J
JamalChristophr
Guest
Quite creative…Hats off!
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
In Australia of course guns are not permitted for urban self defense and handguns are completely banned to civilians because of their nature for abuse. Farmers, hunters, sporting shooters and police and military are subject to strict conditions regarding their permitted weapons and anyone illegally possessing a firearm is hit by the full force of the law.
The Australian attitude towards guns and legal environment would definitely render the act of carrying or owning self defense weapons a violation of the limit of blameless self defense as per Aquinas…
"And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.”
This got lots of coverage in our news but I noticed that there was very little discussion on CAF or in US forums. It highlights the injustice of gun laws there. If the baby had shot me or my family in a Walmart… it would have been written off as a wee problem but as tourists we are prevented by your law from carrying weapons to defend ourselves on your shores. How unfair is that? If the law has resulted in massive numbers of guns in peoples handbags and coat pockets, surely it should also make sure that each person whose lives are equally valuable according to human and divine law should have the right to defend themselves? It is like your gun laws are built on the fundamental principle that only healthy, nationals lives are important. Anyone else is fair game.
W
WilT
Guest
Thanks for sharing.
W
WilT
Guest
fair enough. Still, if I see a gun I think death is but a bullet away.
W
WilT
Guest
Mexico can be a war zone.
W
WilT
Guest
Mexico doesn’t seem to be a Catholic country anymore. Too much violence against one another ClearWater
W
WilT
Guest
:bigyikes: really now!
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
The right to life that is central to Catholic belief means very little without the corollary right to defend that life along with the lives of those who cannot defend themselves such as the elderly, the very young and the unborn. That is what the Catechism cited above speaks to. The commandment that is usually spelled out “thou shalt not kill” makes a lot more sense when reworded as “thou shalt not murder”. Using the word “murder” instead of “kill” brings this commandment in line with the Catholic Catechism.
It is not a coincidence that nearly every mass shooting incident in the US has taken place in a gun-free zone; the typical mass shooter intentionally picks these places for maximum carnage effect, knowing that he can do a lot of shooting before law enforcement responds. Also, nearly every mass shooter has a history of psychotropic drug usage, which is something that the pro-gun control folks don’t want to talk about as they would rather just take our guns away than do the hard work of discussing the mentally ill in our midst, not to mention that the pharmaceutical companies definitely do not want to discuss this topic in public.
I don’t mind hearing from people who don’t own guns, that is fine, that is their decision. I just don’t want them taking that decision away from me. One should note that a necessary condition of every totalitarian regime that murdered many of its own citizens in the 20th century was either gun control or gun confiscation. Not saying that gun control or confiscation automatically leads to totalitarian regimes, just saying that one will find that every totalitarian regime has that much in common. It is instructive to read the history of the birth of the US, the situations that went on during that time, that led to the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, among others. For that history is still relevant to our times.
It is not a coincidence that nearly every mass shooting incident in the US has taken place in a gun-free zone; the typical mass shooter intentionally picks these places for maximum carnage effect, knowing that he can do a lot of shooting before law enforcement responds. Also, nearly every mass shooter has a history of psychotropic drug usage, which is something that the pro-gun control folks don’t want to talk about as they would rather just take our guns away than do the hard work of discussing the mentally ill in our midst, not to mention that the pharmaceutical companies definitely do not want to discuss this topic in public.
I don’t mind hearing from people who don’t own guns, that is fine, that is their decision. I just don’t want them taking that decision away from me. One should note that a necessary condition of every totalitarian regime that murdered many of its own citizens in the 20th century was either gun control or gun confiscation. Not saying that gun control or confiscation automatically leads to totalitarian regimes, just saying that one will find that every totalitarian regime has that much in common. It is instructive to read the history of the birth of the US, the situations that went on during that time, that led to the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, among others. For that history is still relevant to our times.
K
Kelfa28
Guest
When I met my husband I was pretty naive about weapons. I thought they were all bad and should be banned.
I also had never learned much about gun safety and general gun use and the amount of education one can have about weapons in general.
My husband has always had a fascination with weapons. It’s a hobby of his. He enjoyed studying different guns, going hunting and heading out the range to fire. He had been a very responsible gun owner since the age of 15.
I knew that dating him, and eventually marrying him, meant I would have to get comfortable with having a weapon in our house. So, I opted to get my own license to carry and take the required classes that come along with it.
My husband said it was far easier and safer to educate someone about weapons then it is to try to keep weapons from them.
Our weapon is kept locked up in a safe, without the mag, no round in the chamber and the safety on.
If someone ever tried to break into our house I wouldn’t have enough time to call 911 and wait for the cops to arrive. But I would have plenty of time to unlock the safe, put the mag in, chamber a round and take the safety off.
As a young mother whose husband used to work the night shift when we bought our new house…that was the kind of security I depended on for me and my baby (at the time).
Also, just to put it out there. I’ve seen a lot of people try to argue that a guard dog is a safer option then a weapon is.
I disagree on so many levels. Dogs have attacked owners, children and neighbors many times.
I can easily tell you I’m more nervous going out on a walk with my children and seeing an owner struggle with a big dog that starts barking and, even growling, at anyone that walks by.
Far more nervous then encountering a situation where someone draws a weapon.
Not to mention the fact that I can never own a dog due to severe allergies that effect my health.
I also had never learned much about gun safety and general gun use and the amount of education one can have about weapons in general.
My husband has always had a fascination with weapons. It’s a hobby of his. He enjoyed studying different guns, going hunting and heading out the range to fire. He had been a very responsible gun owner since the age of 15.
I knew that dating him, and eventually marrying him, meant I would have to get comfortable with having a weapon in our house. So, I opted to get my own license to carry and take the required classes that come along with it.
My husband said it was far easier and safer to educate someone about weapons then it is to try to keep weapons from them.
Our weapon is kept locked up in a safe, without the mag, no round in the chamber and the safety on.
If someone ever tried to break into our house I wouldn’t have enough time to call 911 and wait for the cops to arrive. But I would have plenty of time to unlock the safe, put the mag in, chamber a round and take the safety off.
As a young mother whose husband used to work the night shift when we bought our new house…that was the kind of security I depended on for me and my baby (at the time).
Also, just to put it out there. I’ve seen a lot of people try to argue that a guard dog is a safer option then a weapon is.
I disagree on so many levels. Dogs have attacked owners, children and neighbors many times.
I can easily tell you I’m more nervous going out on a walk with my children and seeing an owner struggle with a big dog that starts barking and, even growling, at anyone that walks by.
Far more nervous then encountering a situation where someone draws a weapon.
Not to mention the fact that I can never own a dog due to severe allergies that effect my health.
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
I can see both sides to the gun issue. But I don’t think it’s a moral issue. You just do whatever makes you feel safe. Obviously, most who own a gun are not going to misuse it, yet the wrong kind of person may easily have access to one, and that’s where the problem is. I myself, a woman alone, don’t feel I need a gun. I would just never have one. I’d just grab a knife from my kitchen drawer if there was someone in the house.
P
ProdigalSun
Guest
I’ve been around guns all my life. lots of them. I come from a large family where we all hunted and each had many different guns, Rifles mostly! Guns for hunting and target shooting and protectection. In all my life no one in my family has ever been harmed by a gun or used one to threaten anyone. Not one of the many guns owned by my family was every used in a robbery.
All of the guns owned and used by my family were used to put food on our table. They were also used for sport and entertainment.
Isnt it strange how our ideas have changed from an inanimate object being the problem and not so much the human who uses the gun. I find it almost laughable.
Cheers:thumbsup:
I
InigoMontoya
Guest
Simply stated, the protection of life, innocent life.
If you cannot grasp the notion of ones duty to protect life, innocent life, than it’s understandable that you can’t grasp or conceive with how it doesn’t conflict with our faith.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
That argument is only as good as an Americans legal right. In Australia and most other countries, ownership of weapons for self defense is seen as a condition of war only. It is seen as a measure beyond what is lawful in peacetime as per Thomas Aquinas explanation in Summa Theologica…
“Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. 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.”
I
InigoMontoya
Guest
Pardon, but it appears you may be placing a cultural spin on the matter. As even Aquinas acknowledges that it is morally lawful to repel force with force. Unfortunately outside of Australia and a few other nations which are exceptionally safe, there is a strong propensity that an assailant will be armed. Which in order to defend not just ones self, but the innocent and defenseless, will require force to be replied with force.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
But why is it that in some countries “there is a strong propensity that an assailant will be armed” and in others there is less likelihood of armed assailants?
I
InigoMontoya
Guest
Code:
That is certainly an issue worth exploring. Unfortunately, you may have to explain the relevancy to the current issue being discussed.
Yes, they are related. However an acknowledgement of such, as far as I forsee, only strengthens the account that in some places a firearm is the measure required to repel force.
E
Enkeli75
Guest
I don’t think religion comes into this question at all (or doesn’t have to).
When you live in a society highly influenced by criminality and guns every man should posses a natural instinct to protect their loved ones.
No, it’s not wrong it’s just human (nature), but it also depends on how you interpret the bible, and then I think it becomes a question of conscience.
The world we live in. Unfortunately, it has become a matter of survival.
When you live in a society highly influenced by criminality and guns every man should posses a natural instinct to protect their loved ones.
No, it’s not wrong it’s just human (nature), but it also depends on how you interpret the bible, and then I think it becomes a question of conscience.
The world we live in. Unfortunately, it has become a matter of survival.
E
Enkeli75
Guest
And in addition to my last post I would like to ask why FEAR God?
Isn’t your salvation already in your faith alone?
Isn’t your salvation already in your faith alone?
J
jimmy
Guest
It is a question of double effect. The intent isn’t to kill, but you use what ever force is necessary to defend yourself and those you love. And that might be deadly force.
America is different than every other country. The first right in America is the right to defend yourself and those you love. Everything else is dependent on that right. Society and govt are formed by individuals who gather together to form a bond. The individual precedes the community logically, and as a result he has rights that precede the formation of the community. The most basic of those is the right to self preservation or self defense. Everything else follows from that.
- Status