S
Sir_Knight
Guest
So you are saying that just because someone MIGHT hit an innocent bystander while trying to stop the shooter, it would be better to let the shooter continue shooting people at will?
- Status
N
Newbie2
Guest
I wonder how the interpretation of the Pope’s thoughts on defending one’s self discussed in this thread square with the concept of passivism and the concept of martyrdom.
Perhaps a topic for a new thread?
Edit: See split thread.
Perhaps a topic for a new thread?
Edit: See split thread.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
You seem to have an incorrect understanding of the concept of martyrdom. The church teaches us that we are to do all that we can to safeguard our lives. The earlier Christians didn’t just walk in to be eaten by the lions. They did all that they could to keep from being captured. It was only when they were caught and had no means of escape and the only way to save their life was to renounce Christ, that is when they accepted martyrdom
“Passivism” is not a catholic concept because we are called upon to stand up to evil and not just stand idle’ly by and let it happen. I refer you to 1 Sam 15:10-23 where we read that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek – a very clear example where being a pacifist was not pleasing to God … and let’s not forget that Jesus was always in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father.
The fact that the Pope allows himself to be protected by ARMED security guards seems to indicate that he is in complete agreement with this position.
EDITTED: What spit thread?
“Passivism” is not a catholic concept because we are called upon to stand up to evil and not just stand idle’ly by and let it happen. I refer you to 1 Sam 15:10-23 where we read that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek – a very clear example where being a pacifist was not pleasing to God … and let’s not forget that Jesus was always in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father.
The fact that the Pope allows himself to be protected by ARMED security guards seems to indicate that he is in complete agreement with this position.
EDITTED: What spit thread?
N
Newbie2
Guest
Check out the thread I started specifically on this topic. 
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Found it 
I’m there 
I’m there
P
pnewton
Guest
Totality of circumstances. I did not say it would never be a good option, but I can only see the use of a gun in the most extreme circumstance. Anyone in law enforcement for a while will tell you that the gun is not the primary weapon or force option. I have no problem with concealed handguns, but if the first response is to start shooting in a crowded room, then that person lacks needed training.
To a hammer, the whole world is a nail. The extreme case where someone starts shooting without warning randomly all over the place is not a likely scenario, even if a crisis occurs. Most situations escalate or at least give minimum warning before bullets fly.
Let me ask for those that do carry, do you make it a point to only carry a small caliber to church to prevent bullets from passing through the body of one person and into the child in the front pew? Have you practice not only on targets, but moving targets? Do you understand that a handgun only has a short effective range? Shooting in an urban setting or a crowded room is very specialized and needs greater thought than a late night convenience store hold up takes. Even a specialized SWAT team would find a deranged Church shooter extremely difficult to deal with.
Fortunately, if an emergency arises it will probably more personal and allow for other options.That being said, I have no objection to a shooter being shot if the rare chance occurs for it to be safely done.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
If somebody is shooting other people and they are dying, I think that would qualify as an extreme circumstance.
Against somebody already shooting others, it IS the PRIMARY force option. I’ve never seen a law officer trying to approach somebody with a gun with just a billy club or mace.
If you have a shooter in a crowded room shooting people, most of the folks will be moving away from the shooter giving one a good shot at the individual.
Just because it is unlikely, does not mean that it does not happen because it DOES! And, until it does happen, there is no need for other guns to leave the holster.
I carry the largest caliber that I can effectively conceal based on what I am wearing. And just to be clear, it isn’t the size of the bullet but the design of the bullet which will determine if it passes through a one person and strike another person. A FMJ 9mm will penetrate deeper than a hollowpoint .45ACP round.
Moving targets? No. But let me ask you this: if you and your family were being fired upon and I had a gun but did not practise on moving targets, would you prefer that I just watched while your family was killed off one buy one or would you prefer that I make tha attempt to stop the shooter?
That is completely false. A bullet fired from a handgun can travel up to a mile or more and if it strikes someone even at that distance, it can kill them.
Are you saying that they would just stand around watching while people were being killed?
What about if it is unsafely done? If an innocent bystander MIGHT be shot but it ensures stopping the shooter from killing several more innocent victims, is it worth taking the chance or is it better for those several more people to die?
P
pnewton
Guest
On this, I will just have to shake my head and disagree. I was not talking about how far a bullet travels, but how far it travels with accuracy.
If you are going to use qualifiers like MIGHT, then use them both places. The shooter MIGHT kill more victims.
I am not saying that a situation like the Luby’s in Killeen would not require the type of action you describe, but nothing like that has happend in a Catholic Church yet. The more likely problems that would occur usually are not benefited by adding more bullets to the fray.
I do not know the stats, but most of the bullets I know that police have fired did not strike the intended target.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
A quarter of a century ago (when my eyes were younger and my reflexes steadier), I could easily hit the X-ring at 75 feet and I didn’t consider myself a good shot but about average. A “better” shooter or somebody armed with a laser sight could easily duplicate that at twice the distance. Hitting your target at 75-150 feet a handgun is still pretty impressive no matter how you slice it.
If the shooter is shooting at people, the shooter WILL kill more victims. Someone who attempts to stop him MIGHT miss and kill an innocent by-stander or he may not.
Just because something hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean that one should not be prepared for it. Just because your family has never been robbed, does that mean that you should not lock your doors? Just because your family has never been in a cr accident, does that mean that you shouldn’t buckle up and carry car insurance? Just because your family never had a fire, does that mean that you shouldn’t carry fire insurance on your house? If it happened somewhere to somebody, it MIGHT happen to you and you should be prepared for it.
And I don’t understand your comment about “adding more bullets to the fray”. Nobody is going to start shooting unless someody’s life is in IMMEDIATE danger. I work in a store where most of the employees carry a concealed firearm. We get shoplifters weekly but nobody has ever shot anybody. When trouble happens, we reach the the telephone and call the police. The only time we ever drew our guns was when somebody pulled out a switch blade on us. We then drew our guns and made him lay down on the floor until the police came.
I ask you again. The shooter is firing at the pew where you and your family are sitting. Would you prefer the police officer NOT to shoot because most of his bullets will not strike the shooter or would you prefer that he make an attempt to stop the violence?
C
chain
Guest
Accurately aimed shots, and accurately aimed shots under stress are two very different things. w/o stress I can often shoot minute of coffee can at 100 yards with a 45 acp (or 44 wcf) - under stress 10 yards would be a safer range.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
So if a shooter was shooting up the place and zero’ing in on your loved ones, would you take the shot knowing that you MAY miss or would you let your loved ones be the mostlikely next innocent victims?
J
jonobr
Guest
I find this thread amusing,
I get lots of dirty looks during mass when my kids let out a yelp…
You guys are talking about packing heat…
I see the common point being brought up over and over regarding our Lord telling Peter to simply put away his sword.
I read a fantastic book by Tom Astrbridge called the first crusade,
After Pope Urbans decree at the council of claremont calling on the faithful to the crusade, Astrbridge asserted that the comon argument used at that time was the "Peter, put away your sword argument, "
I used to serve in the Irish Defence forces,
When mass was being celebrated on certain special occasions, (St Patricks day etc) their was always a mitltiary presentation of Arms during the ceremony.
That did not feel right at all.
The Irish army mostly uses its weapons for peacekeeping and enforcement.
But even though they were being used for this. Something did not feel right.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt ,
Back at it you folks!!!
I get lots of dirty looks during mass when my kids let out a yelp…
You guys are talking about packing heat…
I see the common point being brought up over and over regarding our Lord telling Peter to simply put away his sword.
I read a fantastic book by Tom Astrbridge called the first crusade,
After Pope Urbans decree at the council of claremont calling on the faithful to the crusade, Astrbridge asserted that the comon argument used at that time was the "Peter, put away your sword argument, "
I used to serve in the Irish Defence forces,
When mass was being celebrated on certain special occasions, (St Patricks day etc) their was always a mitltiary presentation of Arms during the ceremony.
That did not feel right at all.
The Irish army mostly uses its weapons for peacekeeping and enforcement.
But even though they were being used for this. Something did not feel right.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt ,
Back at it you folks!!!
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Let’s remember that Jesus was a very strong supporter of the poor. He was constantly instructing people to give to and help the poor. Yet despite that, He tells His followers to sell their coats (if they have to) and not give it to the poor but to buy a sword for themselves if they did not have one – clearly showing that owning a sword was more important that giving that money to the poor.I find this thread amusing,
I get lots of dirty looks during mass when my kids let out a yelp…
You guys are talking about packing heat…
I see the common point being brought up over and over regarding our Lord telling Peter to simply put away his sword.
I read a fantastic book by Tom Astrbridge called the first crusade,
After Pope Urbans decree at the council of claremont calling on the faithful to the crusade, Astrbridge asserted that the comon argument used at that time was the "Peter, put away your sword argument, "
A sword has only ONE purpose – to be used as a weapon … either offensively or defensively. If Jesus told people to buy a weapon, He clearly intended them to USE it AS a weapon if the situation required it. To instruct someone to buy a weapon and NOT use it would have been extremely wasteful and that money would have been better served if given to the poor.
J
jonobr
Guest
Im far from being a theologian or scripture expert but I started doing a bit of googling around on the passage you mentioned, which interested me a bit.
Thats what I like about these forums, they prod the mind and make you research and think about things.
In the end I found this thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=42451&page=2
which actually - coupled with your avatar, scare me a bit.
In my research I did see that when the disciples mention they have two swords, Jesus indicates, “Thats enough!”
That being said, Ill back down and reverse out of this discussion slowly without trying to anger or annoy you…
Thats what I like about these forums, they prod the mind and make you research and think about things.
In the end I found this thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=42451&page=2
which actually - coupled with your avatar, scare me a bit.
In my research I did see that when the disciples mention they have two swords, Jesus indicates, “Thats enough!”
That being said, Ill back down and reverse out of this discussion slowly without trying to anger or annoy you…
C
chain
Guest
funny thread - but feel the need to make a comment about the Kevlar underwear. I used to live in Houston. My last day there 2 things happened that helped convince me to get out of Dodge.
- I was at Sams Club and noticed they were selling body armor (not sure what class kevlar).
- I was involved in a road rage event - I merged in and slowed traffic for 2-3 seconds, the person who let me in passed me on the left, the person behind him hit the shoulder and passed me on the right. By the time I noticed it, I also noticed a very large revolver being used as a turn signal to get the space in front of me (it was at that moment pointed at the other driver, I really do not know if it was pointed at me as he passed me on the shoulder).
P
pnewton
Guest
Totality of circumstance. If a shooter was in a direct line between me and civilian with a gun, it would change my perspective.
P
pnewton
Guest
One should always consider the environment and yes, police may well refrain from shooting an armed gunman without a clear shot.
funshoot.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/point-shooting-vs-sight-shooting-rand-report/
funshoot.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/point-shooting-vs-sight-shooting-rand-report/
Again, I am not opposed at all to concealed handguns, large crowds do not lend themselves to the trained or untrained shooter. It is too easy to add to the body count rather than take away. One would need to be able to practice patience in a high stress situation in order to get a clear shoy, yes, even if it was my family in the sights. That is an emotional argument, not a thoughtful one. I am going to look later at some real situations and how many shots missed. In the open, that is more acceptable.
D
DavidHume
Guest
If your church is lawless enough to make you want to bring a concealed handgun to it, it’s probably also lawless enough that no one will arrest you for doing so.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
S
Shin
Guest
These are more dangerous times.
There are more people roaming around who will vandalize churches and commit acts of violence, protest, robbery, etc.
Depending on wear you live. . . but not entirely. .
It could be wise to have one. The responsibility to defend oneself, one’s family, and one’s neighbor is a real one. It does -not- belong only to the police, government, etc. Using the government as a substitute for our responsibilities is one of the main vices of this time, whether it be charity, responsibility, defense. . and other matters regarding both ourselves and our neighbors.
There are more people roaming around who will vandalize churches and commit acts of violence, protest, robbery, etc.
Depending on wear you live. . . but not entirely. .
It could be wise to have one. The responsibility to defend oneself, one’s family, and one’s neighbor is a real one. It does -not- belong only to the police, government, etc. Using the government as a substitute for our responsibilities is one of the main vices of this time, whether it be charity, responsibility, defense. . and other matters regarding both ourselves and our neighbors.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
I’m not exactly sure how to take that? Why would you be more concerned about annoying me than somebody else on this forum? Are you implying that gun owners are more prone to angry outbursts?
According to a published study by John Lott & David Mustard who looked at county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the U.S. from 1977 through 1992 – they discovered that gun owners who lawfully carry firearms are 5.7 times LESS likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public and 13.5 times LESS likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public.
This would seem to indicate that we have a higher degree of self-control and greater degree of responsibility than the average citizen.
As far as my avatar is concerned, it is a Cartoon Caricature of myself. I am a fourth degree member of the Knights of Columbus. You know, the group that Pope John-Paul II referred to as the “strong right arm of the Church” …
http://www.robertfida.com/imagesKofC/Graphics/KnightedByChristRobertFida.jpg
… we’re the one’s who show up in church for special events dressed in capes, hats AND swords …
http://www.theseilerfamily.com/JG_Wedding/KofC.jpg http://jacksonville.com/images/mdControlled/cms/2009/02/07/385167771.jpg http://www.stisidore-yubacity.org/jub01.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3029/2616127472_4a3c576e86.jpg http://www.dioshpt.org/connection/images/0409koc.jpg http://www.stjulies.org/Knights w Mercy Pix.jpg http://www.stthomas.edu/clubs/knightsofcolumbus/Jesus!.jpg
… we give of our time, talent & treasure to support our priests and our bishops. Every time you see a Mass from the Vatican, the satelite feed for that signal is paid for by the Knights of Columbus via our local fund raising activities.
- Status