A
april32010
Guest
the nra has at a dozen stories a month in their magazine.and there are over a thousand documented a year.
- Status
C
Corki
Guest
I’ll take that bet. When I was younger, a burglar broke into our home. He climbed up to a second floor balcony and cut open the screen of a bedroom window while we were all asleep. He went to my parents room. My father heard the door open and pulled out the gun from under his bed. As soon as he cocked the gun (it was a shotgun and not quiet), the thief had a serious change of heart and flew out the window.
Completely honest first-person story from me, Average Jane citizen.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
For what it’s worth, I would personally own a gun for protection, but I think the world would be better if guns were never invented.
R
Reep
Guest
I believed I was about to die when an armed robber took my friends and I indoors and forced us us to lie face down on the carpet. The only thing that kept me from reacting was that I knew my friend was carrying a concealed firearm. The robber shot first and then my armed friend and the robber shot it out at point blank range. Both were hit. My friend survived. Police tracked the robber by his blood trail and we testified at his trial. He will eventually die in prison.
I resisted getting my concealed-carry permit for a year and a half after that because I didn’t want to get a handgun out of fear or because of the emotional trauma that being in a gunfight can create. In the end, I decided that my duty to my family and others was too important and I didn’t think I would forgive myself if someone killed a friend or loved one in front of me because I could do nothing.
I think of the those brave men at the Colorado theater killings who died shielding their girlfriends with their own bodies. I wonder how many would have been shot if a couple such men with firearms and an equal measure of courage had been in that theater. Was it any wonder the murderer chose a business that had a “no firearms allowed” policy?
N
Nigel7
Guest
^ This post is utter nonsense.
M
Moore11
Guest
So you are anti gun but pro sword?
It would be worth it to note that wars are not really fought with guns NOW for the most part.
M
Moore11
Guest
I have guns. I enjoy them. I have fed my family with them, and I am one of the rare gun owners who have actually protected my family with a gun. Twice.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
YupSo you are anti gun but pro sword?
I would stand a better chance against a sword than I would a gun.
F
familyof4
Guest
If a person is determined to murder others, they will. Japan has strict gun control laws, and just in the past half dozen years has had several horrific mass murders committed with knives. Here is one article: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7442327.stm
To return to the original question, is there a conflict between being Catholic and owning firearms, the US bishops seem to think that gun control is a good thing: uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians
"The most direct statement comes in the bishops’ “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” from November 2000.
“As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer – especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner – and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”
That’s followed by a footnote that states: “However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”
Please note that the bishops are targeting handguns specifically for elimination but as far as I can tell have never made a statement when it comes to hunting rifles.
To return to the original question, is there a conflict between being Catholic and owning firearms, the US bishops seem to think that gun control is a good thing: uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians
"The most direct statement comes in the bishops’ “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” from November 2000.
“As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer – especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner – and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”
That’s followed by a footnote that states: “However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”
Please note that the bishops are targeting handguns specifically for elimination but as far as I can tell have never made a statement when it comes to hunting rifles.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
I have a similar story-I’ll take that bet. When I was younger, a burglar broke into our home. He climbed up to a second floor balcony and cut open the screen of a bedroom window while we were all asleep. He went to my parents room. My father heard the door open and pulled out the gun from under his bed. As soon as he cocked the gun (it was a shotgun and not quiet), the thief had a serious change of heart and flew out the window.
Completely honest first-person story from me, Average Jane citizen.
infant at home husband away on trips,-stalker problem. I lived in a rural area and would call the police and wait for a half an hour for them to arrive. My leaving the house, carrying our child was not an option. It got old really fast.
There’s something about looking through a living room window to find a woman with a shotgun across her knees.
My stalker went elsewhere (leaving pretty big footprints under the living room window).
Another woman at the same time, same community had the same problem. She wound up moving in with some male co-workers for the sense of security. The last time I spoke to her, she still felt afraid. I did not.
It is unfortunate that some people are willing to act in ways that intimidate or hurt others. I am glad that other forum posters have not had to experience this. Our society seems to have a greater problem with violence towards women than some other societies. I pray that we will have a nationwide conversion of the heart and that peace will come to our communities. Amen.
V
vera_dicere
Guest
So we should stab to death animals on farms when its time to be butchered?
Perhaps bludgeon with a plank of wood a sick dog when real vet care isn’t available?
Hate to break it to everyone, but you dont’ need a gun to kill a human being, if someone is heck bent on killing they’ll find away. We have all kinds of non-gun related homicides down here. Its not easy to get a gun down here. But we have murders with knives, bats, axes, samauri swords, poisons et cetera.
Sure, limiting guns might cut back on mass killings, but who’s to say someone can’t kill 10 - 20 people with a bow and arrow in a shopping mall?
People need to get over themselves, guns aren’t the problem, people are the problem, that’s how it was, is and always will be [until the second Coming].
And really, if Americans want to get rid of guns because they kill people, what the heck do you think nuclear bombs are for? A gun is morally neutral, it can be used for good or for evil, but I doubt anyone hunts wild boar with a 20megaton war head.
H
Hunter24
Guest
Firstly, guns can actualy save lives without even being fired. They are an incredibly powerful deterrent. There are few things more intimidating than a sawed off shotgun or automatic weapon. Guns stop more violence than they are used for. How many bar fights stop when someone pulls a gun? Only an idiot would keep fighting when the guy with the .45 is telling you to stop.
But most importantly, the second amendment IS relevant. It is the teeth of the constitution. If the government takes away the second amendment what’s to stop them from taking away the rest? There is roughly 1 gun for each person in the US, which means that if the government were to ever become tyrannical, those who stand against it would have no shortage of weaponry. The reason the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought was because the British were moving to confiscate those towns guns. The British understood that without guns the colonists had no power. They could spit and curse and boycot goods but without guns things would never change. The bill of rights contains 10 amendments that state our rights, but only one of those amendments gives us the means to defend them. The second.
“the difference between a citizen and a subject is the right to bear arms”
C
Contra_Mundum_1
Guest
You know we are now in the 21st century, right?
T
Tietjen
Guest
I grew up with guns in the house. I was given my first rifle by my father when I turned 7. I’m much MUCH older now and thinking back on my childhood and my father I realize that a great deal of our father-son time was spent plinking out in the everglades or hunting. My father passed more than a decade ago but my love for guns remains. In addition to being an enjoyable activity for fathers and sons, gun ownership has another advantage… home & personal security. I carry everywhere (licensed) except to Mass and while some may believe that to be extreme, I do not. I can’t help but wonder how many people from the Colorado Regal 16 massacre might have survived if someone in the theater had been carrying. We’ll never know.
H
Hunter24
Guest
Times change, people don’t. Are you saying that just because we live in the 21st century that people wouldnt love to have you on your knees doing whatever they want? Our government gets bigger and more intrusive every day. If you don’t understand that people still desire power then you are living in a fantasy world.
T
tuscany
Guest
**Let’s not forget those that, for a week or two, had to protect themselves and their families with the guns they had after Hurricane Katrina hit. You never know when you are going to have to fend for yourself and your family to survive. Yes, this is 2012, not 1776, but we all remember Hurricane Katrina and the gangs that were killing and looting. The people that could protect themselves and their families stayed alive, while those that couldn’t didn’t fare very well.
All it takes is a huge hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or massive terrorist attack, and you will be on your own. And I hope to God it’s the moral people that have the most weapons **
All it takes is a huge hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or massive terrorist attack, and you will be on your own. And I hope to God it’s the moral people that have the most weapons **
A
Acerunner
Guest
I love the sword argument. I couldn’t think of a more brutal way of bring murdered than by bring hacked to death with what is effectively a sharpened crowbar. The point about the use of a bow isn’t far off. An archer with hunting grade crossbow would actually have killed more people because you wouldn’t be able to hear it. All he would have needed to do is stand in a corner and it would have been the proverbial fish in a barrel.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Church recognises the individual right of self defence in the catechism
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not”
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
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not”
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
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility
B
Black_Knight
Guest
I hate to tell you this, but I taught Karate and women’s self defense for many years and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The statistics actually show that 9 out of every 10 cuts attempted with by a knife wielding attacker are going to score and it takes very little to inflict a fatal cut or stab with even a small knife. Most of our organs are only a couple of inches inside our bodies and some, the carotid arteries for instance, are much less. Many arteries are not far below the skin surface and cutting those will often cause fatal blood loss very quickly.
Your scenario errs because the problem is that a knife wielding attacker in a dark and noisy movie theater would probably have managed to kill about as many people as the one in the news did with guns.
We actually don’t know how many were injured by gunshots and how many may have been injured by the stampeding panicked crowd trying to get away from the gas and gunfire. Perhaps more info on all that will come to light in the coming days. My thinking that had he had knives or an axe or machete, the carnage would have been about the same. Either way it’s very sad.
As has been pointed out already, the Church has no teaching on firearms but it does have teachings on Just War and Self Defense, which we should follow.
Guns have always had 2 purposes.
*]Hunting for food.
*]Personal protection of persons and property.
Their use in warfare was inevitable I suppose.
- Status