Could absence of gun control have saved VT victims?

[Montalban]

Why not? If children are properly taught, there should be no problem. Do you keep all of your household cleaners locked up because they may reach for it and drink it? Maybe when they are younger but as they get older, you TEACH them. Same concept applies to guns.

How many parents actually teach their children right from wrong?

How many school massacres have happened where students broke into their parents kitchen cupboards and brought household cleaners to school to kill people with?

Most of us will never have a fire in our home, yet most of us still buy fire insurance. Most of us will never be in a serious car accident, yet most of us wear a seat belt. It boils down to being prepared. Most of us will never be touched by violent crime but why not prepare for it as we prepare for other things in our lives?

If only a house fire and shooting were anything like each other, again unless you can show me how many kids take pieces of their burning house to school in order to kill fellow students, I think your argument’s based on some very poor analogies.

"He said to them, 'But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one
– Luke 22:36
So you’re not in favour of gun control, but sword control?

Two swords were enough for the 12 Apostles.

 

[Montalban]

*]
Embracing a weapon is embracing our Catholic DUTY to protect ourselves from death and serious injury. The Church teaches that this is just not a duty but a GRAVE duty. That means that we prepare for it ahead of time and use the best means that is available to us. In most case (not all but most) that will be with a gun.

But you’re not just talking about ‘protection’ but protection via guns. Why not have a sword? If you think a gun is a specific response, then cite the church teaching that specifically says guns.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I firmly believe that the eradication of guns would, in fact, have saved many lives at VT and in other tragic shootings.

They tried that. It didn’t work. Just as drugs are illegal but those who want them, still get them; the same thing with guns. The only people that obey gun laws are law-abiding citizens who are not the problem in the first place.

 

[Sir_Knight]

But you’re not just talking about ‘protection’ but protection via guns. Why not have a sword? If you think a gun is a specific response, then cite the church teaching that specifically says guns.

We’re talking about fulfilling our GRAVE duty to protect ourselves. A “grave” duty needs to be performed with the BEST means available and, as I said, in MOST cases that will be with a gun.

 

[Sir_Knight]

How many parents actually teach their children right from wrong?

It is the responsibility of EVERY parent to teach their children right from wrong.

How many school massacres have happened where students broke into their parents kitchen cupboards and brought household cleaners to school to kill people with?

How many school massacres did we have half a century ago when parents kept guns out in the open?

If only a house fire and shooting were anything like each other, again unless you can show me how many kids take pieces of their burning house to school in order to kill fellow students, I think your argument’s based on some very poor analogies.

We’re talking about being PREPARED. You prepare for other things in life, why not preparing to protect yourself?

So you’re not in favour of gun control, but sword control?

The sword of Christ’s era would be the equivelant of what a handgun is today. I believe I already said that.

Two swords were enough for the 12 Apostles.

Two swords would have been enough for a group of 12 strong men to protect themselves from a wild animal or a small group of robbers.

 

[Zooey]

This is one of those subjects that I try to stay out of, but I have to point out one thing, before returning you to your regularly scheduled discussion:
People were killing other people long before the invention of the gun. In fact, unless there is something I’ve overlooked in my 60 years, people were killing people in quite sizeable numbers before the invention of guns.

Thgrowing people to the lions may have given way to more advanced weaponry, but people were, at the end of the day, just as dead.

OK. Bowing out, quietly…

 

[mary_bobo]

I firmly believe that the eradication of guns would, in fact, have saved many lives at VT and in other tragic shootings.

And while we are all talking about gun control, just how do those who think it is a good idea propose we do this? I dare say many of them know nothing about guns except what they hear on TV or blogs, and often we are afraid of things we do not know about.

 

[mary_bobo]

Because in all the years since this bill passed, the Federal Government has still not put in effective database together.

In addition, of course, although supporters of the Brady Law like to trumpet how many “dangerous criminals” have been prevented from buying guns, only a tiny percentage of those “dangerous criminals” have been prosecuted – despite the fact that lying on the form is a criminal offense.

And how many of these “dangerous criminals” got their weapons legally in the first place?

 

[mary_bobo]

Pardon me – perhaps I should have been more explicit: I was speaking of hand guns and assault rifles, and other such weapons. I assumed that, since we’re in a thread about a shooting massacre that didn’t involve hunting weapons (to which I am slightly less opposed), that hunting weapons were not part of the debate.

In any case, swimming pools are recreational – yes, that’s my point, too. Handguns, assault rifles, automatic pistols, and the like – as I said before – have but one application: to threaten or end a life. To soften that with the euphemism of “self defense” does not change the reality that these weapons are designed to kill human beings.

A “responsible” gun owner keeps his weapons locked up, and keeps the ammunition locked up separately. What good is that for self defense during a home invasion? Should one keep one’s loaded weapon handy at the bedside if one has children, for the sake of defense? That kind of risk is not just irresponsible, it’s reprehensible.

Should one carry a concealed handgun? Do we really live in a country in which such measures are necessary? Yes, we have a lot of violent crime in our country, but it’s not as if most of us live in chaos. We have well-trained professional law enforcement officers who are paid (not nearly enough, by the way) to police our cities. Does this prevent muggings and random shootings? No – but I have to believe that carrying a weapon changes one’s outlook on the world. It just doesn’t seem to jive with the concept of charity; even if one truly would never use the weapon for anything but protection, one is carrying a device that is designed to kill a human being.

No, I don’t have any data or research to back that up; if that negates my argument in your mind, then so be it. It just seems to me that carrying a weapon is like acknowledging that one might kill someone else. I will fight for my life and that of others if need be – just like anyone else. Embracing a weapon in that way seems no different to me than embracing a willingness to kill – which is far different from a willingness to defend oneself.

Peace,
Dante

With respect to your opinion, just how do you define “assault rifle”? We do here this and other such terminology from the press, and others who know nothing about guns. You seem to feel that anyone who has a gun and knows how to properly us it, is some kind of nefarious thing that paints them as “willing to kill”. I think that is unfair and not a very educated supposition. I can understand someone fearing guns if they know nothing about them. I cannot understand someone who does not want a gun themselves and attempt to impose their “feelings” on others via law.

 

[Montalban]

They tried that. It didn’t work

Really? When did they ban ALL guns?

. Just as drugs are illegal but those who want them, still get them; the same thing with guns.

So you think they should legalise drugs?

The only people that obey gun laws are law-abiding citizens who are not the problem in the first place.

So you think they should get rid of all laws?

What a strange argument you’re making

 

[Montalban]

We’re talking about fulfilling our GRAVE duty to protect ourselves. A “grave” duty needs to be performed with the BEST means available and, as I said, in MOST cases that will be with a gun.

You’d be even more safe with grenades and land mines about your property. Do you want them legal too?

 

[Montalban]

It is the responsibility of EVERY parent to teach their children right from wrong.

How are you going to legislate responsibility?

How many school massacres did we have half a century ago when parents kept guns out in the open?

I don’t know? How many?

We’re talking about being PREPARED. You prepare for other things in life, why not preparing to protect yourself?

Who says I need a gun to prepare myself?

The sword of Christ’s era would be the equivelant of what a handgun is today. I believe I already said that.

No a sword would be equal to a sword. Swords don’t ‘evolve’ into hand-guns. The history of the development of handguns has nothing to do with bladed weapons. How are they ‘equal’?

Two swords would have been enough for a group of 12 strong men to protect themselves from a wild animal or a small group of robbers.

So you agree to limitations on weapons. Thanks for joining my side.

 

[Montalban]

And while we are all talking about gun control, just how do those who think it is a good idea propose we do this? I dare say many of them know nothing about guns except what they hear on TV or blogs, and often we are afraid of things we do not know about.

Hey, drugs are through our schools and society. They’re everywhere. It would be really difficult to control them, so let’s just not bother and legalise drugs.

 

[guardian1]

nuff said…

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

 

[Steadfast_love]

Sir Knight,

I’m fairly good at martial arts and have defended myself in street fights but I have no experience with guns. I’ve got a wife, kid, apartment and a car to protect. Also my apartment is ground floor and in a low crime neighborhood. My job is in a high crime gun free zone. We average a shooting death every two or three years in the gun free workplace and several times a year in the surrounding neighborhood.

So how do I go about arming myself? Are there certain kinds of guns I should get first? Also, the wife is concerned about toxins so any non-toxic solutions (lead free bullets?) would be appreciated.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Embracing a weapon is embracing our Catholic DUTY to protect ourselves from death and serious injury. The Church teaches that this is just not a duty but a GRAVE duty. That means that we prepare for it ahead of time and use the best means that is available to us. In most case (not all but most) that will be with a gun.

I’d like to see the passage from the CCC that you think implies that our “duty to protect ourselves” means being armed at all times.

Is it this?

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

or this?

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.

or this?

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.

or this?

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. **Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. **The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order

.

Peace,
Dante

 

[guardian1]

Sir Knight,

I’m fairly good at martial arts and have defended myself in street fights but I have no experience with guns. I’ve got a wife, kid, apartment and a car to protect. Also my apartment is ground floor and in a low crime neighborhood. My job is in a high crime gun free zone. We average a shooting death every two or three years in the gun free workplace and several times a year in the surrounding neighborhood.

So how do I go about arming myself? Are there certain kinds of guns I should get first? Also, the wife is concerned about toxins so any non-toxic solutions (lead free bullets?) would be appreciated.

get bullets that are full metal jacket (it’ll say FMJ on the side of the box). it’s a lead bullet encased in copper, hence no lead poisoning.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

With respect to your opinion, just how do you define “assault rifle”? We do here this and other such terminology from the press, and others who know nothing about guns. You seem to feel that anyone who has a gun and knows how to properly us it, is some kind of nefarious thing that paints them as “willing to kill”. I think that is unfair and not a very educated supposition. I can understand someone fearing guns if they know nothing about them. I cannot understand someone who does not want a gun themselves and attempt to impose their “feelings” on others via law.

With respect, my definition of “assault rifle” is not at issue. Assault rifles was the term I used to distiguish between hunting rifles and those intended to kill human beings. If that is not how they are legally defined, forgive my ignorance.

In any case, my point was that owning a gun for the purpose of self defense (and, even more so, carrying one) implies the willingness of that person to take somone’s life. I can’t imagine how one could dispute this.

Given that implication, guns seem to be at best morally ambiguous, and at worst, inherently wrong.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Why?

Because common sense says so, as well as the American Hunters and Shooters Association:

the American Hunters and Shooters Association urges all gun owners to store firearms unloaded and securely locked up separate from the ammunition whenever they are not in use.

…as well as “SafetyOn.com”

Responsible firearm ownership demands not only safe gun handling habits, but secure firearm storage, to keep firearms out of criminal or irresponsible hands

…and (gasp) the NRA:

Responsible gun owners store their guns safely. For over a century, the National Rifle Association and other civic groups have done everything they can to encourage safe gun storage.

Absolutely nothing. Which is why it is not a good idea to do that.

Why not? If children are properly taught, there should be no problem. Do you keep all of your household cleaners locked up because they may reach for it and drink it? Maybe when they are younger but as they get older, you TEACH them. Same concept applies to guns.

This line of reasoning is frighteningly naive. Parents also teach their kids (hopefully) about the dangers of drugs, premarital sex, drinking, reckless driving, and a host of other dangerous or immoral activities. It is not just the kids who are not educated about these things who partake of them, and it is not just the kids who are uneducated about guns who misuse them.

Children look to their parents to protect them. The time to prepare for that responsibility is NOT when someone it breaking down the door. To fail in that responsibility is reprehensible.

If one legally can, one should.

I agree that one has a moral obligation to protect one’s children – but this does not mean one has a duty to arm oneself in such a way that one’s children might be in danger on a day-to-day basis.

The best way to protect one’s children is to go to every length to remove what threats one may from their lives.

Most of us will never have a fire in our home, yet most of us still buy fire insurance. Most of us will never be in a serious car accident, yet most of us wear a seat belt. It boils down to being prepared. Most of us will never be touched by violent crime but why not prepare for it as we prepare for other things in our lives?

Again, you are comparing weapons, which have no purpose but to kill, with something inherently innocuous. Your analogy doesn’t hold water.

This goes back to the point I made earlier: that owning a gun in order to “be prepared” implies one’s willingness to use it to its purpose.

Are you referring to the police which, in 2005, according to FBI Statistics, took an hour or more to respond to ‘911’ calls? Waiting for help to arrive may take the rest of your life.

Or, are you referring to the police force which, according to the US Supreme Court, does NOT have a duty to protect you?

Yes, on both accounts. I never said we have efficient police forces; I said we have police forces. Their quality does not justify vigilantism.

Just as our Savior and God commanded us to do …

… Jesus Christ, who preached peace, turning the other cheek and loving thy enemy ALSO commanded us to buy a weapon (snip)

I’m no biblical scholar, so I cannot provide you with a proper exegesis of this passage, but to look at it in context enables one to see that this is not a command to the average Christian to buy a weapon. If it were, one would be able to find similar instruction in the Catechism. Instead, the passage you quoted is an instruction given to the Apostles for the situation in which they found themselves.

As I’ve said, biblical exegesis is not my field, so I cannot tell you what moral instruction is to be taken from that passage. Again, however, the lack of Catechetical instruction to own a weapon clearly debunks your claim.

Peace,
Dante

 

[vern_humphrey]

Pardon me – perhaps I should have been more explicit: I was speaking of hand guns and assault rifles, and other such weapons. I assumed that, since we’re in a thread about a shooting massacre that didn’t involve hunting weapons (to which I am slightly less opposed), that hunting weapons were not part of the debate.

Handguns and “assault rifles” are also used for self-defense, hunting, competition and other non-lethal purposes.

In any case, swimming pools are recreational – yes, that’s my point, too.

All the more reason to ban swimming pools. No one needs a swimming pool. But when a mass murderer busts into your classroom, you need a gun.

A “responsible” gun owner keeps his weapons locked up, and keeps the ammunition locked up separately. What good is that for self defense during a home invasion?

You’re an expert on firearms?

A responsible gun owner keeps his firearms in the condition warranted by the situation. And if he considers there is a threat, he keeps his firearms in a ready state.

Should one keep one’s loaded weapon handy at the bedside if one has children, for the sake of defense? That kind of risk is not just irresponsible, it’s reprehensible.

Once again – You’re an expert on firearms?

Children should be trained – locking things up is only for small children who have not yet been trained.

Should one carry a concealed handgun? Do we really live in a country in which such measures are necessary?

Do you not watch the news or read the paper? Thirty two unarmed people were just massacred – in a state with liberalized carry – because firearms were not permitted on campus. They died unable to defend themselves.

Yes, we have a lot of violent crime in our country, but it’s not as if most of us live in chaos.

And yet thirty two unarmed people were just massacred – in a state with liberalized carry – because firearms were not permitted on campus. They died unable to defend themselves.

We have well-trained professional law enforcement officers who are paid (not nearly enough, by the way) to police our cities. Does this prevent muggings and random shootings?

And yet And yet thirty two unarmed people were just massacred – in a state with liberalized carry – because firearms were not permitted on campus. They died while police tried to decide what to do.

No – but I have to believe that carrying a weapon changes one’s outlook on the world.

Once again – You’re an expert on firearms?

How do you** know** carrying a weapon changes one’s outlook on the world? What do you base than on, other than your imagination?

It just doesn’t seem to jive with the concept of charity; even if one truly would never use the weapon for anything but protection, one is carrying a device that is designed to kill a human being.

From the Catechism:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

No, I don’t have any data or research to back that up; if that negates my argument in your mind, then so be it. It just seems to me that carrying a weapon is like acknowledging that one might kill someone else. I will fight for my life and that of others if need be – just like anyone else. Embracing a weapon in that way seems no different to me than embracing a willingness to kill – which is far different from a willingness to defend oneself.

Peace,
Dante

In other words, this is merely your uninformed opinion.

Do you reject studying and getting a little training and experience because you fear what you learn would not jibe with your pre-concieved opinion?