streets, simply because nobody carries a gun around.

That you know of. How many have chosen to violate the law? How would you know if someone on the street near you had a gun?

And even then, does someone have to carry a gun for others to be unsafe around them.

 

[Hans_W]

That you know of. How many have chosen to violate the law? How would you know if someone on the street near you had a gun?

You obviously can’t visualise a place where people don’t “carry”.

The man in the street is not allowed to possess a gun (unless he is a hunter). If he legally possesses a gun or pistol, he/she is not allowed to carry it around in the street.
Thirdly, people generally have no desire to walk around with a gun.

If somebody gets killed with a gun around here, it will definitely make the news headlines. It is almost always drug related.

And even then, does someone have to carry a gun for others to be unsafe around them.

If you frequent shady areas during the dark hours, a pepper spray should do the job.

 

[Brendan]

You obviously can’t visualise a place where people don’t “carry”.

I can visualize places where it is illegal to carry, and thus people who obey the law do not carry guns. But I also am unaware of areas where criminals do not have guns. And given that criminals are people too…

The man in the street is not allowed to possess a gun (unless he is a hunter). If he legally possesses a gun or pistol, he/she is not allowed to carry it around in the street.
Thirdly, people generally have no desire to walk around with a gun.

Once again, you are talking about people who choose to obey the law. What about people who do not? How do you know that

If somebody gets killed with a gun around here, it will definitely make the news headlines. It is almost always drug related.

Same here. But I though

If you frequent shady areas during the dark hours, a pepper spray should do the job.

And if one of those armed drug addicts that you mentioned above has a gun?

 

[Gorgias]

If you frequent shady areas during the dark hours, a pepper spray should do the job.

Appeal to his identity as an enlightened Aussie and remind him that it’s illegal to carry, apparently.

 

[BlueKnight]

God has an army in heaven.

Just one angel killed 185,000 Assyrians when the Assyrian king mocked the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.

Some ancient Prophets called down fire from heaven to consume their enemies.

I have nothing against guns, but don’t bring a gun to a Holy Ghost fight.

That is all I am saying.

Bk

 

[roadsend]

No need to argue this issue. Concealed carry permit holders carry legally in churches every day and no one knows or needs to know. Churches are sometimes in rough area of town and the option is to carry or leave it in your car. If some nut case with a gun or a machete shows up at your church with a machete, you will thank God for having a carry permit holder in the congregation.

 

[adrift]

A sister who taught me stated that United States was free and would remain free because of three things.

1. The education system that educated everyone
2. One language
3. The second amendment

 

[anthrogirl]

So my brother who went from sorta catholic to super southern Baptist was commenting on a post about the church shooting in SC saying this

“The President’s already trying to use this horrible event to pursue more gun control as he implied in his speech today. smh. You’re absolutely right John. I heard this kid ran out of ammo and had to reload. If someone there was exercising their 2nd amendment rights, they could have stopped this lunatic saved someone’s life. Probably their own”

So basically it sounds like he thinks people should have guns in church. Is this something that’s acceptable from a catholic stand point?

I know my archdiocese does not allow guns in its churches. I know that the Atlanta, Savannah and San Antonio dioceses ban them as well.

Realize that millions of people go to services over the weekend and 99.999% don’t get shot. So it’s highly unlikely you or any one else will get shot by a bad guy while at mass. We have seen, like this past Easter, an accidental misfire in a church. But even those are really rare since very few people go to services weaponized. As more people carry in churches, more accidents will happen. And we always have the possibility of the occasional racist or drunk or drugged or angry or jealous or mentally ill guy unloading his gun inside a church. There’s no way around it. It is what it is.

And don’t get caught up in the spin. It has nothing to do with gun free areas since only about 16% of US shootings happen in those zones (2014). That’s because most of these shootings happened in private homes and on private property where there were no restrictions on guns. This stat holds true even when you look at 4 or more deaths (mass shootings). So sitting in a gun free church does not increase your likelihood of getting shot.

The feeling out of the Vatican and the definite opinion of the USCCB is that the US should fix/improve its current gun control policies. And I would think more dioceses in the US currently do not allow guns in their churches than do. I’m not a betting person but I would take that bet.

 

[roadsend]

…
The feeling out of the Vatican and the definite opinion of the USCCB is that the US should fix/improve its current gun control policies. And I would think more dioceses in the US currently do not allow guns in their churches than do. I’m not a betting person but I would take that bet.

The “definite opinion of the USCCB” notwithstanding, various popes and bishops have been involved, sometimes deeply involved, in the political affairs of many nations over the centuries. Their opinions on political issues have sometimes been correct and sometimes wrong.
That said, I consider the bishops to be among the lessor experts regarding American 2nd Amendment issues.

 

[anthrogirl]

The “definite opinion of the USCCB” notwithstanding, various popes and bishops have been involved, sometimes deeply involved, in the political affairs of many nations over the centuries. Their opinions on political issues have sometimes been correct and sometimes wrong.
That said, I consider the bishops to be among the lessor experts regarding American 2nd Amendment issues.

Most political issues have social implications and gun control is one of them. Same with climate change and abortion rights. It’s great that our popes and bishops intercede in political issues in order to preserve the lives and dignity of God’s children. That’s their job.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Most political issues have social implications and gun control is one of them. Same with climate change and abortion rights. It’s great that our popes and bishops intercede in political issues in order to preserve the lives and dignity of God’s children. That’s their job.

Sure, the bishops are concerned about religious freedom, and right to life as they should be. I guess they just don’t have any respect for other rights given to us by God. The right to keep and bear arms is one of them. Too bad the US bishops have such little respect for the Constitution and Bill of rights as a whole. The bishops are concerned about cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what they believe or hold as truth from the Catholic Church. The bishops are doing the same thing with the Constitution and BOR. Call them cafeteria citizens.