Catholics and firearms

[aicirt]

This is how I feel.

If I don’t own a gun, I’ll never have to stand before Jesus and explain why I shot someone.

If people want to own guns, that’s fine, but it is one less thing I will have to deal with when I stand nose to nose and face to face with Our Lord and have to give an accounting of my life.

-Tim-

Sharon Tate pregnant, the LaBiancas, the recent home invasion where a mother and her two daughters were raped and murdered, and you think that God would be angry at any one of them for protecting themselves IF they had a gun available to them???

There were a number of men in the Aurora theater who put themselves between the shooter and their loved ones. Some of these men were in the service. I have no doubt that if they had their guns, they would have killed the shooter.

 

[JRKH]

sw85 posted: That said, gun ownership isn’t a “right,” for lots of reasons.

It IS a right in the United States. From the 2nd Amendment: “the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.”

Thank you for addressing this…Yes - it IS a right in the US…
but that said sw85 is also correct that if the government banned gun ownership we would be obliged to turn them in…

The thing is that, in order for the government to ban gun ownership they would have to first repeal the second amendment…Something that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

Peace
James

 

[sw85]

One could say that you have placed the valued one life, yours, above the value of another, an illeterate numbskull as you put it. Having read many of your posts, I’m sure you were just being a bit dramatic and don’t really place less value on a human because he can’t read.

It’s not about “value” at all, so the one saying that would be dishonest and uncharitable. It’s about duty. I have a duty to protect my life and the lives of others. I have a duty, too, not to use any more force than is necessary to do that, but incidentally, I think a gun actually helps in that respect, given how easy it is even for a relative weakling like me to kill someone with his bare hands.

I don’t think that I have the self control to be able to decide not to use the weapon until it is truly a last resort, to be able to tell when my safety is more valuable than that of a potential aggressor, when he truly is a threat, and where to draw that line to deal the lethal blow.

That is an acquired skill, and one that I acquired during my CCW training.

One of the advantages to owning a gun, of course, is that you rarely ever have to use it. The entire reason I bought a shotgun is simply because the pump action sound is one of the most terrifying things a person can hear. And of course, just the sight of a gun or the sound of one firing can frighten away a potential attacker (as witnessed, again, by the elderly man who chased off two robbers in the Internet cafe).

I wonder about being killed by someone, that if it did happen, would it not be God’s will?

-Tim-

Wouldn’t it be true, too, if you killed someone in self-defense?

 

[sedonaman]

Thank you for addressing this…Yes - it IS a right in the US…
…

The thing is that, in order for the government to ban gun ownership they would have to first repeal the second amendment…Something that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

Peace
James

Just imagine if the 2nd Amendment were interpreted using the same liberal yardstick used to interpret 1st Amendment free speech! Consider that while there are calls to ban guns as a result of these shootings, no one is calling for a ban on violent movies or the writings of revolutionaries calling for the violent overthrow of society. :nope:

 

[Tietjen]

I enjoy the comment " how many would be saved if somebody had been carrying. well somebody was, an their are 12 dead and 59 wounded.

Unintelligent and unworthy of a response. :whacky:

In 2011 approx 9000 people in the U.S. were murdered by gun fire, this doesnt include accidental or suicide. Over 3 time that of Mexico

False and misleading. :tsktsk:

This statistics show somethings wrong. The church’s need to speak out more on this issue, we as a nation cannot and will not give up our second amendment rights, but something has to be done.

Okay, so what would you propose?

 

[Robert_Sock]

US Catholics- I am curious of opinions on this forum

Statistics have shown that household with guns are more likely to kill or injure other household members than needing the guns to protect oneself. How can this fact get unnoticed!

 

[vz71]

Statistics have shown that household with guns are more likely to kill or injure other household members than needing the guns to protect oneself. How can this fact get unnoticed!

Please specify the statistic and source.

 

[coachkfan1]

Thank you for addressing this…Yes - it IS a right in the US…
but that said sw85 is also correct that if the government banned gun ownership we would be obliged to turn them in…

The thing is that, in order for the government to ban gun ownership they would have to first repeal the second amendment…Something that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

Peace
James

Sadly, too many Americans don’t know what their RIGHTS are. But as far as turning them in if the governement outlawed them, are we under obligation to obey an unjust law??? If it got to that point in this country, that would be VERY frightening. As the old saying goes, “Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition”!

 

[Befink]

A lot of good discussion I missed overnight. A few more thoughts:

The moderate liberal position is not that guns shouldn’t exist but that there are not enough controls on them. Obviously, there is need for military and some other officials to carry them in the course of duty.

Many are concerned that criminals will get guns in their hands regardless. I think that’s basically true in reality but how are they getting them? Something is wrong with how the current system is working. Either legitimate owners are having them stolen or are letting people “borrow” them. When they are stolen, do you have to report that? How is it followed up? If guns are “borrowed” what accountability is there for the lender when guns are misused? In the end, there are far too many Columbines, Auroras, school shootings, gang shootings, political shootings to tolerate. NRA supporters need a better solution to gun control than they’ve proposed so far.

I also suspect that stats showing increase in crime immediately following gun-crackdown have a short-term bias. I agree that criminals wont turn them in and thus have a little more advantage than before but they are getting them mostly from legitimate sources. Take those away and there will be fewer out there, particularly over time. That’s why violent crime in countries which normally practice gun control are much lower.

Silly to believe that alternative legal items used as weapons would be nearly as effective as guns at killing people. I can’t imagine Martin Luther King would have been killed by a bow & arrow while standing on a balcony, particularly by multiple shots. JFK would have had a much better chance against a bow & arrow from a sixth story window, even if the bow had a really good scope on it. The Aurora shooter working with a knife, chainsaw, or ax would not have come close to 70 casualties he managed in about a minute with guns.

I’m seeing some legit stories about deterring violent acts, particularly in remote areas where alternative help would not come nearly fast enough. In all cases though, a single handgun or shotgun would have been more than enough to get the job done. *What’s up with gun collections!? Why do people need those? Is it really that much of an impediment on freedom to get rid of those? The advantage is that fewer guns out there makes it easier to keep them out of the wrong hands. Also, multiple guns aren’t needed for defense, only offense.

Why is more advanced weaponry out there in the hands of citizens? Again, aren’t we talking about self-defense here? Automatic weapons are not defensive. Also who needs a sniper rifle that can shoot miles away for self-defense!?

Finally the Church’s position which was quoted by several of you from different views shows that they believe descalation of violence will occur over time if people don’t have access to guns. They only tolerate them when they are the only option for self-defense. They also favor a lot of regulation on them.

 

[jwinch2]

foxnews.com/us/2012/07/23/10-dead-after-truck-carrying-at-least-22-crashes-in-texas-authorities-say/?test=latestnews

Let’s ban trucks!

 

[scipio337]

…Why is more advanced weaponry out there in the hands of citizens? Again, aren’t we talking about self-defense here? Automatic weapons are not defensive. Also who needs a sniper rifle that can shoot miles away for self-defense!?

Finally the Church’s position which was quoted by several of you from different views shows that they believe descalation of violence will occur over time if people don’t have access to guns. They only tolerate them when they are the only option for self-defense. They also favor a lot of regulation on them.

Could you talk about which automatic weapons are available to the general public?

Also, do you realize that most "sniper rifle"s are variants of hunting rifles? The 6.5×52mm Mannlicher-Carcano used to assasinate JFK is smaller, less powerful, and has a shorter than range than the 30-06 that most use for deer hunting.

 

[scipio337]

Statistics have shown that household with guns are more likely to kill or injure other household members than needing the guns to protect oneself. How can this fact get unnoticed!

Only if you include suicides, in which case, I’m sure those using the gun would resort to other means.

Gun control laws?

The analogy I like to provide to those in support is “Suppose the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution read ‘The right to an abortion shall not be infringed upon’? What abortions do you think would be illegal today?”

 

[JRKH]

Statistics have shown that household with guns are more likely to kill or injure other household members than needing the guns to protect oneself. How can this fact get unnoticed!

Well - apparently, since you are able to share this (albeit without a linked source) it appears that it hasn’t gone unnoticed.

Of course - having now “noticed” this fact - the question becomes, how and why this occurs and what is the proper solution to it.
My guess is that the incidences occurred because the households in question:

• Did not store the weapon properly
• Did not properly and appropriately train all of the household members
• Did not properly and safely handle the weapon
• and most likely of all…Made a habit of these things.

Address these matters and the statistic you allude to would go down considerably.

Training and Safety…
Safety and Training…
Training and Safety…
Safety and Training…

That is the mantra…and one that fits nicely into the second Amendment - a “well regulated (read trained) militia…” - and the safety of our society.

Peace
James

 

[Reep]

I wonder about being killed by someone, that if it did happen, would it not be God’s will?

The pilgrim on his way to church was stopped by the village atheist who noticed that the pilgrim was carrying his musket for protection from hostile Indians. Sensing an opportunity, he asked the pilgrim: “Brother pilgrim, I see you carry your musket. Wouldn’t you agree that if your time has come, that musket will not save you?”

“Tis true,” the pilgrim replied.

“Why then, brother, do you carry the musket?” Don’t you trust in God to protect you until your time has come?"

“You misunderstand,” explained the pilgrim, “I carry the musket in case I meet an Indian whose time has come.”

 

[pismopal]

The way I view it is you can have certain firearms, but they need to be regulated and have serious control. I don’t believe that a person realistically needs assault rifles or AK-47’s. America’s Second Amendment was written when rifles took time to load and to fire. There was a greater needs for guns back then as people needed to defend themselves in areas that were fairly lawless because of the lack of a sheriff and people lived on farms and needed to protect their crop from wild animals and also to hunt for food. We don’t live in such times anymore

Certainly George III would have preferred that firearms were regulated…can’t have a revolution and throw off the yoke of oppression simply with public opinion. The first amendment was written in a time before there was no electronic press…it took a lot more time to dissiminate news so I am not sure why the 2 nd amendment should be affected because guns are more modern. As for the need for protection from lawlessness…that would seem to hurt your case. I am retired LEO and I have to tell you that the police “protect” you only in an indirect…perhaps abstract way. You and I are responsible for our own safety but I can tell you that many agencies will work very hard to see that your murderer is prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That does not reassure me and never has. If you read what the fathers said about the 2 nd amendment it is pretty clear that hunting was not what they had in mind. City dwellers did not depend on hunting for food at that time or in our time. I have no quarrel with someone who does not keep a firearm at home and I hope that my right to have more than one, whatever my reason, will not bother my fellow ctizens.

 

[sedonaman]

The pilgrim on his way to church was stopped by the village atheist who noticed that the pilgrim was carrying his musket for protection from hostile Indians. Sensing an opportunity, he asked the pilgrim: “Brother pilgrim, I see you carry your musket. Wouldn’t you agree that if your time has come, that musket will not save you?”

“Tis true,” the pilgrim replied.

“Why then, brother, do you carry the musket?” Don’t you trust in God to protect you until your time has come?"

“You misunderstand,” explained the pilgrim, “I carry the musket in case I meet an Indian whose time has come.”

LOL! Gotta remember that one!

 

[tabycat]

People use this same mentality to justify gay marraige and women priests in the Catholic Church.

and abortion.

 

[sedonaman]

… *What’s up with gun collections!? Why do people need those? …

What does “need” have to do with anything? There are people with lots of old paintings. Do they “need” them? As far as the NRA proposals are concerned, I know of only one: enforce the laws already on the books. Sirhan Sirhan carried a concealed gun he used to shoot Robert Kennedy. Was he ever convicted of carrying a concealed weapon? NO.

 

[JRKH]

A lot of good discussion I missed overnight. A few more thoughts:

The moderate liberal position is not that guns shouldn’t exist but that there are not enough controls on them. Obviously, there is need for military and some other officials to carry them in the course of duty.

And just as obviously - The police almost NEVER arrive until AFTER a violent crime has been committed whether a gun was involved or not.
I would much prefer that the “moderate liberals” direct their efforts at enough “controls” on criminal activity…the law abiding citizen is really the “front line” in “law enforcement”.

Many are concerned that criminals will get guns in their hands regardless. I think that’s basically true in reality but how are they getting them?

Same way people get drugs.

Something is wrong with how the current system is working. Either legitimate owners are having them stolen or are letting people “borrow” them. When they are stolen, do you have to report that? How is it followed up? If guns are “borrowed” what accountability is there for the lender when guns are misused?

The biggest problem with the “current system” is that it has swung too far in favor of the criminal. But that appears to be slowly changing.

In the end, there are far too many Columbines, Auroras, school shootings, gang shootings, political shootings to tolerate. NRA supporters need a better solution to gun control than they’ve proposed so far.

Even one is too many…

I also suspect that stats showing increase in crime immediately following gun-crackdown have a short-term bias. I agree that criminals wont turn them in and thus have a little more advantage than before but they are getting them mostly from legitimate sources. Take those away and there will be fewer out there, particularly over time. That’s why violent crime in countries which normally practice gun control are much lower.

This is a naive outlook…all that would happen is that organized crime would have a new product to handle…

Silly to believe that alternative legal items used as weapons would be nearly as effective as guns at killing people. I can’t imagine Martin Luther King would have been killed by a bow & arrow while standing on a balcony, particularly by multiple shots. JFK would have had a much better chance against a bow & arrow from a sixth story window, even if the bow had a really good scope on it. The Aurora shooter working with a knife, chainsaw, or ax would not have come close to 70 casualties he managed in about a minute with guns.

I agree to some extent…But a determined assassin WILL acquire the means and accomplish the task - if at all possible. You can’t make something go away simply by making it illegal. Especially if people want it. Hasn’t worked with drugs. Did not work with alcohol. Won’t work with guns. Deterrence is the better solution.

I’m seeing some legit stories about deterring violent acts, particularly in remote areas where alternative help would not come nearly fast enough. In all cases though, a single handgun or shotgun would have been more than enough to get the job done. *What’s up with gun collections!? Why do people need those? Is it really that much of an impediment on freedom to get rid of those? The advantage is that fewer guns out there makes it easier to keep them out of the wrong hands. Also, multiple guns aren’t needed for defense, only offense.

People collect guns for the same reason they collect anything else. They have a special interest in them. I see no reason to curtail the legitimate collecting of guns.

Why is more advanced weaponry out there in the hands of citizens? Again, aren’t we talking about self-defense here? Automatic weapons are not defensive. Also who needs a sniper rifle that can shoot miles away for self-defense!?

Automatic weapons ARE closely licensed and controlled.

Finally the Church’s position which was quoted by several of you from different views shows that they believe deescalation of violence will occur over time if people don’t have access to guns.

Their position might be accurate IF people don’t have access to guns…but then again…There is plenty of mayhem recorded in the Bible and they didn’t have guns. Wonder what Cain killed Able with…

They only tolerate them when they are the only option for self-defense. They also favor a lot of regulation on them.

This last comment is contradictory to the preceding. If guns are “tolerated when they are the only option for self-defense”, then that means they must be available for that “only option” scenario. Thus one cannot create a situation where “people don’t have access to guns”. it’s unworkable…

Peace
James

 

[sedonaman]

And just as obviously - The police almost NEVER arrive until AFTER a violent crime has been committed whether a gun was involved or not.
…

There is a reason for this. The police cannot act until a crime has been committed. The difference between it and the military [at least in the US] is that the military can pre-empt the enemy forces.

The biggest problem with the “current system” is that it has swung too far in favor of the criminal. But that appears to be slowly changing. …

Don’t get your hopes up. There is a growing trend to make violent crime a hazard-free occupation. homicidesurvivors.com/2011/09/25/the-elite-ruling-class-war-against-victims.aspx?view=threaded