Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[vern_humphrey]

Your selective on what you read? Those are rights for others, that I will defend. Those are not rights I claim for myself, but I claim them for others. Your not understanding me, are you? Please quit trying to turn me into a liberal, I’m a Catholic, pro-life 100 %.
The Dogma I accept is the Dogma of the Church, it is you that keeps refering to the state bible, AKA the Constitution.
I’m a papist - I look to Christ through Rome…

Your using distraction, from the issue of the thread.

It seems to me you can’t make up your mind what you are. One minute you’re willing to sign away everyone’s rights, next minute you’re breathing fire as the defender of rights.

And you don’t seem to see that restricting rights is a serious matter. It should never be done on a whim, or an “I think such-and-such” basis, but only on sheer, proven necessity.

Otherwise, you see what it leads to – things like abortion on demand. That used the same tactic as gun control to warp the Constitution out of recognition.

 

[melensdad]

Bennie P to Vern H:

The Dogma I accept is the Dogma of the Church, it is you that keeps refering to the state bible, AKA the Constitution.
I’m a papist - I look to Christ through Rome…

While I know you were responding to Vern, you will notice that I quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . which backs up what Vern has been writing . . . and which comes from Rome and our Pope.
Bernie P to melensdad:

But still 29,569 people died in 2004 from guns?

No, 29,569 people died and as Vern clearly pointed out, roughly 39% of that number were murdered. A horrible figure, almost 12,000 people. But what number were SAVED by guns? You ignore that!!! Again, I am going to say over 1,000,000 times PER YEAR guns are used defensively. That being said, under 12,000 victim die, but over 1-Million people SAVED.

And in the states that have carry laws (Illinois does not) the crime rate goes DOWN. Why don’t you at least admit that?

You asked what I would do about it, I would loosen up gun laws in states where they are preventing honest citizens from getting guns because it has been proven, time and time again, criminals are afraid of armed citizens.

 

[Bennie_P]

It seems to me you can’t make up your mind what you are. One minute you’re willing to sign away everyone’s rights, next minute you’re breathing fire as the defender of rights…

I know what I’m, the problem with many in America, I don’t know if this is your problem, but they try to see things through the lens of being an American first, then try to fit thier belief in Christ through that mold. I try to see things through my belief in Christ and the Church then try to live it.

And you don’t seem to see that restricting rights is a serious matter. It should never be done on a whim, or an “I think such-and-such” basis, but only on sheer, proven necessity…

I do, but I also see that we are a community that has to think of the innocent first, if my right to anything causes the death of an innocent which I could of prevented by my giving up some convenience, then I’m at fault of that innocent’s death. Those without a voice, such as the unborn, then children, then widows and then the poor come first, in that order. I’m sorry you don’t understand. It is not a whim.

Otherwise, you see what it leads to – things like abortion on demand. That used the same tactic as gun control to warp the Constitution out of recognition.

Respect for life, others lives, is the key. I don’t see how you think that by having some control over the flow of weapons into society and the rest of the world utimately leads to abortion? I cannot see how you think having the unrestricted ability to take another’s life will stop abortion?
I believe abortion must be stopped, NOW! That is my # 1 priority, but I don’t see how we are going to accomplish that by not having some restriction on gun ownership. Or the other way around. To me - I see the pro-abortionist and the gun lobby using the same tatics, it is like calling the kettle black. “ME> ME> ME>” is the cry of Americans.

I vote pro-life first and then worry about the other issues, pro-life all the way.
I’m sorry you don’t see it.

 

[Bennie_P]

.

And in the states that have carry laws (Illinois does not) the crime rate goes DOWN. Why don’t you at least admit that?

Does Ohio have carry laws?

In 2004, there were 1,036 firearm deaths in Ohio (more than a 10% increase on the previous year), including 20 unintentional deaths, 657 suicides and 340 homicides.[1]

• In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73

people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.

299 in six countries vs the state of Ohio with 340?

Now what is that you want me to admit?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I know what I’m, the problem with many in America, I don’t know if this is your problem, but they try to see things through the lens of being an American first, then try to fit thier belief in Christ through that mold. I try to see things through my belief in Christ and the Church then try to live it.

I have to admit I’m confused as to the meaing of what you wrote here.

I do, but I also see that we are a community that has to think of the innocent first, if my right to anything causes the death of an innocent which I could of prevented by my giving up some convenience, then I’m at fault of that innocent’s death. Those without a voice, such as the unborn, then children, then widows and then the poor come first, in that order. I’m sorry you don’t understand. It is not a whim.

And as we have shown, giving up such a basic right does not protect that innocent child. It results in more, not less violence.

Respect for life, others lives, is the key. I don’t see how you think that by having some control over the flow of weapons into society and the rest of the world utimately leads to abortion?

I see how what you advocate leads to more violent crime, and what I advocate leads to less – and have the data to prove my case.

I see how the tactic used to circumvent the 2nd Amendment was used to circumvent the right to life in the 14th Amendment, and make that article say the opposite of what it actually does say – thus legalizing abortion in America.

I cannot see how you think having the unrestricted ability to take another’s life will stop abortion?

I see how this outrageous insult has led you away from rational discussion.

When did I or anyone else ever claim “the unrestricted ability to take another’s life?”

I believe abortion must be stopped, NOW! That is my # 1 priority, but I don’t see how we are going to accomplish that by not having some restriction on gun ownership. Or the other way around. To me - I see the pro-abortionist and the gun lobby using the same tatics, it is like calling the kettle black. “ME> ME> ME>” is the cry of Americans.

When did standing up for the plain wording of the Constituition further the cause of abortion?

I vote pro-life first and then worry about the other issues, pro-life all the way.
I’m sorry you don’t see it.

Actually, you have shown a very confused idea of the constitutional and moral issues here.

 

[whatevergirl]

There’s also scripture that says:

(Luke, 22-35,36)

that was a metaphor for discernment (the sword to slice through to justice and truth) not a literal translation advocating violence. why would Christ advocate violence, and then say in the Garden upon His capturing…‘those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.’ There, it was literal. Peter actually used his sword on a Roman soldier.

Christ wouldn’t advocate violence. Self defense, but not violence.

 

[whatevergirl]

To imply I am going to kill or be violent, just because I own guns, is very similar to me saying that all women are ready to become prostitutes, because women obviously own all the equipment that it takes to do that.

I think it is very clear that those of us with firearms are not living by the sword. Rather we own guns as a hobby, for sport and for self defense. To own a gun for those reasons is not an action of a hostile person who is living a hostile life. Many of us participate in sporting activities like trap shooting, “sporting clays” or pistol competition. And the last time I checked, we have a grave duty to defend our lives/families and to me (I suffer from severe Rheumatoid Arthritis) I don’t have the option of ‘fighting’ off an attacker so a gun is clearly a viable solution.

Personally I find it very offensive to lump sport and defensive shooters/gun owners into the same category as those who ‘live by the sword’ because you imply that we are violent people. Basically just by association you imply that we are evil, we are violent, or we are simply wrong. I’m sorry but I refuse to be disrespected in that way and am willing to stand up for my rights.

My daughter is learning how to shoot now and LOVES it, she’s 12 and can’t get enough of it. We have a safe target range set up in the back yard and enjoy the family activity and fellowship we share outside in the sun. We can take a picnic lunch with us and spend some time in nature, we often go out there and find deer walking through the area (and no we don’t shoot them) we have hawks and even vultures overhead and occasionally see wild turkey strutting along the field margins. How is this ‘living by the sword’ . . . clearly it is not.

when did I mention sports shooting in my comment? I’m clearly not talking about hunting, etc…although, I think hunting is a form of violence. I am speaking of owning guns for self defense…yes in principle, good people would know how to use them…but who defines who is a good person? If someone has an anger problem, and purchases a gun because the law entitles them to that…that is a disaster waiting to happen. And it will happen without gun control. The small percentage who would use the guns only if necessary for protection, are out numbered by those who would use them for violence…just my humble opinion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

that was a metaphor for discernment (the sword to slice through to justice and truth) not a literal translation advocating violence. why would Christ advocate violence, and then say in the Garden upon His capturing…‘those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.’ There, it was literal. Peter actually used his sword on a Roman soldier.

Christ wouldn’t advocate violence. Self defense, but not violence.

Funny, the Apostles, who knew Him in the flesh, followed Him everywhere, heard His teaching at first hand, and to whom he sent the Holy Spirit didn’t see it that way. They thought he meant a literal sword – and when they told the story to Luke, loooong after Pentecost, they still thought that.

And Peter did have a sword. And Christ did know he had it.

 

[Bennie_P]

I have to admit I’m confused as to the meaing of what you wrote here…

I meant I know what I am.

And as we have shown, giving up such a basic right does not protect that innocent child. It results in more, not less violence. .

Unrestricted flow of weapons into society causes death to the innocent.

CHILDREN & GUNS:
A LETHAL COMBINATION

In 2004, nearly eight young people aged 19 and under were killed each day by a firearm in the United States. [1] In 2005, nearly 45 per day were non-fatally wounded. [2] The scourge of gun violence frequently attacks the most helpless members of our society - our children. Considerthese facts:**
• In 2004, 1,804 children and teenagers were murdered in gun homicides, 846 committed suicide with guns, and 143 died in unintentional shootings. A total of 2,852 young people
were killed by firearms in the U.S.,** one every three hours****. [3]
• In 2004, 82% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm. [4]
• During 2004, 55% of all murders of those under age 18 in the U.S. involved firearms. [5]
• Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people 19 and under in the U.S. [6]
• The rate of firearm death of under 14-years-old is nearly **12 **times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. [7]
• In 2004, for every child and teenager killed by a gun, nearly five were estimated to be non-fatally wounded. [8]
• From 1999 to 2004, firearms were responsible for 18% of injury deaths for Caucasian teens ages 13-19 in the United States, 51% of deaths for African-American teens, 31% of Hispanic teens, 18% of Native American/Alaska Native teens, and 19% of Asian/Pacific Islander teens. [9]
• In a study of inner-city 7-year-olds and their exposure to violence, 75% of them reported hearing gun shots. [10]
• “The firearm injury epidemic, due largely to handgun injuries, is **10 **times larger than the polio epidemic of the first half of this century.” [11]
April 2007

We are allowing our children to be killed at record numbers, by the millions before they even leave the womb, by the thousands before they get a chance to grow up. I don’t think I’m confused.

I see how what you advocate leads to more violent crime, and what I advocate leads to less – and have the data to prove my case…

???

I see how the tactic used to circumvent the 2nd Amendment was used to circumvent the right to life in the 14th Amendment, and make that article say the opposite of what it actually does say – thus legalizing abortion in America. .

I noticed that word regulated is used in the wording, so what does regulate mean?

I

see how this outrageous insult has led you away from rational discussion…
When did I or anyone else ever claim “the unrestricted ability to take another’s life?” .

Do you oppose restriction and or the government the right to regulate your gun ownership?

When did standing up for the plain wording of the Constituition further the cause of abortion?.

**What does well regulated infer?When did trying to stop the flow of arms into the hands of the “wrong” people further that cause? Respect for life takes yielding ones own demands for “rights”. This is what the pro-abortionist don’t understand. Of course they don’t understand what life is:shrug: **

Actually, you have shown a very confused idea of the constitutional and moral issues here.

Sorry for the confusion you feel. I know Gun Control is not the solution to violence in America, but it can be part of the puzzle, nothing will be perfect until our King comes back and claims his bride.

 

[whatevergirl]

Funny, the Apostles, who knew Him in the flesh, followed Him everywhere, heard His teaching at first hand, and to whom he sent the Holy Spirit didn’t see it that way. They thought he meant a literal sword – and when they told the story to Luke, loooong after Pentecost, they still thought that.

And Peter did have a sword. And Christ did know he had it.

and stopped him from using it further in the Garden. Christ allowing someone to do something, and accepting it are two different things. If you can justify carrying a gun–that Christ would be approving of that, so be it. I don’t see Jesus advocating people carrying guns. It goes against everything He was about.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I meant I know what I am.

I’m glad you do – because I tried to parse that paragraph and failed.

Unrestricted flow of weapons into society causes death to the innocent.

How about giving us a source for that quote?

We are allowing our children to be killed at record numbers, by the millions before they even leave the womb, by the thousands before they get a chance to grow up. I don’t think I’m confused.

And we do it by violating the Constitution.

I noticed that word regulated is used in the wording, so what does regulate mean?

It’s a term of art meaning “trained in a standard manner.”

IDo you oppose restriction and or the government the right to regulate your gun ownership?

That’s another of those sentences I can’t parse.

What does well regulated infer?

When did trying to stop the flow of arms into the hands of the “wrong” people further that cause?
When it failed at that end, and became victim disarmament.

Respect for life takes yielding ones own demands for “rights”. This is what the pro-abortionist don’t understand. Of course they don’t understand what life is:shrug:

There is no right to kill the unborn – the 14th Amendment clearly guarentees all people the right to life. But having ignored and twisted the 2nd Amendment, the judges were able to do the same thing to the 14th Amendment.

Sorry for the confusion you feel. I know Gun Control is not the solution to violence in America, but it can be part of the puzzle, nothing will be perfect until our King comes back and claims his bride.

Actually, victim disarmament is part of the problem.

 

[melensdad]

when did I mention sports shooting in my comment? I’m clearly not talking about hunting, etc…although, I think hunting is a form of violence. I am speaking of owning guns for self defense…

I said I was offended by people like you who lump people like me into the category of violent people when I wrote:

To imply I am going to kill or be violent, just because I own guns, is very similar to me saying that all women are ready to become prostitutes, because women obviously own all the equipment that it takes to do that.
. . .
Personally I find it very offensive to lump sport and defensive shooters/gun owners into the same category as those who ‘live by the sword’ because you imply that we are violent people. Basically just by association you imply that we are evil, we are violent, or we are simply wrong. I’m sorry but I refuse to be disrespected in that way and am willing to stand up for my rights.

The small percentage who would use the guns only if necessary for protection, are out numbered by those who would use them for violence…just my humble opinion.

Interesting how your opinion is so dramatically different from anything close to fact. The fact is that over 99% of the legal gun owners never commit a violent/crimical act with their guns. The fact is that law abiding gun owners dramatically out number the criminals. Please realize how many neighbors you have who are gun owners, while it varies by region of the country, roughly 50% of all the homes in America have at least 1 legally owned weapon.

Further, violence in areas where there are more legals guns is lower than in areas where there are fewer legal guns.

I understand you have an opinion, but it is clearly wrong.

Now if you choose to not own a gun, I support your right to not own a gun. If you have a different way to defend yourself and your family, that is not only wonderful but acceptable to me. If you think that Christ would disapprove of guns then I don’t even have a problem with that, however I will consider what the Catechism says with more weight than I will consider what you have to say. I hope you understand my point and I pray that you will learn something about violence in America that is not spewed out by the anti-gun crowd because when you dig into the root causes of violence you will see guns are not the problem. Fatherless children, the breakdown of families, low morality, and the sexual revolution all are at the root causes of violence and those are the issues we all need to figure out how to deal with because absent the guns, those same violent people still kill, rape, beat and murder.

 

[whatevergirl]

Please read…from guncite.com

*How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

Introduction
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU’s) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck’s survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU’s annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU’s annually.

Subsequent to Kleck’s study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck’s, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU’s annually. *
*There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU’s annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Dr. Kleck’s Answer
Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU’s? Dr. Kleck states, “Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted.”

“It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident.”

“…88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim’s home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.” *

No one is lumping you into a violent category. But I do agree with your final statements…however…rape and murder will continue to go on with or without people carrying guns. Guns are like a bandaid on a larger problem…

I also think that articles like the above prove that the numbers *for *the public’s right to owning a gun and carrying one are skewed. It’s a nice thought to think that we live in a world where people who buy guns will use them wisely…but, many won’t. Now, that shouldn’t stop all from getting guns I suppose. We have a right to protect ourselves…but to say that the VA Tech incident happened due to the students not being allowed to carry guns to protect themselves, is a bit presumptious.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No one is lumping you into a violent category. But I do agree with your final statements…however…rape and murder will continue to go on with or without people carrying guns. Guns are like a bandaid on a larger problem…

And depriving honest people of the right to bear arms is like taking the bandaid off and allowing infection to set in.

And while rape and murder continue, I need the means to protect myself and my family – at home, in church, at work, in the library – wherever we may be.

 

[whatevergirl]

And depriving honest people of the right to bear arms is like taking the bandaid off and allowing infection to set in.

And while rape and murder continue, I need the means to protect myself and my family – at home, in church, at work, in the library – wherever we may be.

I agree with you here–I just disagree in making the leap that the VA Tech massacre would have been minimized had the students been permitted to carry guns. It’s just too much of a leap. There were other significant mitigating factors.

 

[whatevergirl]

here is a question…if say, you are in 7-11…and there is a robbery going on, and you have a gun, and shoot the robber…will you go to jail? Will the police find you wrong in that situation, for taking matters/justice into your own hands?
are you allowed to shoot someone who breaks into your home?

 

[melensdad]

here is a question…if say, you are in 7-11…and there is a robbery going on, and you have a gun, and shoot the robber…will you go to jail? Will the police find you wrong in that situation, for taking matters/justice into your own hands?
are you allowed to shoot someone who breaks into your home?

It depends on a lot of factors. First do you have a permit to carry a gun??? Second what state are you in???

All states have laws that allow you to shoot/stab/strangle/beat with a baseball bat, etc someone if you are in fear of your life.

All states allow you to kill said person.

However some states say (or at least said, the laws may have changed) that you cannot shoot/kill/etc someone if YOU are not in grave danger. So some states have/had laws that prevented you from shooting someone who was killing another person if that person was not a family member. Essentially they required you to be a witness. Other states require you to act (even if you don’t have a gun/knife/baseball bat) but there is no way to enforce that type of law!

As for shooting someone in your home, this again varies state to state. All states allow it if you feel your life, or the life of a family member was in danger. Some states allow it only after you retreat and are pursued. Some states do not mandate that you be pursued.

For me, I live out in the country, it has taken 45+ minutes to get a sheriff’s car to my house both times our alarm has gone off. I have to deal with that in my own way, one way I deal with it is that my bedroom door is a solid core extra heavy door. The door frame is reinforced. The door also has a heavy deadbolt lock on it, and the lockset and jamb are reinforced. So if I have the option of retreating, I have a reasonably safe room to go to. I doubt it would take 45 minutes to go through even a steel door if someone was determined to get through it, but if I have retreated and someone comes through that door, then I will protect my family with a gun. I believe the Catechism would clearly say that I was just in my actions. I would also hope that actions as dire as that would never be encountered.

 

[whatevergirl]

It depends on a lot of factors. First do you have a permit to carry a gun??? Second what state are you in???

All states have laws that allow you to shoot/stab/strangle/beat with a baseball bat, etc someone if you are in fear of your life.

All states allow you to kill said person.

However some states say (or at least said, the laws may have changed) that you cannot shoot/kill/etc someone if YOU are not in grave danger. So some states have/had laws that prevented you from shooting someone who was killing another person if that person was not a family member. Essentially they required you to be a witness. Other states require you to act (even if you don’t have a gun/knife/baseball bat) but there is no way to enforce that type of law!

As for shooting someone in your home, this again varies state to state. All states allow it if you feel your life, or the life of a family member was in danger. Some states allow it only after you retreat and are pursued. Some states do not mandate that you be pursued.

For me, I live out in the country, it has taken 45+ minutes to get a sheriff’s car to my house both times our alarm has gone off. I have to deal with that in my own way, one way I deal with it is that my bedroom door is a solid core extra heavy door. The door frame is reinforced. The door also has a heavy deadbolt lock on it, and the lockset and jamb are reinforced. So if I have the option of retreating, I have a reasonably safe room to go to. I doubt it would take 45 minutes to go through even a steel door if someone was determined to get through it, but if I have retreated and someone comes through that door, then I will protect my family with a gun. I believe the Catechism would clearly say that I was just in my actions. I would also hope that actions as dire as that would never be encountered.

Having a gun in your own home is reasonable…and I can see just…I don’t think we disagree on that point. Not sure how the debate went awry… …your post saddened me in some way, that we have to imprison ourselves…and the criminals are on the outside. Like we are the ones behind bars. again, in this scenario, we don’t disagree…

I don’t believe in everyone being allowed to purchase a gun…and they should be controlled within the home, or your personal space, ie a car…not brought into workplaces, restaurants…etc…

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree with you here–I just disagree in making the leap that the VA Tech massacre would have been minimized had the students been permitted to carry guns. It’s just too much of a leap. There were other significant mitigating factors.

“Mitigating factors?” How do you mitigate the murder of 32 people?

 

[whatevergirl]

i wholeheartedly agree…we have a right (a Godgiven right) to protect our lives from harm…

the problem with no gun control, is that we will see too much violence as a result. (because the wrong people will gain access)