L
LongingSoul
Guest
Sorry. I have that figure wrong. 88 per 100 people gun rate in the US. Percentage of global gun ownership is 45% attributable to the US.
- Status
T
twf
Guest
Yes, no one here in Canada carries guns (unless they hunt) and our gun laws are very restrictive…yet our homicide rate is far lower than the US’s and our cities are extremely safe by global standards. I would never entertain having a gun for self-defence and I don’t know anyone else who has either. I have never felt threatened anywhere in Canada, even in the poorer areas of major cities such as Vancouver or Toronto. Canadians find it very difficult to understand the American fascination with guns.
po18guy
Well-known member
Vastly different cultures. Vastly different histories. Common border and similar language, but otherwise like oil and water.
But, despite the crime rate (a function of false mercy at the cost of justice), as far back as WWII, Admiral Yamamoto feared invading America, as there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.
Further, being children of the media as we are, crimes prevented, or dangerous situations deterred by those who are prepared to defend themselves are virtually never reported.
If you check into those who like firearms, you will find that they also frequently like motorcycles, cameras and other mechanical objects. OK to be fascinated with those items, though.
po18guy
Well-known member
The OP’s concerns naturally being long lost in the inevitable tirades that fill such threads. Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one! Simple.
A little insight for those living outside (and inside) of the US. The American police do not have to protect you. You have no right, as an individual, to police protection. Actual court ruling. The police are responsible only for the general welfare of the citizens they serve. Yet, as we saw in Seattle, Kristopher Kime was murdered by an angry mob while the police who were present did nothing. Of course, Kris held the unfortunate status of being an individual.
A little insight for those living outside (and inside) of the US. The American police do not have to protect you. You have no right, as an individual, to police protection. Actual court ruling. The police are responsible only for the general welfare of the citizens they serve. Yet, as we saw in Seattle, Kristopher Kime was murdered by an angry mob while the police who were present did nothing. Of course, Kris held the unfortunate status of being an individual.
A
Adamski
Guest
Knights carried their swords to protect the weak I will carry a gun.
E
esieffe
Guest
Some jobs put us at risk of becoming a victim, such as a real estate person, or a retail manager. Ladies who travel, say in sales, also can be at higher risk, especially if they travel in areas they are not familiar with. I think for them especially a firearm would be worth considering. Others might choose pepper spray. It is a very personal decision and should be decided on a case per case basis.
It is VERY important to take classes in a shooting range if you do own the gun. Why? Because if a life or death situation does come up, you need to already be comfortable with handling the gun. If you pull it out, and are afraid or not prepared to use it, then you are better off not having one. If you hesitate, the gun can and likely will be taken away from you in many cases.
So the rule of thumb is, no classes, no gun.
I own one and a shotgun. I don’t like them, but I have used both extensively in years gone by at ranges and in the country target shooting. I have a revolver so I don’t have to maintain it. I oiled it up and threw it in a drawer. That’s it. There is risk having one and not having one. You just have to know yourself, and be willing to minimize the risks.
Strong doubts of fears? Don’t buy one. Try one out at a range. They will let you do this.
I am addressing all CAF users here, not just the OP.
It is VERY important to take classes in a shooting range if you do own the gun. Why? Because if a life or death situation does come up, you need to already be comfortable with handling the gun. If you pull it out, and are afraid or not prepared to use it, then you are better off not having one. If you hesitate, the gun can and likely will be taken away from you in many cases.
So the rule of thumb is, no classes, no gun.
I own one and a shotgun. I don’t like them, but I have used both extensively in years gone by at ranges and in the country target shooting. I have a revolver so I don’t have to maintain it. I oiled it up and threw it in a drawer. That’s it. There is risk having one and not having one. You just have to know yourself, and be willing to minimize the risks.
Strong doubts of fears? Don’t buy one. Try one out at a range. They will let you do this.
I am addressing all CAF users here, not just the OP.
J
JHow
Guest
Self defense is not the same as war. Correlation is not causation. Flies don’t cause garbage.
C
CatholiqueCajun
Guest
Hi
Carrying a gun is no more a sin that carrying a baseball bat or pocket knife. It is the intent of what you plan to do with that items that determines if it is a sin are not. If you are angry or planning to use that item to harm or rob someone it is a sin. Carrying the a weapon to defend your self or someone else for harm is not a sin. In defending another we are obviously prepared to lay our life down for them.
Guns get a bad rap because of the publicity. After decades as an ER nurse, I have seen just as many non-gun weapons used against other (baseball bats, boards, kitchen knives, ropes, etc.).
It lies in the intent of what the person carrying the weapon wants to accomplish.
God Bless
Carrying a gun is no more a sin that carrying a baseball bat or pocket knife. It is the intent of what you plan to do with that items that determines if it is a sin are not. If you are angry or planning to use that item to harm or rob someone it is a sin. Carrying the a weapon to defend your self or someone else for harm is not a sin. In defending another we are obviously prepared to lay our life down for them.
Guns get a bad rap because of the publicity. After decades as an ER nurse, I have seen just as many non-gun weapons used against other (baseball bats, boards, kitchen knives, ropes, etc.).
It lies in the intent of what the person carrying the weapon wants to accomplish.
God Bless
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Is this quote from the catechism, Australian law or what?
And how much is “more than necessary”? How does one quantify this?
C
CatholiqueCajun
Guest
Hi,
I think that in order to define more than necessary, necessary has to be defined. In the Application of force in terms of self defense, is the minimal amount of force needed to compel the offender or aggressor to stop or prevent their offensive actions. It also should be applied to what a reasonable person would consider to be offensive or aggressive. Realize that when a person is confronted with a hostile situation, they only have seconds to chose a course of action. Sometimes you can run; sometimes there is no where to go. The person being offended has to make a decision that may affect them for the rest of their life. More that necessary is obviously more than the minimal and no two situations are the same. The amount of necessary is not going to be number on a scale.
God Bless
I think that in order to define more than necessary, necessary has to be defined. In the Application of force in terms of self defense, is the minimal amount of force needed to compel the offender or aggressor to stop or prevent their offensive actions. It also should be applied to what a reasonable person would consider to be offensive or aggressive. Realize that when a person is confronted with a hostile situation, they only have seconds to chose a course of action. Sometimes you can run; sometimes there is no where to go. The person being offended has to make a decision that may affect them for the rest of their life. More that necessary is obviously more than the minimal and no two situations are the same. The amount of necessary is not going to be number on a scale.
God Bless
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Well, this may bother some people but if I was in a situation where I felt my life )or my loved one’s lives) was threatened, I would take whatever action is necessary to kill that person. That’s the only way to ensure they won’t kill me.
C
CatholiqueCajun
Guest
I agree with you Lost Sheep. I will do what needs to be done to eliminate the threat. If it means taking a life then that is what I will do to protect myself or my family, and anyone else if needed. But I will also pray for them afterwards.
God Bless
God Bless
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
I would see no point in that. If they were attempting to kill me they would die in a state of mortal sin and would most likely be residing in the Hot Place.
P
pnewton
Guest
First, I will say that this is not an issue that there is a right or wrong answer that fits everyone every where. I am trained with a handgun and have to stay proficient. Most everyone around me is armed most of the time. It is in the mindset here. Yet I do not carry a weapon. I view guns as a good tool that can be used by a knowledgeable person for the good. However, it is also a very limited tool. It has one purpose. Once used, it’s use can not be recalled. As I have other tools that I believe to be more flexible, I choose to not carry a gun and rely on other methods of self-defense. In my case, on balance, no gun is the safest option.
I would suggest anyone that does carry a gun absolutely avoid any confrontation and always back down. Stand your own ground may be good in theory, but even if you win, you will lose.
I would suggest anyone that does carry a gun absolutely avoid any confrontation and always back down. Stand your own ground may be good in theory, but even if you win, you will lose.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
That came from the Catechism…
2264 *Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.*
But is was originally formulated by Thomas Aquinas in regards to the limitations in self defense…
“Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. 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 [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.”
So basically it is not lawful to pre plan a tactic in theory to kill someone who is threatening you. You must resist without seeing it as a right to kill him and resort to killing only as the last resort.
The question must be asked, does a private individual having a gun dedicated to self defense, constitute such a theory being that guns have that sure capacity to kill which is why they are wanted over a knife or bat in the first place.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The Catechism regards personal self defense and civil defense to have a similar nature apart from the legitimate authorities, by their obligation to the public good, being permitted to ‘intend’ to kill in self defense. An individual can never intend to kill in thinking about their self defense.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
It probably is the legacy of history. In modern history America has been the go to ally to sort out the big problems that require the big force and especially during the cold war, we were all aware of who had the ‘commies’ at bay. But you have to wonder if that long drawn out crisis mentality has become ingrained in the national psyche. Sort of like national PTSD.
When we are discussing the topic of privately owned guns for self defense, it comes over that that is the predominant perspective. Private citizens themselves always need to be on alert for danger. I know in Australia we have never really had a long drawn out crisis mentality apart from during WWII when the Japanese were an immediate threat (we are good mates now though) but there has never been any strong desire to arm ourselves in self defense in our neighbourhoods. There is of course crime and even gun crimes though rarely will you see a handgun that isn’t the police (criminals opt for sawn off shotguns), but there is no mentality of blind pacificism about that. It’s more an overall optimism that peace will prevail and that crime is the exception to the norm.
That’s how I see it anyway.
C
Country_Gal
Guest
I started carrying last year. I would shoot to kill if my life was in danger.
Fortunately, in my state, obtaining a concealed pistol license is easy for a law-abiding person such as myself. That, in itself, probably deters crime.
Fortunately, in my state, obtaining a concealed pistol license is easy for a law-abiding person such as myself. That, in itself, probably deters crime.
P
pnewton
Guest
I just wanted to clarify that this does not preclude training and preparing for the possibility that you will need defend yourself with deadly force. This sort of planning is fine as long as the intent is to get to kill someone.
po18guy
Well-known member
Did you omit the “not” between “is” and “to”?
I have carried since 1974, and never with the thought of actually being placed in such a lethal confrontation. I have always kept in mind that defense is a reaction, rather than an action. As such, we who defend are already in second place. As well, we are not intent on criminal behavior, as the offender is, but rather on stopping criminal behavior. The intent must never be to take a life (homicide), but to save a life, knowing that loss of the perpetrator’s life is a possibility if you act, and loss of your own life is a possibility if you do not.
- Status