A
- Status
A
april32010
Guest
Code:
the individual right of self defence in the catechism2264 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"
i think i shall attempt to think with the Church rather than a internet philosopher
T
tabycat
Guest
One thing: Cops have a ‘21 foot’ rule, if someone has a bladed weapon is 21 feet or closer to you, the chance of your being hurt or killed goes up, 
By the way, I got my first gun (a 22 pump action rife) from my grandfather for my tenth birthday. :tiphat::knight2:
By the way, I got my first gun (a 22 pump action rife) from my grandfather for my tenth birthday. :tiphat::knight2:
S
sedonaman
Guest
The problem I have with this is that it sounds contradictory and is therefore confusing. It seems to me that the most likely scenario would be one in which you are confronted by someone who is armed while you are not, so I don’t know what constitutes “repelling force with moderation” means, unless it means you have to be an expert in karate. If someone in the Aurora shooting had a gun, for example, he could have killed the perpetrator, but to do this would require some tactical advantage, like shooting from a stealthy position. To overpower someone means you have to use … well … superior power.
J
jwinch2
Guest
What are the levels of gun crime in Switzerland?
What are the levels of gun crime in Mexico?
What were the levels of gun crime in England the year prior to banning handguns and the year after?
Have violent crimes gone down in subsequent years or stayed roughly the same?
What were the levels of gun crimes in Australia the year prior to banning handguns and the year after?
Have violent crimes gone down in recent years or stayed roughly the same?
What are the rates of gun crimes in America in cities and/or states with the toughest gun restrictions as compared to the cities/states with the loosest gun restrictions?
Please explain how the banning of narcotics has prevented people from getting them.
Please explain how criminals who are willing to kill people would be discouraged by a law which states that they can’t have a gun.
Please explain how it is the gun’s fault that 12 people were killed over the weekend but is not the truck’s fault that 14 were killed today in Texas.
S
sedonaman
Guest
I used to live in a beach community where, for some strange reason [to me] there were lots of dog owners, and they owned multiple dogs, multiple BIG dogs. The house I bought was owned by someone with two large, viscious dogs; I sold it to someone who had two large dogs. Now, I can understand someone wanting A dog for a pet, but why would someone want lots of big dogs on a property that is only 1/10th of an acre and which is mostly house? I saw one woman walk four big dogs. The only conclusion I was able to reach is because they like them … that’s why. But take heart; in the case of the gun collectors, they can shoot only one gun at a time, but you can be attacked by a pack of dogs.
Dog’s will not necessarily kill you. The sole purpose of a gun is to injure, maim or kill.
A
april32010
Guest
The problem I have with this is that it sounds contradictory and is therefore confusing. It seems to me that the most likely scenario would be one in which you are confronted by someone who is armed while you are not, so I don’t know what constitutes “repelling force with moderation” means, unless it means you have to be an expert in karate. If someone in the Aurora shooting had a gun, for example, he could have killed the perpetrator, but to do this would require some tactical advantage, like shooting from a stealthy position. To overpower someone means you have to use … well … superior power.
"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" i believe this is the section that if you read it by itself clears up any confusion.
A
april32010
Guest
and it is not a sin to do so in self-defence.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Yet Switzerland has a massively high level of gun ownership, one of the highest in the world. If it is the ready availability of guns, as has been argued, why would their crime rate be so low? If banning guns worked, why would Mexico’s crime rate be so high? Why would violent crime in the US be higher in states and cities with strict gun laws and lower in states with loose gun laws? Why would England’s levels of violent crime actually increase after their ban on guns instead of decrease? I would ask the same question about Australia. India has banned guns for years. That wasn’t able to prevent a violent attack in Mumbai a few years ago.
The simple truth is that some people don’t like guns and wish to push their opinion on the rest of the world, regardless of whether or not actual data backs up their opinions.
J
JRKH
Guest
Exactly - and I don’t blame the police who I think, by and large, do a great job given their limitations.
But - the law abiding citizenry is the first line. After all - when the police show up on a crime scene, what do they look for? Witnesses. What happened - Who did what - Can you describe them - Which way did they go - What did they take - Were they armed - Did you get a license number…and so on…
Wouldn’t it be so much more pleasant for the police to arrive and the perp is lying on the ground and the law abiding citizen is standing up instead of the law abiding citizen on the ground and the perp long gone into the night…
Yea they would still need to fill out a report…but…The good guys go home.
This has been a “long time trend” - and will continue…until things finally break down enough that the country teeters on anarchy…then…
Peace
James
J
jeannetherese
Guest
I am hesitant to agree with this as I think of the workings of our society. We hire people with guns to protect what we define as our interests: Life, Liberty and oftentimes property and safety. Our police officers and members of the military act in this capacity. When I think of this, it seems we all might have a degree of complicity in actions taken by by police to protect these interests, even if we ourselves do not own or use firearms.
Economists would talk about the delivery of a public good (safety) in which all are beneficiaries. In a sense, dependent upon others for protection, I seem to become a free rider, benefitting from their actions, and those of my neighborswho also look out for my safety. I have no idea how God will address that but I imagine I might be accountable at some level.
Is this too off topic or do others have some insights for me?
J
JRKH
Guest
I think it is a legitimate consideration, but I would not lose sleep over it.
I look at it this way. I have very carefully considered whether I could kill. I am afraid that I could not. Knowing that I choose not to have a gun available to me for protection.
I DO appreciate that others, well trained and professional act on my behalf. Likewise I am support of others, neighbors, family etc. possessing guns for self defense and am glad that there are classes required in order to be licensed.
that said - I don’t feel that I am a “free rider” since I do pay taxes for these purposes, I do support my neighbor’s rights by my vote and my voice and, if I were to be injured as a result of my decision, I would not feel it right to blame the police for not protecting me…In short I take responsibility for my decision.
A “free rider” would be one who expects the same benefits and protection as the person who chooses to be armed…and would get angry if they did not get it…
Peace
James
P
pismopal
Guest
For the same reason that people collect anything…including automobiles, watches, antiques. You are in Ireland…you do not have a huge subculture of street criminals so your frame of reference is different. The cities within this country which have the strictest gun regulations are also the most violent…more murders, robbery and assaults with firearms. The areas with the most liberal possession and concealed carry laws have the least violent crimes. I do not make this up. By the way…the Garda in Ireland are armed…any particular reason?
P
pismopal
Guest
I do not think the police in Ireland carry firearms for any reason other than to protect themselves…and you. Is this not correct? If it is…is there something wrong with that motive?
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
4 out of 5 of the worst gun massacres ever have occurred outside the US. In countries with strict gun control laws.
N
number2wilkins
Guest
i own them, love them, and totally recommend them!
guns are tools. they are not inherently evil and serve purposes other than murdering people. they’re used in the olympics for crying out loud! (and not for murdering people either)
guns are tools. they are not inherently evil and serve purposes other than murdering people. they’re used in the olympics for crying out loud! (and not for murdering people either)
P
pismopal
Guest
Godspeed with RCIA!..and thanks for your common sense answer.
- Status