Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[LukeV]

While I like the idea of only the cops having guns, it’s never going to be that way. If criminals want guns, they will get guns. If it isn’t legal for them to buy them, they’ll get them illegally ( :bigyikes: criminals breaking laws?!?)

Criminals are as afraid of guns being pointed at them as everyone else. When they think that a household might have guns, they don’t rob that house. I do not want to live in a world where criminals can freely waltz into anywhere being assured that they will have the deadliest weapon.

It may sound weird, but what we need is MORE people using guns. Can you imagine if we taught flight attendants how to shoot and they all carried hand guns? Lets see how brave a terrorist feels when he doesn’t know he’s the only armed one on the plane!

The no-guns policy seems to work in the UK. Coppers don’t have guns, so they don’t end up getting shot by criminals. They back off and let properly equipped armed response teams deal with it. Gun controls mean that petty criminals do not have easy access to guns and ammo, plus they are not likely to encounter armed opponents, so most don’t bother. Gun crime is usually, therefore, limited to gangs and serious organised crime, which does not tend to endanger the general public apart from a few cases. If you have a gun, aren’t you more likely to get shot at by an armed criminal? Why would you, a person not properly qualified in apprehending armed criminals, want to put yourself in that position?

 

[vern_humphrey]

The no-guns policy seems to work in the UK. Coppers don’t have guns, so they don’t end up getting shot by criminals. They back off and let properly equipped armed response teams deal with it. Gun controls mean that petty criminals do not have easy access to guns and ammo, plus they are not likely to encounter armed opponents, so most don’t bother. Gun crime is usually, therefore, limited to gangs and serious organised crime, which does not tend to endanger the general public apart from a few cases. If you have a gun, aren’t you more likely to get shot at by an armed criminal? Why would you, a person not properly qualified in apprehending armed criminals, want to put yourself in that position?

Except that it doesn’t work in the US. Those cities and states with strict rules against guns have the highest crime rates. Those states with “shall issue” laws – where any citizen without a criminal record can get a license to carry a concealed handgun – have lower crime rates.

And when a state adopts “shall issue,” all the “predictions” about shootouts in the streets** fail** to come true. Instead of going up, the violent crime rate drops.

 

[LukeV]

Except that it doesn’t work in the US. Those cities and states with strict rules against guns have the highest crime rates. Those states with “shall issue” laws – where any citizen without a criminal record can get a license to carry a concealed handgun – have lower crime rates.

And when a state adopts “shall issue,” all the “predictions” about shootouts in the streets** fail** to come true. Instead of going up, the violent crime rate drops.

Granted, but then we must ask why does this happen in the US, and not in the UK? Is it because these are regional policies, and not nationwide? How could the problem be addressed nationwide? So far the free-access-to-guns policy seems not to work, looking at the US’s huge level of gun crime. Don’t you think that this can be solved by a nationwide no-gun policy? The question is, why does the US have such a problem with gun crime, and how can this be addressed leaving aside previous attempts at a solution which have obviously not worked?

 

[blueskiesrgs]

I will tell you that I am looking forward to buying a handgun and getting my concealed weapons permit on my twenty first birthday. Approximately 700,000 women are raped each year and 200,000 women avoid sexual abuse with the use of a gun. I would rather be one of the 200,000 than the 700,000. We have the right to self-defense. We are not supposed to be pacifists!!! Not everyone needs to carry a gun, but if more citizens did less crime would happen!!! 2,000,000 crimes are stopped each year in the US by the use of a gun. In surveys criminals say they are more afraid of armed citizens than the police. just some thoughts!!!

 

[LukeV]

As a Catholic I would observe that the Lord giveth, and guns take away.

By the way, what do you Americans think of the film “Bowling for Columbine”? I will admit that the black-and-white way it was presented to me, that pro-gun attitudes are held by the ignorant who only want to preserve their “right”, and those who have the opportunity to make cash out of it, made me suspicous of its factual accuracy. What does the average American make of it?

 

[McQ]

I’m Catholic and I believe every one should own and know how to use
a gun. The time may come when you’ll need one. But, I believe in
protecting my family and property. I live in the country and it would
take a while for a policeman to get here. Not to mention needing a gun
to rid the property of skunks, weasels,etc. that go after our chickens.
And do gun control people really think that criminals would not have guns?

 

[melensdad]

what do you Americans think of the film “Bowling for Columbine”?. . .

I think it was an opportunistic way for a very biased man to make money on tragedy and twist a lot of facts at the same time. Michael Moore is not well respected by many Americans, and even those who agree with him admit that he stretches & manipulates the truth so that it resembles something very akin to a lie.

pro-gun attitudes are held by the ignorant who only want to preserve their “right” . . .

If you read through this thread you will see that most of the pro-gun views are presented by people who seem to be presenting factual and rational evidence or arguments.

---

The no-guns policy seems to work in the UK.

What do you think of the WorldNet Daily article that showed that criminals are now obtaining guns in the UK and using them to commit crimes? It indicates that the Britian and Australia are actually more violent than the US in many ways and the US does not even make the top 10 list of industrialized nations for violence

 

[LukeV]

Hi Melensdad.

Firstly thank you for providing me with your take on the film.

Secondly, referring to where you quoted me the second time, if you read the whole sentence instead of quoting one part of it out of context, you will notice that I was saying that this is the impression the movie gave me, not a statement of my opinions. You will also notice that this is what made me suspicious of it.

I read the article you provided. From it I’ll quote what seems to be the jist of the article. “Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase.”

I suppose, then, that the UK and Australia values a decrease in gun murder highly enough to allow for an increase in other crimes of victimization, burglary or assault for example. A difference in values.

Just to fill a few minutes, I did some maths:

Homicide rates per 100,000 population:

US
Overall 5.64 (2000)
Due to guns 4.08 (1999)

UK
Overall 1.61 (2000)
Due to guns 0.12 (1999)

5.64 - 1.61 = 4.03

4.03 ~ 4.08

 

[LukeV]

Ooh - just found this as well - it seems it caused a bit of a hoo ha with the UK government. BBC article

 

[melensdad]

Ooh - just found this as well - it seems it caused a bit of a hoo ha with the UK government. BBC article

It does seem that the comparisons between the nations are skewed to different types of crime, all of which is defined here in the US as “violent” crime.

I don’t know how it is in the UK, but here in the US if you are in New York, Washington DC, Chicago or any other major city, the VAST MAJORITY of the “shootings” are gang shootings and typically occur in confined geographic areas within the cities. Similarly, those same areas have most of the “knife” crime and “beatings” as well. Basically there are safe areas and there are violent areas. Typically the unsafe areas are very blighted and have street gang influence. Unless you are unfortunate enough to live there, you’d never go into those areas.

For example, in my area, about 40 miles south east of Chicago, we have about 2 or 3 murders per year. That is not in 1 city, but that is a total in the entire southern half of the county I live it which has a population of over 250,000 people and comprises several cities and rural towns. None of the area is blighted or impoverished but much of the area is low and middle income.

I go into Chicago on a regular basis, was there 2 days of the past 10. I had an apartment there when I was younger and have lived in the suburbs of the city for most of my life. I’ve never been a victim of a violent crime and don’t know anyone who has been. Probably because I don’t go into the dangerous areas?

I presume that MOST violence in the UK is similarly isolated to some specific areas? Would that be correct?

 

[LukeV]

I don’t see how this connects to the rest of the thread, but I will answer the question. Yes there are areas where you wouldn’t go unless you had a reason. In my city, you wouldn’t go for a night time stroll in St. Mary’s or the Flowers Estate, but since I live in a fairly densely populated area, these areas are well in among the rest of the of the city. I live in a fairly affluent residential area, and one afternoon recently I was pushed around by hooded teenagers with golf clubs and cricket bats. A mate of mine was mugged at knife point on The Avenue, a well lit, leafy main road running through the centre of the city, and another was mugged at knife point in a park in broad daylight. Back home I come from a small, rich commuter town quite near to London, where my best friend was attacked by youths twice - on one occasion he scared them off, on the next he was kicked in the face. My sister’s friend was assaulted on her own street. Yes, some areas are more dangerous than others, but I wouldn’t say “crimes of victimization” are limited only to specific areas.

 

[melensdad]

It sounds quite different from here. And in fact much more likely that random violence might occur in the UK than the US.

I live in a fairly affluent residential area, and one afternoon recently I was pushed around by hooded teenagers with golf clubs and cricket bats. . . Yes, some areas are more dangerous than others, but I wouldn’t say “crimes of victimization” are limited only to specific areas.

I would not hesitate to walk around many neighborhoods of Chicago at night, and have done so many times. I’ve done the same in the commercial districts (North Shore, Gold Coast, Lincoln Park, etc). I’ve also spent a considerable amount of time in Indianapolis and walking in the downtown district is perfectly safe day or night, ditto many of the neighborhoods. In the commuter suburbs violent crime is often limited to a “crime of passion” between relatives/spouses and not a street attack as you describe it.

You state you live in an affluent area and were attacked in the street. In our affluent areas the attack you describe is simply unheard of unless it is between youths, and even then it would be rare indeed that any sort of weapon (baseball bat) would be used. Certainly it would be uncommon to hear of youths attacking adults in the affluent areas, or the affluent *(or even the middle class) *suburbs.

Property crimes exist everywhere, those are crimes where cars or houses are broken into and something is stolen, but typically occur when nobody is around to see/catch the criminals. Perhaps because there are so many guns here, criminals rarely commit property crimes when they fear they may be caught by a homeowner.

 

[LukeV]

You state you live in an affluent area and were attacked in the street. In our affluent areas the attack you describe is simply unheard of unless it is between youths, and even then it would be rare indeed that any sort of weapon (baseball bat) would be used.

Ah but then I am what some would describe as a youth. I had just turned 20 when this happened. All of the people I was talking about are around my age or younger, and this is the age group most likely to be victims of crime.

Property crimes exist everywhere, those are crimes where cars or houses are broken into and something is stolen, but typically occur when nobody is around to see/catch the criminals. Perhaps because there are so many guns here, criminals rarely commit property crimes when they fear they may be caught by a homeowner.

Same here. You will rarely get burgled if you are actually at home. It isn’t as if people just think “they don’t have guns in the house, therefore I can brazenly break in when everyone is around”.

It sounds quite different from here. And in fact much more likely that random violence might occur in the UK than the US.

What I was really trying to express, though I may not have done it well, is that as the population is more dense here, so cities are not so spread out as they seem to be in the US, and the dangerous areas are well in among the affluent areas. So the violence does sometimes spread out into the more affluent areas. I am skeptical about your theory that random violence is more likely to happen in the UK. I find it hard to believe that the US murder rate which is over 3.5 times higher than that over here consists entirely of crimes of passion, or that the rape rate, three times higher than the UK’s, is almost exclusively date rape. Maybe it is because you live in a fairly safe area. If you moved to, say, Washington DC where the murder rate is 17 times higher than London’s, you might find a different story.

 

[Man]

We have white tail deer in Illinois. Someone has to shoot them, or they will get run over in herds on the highway.

Gun control is complex and there is not an obvious decision available in many cases.

 

[57classic]

What I have observed from gun control discussions, it comes down to inability of pro gun control persons to understand the attitude of those who lawfully own and use guns. We seem to be lumped in with the criminals.

Electricity kills if used improperly. It can be manipulated to commit murder (for example: throwing a blowdrier in an occupied bathtub full of water), but by and large, it is a useful tool which provides much good when used properly.

Firearms are tools, nothing more, the gun has as much emotion as electricity. When respected and used properly, just as electricity must be respected for the harm it can do when used carelessly, guns provide the legal owner with enjoyable pastimes as well as protection. Target shooting, trap/bluerock/skeet shooting, and hunting are… well fun!
As for protection, depending on where one lives, that does not always mean protection from our fellow man:
Currently, on the High Plains, we are experiencing a surge in the population of rattlesnakes. I have no idea how many of you are familiar with poisonous snakes but there is nothing as bloodchilling as being several hundred yards away and hearing your child scream in terror. Now I have several choices and very little time and BTW, at this point I still don’t know why she’s screaming or exactly where she’s at. On finding her I discover she’s only a few feet from a very annoyed prairie rattler. This specie is generally very annoyed about something, just lives that way. She is also holding her 4H calf on a lead rope and trying to calm her dog all without moving even tho her knees are about to buckle. Darn glad I had a gun to settle the situation. Also, simply getting away from the snake is not an option, this took place in the yard!

Poisionous snakes, rabid varmits, dogs chasing cattle or killing chickens, these are the main reasons for owning a gun in the country, protection of human life is not addressed nearly as often if at all.

Having a gun means knowing how to use a gun as far as I am concerned. Knowing how to use one properly makes it easier to decide whether to use one when the situation requires it. Having a proper respect for the ability of the tool, whether it be a gun or electricity is the key to responsible owner/usership.

Having the proper respect for human life is the key to lowering the crime rate. IMHO, a criminal who choses to threaten my or my family’s life has chosen to put his/her own life in jepoardy as I will do what ever is necessary to defend my family.

I have taken the time to read all the messages on this thread and if I read one suggestion of how to avoid dying at the hands of a criminal intent on taking life, I missed it.

If a perp has a bad cold or is high, mace will only exacerbate the situation.
Yep, I saw the news article about the neighbors who ended a criminal-with-a-gun-wants-money with hugs and a glass of wine. It won’t always work out that way and I am not willing to risk my family’s lives that it might. I have a concealed carry permit. Everyone I know who has a CC permit is very thoughtful and responsible, not bloodthirsty individuals looking for a chance to shoot someone legally.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What I have observed from gun control discussions, it comes down to inability of pro gun control persons to understand the attitude of those who lawfully own and use guns. We seem to be lumped in with the criminals.

That’s part of it. The other part is they refuse to be grounded in reality. Liberalized concealed carry laws reduce crime. Yet they refuse to accept that simple truth.

 

[Man]

We have a right and responsibility to prepare valid defenses in a prudent manner.

 

[melensdad]

57classic:

What I have observed from gun control discussions, it comes down to inability of pro gun control persons to understand the attitude of those who lawfully own and use guns. We seem to be lumped in with the criminals.

That’s part of it. The other part is they refuse to be grounded in reality. Liberalized concealed carry laws reduce crime. Yet they refuse to accept that simple truth.

I think there is at least 1 other component.

Those who think that gun owners “live by the sword” and take the moral position that having a gun is inherently evil. That position seems to creep into this discussion on a fairly regular basis and several people have brought that issue up. These people view any and all gun ownership as somehow being violent, and they seem to view using a gun a “living by the sword.”

I’ve said it before and will say it again, I have guns for fun and for family recreation. The fact that my wife and I used to be avid Trap Shooters and never hunted should be proof enough that guns can be a family activity that brings couples closer together. The fact that my daughter now is target shooting *(she asked me to take her out yesterday) *is proof that guns can make a closer bond between parents and children.

Now I will admit that I have killed with some of my guns. Among many other stories I could tell, we had a rabid raccoon ON OUR PORCH who would not leave. We had another raccoon that attacked my 100# dog in the yard not more than 30’ from the patio; my dog broke the back of that raccoon. These were sick/injured creatures that needed to be dispatched. I did so. **
**Was that an act of violence?
Or was it an act of compassion?
Certainly it was an act of defense of my family when a rabid animal is on your steps looking into your home through the glass door!!!

I suppose that I could have beaten the animals with a shovel until they were dead?

• Would that have been less objectionable?
• Would that have been less violent?
• Would that have been “living by the sword” in the eyes of those folks who take the moral view that guns are simply bad?
• Faced with the same situations, what would an “anti-gun” person do?
  Here is my reality. The nearest small town is 5 miles away. We have no police protection other than a sheriff who has a response time of 30 to 45 minutes. We have no animal control services. We must be in a position to fend for ourselves in any sort of an emergency. That includes fire protection, self protection, protection against weather emergencies, etc.

 

[Bennie_P]

One of our conservitve Jewish brothers take on gun ownership and responsibilty. He ask the Question: is America society religiously fit for Gun ownership?

David Klinghoffer on April 17, 2007 wrote…

“I still think that, in general, conservatives are right to hold people responsible for poor choices, rather than claiming, as liberals do, that they never had a choice at all. But when it comes to weapon ownership, I’m coming around to the opinion that our culture isn’t fit for that kind of responsibility. “

“Ha-Meiri defined the characteristics of idolatrous and non-idolatrous societies—or as he put it, “nations not restricted by the ways of religion” and “nations restricted by the ways of religion.”

"Provocatively, his definition of idolatry was based not on standards of Jewish religious dogma but on a more general consideration of whether the culture in question is secular or religious. A secular nation would be considered barbarous, therefore “idolatrous.””

“We should not sell deadly weapons to members of a society “not restricted by the ways of religion.” It is simply too dangerous to entrust them with this responsibility”

“The issue of gun control comes down, then, to a question about the nature of our society. Is it “religious” enough to merit free access to fire arms? Can Americans be trusted?”

“Conservatives prefer to think of the United States as a Christian country, which historically it is. And indeed, according to the Pew Research Council, in 2002, some 82 percent of Americans claimed to be Christian. But I wonder how much that actually means. “

“Liberals and secularists will not like the direction I’m heading. But I also take note of a much more worrisome statistic from the respected Glenmary Research Center in Nashville. Their data is based on polling that asked people not merely how they identify but how they practice religion. As of 2000, the percentage of American “church adherents” stood at only 47.4 percent. If you add Jews, you get another 2.2 percent, for a total of 49.6 percent.” ….

“So Bible-believing Americans who actually practice a religion appear to be less than half the country. We should take that into account when deciding if ours is a civilized and religious society or, instead, an increasingly secular and wayward one.”

I don’t relish admitting this, especially in the context of such sorrowful news, but liberals may indeed be right about this. Just not for the reasons they think.

 

[melensdad]

Bennie P, there are statements made by the Jewish writer that seem to be in serious doubt. Most conservatives, and for that matter most liberals I know tend to believe that the US and all of Western society is not based on Christian beliefs, but is actually based on Judeo-Christian laws and ethics. After all, the basis of our laws that shape our society come from the 10 Commandments, which clearly pre-date Christ. When the basic statement is wrong, the remainder of his work is questionable. I’m not saying he doesn’t have some factual information, and some information that bears thought, but his work is clearly flawed.