Catholics and firearms

[buffalo]

I can’t understand how one can morally be against abortion and not against gun control. The historical context right to bare arms has no basis on modern society. There is no other purpose of guns other than killing, and they are darn effective at it! The only time that’s somewhat moral is when hunting or acting as a police officer or military in public protection. Most other modern countries allow ownership by officials and at hunting sites only.

That self-defense BS is so rare that I’ll bet no average citizen has an honest story about how their gun ownership kept them safe against the baddie that would have harmed them otherwise. How many presidents, other politicians and innocents will be killed before we figure out that this is totally ridiculous!? I don’t know how NRA officials sleep at night being responsible for all the death guns cause because the average citizen has way too easy access to them. Let alone how the NRA convinces so many people that it’s morally good to protect everyone’s right to own them.

Regardless of what’s in the CCC, I can’t imagine Jesus being a fan of modern American practices of gun control.

Legitimate defense may require the use of firearms.

I feel safer knowing my fellow citizens have guns and are willing to use them.

**Elderly Man Saves a Cafe Full of People By Shooting Gun-Wielding Robbers; NBC, CBS Skip **

Read more: newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/07/18/elderly-man-saves-cafe-full-people-shooting-gun-wielding-robbers-nbc#ixzz22hbv1M5a

 

[tabycat]

There was a shooting in Milwauki at a Sikh Temple this morning. 7 people dead.

And all of you conservative pro-life catholics are still going to say that we don’t need gun restrictions. Guns are for self defense, yeah, how often do you need to defend yourself, vs. how many times there are mass shootings.

How long is this going to keep happening before something is done. Weapons that can kill 7 people and injure many other in several minutes should be taken off the market.
NO ONE needs that kind of weapon.

I;ve lived in some roufh areas, so ypu tell me what to say to the parent of child who’s tthrout has been slit by a knife while the perent being held?

 

[Bill_Martin]

There was a shooting in Milwauki at a Sikh Temple this morning. 7 people dead.

And all of you conservative pro-life catholics are still going to say that we don’t need gun restrictions. Guns are for self defense, yeah, how often do you need to defend yourself, vs. how many times there are mass shootings.

How long is this going to keep happening before something is done. Weapons that can kill 7 people and injure many other in several minutes should be taken off the market.
NO ONE needs that kind of weapon.

The 7 people who were murdered could have used one, couldn’t they? Everyone who is a victim of a violent crime could have found it useful to have a gun.

Furthermore, there are plenty of things that people don’t “need”. Nobody needs a car that can go faster than 70 mph. Nobody needs more than 2 pairs of shoes, a big TV, or dozens of other things.

Would you support the banning of powerful computers because they allow people to download child porn faster?

 

[interestedman]

The reason that this poll is like this is because Republicans are in favor of gun rights. They are also anti abortion and gay marriage. So American republicans tend to take the whole package. I bet if you polled Catholics NOT in America about gun laws the results would basically be flipped.

 

[maryjk]

The reason that this poll is like this is because Republicans are in favor of gun rights. They are also anti abortion and gay marriage. So American republicans tend to take the whole package. I bet if you polled Catholics NOT in America about gun laws the results would basically be flipped.

If you polled Catholics not in the US about US gun laws? Why would people in the US care what people outside of the US thought of our laws?

 

[tabycat]

The reason that this poll is like this is because Republicans are in favor of gun rights. They are also anti abortion and gay marriage. So American republicans tend to take the whole package. I bet if you polled Catholics NOT in America about gun laws the results would basically be flipped.

One little question: Are you saying that it is less wrong to kill an unborn baby then it is for s policeman, with a gun, to protect you from a crock? :banghead:

 

[interestedman]

One little question: Are you saying that it is less wrong to kill an unborn baby then it is for s policeman, with a gun, to protect you from a crock? :banghead:

lol, what? I am pretty sure that gun laws don’t have anything to do with police having guns.

 

[interestedman]

If you polled Catholics not in the US about US gun laws? Why would people in the US care what people outside of the US thought of our laws?

If you polled Catholics in other countries about gun laws in general or gun laws in their own country.

 

[superamazingman]

There was a shooting in Milwauki at a Sikh Temple this morning. 7 people dead.

And all of you conservative pro-life catholics are still going to say that we don’t need gun restrictions. Guns are for self defense, yeah, how often do you need to defend yourself, vs. how many times there are mass shootings.

How long is this going to keep happening before something is done. Weapons that can kill 7 people and injure many other in several minutes should be taken off the market.
NO ONE needs that kind of weapon.

Really? If someone would have had a gun on them, they could have handled it, and there could have been 0-1 dead and less injured.

Let’s think about it this way: criminals already break the law. Do you think banning guns is going to stop them from carrying them? Heck no! All banning guns will do is get the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, the ones who need them for self defense.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Really? If someone would have had a gun on them, they could have handled it, and there could have been 0-1 dead and less injured.

Let’s think about it this way: criminals already break the law. Do you think banning guns is going to stop them from carrying them? Heck no! All banning guns will do is get the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, the ones who need them for self defense.

Amazing how someone looks at this scenario and thinks that more gun control would have stopped it.

A guy starts shooting at a crowd of unarmed people.

Someone calls 911 and asks for them to send a guy with a gun to stop him.

While waiting for the guy with a gun to show up, 6 people are murdered.

Guy with a gun shows up, shoots the attacker, and stops the attack.

Having been presented with this information, gun control advocates conclude that the law abiding, innocent folks in the temple have no need for a gun and that this could have been prevented if only they had no ability to defend themselves.

Amazing.

 

[superamazingman]

Amazing how someone looks at this scenario and thinks that more gun control would have stopped it.

A guy starts shooting at a crowd of unarmed people.

Someone calls 911 and asks for them to send a guy with a gun to stop him.

While waiting for the guy with a gun to show up, 6 people are murdered.

Guy with a gun shows up, shoots the attacker, and stops the attack.

Having been presented with this information, gun control advocates conclude that the law abiding, innocent folks in the temple have no need for a gun and that this could have been prevented if only they had no ability to defend themselves.

Amazing.

You know what they say:

“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!”

 

[superamazingman]

This is all amazing from a constitutional standpoint as well. They have no right to try and limit guns like they want to.

 

[RobbyS]

US Catholics- I am curious of opinions on this forum

The matter cannot be reduced to ideology. Americans have never been disarmed as British subjects are. The 2nd Amendment was written with militias in mind. The idea of a large professional army did not take hold until after the Spanish-American one, and the present size was not reached until after World War II.

 

[RobbyS]

Amazing how someone looks at this scenario and thinks that more gun control would have stopped it.

A guy starts shooting at a crowd of unarmed people.

Someone calls 911 and asks for them to send a guy with a gun to stop him.

While waiting for the guy with a gun to show up, 6 people are murdered.

Guy with a gun shows up, shoots the attacker, and stops the attack.

Having been presented with this information, gun control advocates conclude that the law abiding, innocent folks in the temple have no need for a gun and that this could have been prevented if only they had no ability to defend themselves.

Amazing.

Back in 1966, Charles Whitman killed about 16 people by shooting from the platform atop the University of Texas library. I was on campus until shortly before the shooting started. I was about to go on campus, when something told me I should go visit my mother in San Antonio. So I watched live TV while in San Antonio. The police did not have a swat units of anything like it. They were shooting at the tower with handguns to make the shooter keep his head down. The State highway patrol arrived with rifles. At the same many students returned from their home armed with deer rifles and began shooting at the tower. The accumulated gunfire made Whitman stop aiming at civilians and try to return fire.
A student in my dorm was spotting for a Highway patrolman. Whitman was soon shooting at his direction, so he ducked down behind a wall. The a couple of cops armed with handguns and shotguns climbed to the top and began approaching Whitman from two side. A green Mexican cop who had never been in a gunfight before, took Whitman down.

 

[tabycat]

lol, what? I am pretty sure that gun laws don’t have anything to do with police having guns.

While the question was not aim at you.but since you posted to it. Gun laws have everything to do with the police having guns, because, once the law abiding people have their guns grabed there will be somebody asking for the police to be disarmed. :bowdown:

 

[Dominique1234]

All the firearms ever made??? You know that 625,000 died in the US Civil War, right? They were not killed by Hollywood my friend.

What bother’s me is that many gun owners seem anxious to be given the opportunity to defend themselves with deadly force. Some seem to salivate at the thought of using their weapon in anger and get all excited when they say that they will defend themselves.

There really is a “Make my day” attitude among some gun owners out there, exemplified by the “Insured by Smith and Wesson” and “Keep honking while I reload” bumper stickers.

It’s these who scare me the most, the one’s who do not think of their guns as a last resort but as a first line of defense - shoot first and ask questions later.

-Tim-

Yeah, I have a friend who has his conceal and carry permit, but tells me that if there ever is an intruder come into his home, he tells me it needs three bullets. Two in the chest, one in the head. This way, the intruder is dead and can’t sue you…

Should I trust this friend? I’m not against guns, but isn’t this immoral? And scary? I’ll never try to surprise him with a party at his place, that’s for sure!

 

[Bill_Martin]

Yeah, I have a friend who has his conceal and carry permit, but tells me that if there ever is an intruder come into his home, he tells me it needs three bullets. Two in the chest, one in the head. This way, the intruder is dead and can’t sue you…

Should I trust this friend? I’m not against guns, but isn’t this immoral? And scary? I’ll never try to surprise him with a party at his place, that’s for sure!

If an intruder invades my home, he isn’t there for coffe and donuts. I’m not giving him the chance to kill me or my family.

As to shooting a bad guy 3 times, that’s what he should do if he is justified in using deadly force. Shooting at somebody is deadly force in the eyes of the law, regardless of whether you intend to kill him or not. There is no “shooting to wound”. If you are shooting at a person at all, then you should be shooting to kill. And if the situation does not call for deadly force, you don’t shoot, period.

 

[superamazingman]

Yeah, I have a friend who has his conceal and carry permit, but tells me that if there ever is an intruder come into his home, he tells me it needs three bullets. Two in the chest, one in the head. This way, the intruder is dead and can’t sue you…

Should I trust this friend? I’m not against guns, but isn’t this immoral? And scary? I’ll never try to surprise him with a party at his place, that’s for sure!

In addition to Bill’s post (which I agree 100% with), I can see where he’s coming from. Did’ga hear about the one thief who fell through a skylight and won a lawsuit against the homeowners when he got hurt? I totally understand where he’s coming from.

 

[REDfan4Lyfe]

I’m no longer catholic but I live in a very catholic region and if they ever tried to take away our guns we would probably revolt. I dont think guns are necessarily connected to religion unless your religion is strictly pacifist.

Is their a reason you left the church? Just curious.

 

[REDfan4Lyfe]

Owning a firearm is like being sexually active. It’s a delicate routine. You have a privilege that can bring you either great prosperity or grave misery. In order to do both you need proper training and licensing.