J
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Most people would be more reasonable than that.How would this work? Do you put all the presidential candidates in a room, they all bring their big shiny guns, and the last one standing is the new president.
We shoot up the ballot boxes, and have a civil war instead, obviously the most powerful side gains control.
It might be a novel way to elect our new pope, give all the cardinals guns.
They are trying to put the second amendment into practice in Iraq and Syria, clearly, they are getting something wrong.
The American motto that describes how it would work the best is to "talk softly and carry a big stick’.
And Islamists need to be shot.
For certain some people who prefer to live under Islamist rule rather than to exercise such power. That of course is their choice, but their children will not have such a choice.
That could well be the future of (the formerly Great) Britian
J
JimmyG88
Guest
Brendan;13151423:
Their suicide rate is very high as is the rate of domestic homicide per capita partly because they have guns to hand. Guns aren’t a good thingJimmyG88;13151417:
We can try to make swimming safer and enjoyable. I don’t think the same can be said for lethal weaponry.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
JimmyG88;13151432:
Until ones saves your life…Brendan;13151423:
Guns aren’t a good thing
J
JimmyG88
Guest
JimmyG88;13151473:
The proliferation argument is fatuous always has been. A gun might ‘save your life’ until your child uses it to shoot the school bully. On and on it goes. Has gun ownership ever done anything other than increase the death rate. Your ‘right to bear arms’ should go along with the requirement to stop and think that less guns will always mean less people shotJimmyG88;13151432:
Until ones saves your life…
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Hoosier Daddy;13151695:
A gun is morally neutral. Like a car. It’s ability to be used in Holiness or evil is based in the intent of an animated soul and the body it belongs to.JimmyG88;13151473:
The proliferation argument is fatuous always has been. A gun might ‘save your life’ until your child uses it to shoot the school bully. On and on it goes. Has gun ownership ever done anything other than increase the death rate. Your ‘right to bear arms’ should go along with the requirement to stop and think that less guns will always mean less people shot
J
JimmyG88
Guest
JimmyG88;13151723:
I do know that. But it’s clear that people cannot be trusted with themHoosier Daddy;13151695:
A gun is morally neutral. Like a car. It’s ability to be used in Holiness or evil is based in the intent of an animated soul and the body it belongs to.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Hoosier Daddy;13151762:
Is it? Cars too? steak knives, neck ties, piano wires? objects used for mortal means are nothing new and nothing to be legislated into safety.JimmyG88;13151723:
I do know that. But it’s clear that people cannot be trusted with them
I live in the west. We hunt. It is part of life here. A 30-06 is a powerful hunting rifle with a long range. I have harvested an Elk (a very large animal) at about 400 yards. I can buy a 30-06 today with ammo at wal mart down the street. It’s sale is not regulated at all. But if I want a handgun I have to have a background check etc. Now I ask you. If my motives are Holy, To defend my self or my family. Or if my motives are evil, to kill a person and get away with it. Depending on the situation each gun can be the best tool for the job. Yet one of the tools anyone over 18 can buy and the other requires a waiting period, a background check and in some instances a training period. Why is one demonized and one not?
Or even why is an 30-06 ( an extremely accurate and powerful gun) and an uzzi ( an extremely inaccurate gun and not as powerful) treated differently? Even with the European confusion on the american fascination of guns most people readily give those rural dwellers of the US an Canada a pass on something that they give a head scratch for an urban person to own?
The other thing many Europeans do not understand is the legitimate need to defend this country with Guns. It was not too long ago that the government killed families in “raids”
Some people’s fears may seem outlandish but in reality may not be. There are parts of Chicago, and other big cities that I would wish to be armed in. For a Holy purpose.
J
JimmyG88
Guest
JimmyG88;13151766:
Don’t you think you should forget the past? It’s absurd unless you are suggesting you live in the Wild West and that you are living the life of a besieged hunter gathererHoosier Daddy;13151762:
Is it? Cars too? steak knives, neck ties, piano wires? objects used for mortal means are nothing new and nothing to be legislated into safety.
I live in the west. We hunt. It is part of life here. A 30-06 is a powerful hunting rifle with a long range. I have harvested an Elk (a very large animal) at about 400 yards. I can buy a 30-06 today with ammo at wal mart down the street. It’s sale is not regulated at all. But if I want a handgun I have to have a background check etc. Now I ask you. If my motives are Holy, To defend my self or my family. Or if my motives are evil, to kill a person and get away with it. Depending on the situation each gun can be the best tool for the job. Yet one of the tools anyone over 18 can buy and the other requires a waiting period, a background check and in some instances a training period. Why is one demonized and one not?
Or even why is an 30-06 ( an extremely accurate and powerful gun) and an uzzi ( an extremely inaccurate gun and not as powerful) treated differently? Even with the European confusion on the american fascination of guns most people readily give those rural dwellers of the US an Canada a pass on something that they give a head scratch for an urban person to own?
The other thing many Europeans do not understand is the legitimate need to defend this country with Guns. It was not too long ago that the government killed families in “raids”
Some people’s fears may seem outlandish but in reality may not be. There are parts of Chicago, and other big cities that I would wish to be armed in. For a Holy purpose.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Likely, Switzerland had never developed a well established gang culture, and it a much more ethnically homogeneous society than is the case for either UK or the America.Not factually true. Switzerland issues fully automatic assault rifles and ammunition to all men 18-42. When a man turns 42, he can purchase his assault rifle from the government.
Just about every house has military weaponry, and their crime rate is one of the lowest in Europe, substantially lower than that UK. So it would seem that if a country wants to lower it’s gun crime rate, the solution would be to give everyone assault rifles.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Democracy is about the people choosing the power they want by voting. I can understand the need for police and the military to have guns, but why would the general public need guns in a democracy?Material power - the option of force - being kept in the hands of the people does not necessitate them running around killing other members of society to impose their will, indeed that’s one of the things it prevents.
It necessitates governments (and other nasty persons) not having all of the power and control in the state, especially at the point where someone wants to violently repress/victimize people, destroy the rule of law etc.
We are commanded to love and pray for our neighbours and enemies too, how do you do that with a gun?
B
Brendan
Guest
You hit on a key point. In a democracy, it is the people who give power to the government. For the people to give the government power to use firearms, means, by definition, that the people themselves have that power. You cannot give to others what you do not have yourselfDemocracy is about the people choosing the power they want by voting.
The Police are very, very good at investigating a crime after it has happened, and then bringing the offender to Justice. What they are NOT good at is stopping the attack while it is in progress. They can only be in so many places at once. The common person maintain a defense for those situations where the police are not commonly, physically present. There is a statement that has a lot of factually truth “The seconds count, the police are just minutes away”. What is your solution for a person who is being violently attacked? Are they just to consent to the attack in the hopes that the police will eventually catch and arrest the attacker? Or are they permitted to offer a viable defense?I can understand the need for police and the military to have guns, but why would the general public need guns in a democracy?
It could equally be said, why to people have fire extinguisher, should putting our fires not be the responsibility of the fire department?
Does a policeman not have that same obligation, yet they carry guns? Is being a policeman thus a non-Christian act?We are commanded to love and pray for our neighbours and enemies too, how do you do that with a gun?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
When the solution to a problem is the death of another person, we have a serious obligation to temper our defense to keep it within the parameters of a pro-life action. A similar problem is with ectopic pregnancy. Directly targeting the child with an action primarily designed to kill can not be a solution. There are other measures primarily designed to save the ruptured fallopian tube that don’t target the baby, although as a secondary affect it will die. The question is whether arming oneself with an implement designed to kill another person in anticipation of a situation… is legitimate defense. There are other defensive measures that one can take as insurance against possibilities, that are created as defensive protection that don’t involve the certain death of the other person. This route works for the majority of other countries in the world so it is definitely not a delusional theory. That is because it is a pro-life option and choosing life is a great good for the community. It makes for a more neighbourly society because even though there will always be some measure of crime in any society, there is also trust, optimism and most of all… freedom from fear.The Police are very, very good at investigating a crime after it has happened, and then bringing the offender to Justice. What they are NOT good at is stopping the attack while it is in progress. They can only be in so many places at once. The common person maintain a defense for those situations where the police are not commonly, physically present. There is a statement that has a lot of factually truth “The seconds count, the police are just minutes away”. What is your solution for a person who is being violently attacked? Are they just to consent to the attack in the hopes that the police will eventually catch and arrest the attacker? Or are they permitted to offer a viable defense?
I feel weird having to explain the difference between extinguishers and guns. An extinguisher has more the nature of security doors and alarms or cameras. They are defensive measures to nip a situation in the bud. Guns kill people. At this point someones going to step in and say guns don’t kill people, people kill people. However, grenades and other weapons are illegal so at least someone somewhere in the US government realises that weapons need regulation depending on the colateral danger they present.It could equally be said, why to people have fire extinguisher, should putting our fires not be the responsibility of the fire department?
I’m not allowed to perform surgery on a person who has a disease. That is restricted to trained professionals who are bound by oaths in the performance of that duty. The reason that we bind these professionals to a proficient level of skill and loyalty to public service is to ensure the safety and fair treatment of all people equally. It’s in service to the common good and that’s the highest Christian principle of community life.Does a policeman not have that same obligation, yet they carry guns? Is being a policeman thus a non-Christian act?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
And the gun, being an inanimate object is not protected by natural law or natural rights. It’s a tool that serves a purpose and if its existence results in more harm than good for a community, its presence can no longer be protected by a man made constitution.A gun is morally neutral. Like a car. It’s ability to be used in Holiness or evil is based in the intent of an animated soul and the body it belongs to.
B
Brendan
Guest
When the solution to a problem is the death of another person, we have a serious obligation to temper our defense to keep it within the parameters of a pro-life action. A similar problem is with ectopic pregnancy.
Directly targeting the child with an action primarily designed to kill can not be a solution. There are other measures primarily designed to save the ruptured fallopian tube that don’t target the baby, although as a secondary affect it will die.
You have made that claim before, that there is a direct intent to cause death.The question is whether arming oneself with an implement designed to kill another person in anticipation of a situation… is legitimate defense. .
That is not the case, neither in the police nor in those that also carry firearms for defense.
Do you not think that a person who carries would be well please if the result is that the attacker is held at bay until the police arrive? Or secondarily, if the attacker flees at the sight of the gun. That is what happens in 98% of the cases of defensive uses of firearms.
If what your are claiming is true, those who defend themselves in such a way are not relieved that the crime was stopped, rather, that they were denied the chance to kill someone.
Which do you honestly believe is the case?
And if the attacker was stopped by the discharge of the firearm, and lay their unconscious and immobile, what do you think that either to police or the defender would consider to be the appropriate action.
If the intent is to actually KILL the attacker, then the intent has not been satisfied, the cop or the defender would then continue firing until the person was actually dead, not merely having the attack stopped. Is that the behavior that you expect from your police? Do they have an intent to kill when they use their gun, if so then you can expect them to place the gun to the head of the unconscious attacker and keep pulling the trigger. Correct.
Or are they satisfied that once the attacker no longer poses a threat, that an ambulance is called.
Heck, I was a military officer and never once instructed my troops that the intent was to kill. If the enemy was rendered ‘combat infective’ and taken prisoner, we were all fine with that. In fact we considered it to be the best situation possible. What would you think of a military that had an intent to kill, in that if the enemy surrendered, or was rendered in capable of attack, they were shot anyway? That is what having an intent to kill means.
So no. there is no intent to kill.
To use your ectopic pregnancy analogy, not only is the intent to not kill, but to save a life, the one is threating life is granted every access to health care after the threat to life is ended. That is actually probably more than is given to a embryo removed in surgery. And they have a far more likely rate of survival.
And finally, I would claim that arming oneselve with such an implement is clearly a legitimate defense, as the Pope himself does so with the Swiss Guard, as has been pointed out to you at several times
D
DavidLukenbill
Guest
In response to the primary question about bringing guns to church, I would say yes; guns should be allowed anywhere as the whole point of allowing citizens to arm themselves is to provide them the means to protect themselves and their families against the aggressor.
General public gun ownership certainly has its problems—which are sometimes manifested as evil—and we see them in America, but problems do not trump the fundamental right of human beings to defend themselves against evil.
The armed aggressor loves gun-free zones.
General public gun ownership certainly has its problems—which are sometimes manifested as evil—and we see them in America, but problems do not trump the fundamental right of human beings to defend themselves against evil.
The armed aggressor loves gun-free zones.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Private self defense has natural limitations that don’t apply to public servants who act on behalf of the common good. Aquinas makes that clear and it is the basis for the laws of western civilisation.You have made that claim before, that there is a direct intent to cause death.
That is not the case, neither in the police nor in those that also carry firearms for defense.
Do you not think that a person who carries would be well please if the result is that the attacker is held at bay until the police arrive? Or secondarily, if the attacker flees at the sight of the gun. That is what happens in 98% of the cases of defensive uses of firearms.
If what your are claiming is true, those who defend themselves in such a way are not relieved that the crime was stopped, rather, that they were denied the chance to kill someone.
Which do you honestly believe is the case?
And if the attacker was stopped by the discharge of the firearm, and lay their unconscious and immobile, what do you think that either to police or the defender would consider to be the appropriate action.
If the intent is to actually KILL the attacker, then the intent has not been satisfied, the cop or the defender would then continue firing until the person was actually dead, not merely having the attack stopped. Is that the behavior that you expect from your police? Do they have an intent to kill when they use their gun, if so then you can expect them to place the gun to the head of the unconscious attacker and keep pulling the trigger. Correct.
Or are they satisfied that once the attacker no longer poses a threat, that an ambulance is called.
Heck, I was a military officer and never once instructed my troops that the intent was to kill. If the enemy was rendered ‘combat infective’ and taken prisoner, we were all fine with that. In fact we considered it to be the best situation possible. What would you think of a military that had an intent to kill, in that if the enemy surrendered, or was rendered in capable of attack, they were shot anyway? That is what having an intent to kill means.
So no. there is no intent to kill.
To use your ectopic pregnancy analogy, not only is the intent to not kill, but to save a life, the one is threating life is granted every access to health care after the threat to life is ended. That is actually probably more than is given to a embryo removed in surgery. And they have a far more likely rate of survival.
And finally, I would claim that arming oneselve with such an implement is clearly a legitimate defense, as the Pope himself does so with the Swiss Guard, as has been pointed out to you at several times
"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), **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.’ -Summa Theologica “Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self defense”.
What we are addressing as far as regulation, is the ownership of guns by civilians for private self defense. That’s the problem issue. Not the role of police or military who are subject to strict guidelines in use of their weapon and trained in all the important aspects of armed defense from assessing situations to responding with calm under pressure. So there is no grounds to equate civilian gun users with commissioned public servants acting for the public good.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
… well as long as they continue to act in the public good.Private self defense has natural limitations that don’t apply to public servants who act on behalf of the common good. Aquinas makes that clear and it is the basis for the laws of western civilisation.
"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), **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.’ -Summa Theologica “Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self defense”.
What we are addressing as far as regulation, is the ownership of guns by civilians for private self defense. That’s the problem issue. Not the role of police or military who are subject to strict guidelines in use of their weapon and trained in all the important aspects of armed defense from assessing situations to responding with calm under pressure. So there is no grounds to equate civilian gun users with commissioned public servants acting for the public good.
However, police have no duty to protect any individual. They provide a service to the general public through the enforcement of law - but they do not protect individuals. In fact in the US-- that is the law, and under the law it is the individual’s responsibility to protect themselves. Realistically the courts have acknowledged that police can not be everywhere and can not be expected to prevent all attacks/crime against individuals.
If the individual has the responsibility, it is logical for the individual to have the means for self-defense.
It is an odd assertion to claim one should rely on an authority for protection when that authority denies having the responsibility at all. Or as the dissent put it in one case, Linda Riss vs The City of New York; where Riss lost her suit against the city for failing to protect her from attack from a boyfriend who had repeatedly threatened her, and from whom she’d repeatedly sought protection from the police:
“What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.”
ETA: While that is the law by precedent across the US (Warren vs DC; Ballesteri vs Pacifica PD; Gonzalez vs Castle Rock…etc. etc.) Some states go further in specifically stating they have no liability - for example California Government Code:
leginfo.ca.gov/.html/gov_table_of_contents.html
- Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
police protection service or, if police protection service is
provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
service.
… - Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to
retain an arrested person in custody.
B
Brendan
Guest
We covered that before, The Intent to kill is not present. when the State has the intent to kill.Private self defense has natural limitations that don’t apply to public servants who act on behalf of the common good. Aquinas makes that clear and it is the basis for the laws of western civilisation.
"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), **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.’ -Summa Theologica “Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self defense”.
What we are addressing as far as regulation, is the ownership of guns by civilians for private self defense. That’s the problem issue. Not the role of police or military who are subject to strict guidelines in use of their weapon and trained in all the important aspects of armed defense from assessing situations to responding with calm under pressure. So there is no grounds to equate civilian gun users with commissioned public servants acting for the public good.
The key words are
Do Australian police shoot deliberately shoot people that are wounded and unconscious?it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense
That would be intending to kill them, would it not?
Or is their intent when the fire something different?
Do you think that when the Swiss Guard strap on their handguns, that they go to work INTENDING on killing someone?
Does the very fact that a person, even a police officer, carries a gun, implies an INTENT to kill.
Or would the intent be to stop the crime? If the police officer uses the firearm to hold the person while they are handcuffed, did the police fail in their intent of drawing the firearm? Do you think that the police officer is disappointed that their intent to kill someone failed?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I did some googling regarding the cases you quote. It seems to be that the ruling was for the benefit of protecting the state from the abnormally litigious attitude that exists in the US… not to promote private gun ownership. It seems to me that the conundrum is created by the 2nd Amendment promotion of private gun ownership in the interests of the welfare of the state… but without enforcing the entity ‘a well regulated militia’… who would be a safety net for protection in a gun rich violent society. This is where this blackspot is causing so many problems and making US society look like hypocrits.… well as long as they continue to act in the public good.
However, police have no duty to protect any individual. They provide a service to the general public through the enforcement of law - but they do not protect individuals. In fact in the US-- that is the law, and under the law it is the individual’s responsibility to protect themselves. Realistically the courts have acknowledged that police can not be everywhere and can not be expected to prevent all attacks/crime against individuals.
If the individual has the responsibility, it is logical for the individual to have the means for self-defense.
It is an odd assertion to claim one should rely on an authority for protection when that authority denies having the responsibility at all. Or as the dissent put it in one case, Linda Riss vs The City of New York; where Riss lost her suit against the city for failing to protect her from attack from a boyfriend who had repeatedly threatened her, and from whom she’d repeatedly sought protection from the police:
“What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.”
ETA: While that is the law by precedent across the US (Warren vs DC; Ballesteri vs Pacifica PD; Gonzalez vs Castle Rock…etc. etc.) Some states go further in specifically stating they have no liability - for example California Government Code:
leginfo.ca.gov/.html/gov_table_of_contents.html
- Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
police protection service or, if police protection service is
provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
service.
…- Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to
retain an arrested person in custody.
When the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment promotes a lucrative gun market both legal and illegal… there needs to be a well thought out strategy for combating the inevitable fact of gun violence. If civilians genuinely identified as permanent ‘militia’ as defined by the constitution, it follows that more responsibility would be taken for the vulnerable than is actually the case. In the Linda Riss case I think she would have a much more accurate target for litigation in the gun owners of her city who fundamentally fail to fulfill their duties as a well regulated militia.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.