Church Security & Legally Armed Parishioners

  • Thread starter Thread starter childinthefaith
  • Start date Start date
The Catechism says otherwise
Don’t make up stories. You’ll find no reference to a right to be armed “just in case”. You personally choose to infer a right to be armed.

Ultimately, you rely on 2A. Bishops exercise authority on their property which runs counter to your preferred position and so you now condemn the Bishops.

The church is not with you on this.
 
Last edited:
Accidental shooting deaths are by far more frequent in my area that church shootings, though I’m not over concerned of either.
 
That does not logically follow at all. You are entitled to take actions when threatened. That implies no right to carry the tools you’d like to the places you’d like when you like “just in case”
You are mistaken. To deprive one of the means to exercise a right is to deprive them of the right. You may as well argue that we have the right to freedom of the press, but no right to any writing implements or to anything on which to write.
 
Accidental shooting deaths
Personally, that’s not the biggest risk imo. It is the widespread and easy availability that concerns me, for 2 reasons. First, guns fall into the wrong hands. And second, the culture sees guns as routine; they are too readily drafted into situations where they should not be.
 
No one agrees that carrying a weapon is a “fundamental human right” in the first place. If the bishop ordered you to stand still and let someone shoot you, you might have an argument. You are free to run away. You are free to throw objects. You are free hit the guy in the back with a chair. You are free to get in a group and knock him down and disarm him. There are options. Just not the one you want.
 
You DON’T have a write to writing materials and paper. If I don’t want you to distribute your papers on my private property, I have the right to tell you to beat it. I have the right to block you from my social media. If I have the authority, I can keep you out of my school, my church, and my grocery school.
 
No one agrees that carrying a weapon is a “fundamental human right” in the first place.
That is patent nonsense.
If the bishop ordered you to stand still and let someone shoot you, you might have an argument. You are free to run away. You are free to throw objects. You are free hit the guy in the back with a chair. You are free to get in a group and knock him down and disarm him. There are options. Just not the one you want.
Just a moment ago someone said that taking cover was the best option. Are you saying that a better option is to step out from hiding, rush the attacker from however far away I am and hope he’s a lousy shot?

You obviously don’t know how violent encounters work in the real world.
 
Last edited:
If I don’t want you to distribute your papers on my private property, I have the right to tell you to beat it.
Certainly, but you don’t have the right or authority to require me to enter your property, as does the Bishop.

This is going nowhere. I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you discover how wrong you are.

I’m done here.
 
Last edited:
If a bishop and the state says that it is ok and legal, what is the primary reason why anti-carry people dont want people to carry guns legally in church ?
 
what is the primary reason why anti-carry people dont want people to carry guns legally in church ?
People may judge that a lot can go wrong with many guns in a crowd, or on the way to church, or on the trip from church, or…
 
You can argue that at the point of needing to defend yourself, but not at every moment of your day “just in case”.
That’s absurd. Criminals don’t make appointments.
 
Last edited:
Yet there are many Western countries with restrictive gun laws that experience very low homicide rates… Canada and much of Europe comes to mind. Japan would be another example.
 
If Jesus Himself was righteously violent in God’s house in order to prevent it being violated, couldn’t we do the same in carrying a gun to mass in order to protect ourselves and other innocent people from being murdered?
Gross misuse of scripture. Jesus never hit nor killed anyone.
 
Jesus never killed anyone obviously, but when he saw the vendors in God’s house selling purely for profit, He beat them with a stick and destroyed their tables in righteous anger. If Jesus reacted in righteous anger and violence, who is to say we can’t do so as well in the proper occasions, such as when a shooter is ripping up a crowd of innocent people in Mass?
 
Last edited:
Actually, I’ve had some training in this. The “best option” depends entirely on the situation, where you are located, what you have at your disposal, etc. Often times, running away is the best option. Sometimes, fighting back with whatever you’ve got is the best option. “Taking cover” is not usually the best option, but it that’s what you’ve got to work with, there you go. Furthermore, there’s a thing called trauma response, which means that when a person is in a mortally dangerous situation, the defense part of the brain takes over and a person doesn’t really have a whole lot of control of what they end up doing. They may be completely unarmed and the adrenaline kicks in and they tackle the guy from behind. They may be armed to the teeth and still completely freeze and pee their pants. And you seem to assume that the gunman is going to make a big announcement before he starts shooting. He could have you in the back of the head before you’ve even turned around. So, yeah, I do have a little bit of training in how violent encounters work in the real work. They aren’t something that you can “plan”. So you might as well just go to Mass and pray for the best. And confession is also a good idea.
 
In this circumstance, the bishop says it isn’t okay, and in the OPs state, that makes it illegal. Hypothetically, I suspect that people simply don’t trust others with guns.
 
Back
Top