Costs and Benefits of Guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimeEntrance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill_7154 said:
Did they have a licence to carry? If not it says nothing except criminals will be criminals.
Click to expand...
I believe he is suggesting that one legally armed man made a big difference in stopping a crime in action and probably saving the lives of innocents. In addition, I would add that the man was 74 and without a gun, would have been physically incapable of defending himself and others against younger and probably much more able bodied persons.
 
triumphguy said:
Hmmm. not sure I said that 😉

I was just musing on the stats, and wondering why America compared to all countries, and especially to countries with comparable rates of gun ownership has such a horrendous record of gun violence and violence in general.

It’s a serious question: why do you think there is so much violence in your society?

I only live a couple of hours drive away from America, but we seem worlds apart on so many things, and yet so similar too.

For instance, while many people own many guns we don’t really talk about them. You get the occasional bumper sticker, but people just keep quiet about their guns. We have more of a hunting culture than gun culture, and the rifle is seen as a tool for a purpose - hunting, and not hunting as an excuse to shoot guns.

Maybe I’m wrong - I often am. 😉
Click to expand...
The US is like having 50 different contertries banded togather for somethings (ie defense).:)🙂
 
jwinch2 said:
I believe he is suggesting that one legally armed man made a big difference in stopping a crime in action and probably saving the lives of innocents. In addition, I would add that the man was 74 and without a gun, would have been physically incapable of defending himself and others against younger and probably much more able bodied persons.
Click to expand...
“God created men, and Samuel Colt made them equal.”
 
jwinch2 said:
I believe he is suggesting that one legally armed man made a big difference in stopping a crime in action and probably saving the lives of innocents. In addition, I would add that the man was 74 and without a gun, would have been physically incapable of defending himself and others against younger and probably much more able bodied persons.
Click to expand...
I missed that and thought it was a random holdup with guns.
 
CaliLobo said:
Can today’s Connecticut tragedy finally change everyone’s mind (like mine) on gun rights?

How many more children and innocents have to die in mass shootings? Columbine, Tucson, Santee (CA), Connecticut, and more. I understand the historical origins and philosophy behind bearing arms, but that is a bygone era. Other advanced nations in Europe and Asia have strict gun controls, and much less crime. How can it be a civil right to possess such dangerous items? Why do we need to continue to possess such barbaric tools? The best way to prevent being a victim is to lock up and hide your stuff, stay away from dangerous areas, keep lights on, and don’t give people dirty looks.

Here’s a link comparing every country’s homicide rate. Europe and Japan have far less intentional homicides than the US.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Also, isn’t protecting everyone from guns a PRO-LIFE position??
Click to expand...
I heard right after this happened, that every mass shooting in the US, except for one, has happened in a gun-free zone. Coincidence? I think NOT.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I try to be prepared for death at any time. If somebody wants to murder me, so be it. But I’m not going to own a weapon. Guns are ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You must not have a wife, or kids, or anyone you love dearly. Can you imagine someone coming in to your own house and raping and murdering your wife and kids? I can’t and have no desire to imagine it, mainly because I will do whatever it takes to ensure that that doesn’t happen. The Catholic Church has affirmed my desire to preserve my life and the life of my loved one, as well as any innocent people that may be in harm’s way.

From the Catechism:

2264 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.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Do you think that the Jews in Poland and Germany wished that guns were much easier to obtain? Why don’t you ask a survivor of Nazi Germany or a victim of rape what they think about guns.
 
dandingo said:
…
Do you think that the Jews in Poland and Germany wished that guns were much easier to obtain? Why don’t you ask a survivor of Nazi Germany or a victim of rape what they think about guns.
Click to expand...
I find that using the suffering of the Jews in the holocaust as part of a gun argument is very ignorant of history.
  1. The Nazis had no qualms in attacking countries who were more heavily armed than they were: France had more tanks than the Wermacht in 1939. Soviet Russia had more tanks and soldiers when Hitler turned his armies east. So guns did NOT deter Hitler
  2. Whether the Jews were armed or not Hitler desired their extermination. Hitler just hated Jews, all Jews, not just Jews without guns. If they had been armed he would just have sent more tanks.
  3. Talking about a hypothetical situation where “if the Jews were armed” totally overlooks their courage in places like the Warsaw Ghetto where they fought hand to hand combat from house to house, and their courage, and their fortitude and trust in God in places like Dachau, and Belsen, and again their courage as they built a nation in Israel and rebuilt their place in the world after the War…
We Catholics/Christians have no right to mention the Jewish people’s struggles in an argument like this.
 
triumphguy said:
I find that using the suffering of the Jews in the holocaust as part of a gun argument is very ignorant of history.
  1. The Nazis had no qualms in attacking countries who were more heavily armed than they were: France had more tanks than the Wermacht in 1939. Soviet Russia had more tanks and soldiers when Hitler turned his armies east. So guns did NOT deter Hitler
  2. Whether the Jews were armed or not Hitler desired their extermination. Hitler just hated Jews, all Jews, not just Jews without guns. If they had been armed he would just have sent more tanks.
  3. Talking about a hypothetical situation where “if the Jews were armed” totally overlooks their courage in places like the Warsaw Ghetto where they fought hand to hand combat from house to house, and their courage, and their fortitude and trust in God in places like Dachau, and Belsen, and again their courage as they built a nation in Israel and rebuilt their place in the world after the War…
We Catholics/Christians have no right to mention the Jewish people’s struggles in an argument like this.
Click to expand...
Poo Poo

It’s my understanding that in history, prior to implementing some type of Facist Regime, they went around and systematically confiscated citizens guns. Is this true somebody???

If so, specific’s please.
 
triumphguy said:
I find that using the suffering of the Jews in the holocaust as part of a gun argument is very ignorant of history.
  1. The Nazis had no qualms in attacking countries who were more heavily armed than they were: France had more tanks than the Wermacht in 1939. Soviet Russia had more tanks and soldiers when Hitler turned his armies east. So guns did NOT deter Hitler
  2. Whether the Jews were armed or not Hitler desired their extermination. Hitler just hated Jews, all Jews, not just Jews without guns. If they had been armed he would just have sent more tanks.
  3. Talking about a hypothetical situation where “if the Jews were armed” totally overlooks their courage in places like the Warsaw Ghetto where they fought hand to hand combat from house to house, and their courage, and their fortitude and trust in God in places like Dachau, and Belsen, and again their courage as they built a nation in Israel and rebuilt their place in the world after the War…
We Catholics/Christians have no right to mention the Jewish people’s struggles in an argument like this.
Click to expand...
  1. I never said that the Jews having guns would have deterred him from trying his best to exterminate or even overtake him. But at least each individual person would have a chance at life. Just because they couldn’t overtake his regime as a whole does not mean that they weren’t entitled to personal protection. And there were plenty of Jews that found firearms and were able to protect themselves and loved ones.
  2. Like I said, just because Hitler couldn’t be completely stopped by the Jews does not mean that they should be denied the chance! I can guarantee that many Jews personally saw loved ones raped and murdered right in front of them. If I saw that happening to a loved one, I can guarantee you that I would use whatever means necessary to stop it. That it why I possess guns. I have absolutely no desire to use them but at least I have the opportunity to thwart potential threats and protect the lives of innocent people if the situation arises.
  3. What’s the difference between killing someone in hand to hand combat or with a firearm? If they had firearms, even a few of them, at least they were able to fight evil more effectively.
“We Catholics/Christians have no right to mention the Jewish people’s struggles in an argument like this.” What does that have to do with anything? Their struggle was for life and against evil. There are Christians who are persecuted all over the world in very similar ways. I know that if I was being persecuted to that extent under anyone, I sure as heck would want anything I could get my hands on to protect myself and the innocent lives of others.

Please answer me this genuinely. If you were in a situation where a loved one was being raped and about to be murdered and there was a gun ready to be used, would you or would you not use it?
 
Bill_7154 said:
Did they have a licence to carry? If not it says nothing except criminals will be criminals.
Click to expand...
Given that the old man was ex-military and an ex-policeman, I’d say it is a high probability he was legit.
 
Bill_7154 said:
Poo Poo

It’s my understanding that in history, prior to implementing some type of Facist Regime, they went around and systematically confiscated citizens guns. Is this true somebody???

If so, specific’s please.
Click to expand...
I have always understood that to be the case, in Russia, in Italy, in Germany, etc. Of course the citizens of China could never own guns under their Communist government. They might revolt! If you think about it, what fascist government would allow citizens to keep the means to resist??

Stephen Halbrook on confiscation of weapons in Nazi Germany
 
Bill_7154 said:
Poo Poo

It’s my understanding that in history, prior to implementing some type of Facist Regime, they went around and systematically confiscated citizens guns. Is this true somebody???

If so, specific’s please.
Click to expand...
No - to use the Shoa as an argument for or against gun control is just insulting to the millions of Jews who died.
dandingo said:
  1. I never said that the Jews having guns would have deterred him from trying his best to exterminate or even overtake him. But at least each individual person would have a chance at life. Just because they couldn’t overtake his regime as a whole does not mean that they weren’t entitled to personal protection. And there were plenty of Jews that found firearms and were able to protect themselves and loved ones.
  2. Like I said, just because Hitler couldn’t be completely stopped by the Jews does not mean that they should be denied the chance! I can guarantee that many Jews personally saw loved ones raped and murdered right in front of them. If I saw that happening to a loved one, I can guarantee you that I would use whatever means necessary to stop it. That it why I possess guns. I have absolutely no desire to use them but at least I have the opportunity to thwart potential threats and protect the lives of innocent people if the situation arises.
  3. What’s the difference between killing someone in hand to hand combat or with a firearm? If they had firearms, even a few of them, at least they were able to fight evil more effectively.
“We Catholics/Christians have no right to mention the Jewish people’s struggles in an argument like this.” What does that have to do with anything? Their struggle was for life and against evil. There are Christians who are persecuted all over the world in very similar ways. I know that if I was being persecuted to that extent under anyone, I sure as heck would want anything I could get my hands on to protect myself and the innocent lives of others.

Please answer me this genuinely. If you were in a situation where a loved one was being raped and about to be murdered and there was a gun ready to be used, would you or would you not use it?
Click to expand...
Of course I would pick up a gun if I had one: but if I and millions of Catholics were herded up and gassed to death in some horrific future (despite any resistance, or heroism, or guerrilla warfare tactics), and then someone from a different religion decades in the future said ,“Oh the Catholics, if only they had guns they would be alive today” (as if they were pathetic and weak) I would probably come back and haunt them.

It’s just poor poor taste to use the Holocaust to back up ANY argument, especially about gun-control.

Either you understand that or you don’t.
 
triumphguy said:
No - to use the Shoa as an argument for or against gun control is just insulting to the millions of Jews who died.

Of course I would pick up a gun if I had one: but if I and millions of Catholics were herded up and gassed to death in some horrific future (despite any resistance, or heroism, or guerrilla warfare tactics), and then someone from a different religion decades in the future said ,“Oh the Catholics, if only they had guns they would be alive today” (as if they were pathetic and weak) I would probably come back and haunt them.

It’s just poor poor taste to use the Holocaust to back up ANY argument, especially about gun-control.

Either you understand that or you don’t.
Click to expand...
““Oh the Catholics, if only they had guns they would be alive today” (as if they were pathetic and weak) I would probably come back and haunt them.”

First of all, not only did I not say that, but I didn’t even imply it. I would appreciate it if you didn’t misquote me or make implications of what I said, especially when I clarified my statement.

Referencing the Holocaust does not make something poor in taste. Whether you’re referring to a woman being raped or the Holocaust, they are both used to illustrate a point. My point is that our founders initially established the Second Amendment specifically to avoid being the victim of a dictator and to be able to protect ourselves from enemies, both foreign and domestic. The only way that could happen would be if gun confiscation became law. There’s a reason that the U.S. has never been invaded. We have the largest civilian army in the world. That’s my point.
 
This is what you said:
Do you think that the Jews in Poland and Germany wished that guns were much easier to obtain? Why don’t you ask a survivor of Nazi Germany or a victim of rape what they think about guns.
Click to expand...
  1. Look handguns don’t solve every problem. They didn’t stop the Nazis: carpet bombing, the fire-bombing of Dresden etc, and the combined armies of the British Commonwealth, America and Soviet Russia were necessary to stop the Nazis.
  2. The reason you haven’t been invaded (pre-nuclear age) is that you are not next to China, Japan, Russia, Germany etc - you know countries that historically invade.
Canada doesn’t typically invade countries - though we did burn the Whitehouse (hence its need to be painted white;)) and kick your behinds in 1812 after you lot invaded Canada:p
 
I’ve mentioned to a few people the fact that there has been an (apparently) genuine suggestion that it would have been better if the teachers had been armed.
Bill_7154 said:
Evidently we are all idiots…
Click to expand...
That would be the mildest of the reactions. By far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top