B
Brendan
Guest
And that is fully inline with Church Teaching
Council of Trent (on types of lawful killing)
Killing In Self Defence
- Status
Council of Trent (on types of lawful killing)
Killing In Self Defence
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
Ahh, I didn’t mean nothing…Plastic junk? I think not. Good luck trying to break it. Hopefully this year I’ll be adding a Kimber Custom .45 to my little “arsenal.”
I’m just not fond of Glocks…not my style. I like SA pistols, never been fond of DA. And the grips on a glock are uncomfortable in my hand (small hands), I much prefer the narrow profile of a 1911…
I use a Kimber Custom II for my carry piece, best pistol I’v ever owned. Awesome straight from the box. I think you’ll like what you get…
W
wabrams
Guest
Yeah, I’ve got small hands, too. But the slip on grips will help with that.
I’ve fired one a few times. Man, what an awesome weapon.
T
TheGarg
Guest
Matt25 said:
So what difference does it make if i split your head open with a hammer or a 1/2 oz of copper jacketed lead???
you just like to rile people up. grow up, and start posting links to credible sources with all these statistics you throw up…for that matter, keep your statistics, they are usually meaningless. By the way, I took statistics in college and that is how i know how easily they can be manipuled to create illusions to win arguments.
100% of the people i polled about this agree with me…
[now guess how many people i polled]
F
FightingFat
Guest
OK- I’m going to try to explain. The ‘killing’ bit just seems so far removed from my own understanding of self defense.
Can I ask you to read this article. It was written by my Sifu (teacher). He has that look in his eye…That way about him…He has faced death many times and overcome his fear and the challenge. If you read this article it explains what he has learned from his experience. He feels that violent conflict is largely pointless especially when compared to the challenges that some of us have to face- the crosses we are asked to bear. I would be interested in any comments.
Can I ask you to read this article. It was written by my Sifu (teacher). He has that look in his eye…That way about him…He has faced death many times and overcome his fear and the challenge. If you read this article it explains what he has learned from his experience. He feels that violent conflict is largely pointless especially when compared to the challenges that some of us have to face- the crosses we are asked to bear. I would be interested in any comments.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
My gun of choice is a Taurus PT940.
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
I would say from reading this that he feels that violence,*** for the sake of violence,*** is pointless. Why fight over a rude words? We’re not talking about bar-room brawls here. Were talking about legitimate reasons for self-defense; such as fighting off a dangerous attacker. I’m sure he would fight if he was accosted in the street by a group of thugs. He mentions boxing and sport figting, beating up rude drunks for the sake of your own ego. That is not what were discussing, nor is it what will happen in FL with this new law.
My wife and I practiced Kenpo karate for many years. Back when we were security guards, or when I was in the military (and we were both still in great shape) we could have taken care of many threats without hurting anyone too badly. But now, I’m older. I’m out of shape. I haven’t trained in years (not since the dojo closed). If anything happens, I’m not going to depend on a skill that I am unable to practice any more. If I feel that we are under threat of physical violence, I will use the maximum amount of force needed to neutralize the target before he/she/it can do me harm. I can best do that with a firearm. Yes, I’ve trained with my hands, I’ve trained with stick & staff, and with knives and short swords. I trust my skill with my .45 more. I am older, and slower than I used to be. I can’t rely on the attacker to be an out of shape middle aged man or woman…I have to assume that they are going to be in better shape than me. Faster, tougher, & stronger. I need to carry the best equalizer there is…and that is a firearm.
Sorry, I’ll get off of my soapbox now…
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Some of this reminds me of an article I read when I was in London a decade or so ago. The police were advising women to carry perfume sprays to protect themselves with (pepper spray being illegal.)
You can sum that philosophy up like this, “Okay. We agree you are in danger. We agree you should have a weapon. You just can’t have a weapon that actually WORKS.”
But I keep coming back to this key question – we can prove that liberalized concealed carry laws REDUCE violent crime. They SAVE lives In state after state, the antis have predicted all sorts of bad things from allowing people to carry arms, and in state after state, those bad things didn’t happen.
So why NOT allow people to go armed? It harms no one and reduces crime – at no cost to the taxpayer.
You can sum that philosophy up like this, “Okay. We agree you are in danger. We agree you should have a weapon. You just can’t have a weapon that actually WORKS.”
But I keep coming back to this key question – we can prove that liberalized concealed carry laws REDUCE violent crime. They SAVE lives In state after state, the antis have predicted all sorts of bad things from allowing people to carry arms, and in state after state, those bad things didn’t happen.
So why NOT allow people to go armed? It harms no one and reduces crime – at no cost to the taxpayer.
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
An added thought…
Yesterday there was a car jacking up here that a firearm easily could have stopped. A older (60+) man was assaulted by a 20 something with a claw hammer, forced his way into the vehicle and ended up crashing the car at high speed into a street light. The older gentleman was hospitalized, and the punk was put in jail.
If the older man had been carrying a pistol, he could have stopped the attacker dead in his tracks (no pun intended). This man could very well have been killed. Just by showing a gun, the man may have been able to scare the kid off. As I said, the kid had a standard household carpentry hammer…$5 at any hardware store, but very lethal when applied liberally to the skull. Against a younger man, who had been trained in fighting techniques, this may not have been a threat. To someone older & slower, it was.
Yesterday there was a car jacking up here that a firearm easily could have stopped. A older (60+) man was assaulted by a 20 something with a claw hammer, forced his way into the vehicle and ended up crashing the car at high speed into a street light. The older gentleman was hospitalized, and the punk was put in jail.
If the older man had been carrying a pistol, he could have stopped the attacker dead in his tracks (no pun intended). This man could very well have been killed. Just by showing a gun, the man may have been able to scare the kid off. As I said, the kid had a standard household carpentry hammer…$5 at any hardware store, but very lethal when applied liberally to the skull. Against a younger man, who had been trained in fighting techniques, this may not have been a threat. To someone older & slower, it was.
S
shockerfan
Guest
FightingFat: I understand your perspective, but I don’t agree with it. I think it may be a cultural issue. You, as a european, like many other europeans, believe the premise that violence begets violence. In some limited cases this may be true, however, many Americans like myself, hold the opinion that the appearance of weakness begets violence.
Criminals will attack a person they think is weak. They ususally will not attack a person they think is stronger (or has the ability to cause them harm). Likewise with countries. Do you think Saddam would have attacked Kuwait if he thought he would have been defeated? Superior force, in most cases, is a deterrent to violence.
Now one may ask why the attacks on the US forces in Iraq by terrorists & insurgents, when obviously the US has more force. I see it as a couple of reasons: 1) They believe the American public is weak, and with continued attacks and televised beheadings, the weak American people will demand withdraw. Again, the perception of weakness is encouraging the terrorists / insurgents. 2) Many don’t fear loss of their own life due to skewed religious beliefs. The solution in this case is complex, and probably better discussed in a different thread. But this reason, I believe, is not as prevalent as reason 1).
My point here is to basically address your concern / wondering about why we would want to carry weapons, if the purpose of those weapons is to kill. They are not only for killing, but also for intimidating, so you don’t have to use them to kill. Also, for a law abiding person like myself, guns are for self defense, therefore, I don’t see any moral issues with carrying one…the CCC supports my view.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The problem is not what they believe, but that they believe it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary – and then try to force those beliefs on other people, and some of those people die as a result.
- Status