That is pretty interesting, because Canada has a representative in the UNICRI, so its a Canadian diplomat that is doing the reporting on Canada.Sorry, penetrative or forceable sexual assault does not exist in Canada within the criminal code, the Crown or within law enforcement.
Secondly, Canada’s stats are not subject to or created in the spirit of the United Nations standard for crime reporting…in that you are wrong and in that I have no doubt.
.
Why are we talking about Canada?That is pretty interesting, because Canada has a representative in the UNICRI, so its a Canadian diplomat that is doing the reporting on Canada.
The fact is, each country might call a crime by a particular name, that is the whole point of the UNICRI. To take crime data from every country and report on it in the same way, using identical terms, so an ‘apples to apples’ comparison can be done on crime rates worldwide.
I can’t shoot a knife.So you plan on shooting the teenager who tries to seal your DVD player?
Let’s put it another way…if just one of the passengers on the bus had a gun…the man who was stabbed and then decapitated would still be alive.So you plan on shooting the teenager who tries to seal your DVD player?
Sure, the argument is to the extreme, to make a point. I don’t see that happening in America anytime soon, unless we follow in Europe’s footsteps. But I think we have better sense than that. I don’t think Americans will tolerate the loss of freedom that Europe has endured.LOL, you’ve got to be kidding me?! Now, I know for sure that Americans are a paranoid bunch!
Why are so so reluctant to say if you think there is any way of protecting a person other than carrying a weapon. You keep saying “other steps” but refuse to even hint what they might be. You are making it look more and more like you are implying everyone should carry a weapon of some kind because there is no other way! Why don’t you answer the question? Please name the other ways apart from carrying a weapon.You are correct, this thread is NOT about statistics. It is about the Church’s position regarding the ownership and use of firearms and that question has already been answered …
The Catholic Church supports the private ownership and use of firearms for self defense purposes (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144) and those who do not own a gun or take other steps to properly prepare themselves to deal with threats to their safety, have failed in the GRAVE duty required of them resulting in the commission of a mortal sin of omission (Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Subsection 1, Heading 2, Paragraphs 2263-2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
As for the rest of your UNSUPPORTED comments, I see that they have already been refuted by others WITH supporting references to back up their position.
Sorry for getting off topic, but this news story was quite annoying to me. The article said something like… when everyone realized what was happening, all 35 people fled the bus.Let’s put it another way…if just one of the passengers on the bus had a gun…the man who was stabbed and then decapitated would still be alive.
YOU NO NOTHING about edged weapons or the psychology of flight or fight which is a naturally occurring phenomena.Sorry for getting off topic, but this news story was quite annoying to me. The article said something like… when everyone realized what was happening, all 35 people fled the bus.
35 people?! You mean 35 unarmed people cannot take out a man with a knife? C’mon. In this case, you don’t even need a gun.
I didn’t know that bilingual was a language.I mean they speak bilingual
*************Wow, lives are that meaningless in America?..that’s just sad. Does the sheriff then drive over to the dead guys house and tell the dead guys kids that society is better off, and think of all the money that has been saved now that their Daddy is dead, the scum bag that he was?Let’s put it another way…if just one of the passengers on the bus had a gun…the man who was stabbed and then decapitated would still be alive.
*******The reality is, armed or not, it is hard to defend yourself from a mad man bent on causing destruction without provocation or warning. You and I both know that he could have stabbed that poor guy 20 times before anyone pulled their pistol and fired the first round. Action is faster than reaction…you know that. The victim was asleep and everyone was just sitting quietly on a bus…it could not possibly have been expected by anyone.
If anyone breaks into my house to steal or destroy anything, I have the right to defend my property and my family. And I will do that.
*************Funny, the cops aren’t allowed to shoot someone committing a property crime, but in the U.S., citizens can shoot someone for trying to steal their CD’s.
In LA, a car owner can shoot someone who is carjacking their vehicle and not be prosecuted.
*************That’s a little different, someone is trying to physically remove you from a car, you could reasonably fear grievous death or bodily harm and thus defend yourself.
There is a funny law about killing someone, inside and/or outside of your property. If someone is crawling in your window and you shoot them, they fall backwards outside…you could face prosecution. If they fall inside, you are in the clear.
**************That is odd.
Usually, in most southern towns the sherriff shakes your hand and thanks you for saving the taxpayers paperwork and money.
Actually, I’d like to hear that answer from you. Earlier you said that you rely on police protection. Do you have a police officer in your house?Why are so so reluctant to say if you think there is any way of protecting a person other than carrying a weapon. You keep saying “other steps” but refuse to even hint what they might be. You are making it look more and more like you are implying everyone should carry a weapon of some kind because there is no other way! Why don’t you answer the question? Please name the other ways apart from carrying a weapon.
That makes sense.The laws on the use of lethal force differ from state to state. I think it is called “no duty to retreat”. In a state that has “no duty to retreat”, a person can protect property with lethal force. I think Texas is one of those states. But in some states, you must retreat until you are cornered in a life threatening way before you can use lethal force.
Harry Callahan to criminal: “*Now **you didn’t think we were going to just let you walk out of here.”*Criminal: "We…who’s we…?"Harry Callahan to criminal: “Me, and Smith and Wesson”*************Wow, lives are that meaningless in America?..When you “choose” to do the crime…expect consequence..that’s just sad. Does the sheriff then drive over to the dead guys house and tell the dead guys kids that society is better off, and think of all the money that has been saved now that their DaddyA good daddy does not STEAL from other people. What example is he showing for his children? is dead, the scum bag that he was?
Pathetic attitude…and this is a society where something like 68% of Americans consider religion important in their lives…where as peaceful Canada, only 18% of the population considers religion important.
It does, in theory. The problem comes in court when you have to defend that you had no other way out. Fortunately, it seems precedent in the states that when in doubt, the homeowner tends to win. In Maryland, we recently had legislation expanding this where one would have to be in a “no way out” situation, and give the intruder warning that you plan to kill them before shooting. (Thus giving them the choice to back down.) I don’t think it passed though.That makes sense.
Why don’t you actually read my posts. I already stated in an earlier post what people in Europe do. Nobody is allowed to carry weapons of any kind and where shotguns are allowed for hunting they are forbidden to be used for self protection. A man in England was jailed for using his shotgun and shooting someone who broke into his property.Actually, I’d like to hear that answer from you. Earlier you said that you rely on police protection. Do you have a police officer in your house?
Considering that Pope John Paul II considered a moral duty for a family head to defend a family member from attack, how would you suppose that a person accomplish this until the arrival of police?
BTW, here is what JP-II had to say
Moreover, “legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason
Evangelium Vitae - 55
Very telling that you have such a cavalier attitude in regards to matters of life and death.Harry Callahan to criminal: “*Now **you didn’t think we were going to just let you walk out of here.”*Criminal: "We…who’s we…?"Harry Callahan to criminal: “Me, and Smith and Wesson”
Also it can be argued in court that a knife is a lethal threat at 30’ because of the short amout of time in which that distance can be covered, thus justifying lethal force within any room of your house basically.It does, in theory. The problem comes in court when you have to defend that you had no other way out. Fortunately, it seems precedent in the states that when in doubt, the homeowner tends to win. In Maryland, we recently had legislation expanding this where one would have to be in a “no way out” situation, and give the intruder warning that you plan to kill them before shooting. (Thus giving them the choice to back down.) I don’t think it passed though.