Florida's new wild west gun law

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Lance:
I say what I think and don’t back down, but I would never even think of shooting anyone because of their beliefs. If confronted by a bad guy I would make every effort to either walk away or allow him to do so but I would not hesitate to defend myself if I had to.
And that is fully inline with Church Teaching

Council of Trent (on types of lawful killing)

Killing In Self Defence
If a man kill another in self defence, having used means consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this (5th) Commandment.
 
40.png
wabrams:
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.” 😃
Ahh, I didn’t mean nothing…

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…
 
40.png
Isidore_AK:
Ahh, I didn’t mean nothing…

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…
Yeah, I’ve got small hands, too. But the slip on grips will help with that. 😉
40.png
Isidore_AK:
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…
I’ve fired one a few times. Man, what an awesome weapon.
 
Matt25 said:
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.

Point 2264 says " Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:"

** A lethal blow is not the normal description of a gunshot wound.** Individuals can defend themselves by blows. The civil power has the right to use arms. At any rate that is what Catholics believe.

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]:rolleyes:
 
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.
 
40.png
Isidore_AK:
Ahh, I didn’t mean nothing…

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…
My gun of choice is a Taurus PT940.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
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.
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…
 
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.
 
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.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Sometimes I find myself distressed by the attitudes of posters here. I have to say that this has been the most distressing series of posts I have experienced on CA. I can’t reconcile this pro-gun attitude with my own faith. I am frankly shocked that some have posted on this thread about a Patron Saint of gun-handlers, and priests who tote weapons.

I think there is an argument for self defense, wouldn’t argue that, but I cannot believe that meeting violence with violence is a way forward for humanity. Violence on this sort of level is not something I have had cause to seriously contemplate. I have always been brought up that it is wrong to kill someone- to take a life. I do not think, ‘given these circumstances I would feel justified in taking a life…’ I just think that I would not. If I were killed as a consequence of that decision I will hope that I meet my heavenly Father with a sound conscience. I find myself uncomfortable and deeply saddened that we have such incredibly different views and yet are all members of the one Church.
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.
 
40.png
shockerfan:
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.
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
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top