V
vern_humphrey
Guest
(My emphasis)
Those who have a duty also have a responsibiliy to be equipped and prepared to carry out that duty.
- Status
Those who have a duty also have a responsibiliy to be equipped and prepared to carry out that duty.
V
vluvski
Guest
A revolver is very reliable and cheaper than other types of handguns. Also very simple to explain to wife and older kids (not that they’re dumb, just might not be interested or want to go to shooting range for practice).
I also recommend adding to your martial arts skills a gun disarming move or two. Very simple and easy to do. My husband took a one day class and it’s amazing how powerful a few simple twists can be against a gunman who hesitates to use his weapon.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
My recommendation to people new to guns is a .38 Special or .357 revolver with a 3 to 4-inch barrel. The Ruger SP 101 is a very good choice.
The downside to that is you can’t be sure he’ll hesitate.
V
vluvski
Guest
If he doesn’t hesitate, you might be toast anyway. I am not suggesting this in lieu of a gun, but in addition to or in the absence of. For example, if I were approached by an armed robber in downtown Baltimore or anywhere outside my own home, for that matter.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Ah, you live in a state where the government is hard at work making it safe for muggers, rapists and mass murderers.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
With all due respect, terminology of guns is exactly the point. The press and the gun control lobby screams out about “assault” weapons all the time and works people into a frenzy of fear. Some of the weapons they keep repeating are available are not, legally, and have not been for years. You think as you think, and that’s fine. I just hope for your sake that we never get in a place where you wish you had one. I, personally, don’t want to be a target for an armed criminal without arming myself.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
OK, you guys win – I’m joining the NRA and getting a concealed weapon permit.
Not really. I’m too tired and busy to give this thread the attention it deserves.
If my “preconceived opinion” is invalid because it’s based on my conscience, then I’ve nothing further to add to this “discussion”.
If the very same CCC passages I’m using to support my opinion are going to be used **against **it, we’re into another can of worms entirely.
And if fallacious reasoning (such as “the victims died because they were unarmed” and “if guns are too dangerous, then so are swimming pools”) are going to continue to be landmines around which I must maneuver, then I’ve lost interest in the debate.
Have fun; you win. And please – be safe.
Peace,
Dante
Not really. I’m too tired and busy to give this thread the attention it deserves.
If my “preconceived opinion” is invalid because it’s based on my conscience, then I’ve nothing further to add to this “discussion”.
If the very same CCC passages I’m using to support my opinion are going to be used **against **it, we’re into another can of worms entirely.
And if fallacious reasoning (such as “the victims died because they were unarmed” and “if guns are too dangerous, then so are swimming pools”) are going to continue to be landmines around which I must maneuver, then I’ve lost interest in the debate.
Have fun; you win. And please – be safe.
Peace,
Dante
M
Montalban
Guest
Sir Knight who believes it is his Catholic duty to defend himself, should then be happy when machine-guns are handed out, because these will help defend people even better
V
vluvski
Guest
Not sure why you say “victims died because they were unarmed” is fallacious reasoning.
Do you realize that several years ago, at a college just up the road from VT, a crazed former student’s shooting spree was brought to a halt by two students who retrieved their personal firearms from their vehicles? This individual, obviously in need of help as much as Cho, could and likely would have continued his rampage if it were not for the firepower brandished by two other LAW-ABIDING students who owned guns. They didn’t have to kill or even shoot the guy. His own fear stopped him.
Likewise, any one student in any one of the dorm or classrooms fatefully selected by Cho could have brought down the renegade shooter by force or coaxed him into submission if they only owned a gun.
If someone came at you with a knife and you were in your bedroom, would you not wish you were in your kitchen so you could match his blade? If someone came after you in a car trying to run you over, wouldn’t you rather be in a car yourself? If someone takes you son or daughter hostage, would you not wish you had access to something valuable to them to trade?
In a bad situation, the innocent party needs leverage. Criminals will find a way to access guns. We owe it to ourselves to ensure legal access to reasonably matched firepower.
Do you realize that several years ago, at a college just up the road from VT, a crazed former student’s shooting spree was brought to a halt by two students who retrieved their personal firearms from their vehicles? This individual, obviously in need of help as much as Cho, could and likely would have continued his rampage if it were not for the firepower brandished by two other LAW-ABIDING students who owned guns. They didn’t have to kill or even shoot the guy. His own fear stopped him.
Likewise, any one student in any one of the dorm or classrooms fatefully selected by Cho could have brought down the renegade shooter by force or coaxed him into submission if they only owned a gun.
If someone came at you with a knife and you were in your bedroom, would you not wish you were in your kitchen so you could match his blade? If someone came after you in a car trying to run you over, wouldn’t you rather be in a car yourself? If someone takes you son or daughter hostage, would you not wish you had access to something valuable to them to trade?
In a bad situation, the innocent party needs leverage. Criminals will find a way to access guns. We owe it to ourselves to ensure legal access to reasonably matched firepower.
V
vluvski
Guest
I’d rather have the machine gun in my possession than allow it to fall into nefarious hands. You see, I’m not afraid of a weapon. It’s not going to mystically begin shooting people, and I’m sure not going to begin shooting people either. If an army of home invaders tried to enter my house… buddy they better watch out.
S
system
Guest
Amen Dante. Threads like this make me think I’ve entered an alternate universe. In this universe, following Jesus is equated with packin’ heat. I’m left to wonder what sort of gun Jesus, the Prince of Peace, would carry?
I think of all the millions of Catholics who lived and died never owning a gun, and, according to this thread, they were were not good Catholics because they were not prepared to fulfill the GRAVE GRAVE duty outlined in the CCC.
C
colliric
Guest
No…
I live in a country which has tight *** gun control laws and it’s been prooven statistically to work. It’s harder to smuggle a large metal object through Customs than it is to smuggle roughly the same amount of drugs. People who say it is as easy to smuggle guns, as it is to smuggle Drugs, in to the country don’t understand how easily detectable Metal is as opposed to powder or tablets.
Drugs have to be sniffed out by Dogs, Metal cannot be conceiled in an x-ray machine or when you go through a metal detector, unlike drugs. Why do you think the 9/11 hyjackers didn’t bother trying to beat the system and get guns on board the airplanes?
Since 1990 when the first state government gun control laws came into effect in Australia, there has been a significant decline in Shooting deaths. Then the Laws were federalised in 1996 and that was when the figures declined by more than 350 lives on average which is significant in Australia with it’s population of 18 million.
Like in Japan and the UK, in Australia most of the shooting deaths are significantly now “Mafia/yakuza hits” or by farmers/hunters/police and not murder caused by civilians turning guns on each other.
What you people fail to recognise is that the Marfia and balck market tend to want to hoard the guns for themselves, and won’t actually be stupid enough to sell them to people who could potentially turn into “problems”. They don’t treat them like drugs, they like keeping their guns within their own community in order to have more power and control, especially when the latest mob war rolls around…
That is why gun control actually works in minimising shooting murders.
I live in a country which has tight *** gun control laws and it’s been prooven statistically to work. It’s harder to smuggle a large metal object through Customs than it is to smuggle roughly the same amount of drugs. People who say it is as easy to smuggle guns, as it is to smuggle Drugs, in to the country don’t understand how easily detectable Metal is as opposed to powder or tablets.
Drugs have to be sniffed out by Dogs, Metal cannot be conceiled in an x-ray machine or when you go through a metal detector, unlike drugs. Why do you think the 9/11 hyjackers didn’t bother trying to beat the system and get guns on board the airplanes?
Since 1990 when the first state government gun control laws came into effect in Australia, there has been a significant decline in Shooting deaths. Then the Laws were federalised in 1996 and that was when the figures declined by more than 350 lives on average which is significant in Australia with it’s population of 18 million.
Like in Japan and the UK, in Australia most of the shooting deaths are significantly now “Mafia/yakuza hits” or by farmers/hunters/police and not murder caused by civilians turning guns on each other.
What you people fail to recognise is that the Marfia and balck market tend to want to hoard the guns for themselves, and won’t actually be stupid enough to sell them to people who could potentially turn into “problems”. They don’t treat them like drugs, they like keeping their guns within their own community in order to have more power and control, especially when the latest mob war rolls around…
That is why gun control actually works in minimising shooting murders.
M
Montalban
Guest
How do I know you won’t start shooting people? And without a gun you can’t start doing this.
M
Montalban
Guest
Great, a chance to be killed by so-called friendly fire!
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Just so you know, machine guns have been illegal to buy for many, many years. There are legal ways to obtain a gun of this type, but it requires so much red tape as to be impossible in 99.9% of the cases. It involves dealing directly with the feds with extensive background checks, etc. In other words, it just does not happen.
I can understand how some people think there should be no guns at all, but I don’t understand how you envision us protecting ourselves when someone bent on killing many people confronts a large group of people and starts firing.
M
Montalban
Guest
Irrelevant. Sir Knight’s arguing that its the Catholic duty to defend oneself with guns. Machine guns would work better, therefore you and he (if you agree with his notion) should be lobbying to have them available.
Why are you guys such defeatists?
Too hard to get machine guns - don’t bother.
Too hard to restrict guns, anyway - don’t bother!
Do you think the same about porn and illegal drugs?
uch:If he didn’t have a gun, he’d not be able to do the firing in the first place. :newidea:
M
Montalban
Guest
:idea:
You should, in the interests of your own protection be pushing for the right to freely and openly carry guns, including hand-guns, shot guns, etc. You could even have them in holsters so they’re more easily available, and they serve to advertise that you mean business
:tsktsk:
This shouldn’t be restricted so that you can do so even on federal government territory, and on aeroplanes, because, what if some nut-case attacks you there !
You should, in the interests of your own protection be pushing for the right to freely and openly carry guns, including hand-guns, shot guns, etc. You could even have them in holsters so they’re more easily available, and they serve to advertise that you mean business
:tsktsk:
This shouldn’t be restricted so that you can do so even on federal government territory, and on aeroplanes, because, what if some nut-case attacks you there !
D
didididi
Guest
Gun laws credited as lifesavers
Email Print Normal font Large font John Garnaut
April 23, 2007
THE tough gun controls introduced after the Port Arthur massacre have probably saved about 2500 lives, economists say.
Debunking a widely reported study to the contrary, their analysis suggests that removing 600,000 guns from circulation has sharply reduced suicide and murder rates.
Andrew Leigh, at the Australian National University, and Christine Neill of Canada’s Wilfrid Laurier University found a sharp, statistically significant reduction in murder and suicide.
“There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected,” they said.
Using deaths data since 1915, the authors estimated gun control had led to about 35 fewer murders and 247 fewer suicides annually since 1997. They calculate slightly smaller numbers when their statistical model is restricted to data after 1969.
Their report found no evidence that gun control may have simply caused a substitution from shooting to other killing methods.
“The fact that overall violent deaths have fallen since 1996 … strongly suggests there has not been substantial method substitution,” the report says.
The authors slam an earlier report in the British Journal of Criminology that claimed the firearms agreement had no effect on death rates.
That study, by Jeanine Baker from the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran from the Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting, exploited less than a third of the available annual data and used “very dubious” statistical methodology, they say.
The Federal Government’s 1997 National Firearms Agreement allowed the buyback of semi-automatic rifles, pump-action shotguns and other firearms. The agreement, which introduced some of the world’s toughest gun laws, was negotiated by the Prime Minister, John Howard, 35 people were shot at Port Arthur in 1996.
The most recent reliable figures, for 2002-03, show there were 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 Australians - about one-fifteenth of the US rate.
“The risk of dying by gunshot halved over the past 10 years,” said Philip Alpers, adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney’s School of Public Health.
Earlier this month, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported the rate of gun theft had dropped by 70 per cent since stricter gun laws were introduced.
In NSW, the number of guns in the hands of registered owners has risen in the past six years.
NSW Police Firearms Registry figures show that as of April 9, there were more than 516,000 guns registered in the state.
with Linton Besser
smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-credited-as-lifesavers/2007/04/22/1177180487704.html
Email Print Normal font Large font John Garnaut
April 23, 2007
THE tough gun controls introduced after the Port Arthur massacre have probably saved about 2500 lives, economists say.
Debunking a widely reported study to the contrary, their analysis suggests that removing 600,000 guns from circulation has sharply reduced suicide and murder rates.
Andrew Leigh, at the Australian National University, and Christine Neill of Canada’s Wilfrid Laurier University found a sharp, statistically significant reduction in murder and suicide.
“There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected,” they said.
Using deaths data since 1915, the authors estimated gun control had led to about 35 fewer murders and 247 fewer suicides annually since 1997. They calculate slightly smaller numbers when their statistical model is restricted to data after 1969.
Their report found no evidence that gun control may have simply caused a substitution from shooting to other killing methods.
“The fact that overall violent deaths have fallen since 1996 … strongly suggests there has not been substantial method substitution,” the report says.
The authors slam an earlier report in the British Journal of Criminology that claimed the firearms agreement had no effect on death rates.
That study, by Jeanine Baker from the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran from the Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting, exploited less than a third of the available annual data and used “very dubious” statistical methodology, they say.
The Federal Government’s 1997 National Firearms Agreement allowed the buyback of semi-automatic rifles, pump-action shotguns and other firearms. The agreement, which introduced some of the world’s toughest gun laws, was negotiated by the Prime Minister, John Howard, 35 people were shot at Port Arthur in 1996.
The most recent reliable figures, for 2002-03, show there were 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 Australians - about one-fifteenth of the US rate.
“The risk of dying by gunshot halved over the past 10 years,” said Philip Alpers, adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney’s School of Public Health.
Earlier this month, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported the rate of gun theft had dropped by 70 per cent since stricter gun laws were introduced.
In NSW, the number of guns in the hands of registered owners has risen in the past six years.
NSW Police Firearms Registry figures show that as of April 9, there were more than 516,000 guns registered in the state.
with Linton Besser
smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-credited-as-lifesavers/2007/04/22/1177180487704.html
M
mary_bobo
Guest
All valid points although naive. My question was now that millions of guns are out there, what now? To intimate that we should be lobbying for machine guns is jesting, I hope. Surely you are not serious, right? You have outlined the problem, now how about a solution.Irrelevant. Sir Knight’s arguing that its the Catholic duty to defend oneself with guns. Machine guns would work better, therefore you and he (if you agree with his notion) should be lobbying to have them available.
Why are you guys such defeatists?
Too hard to get machine guns - don’t bother.
Too hard to restrict guns, anyway - don’t bother!
Do you think the same about porn and illegal drugs?
If he didn’t have a gun, he’d not be able to do the firing in the first place. :newidea:
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Please give us the names of the students killed by friendly fire in that incident.
- Status