DEAR AMERICA: Here's Why Everyone Thinks You Have A Problem With Guns

[kuppermom]

So having to pay fees to sell a gun to your brother prevents your support for universal background checks that might serve the common good of society?

As Christians, it is my opinion, that we are called to suffer, especially minor inconveniences, for the good of our ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters.’ A few dollars is more than worth it, if it can stop one criminal from obtaining, and using, a gun against someone. Having to go somewhere to complete the necessary paperwork, for background checks, is, again, a minor inconvenience, for the law abiding citizen.

I hope it explains why I don’t believe you have said anything for me to think about changing my view.

We will have to agree to disagree then. If you truly read what I all said above.

 

[kuppermom]

In the same paragraph it goes further into detail, about the grave duty, for the defense of the common good, not individual. I don’t have to explain the rest of the paragraph. One can see it’s the legitimate authority with the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

“In Catholic thought, social justice is not merely a secular or humanitarian matter. Social justice is a reflection of God’s essential respect and concern for each person and an effort to protect the essential human freedom necessary for each person to achieve his or her destiny as a child of God.” U.S. Bishops. To Do the Work of Justice (1978) 8.

“The social order and its development must constantly yield to the good of the person, since the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons and not the other way around, as the Lord suggested when he said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” Vatican II, Church in the Modern World (1965) 26.
In “Economic Justice For All” “The economy exist for the person, not the person for the economy.” In other words, Catholic church does not teach what you indicated to, instead the person is the one that has the value. I believe it was Nietzsche was more the society is more important and actually that is the same thought process that got Hitler in trouble. If a few had to suffer for the good of the community then so be it, was his view point. Hitler was a great follower of Nietzsche.

 

[livingwordunity]

Hear Hear!! Well said! The Yakuza use blades to kill people! The young, the skillfull and the strong then **rule! **

The gun is called the 'equalizer’ for a* mighty* good reason!

If liberals were consistent with their “equality” mantra they would be for responsible gun ownership instead of gun bans since owning a gun is an equalizer for women. I think liberals shouldn’t take away the right for a woman to defend herself with a gun.

 

[LilyM]

If liberals were consistent with their “equality” mantra they would be for responsible gun ownership instead of gun bans since owning a gun is an equalizer for women. I think liberals shouldn’t take away the right for a woman to defend herself with a gun.

I as a woman am no more likely to have a gun than any criminal who wants to do me harm - and that is just as true with or without whatever form of gun control short of outright banning (which I am not advocating).

Less restrictions certainly would not make me more likely to want - and therefore get - a gun.

So how exactly am I ‘more equal’ when the criminals and loonies and tyrants are just as armed and dangerous?

 

[kuppermom]

I as a woman am no more likely to have a gun than any criminal who wants to do me harm - and that is just as true with or without whatever form of gun control short of outright banning (which I am not advocating).

Less restrictions certainly would not make me more likely to want - and therefore get - a gun.

So how exactly am I ‘more equal’ when the criminals and loonies and tyrants are just as armed and dangerous?

Scientifically speaking, when a 200 pound man with a knife tries to rape a 145 pound woman with the gun. Well, as the saying goes, you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. Please don’t be a naive woman who thinks she can physically take on any man. Maybe by running really really fast, if he doesn’t have a hold of you already…

 

[kuppermom]

I as a woman am no more likely to have a gun than any criminal who wants to do me harm - and that is just as true with or without whatever form of gun control short of outright banning (which I am not advocating).

Less restrictions certainly would not make me more likely to want - and therefore get - a gun.

So how exactly am I ‘more equal’ when the criminals and loonies and tyrants are just as armed and dangerous?

“Only 2% said they(rapists) carry weapons because rape carries a 3-5 year sentence but rape with a weapon is 15-20 years. If you put up any kind of a fight at all, they get discouraged because it only takes a minute or two for them to realize that going after you isn’t worth it because it will be time-consuming . These men said they would not pick on women who have umbrellas , or other similar objects that can be used from a distance, in their hands.Keys are not a deterrent because you have to get really close to the attacker to use them as a weapon. So, the idea is to convince these guys you’re not worth it.”

 

[LilyM]

Scientifically speaking, when a 200 pound man with a knife tries to rape a 145 pound woman with the gun. Well, as the saying goes, you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. Please don’t be a naive woman who thinks she can physically take on any man. Maybe by running really really fast, if he doesn’t have a hold of you already…

Yeah but he is just as likely to be a 200 pound man with a gun as a knife - in which case my gun is no advantage. And if he has a hold of me already it makes it much more difficult for me to even reach for let alone use any weapon at all, so again I don’t see a substantial advantage.

I’m not stupid enoough to attempt to take someone on physically but you yourself said an umbrella is also an effective deterrent.

We need to think outside the square in terms of self-drfence and, as with condoms, not be lulled into a false sense of security or safety by something that seems promising but in practice has real chances of failing us as protection.

 

[lcburgundy]

So having to pay fees to sell a gun to your brother prevents your support for universal background checks that might serve the common good of society?
… Having to go somewhere to complete the necessary paperwork, for background checks, is, again, a minor inconvenience, for the law abiding citizen.

Yeah, we already have universal background checks and registration for pistols in Michigan. If the system serves any crime-deterrent purpose, I’m unaware of it. It’s trivial to traffic in illegal weapons regardless. The state police doesn’t even like administering the system because they get so little crime-fighting mileage out of it.

Also, I oppose creeping “you have nothing to hide” incrementalism. Would you oppose daily searches of your person and residence just to make sure you’re not harboring any illegal weapons or fugitives? How about a camera installed in your residence? You don’t have anything to hide, do you? It’s just for the common good of society and a minor inconvenience to the law abiding citizen. Good thing that’s not how our rights are defined.

 

[kuppermom]

Yeah but he is just as likely to be a 200 pound man with a gun as a knife - in which case my gun is no advantage. And if he has a hold of me already it makes it much more difficult for me to even reach for let alone use any weapon at all, so again I don’t see a substantial advantage.

I’m not stupid enoough to attempt to take someone on physically but you yourself said an umbrella is also an effective deterrent.

We need to think outside the square in terms of self-drfence and, as with condoms, not be lulled into a false sense of security or safety by something that seems promising but in practice has real chances of failing us as protection.

Maybe you agree with Colorado University advisers on how to deal with rape then…
“Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating,” and “Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.”

 

[LilyM]

Maybe you agree with Colorado University advisers on how to deal with rape then…
“Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating,” and “Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.”

If it works, why the heck not?

 

[kuppermom]

If it works, why the heck not?

oh dear, okay…good luck and God bless.

 

[LilyM]

oh dear, okay…good luck and God bless.

I’m sure He can protect you and me infinitely better than any gun. And unless He protects you and me no gun will be effective.

 

[kuppermom]

I’m sure He can protect you and me infinitely better than any gun. And unless He protects you and me no gun will be effective.

Aww…but he also allows for free will. He will heal you after the fact, but why allow yourself to be a victim. If you can in anyway protect yourself why wouldn’t you?

I’ll restate…“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.” 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:” Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[LilyM]

Aww…but he also allows for free will. He will heal you after the fact, but why allow yourself to be a victim. If you can in anyway protect yourself why wouldn’t you?

I’ll restate…“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.” 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:” Catechism of the Catholic Church

None of this teaching comes close to justifying - or approving or even condoning - the level of unfettered access to guns that Americans are demanding, of course.

 

[kuppermom]

None of this teaching comes close to justifying - or approving or even condoning - the level of unfettered access to guns that Americans are demanding, of course.

Well, we are now at an impasse. I’m going to bed. Good night and God bless.

 

[lcburgundy]

If it works, why the heck not?

Because it probably won’t work since the core of it rests on reasoning with a violent criminal? They’re not attacking you because they’re looking for someone to chat up. I do agree with you on this on one basic level: that you have to make a decision as to what proper moral response to violence is for you consistent with your beliefs and comfort level. I don’t believe everyone should have a gun, that’s for sure. There’s no moral imperative to resist and you are free to submit as far as your personal plan is concerned.

It’s when you want to make the decision of what constitutes proper protection for others that I have an issue with it. Guns are the great equalizer. Criminals will always have nearly unfettered access to them; I fail to see the purpose of one or a half-dozen more roadblocks to legal ownership. That sort of action is about feeling good as opposed to doing good.

 

[LilyM]

Because it probably won’t work since the core of it rests on reasoning with a violent criminal? They’re not attacking you because they’re looking for someone to chat up. I do agree with you on this on one basic level: that you have to make a decision as to what proper moral response to violence is for you consistent with your beliefs and comfort level. I don’t believe everyone should have a gun, that’s for sure. There’s no moral imperative to resist and you are free to submit as far as your personal plan is concerned.

It’s when you want to make the decision of what constitutes proper protection for others that I have an issue with it. Guns are the great equalizer. Criminals will always have nearly unfettered access to them; I fail to see the purpose of one or a half-dozen more roadblocks to legal ownership. That sort of action is about feeling good as opposed to doing good.

It’s not about reason - it is about letting loose with your bodily functions (probably fairly easy when you are in a scary situation) and making your attacker so physically repulsed and disgusted that they lose the will to proceed.

Like aversion therapy for smokers or drinkers, if you will.

And our societies make blanket rules about what constitutes proper self-defence all the time. That’s why it is illegal for certain people to own guns, because they cannot be trusted to use them in only a properly self-defensive way. That’s also why there are prohibitions and restrictions on all sorts of other kinds of weapons too.

 

[umgriz932001]

Its late and i haven’t figured out how to link websites on my phone, but if a person types in Adam Lanza denied gun, you can read how before he went to Sandy Hook, he was denied a gun. So in that aspect the system did work. He didn’t want to wait the required amount of days. The store said no and denied him.

Was his mother responsible for keeping guns out of his hands? We know the answer. I have read that she knew he had mental issues, so she should have taken great care to insure her son could not gain access to the guns.

As for having peoples private medical records accessible to search, it breaks the HIPPA act. We are not allowed public access to HIV positive/AIDS records. But you could reason that people have the right to know before they get into a sexual relationship with an AIDS/HIV+ person.

When private records of conversations/procedures/medications can become used against a person for the good of the society, then confession will lose its position as a safe place to discuss matters, like whys with a psychologist’s office. We will have more problems because people will not want to go talk to s person even if they are feeling a little down, or they experienced a traumatic event that they need help dealing with, because the doc/priest might have to turn them in for a moment of questionable mental state. While doing so, they could lose certain rights.

If a person has been declared through a court (which become public record) metal incapable of owning a gun, that can be used to stop then from accessing guns under background searches.

Shouldn’t most people be given the benefit of the doubt, even with a few people that do horrific things to others? We are always going to have horrible people that commit horrible crimes against humanity, but there is also plenty, if not more instances of people doing kind deeds for one another.

The Boston Marathon bombing was only two men who committed a horrible deed, yet many many more gave all they had to those in need. That is the real story, not the carnage, but the beautiful moments of humanity at its finest. There for one another when the time called for it.

 

[kuppermom]

It’s not about reason - it is about letting loose with your bodily functions (probably fairly easy when you are in a scary situation) and making your attacker so physically repulsed and disgusted that they lose the will to proceed.

Like aversion therapy for smokers or drinkers, if you will.

And our societies make blanket rules about what constitutes proper self-defence all the time. That’s why it is illegal for certain people to own guns, because they cannot be trusted to use them in only a properly self-defensive way. That’s also why there are prohibitions and restrictions on all sorts of other kinds of weapons too.

I’m sorry…are you for real. I have to say though that you are right, I don’t think you should own a gun. I agree with, can’t remember their name right now, not everyone should own a gun if they don’t feel comfortable with it and don’t understand them and are very uneducated about them.

 

[LilyM]

I’m sorry…are you for real. I have to say though that you are right, I don’t think you should own a gun. I agree with, can’t remember their name right now, not everyone should own a gun if they don’t feel comfortable with it and don’t understand them and are very uneducated about them.

Plenty of crazies and criminals are far more educated about guns, understand them better and are more comfortable with them than you - it certainly doesn’t mean they should have them.

Why should anyone be comfortable with something the primary purpose of which is to injure and kill? Reminds me of Siegfried and Roy being comfortable with their tigers … until one of them mauled Roy onstage and nearly killed him.