B
Bennie_P
Guest
Murder: Boston 12.9 Little Rock 22.1 Nation 6.9
phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Boston&s1=MA&c2=Little+Rock&s2=AR
- Status
Murder: Boston 12.9 Little Rock 22.1 Nation 6.9
phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Boston&s1=MA&c2=Little+Rock&s2=AR
S
Sixtus
Guest
Sry to derail the thread but I have a question: an American friend told me that if you found an armed intruder in your home, you were allowed by law to defend yourself. Is that true?
In UK that is highly illegal.
If an armed intruder is hurt in any way by the householder, the householder is guilty of a criminal offence, will probably be prosecuted, may end up in prison and the burglar is able to sue for damages.
The householder is not allowed to lay any obstacles to trap to injure the housebreaker else the householder is committing a criminal offence. If the housebreaker cuts himself say on a piece of glass while breaking in, he is able to sue for damages from the householder.
Similarly, if the housebreaker trips, falls and injures himself, the householder may be prosecuted and the housebreaker able to sue the householder for injuries.
We had a classic case in my home county where a householder fired a shotgun at three housebreakers. He got a life prison sentence.
Is that the case in USA? I am not sure what the Catholic Church teaches in this respect but I am aware the Church teaches that Catholics have to obey the laws of the country in which they reside. Therefore I assume the Church supports non-violence against housebreakers and that would include the use of weapons against an armed intruder.
In UK that is highly illegal.
If an armed intruder is hurt in any way by the householder, the householder is guilty of a criminal offence, will probably be prosecuted, may end up in prison and the burglar is able to sue for damages.
The householder is not allowed to lay any obstacles to trap to injure the housebreaker else the householder is committing a criminal offence. If the housebreaker cuts himself say on a piece of glass while breaking in, he is able to sue for damages from the householder.
Similarly, if the housebreaker trips, falls and injures himself, the householder may be prosecuted and the housebreaker able to sue the householder for injuries.
We had a classic case in my home county where a householder fired a shotgun at three housebreakers. He got a life prison sentence.
Is that the case in USA? I am not sure what the Catholic Church teaches in this respect but I am aware the Church teaches that Catholics have to obey the laws of the country in which they reside. Therefore I assume the Church supports non-violence against housebreakers and that would include the use of weapons against an armed intruder.
R
RobDH
Guest
In general, here in the US, if someone is directly threatening the safety of you or anyone else in your house, you may use force to protect yourself. Whether or not you can use deadly force is, in some cases dependent upon the jurisdiction (local or state).
If I fired on someone simply because they’re trying to steal my tv, I would, in many states, be prosecuted and jailed.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
cityrating.com/crimestatistics.asp
Look up any two cities.
You can find cities with high crime and gun restrictions, low crime and gun freedom, and any other combination.
Just pick any two.
Comparing two cities doesn’t mean anything, because you can choose them to “support” your argument.
Compare DC with just about anywhere, DC will come out looking worse for crime. Same for Compton.
There are many factors that impact crime statistics for cities. Sometimes it’s just how the city limits are drawn.
For example, rates of forcible rape are much higher than the national average in Tacoma, WA, but much lower than average in neighboring Seattle. There’s still such thing as “the other side of the tracks.”
Another glaring example: Los Angeles has simply refused to incorporate some areas, typically those with very bad crime like “unincorporated Watts” or Willowbrook. These are little bits of County jurisdiction right in the middle of large incorporated cities. This has artificially lowered the crime rate of Los Angeles. So has the incorporation of small cities with high crime rates, like Compton, next to but not part of LA. Incorporated Los Angeles covers a large land area and includes many, many different communities; it just excludes certain pockets of generally minority neighborhoods, the names of which may be familiar to some of us from “gangsta rap” songs.
S
Sixtus
Guest
Rob DH posted:
If the victim is prosecuted, the attacker is automatically immune from prosecution.
But as the victim is now guilty of a violent crime against their attacker, does the Church by endorcing the rules of the State also support prosecution of the victim of violence?
In UK a person is allowed to defend themselves but many acting in ‘self-defence’ have ended up in prison. There is the concept of ‘reasonable force’. If it is felt in a court of law that the victim over-reacted they may be prosecuted. But it is difficult to know ‘how far to go’. If for example you defend yourself with a baseball bat and the attacker ends up with concussion then excessive force will be deemed to have been used which is a criminal offence.
If the victim is prosecuted, the attacker is automatically immune from prosecution.
But as the victim is now guilty of a violent crime against their attacker, does the Church by endorcing the rules of the State also support prosecution of the victim of violence?
M
Man
Guest
In almost every state you are able to kill a burglar if you feel threatened.
I’ve heard that California may have eroded this policy somewhat in their law, but reasonable force when someone breaks into your home is pretty liberal. You can fire first in most most or all states.
I also read an article from the UK where it appears you are also able to shoot (first) and kill an intruder.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, the situation made no sense. Don’t you guys have children?
There are caveats, however, in 15 or so states, you can kill any intruder that will not leave or back down from confrontation. In the rest, you have a “responsibility to flee.” Of course this responsibility wouldn’t apply if you have children in the house. That would be ignorant.
I saw an interview with a cat burglar. He said, when he entered the homes of people (cat burglars enter when the people are present – for wallets and stuff – typically unarmed) he understood that he might well die. He said men where particularly intimidating, he assumed that they would use deadly force.
If someone breaks into my house and wanders (marauds perhaps is better) outside my children’s bedrooms, you shouldn’t be surprised if he has little time to change his mind.
“Leave; I am prepared to kill you.”
I’ve heard that California may have eroded this policy somewhat in their law, but reasonable force when someone breaks into your home is pretty liberal. You can fire first in most most or all states.
I also read an article from the UK where it appears you are also able to shoot (first) and kill an intruder.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, the situation made no sense. Don’t you guys have children?
There are caveats, however, in 15 or so states, you can kill any intruder that will not leave or back down from confrontation. In the rest, you have a “responsibility to flee.” Of course this responsibility wouldn’t apply if you have children in the house. That would be ignorant.
I saw an interview with a cat burglar. He said, when he entered the homes of people (cat burglars enter when the people are present – for wallets and stuff – typically unarmed) he understood that he might well die. He said men where particularly intimidating, he assumed that they would use deadly force.
If someone breaks into my house and wanders (marauds perhaps is better) outside my children’s bedrooms, you shouldn’t be surprised if he has little time to change his mind.
“Leave; I am prepared to kill you.”
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
The Church teaches we are to obey any just civil law. Threatening someone with prosecution if they acted to defend themselves with even equivalent force against an aggressor before they or their charges are in desperate peril (the effective situation with the laws in the UK) is inherently unjust. There is no good reason to insist a homeowner wait for an intruder to move towards activly attempting rape or murder before making a presumptioon that said intruder in your home at night in fact did not have respect for the law of the land and was a potential threat that would best be dealt with preemptively once the intruder had actually made entry into the dwelling…
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
I don’t believe that’s true Bennie, and it is insupportable from what has been posted in this thread. Anyone reading can tell you have repeatedly avoided answering as to whether your interest in sensible gun control meant picking the types of regulations most common in areas with the lowest per capita crime rates in the US, even if that meant reducing the restrictions. Just turning the question around doesn’t count as answering it, especially when you didn’t try to turn it around until the third time it was posed to you and continued to refuse to answer when the flaws in your turnaround were clearly laid out.
They can also see several other questions that have repeatedly avoided, like whether you had any practical support for your idea that stricter registration of legal guns would somehow reduce use of illegal ones.
It is far too late to try to claim your consistent approach was all a misunderstanding on our part, particularly when you have so steadfastly ignored requests for you to clarify your meaning and intents.
I’m not the one that effectively claimed the entire field of statistics must be wrong in how measurable effect is determined in order to try to hang onto a prejudice. I have seen and pointed out that attitude of yours in your approach over and over again, only for you to drop that particular try without further comment while trying to rephrase your argument using the same flawed premises. That you can’t grasp that simply repeating flawed premises and unsupported conclusions doesn’t make them “facts” doesn’t make me the simpleton.
Yes, and I think we all noticed that (in addition to avoiding making a direct answer) you were also stone silent as to whether you used any due diligence in how you picked those cites or even your claims as to what their respective levels of gun laws were. As has already been pointed out, a great many of the premises you used as the basis for saying those stats supported your claim turned out to be nonsense, and thus we were back to needing you to clarify some particulars on your intents and goals.
You have been caught, repeatedly, parroting attack lines lifted straight from the Brady play-book and made a strong defense of their character and methods that you didn’t distance yourself form even after their misinformation methods were very clearly laid out. I have not been caught in the equivalent, not once, so the false insinuation here is just another chit on the stack of lies, personal attacks, and misinformation you’ve been spewing for a while now. I’ve intentionally limited myself to exposing where the pet anti-gun positions either were based on vapor or was contradicted by results of regulations in practice. More recently, I’ve focused more on a (thus far fruitless) attempt to get you to clarify whether increased gun control was more important to you than increased public safety if you had to choose between the two. Just flipping the accusation around at this point about who was being spoon fed by one lobby or another is terribly obvious.
M
Man
Guest
let me translate the phrase “grave duty.”
Sit up. God has just given you an order. It eclipses every law of man in this situation. You are to use prudent judgment to bring justice into this situation, and while a bishop may almost always have the choice of entering into a dialog, a father with children will have that as the most prudent option a lot less often.
even to deliver a lethal blow?
Any violence may result in death. In fact, the same passage of the CC denotes, fairly clearly, that if force is used, it is to render the unjust aggressor unable to do harm.
Sit up. God has just given you an order. It eclipses every law of man in this situation. You are to use prudent judgment to bring justice into this situation, and while a bishop may almost always have the choice of entering into a dialog, a father with children will have that as the most prudent option a lot less often.
even to deliver a lethal blow?
Any violence may result in death. In fact, the same passage of the CC denotes, fairly clearly, that if force is used, it is to render the unjust aggressor unable to do harm.
M
Man
Guest
Let’s see how this is applied.
The Holy See has an army of 100 soldiers and 100 police. Italy provides about 100 police, I believe outside the city. That’s 300 armed men for a general audience of 50,000. Some of them are sleeping.
The audience consists of unarmed pilgrims mostly. They are those that the Holy Father has a grave duty to protect.
In the same way, when one accepts the license for carrying a concealed weapon, he accepts a “general responsibility” sort of like a deputy, to prevent these grave injustices.
So, how do we deal with the issue of excess weapons. Well, the government wants to watch how weapons travel in the population, to ensure that they are held in the hands of responsible individuals.
Unfortunately, these weapons are often not properly taken care of and can be easily stolen. Also, some are smuggled in. Drug runners often bring much greater firepower, in terms of capacity anyhow, to our shores.
The government has a responsibility to attempt to ensure that weapons provide more safety per sale than danger. It is failing to some extent in this regard, because many people don’t understand their right, and the responsibility that goes along with it.
Maybe it should be taught in US schools. That certainly seems prudent in our culture. Good luck if anyone wants to try passing it!
The Holy See has an army of 100 soldiers and 100 police. Italy provides about 100 police, I believe outside the city. That’s 300 armed men for a general audience of 50,000. Some of them are sleeping.
The audience consists of unarmed pilgrims mostly. They are those that the Holy Father has a grave duty to protect.
In the same way, when one accepts the license for carrying a concealed weapon, he accepts a “general responsibility” sort of like a deputy, to prevent these grave injustices.
So, how do we deal with the issue of excess weapons. Well, the government wants to watch how weapons travel in the population, to ensure that they are held in the hands of responsible individuals.
Unfortunately, these weapons are often not properly taken care of and can be easily stolen. Also, some are smuggled in. Drug runners often bring much greater firepower, in terms of capacity anyhow, to our shores.
The government has a responsibility to attempt to ensure that weapons provide more safety per sale than danger. It is failing to some extent in this regard, because many people don’t understand their right, and the responsibility that goes along with it.
Maybe it should be taught in US schools. That certainly seems prudent in our culture. Good luck if anyone wants to try passing it!
B
Bennie_P
Guest
On July 20, I summed up my views on certain gun-control measures which I believe and considered to be sensible. I stopped using data from any gun-control lobby on July 2 (that is three weeks ago) and started using independent sources for crime rates and state gun law information. I also used the NRA web sight in referencing of “as issue” or “carry laws.”
I have been clear and honest on and about my views, I’m sorry if someone is unable to accept my opinions and views.
My post on July 20, 2007
Violence in our culture is fed by multiple forces - the disintegration of family life, media influences, growing substance abuse, the availability of so many weapons, and the rise of gangs. Traditional liberal or **conservative **approaches by themselves cannot effectively overcome this plague. In confronting a culture of violence, our Church calls for:
I have been clear and honest on and about my views, I’m sorry if someone is unable to accept my opinions and views.
My post on July 20, 2007
As a Catholic this my stand on violence. which can be found at this link archchicago.org/catholic_values/catholic_teaching/violence.shtmFirst I haven’t seen any data on your claim about muder rates going down, even if they do, the decrease is not signifcant. For by the cities’s stats of crime rates I posted still show a very high crime rate in the cities with lax state gun laws as compared to cities with very stirct state gun laws.
My view on Carry Laws
I not against carry laws, but I don’t believe they have the significant effect the ‘gun lobby’ wants us to believe.
Handgun registration for all Handguns
But I think if Handgun registration for all handguns went along with the carry laws we may see a significant effect.
Chicago proves that gun registration must work somewhat or thier violent crimes per capita would even be higher as we see compared to many of the other cities with lax laws noted .
Waiting periods
I think other laws, such as waitng periods would help
Mulitple sales
and the number of guns allowed to be purchased at a time would also help.
Reform and uniformity of gun control laws
But I think the most signifcant thing that would help is a reform of the laws to make them more uniform. We had to do it to the licensing of truck drivers in the trucking industry to get unsafe drivers off the road, this is something needed to get and keep handguns out of the wrong hands.
My view on carry laws alone
Of course the gun lobby doesn’t want to see these kind of reforms, for all they give us the same old solution relax ‘carry laws’ - but they don’t work as well as strict gun laws - but could if combined with hand gun registration and uniformity of gun laws across the nation we may be able to plug the holes and, We do need to plug the holes. IMO
P.S. When you dispute a post where I’m replying to someone else, I can only assume you are taking the same position or agreeing with thier statement unless you note otherwise.
Violence in our culture is fed by multiple forces - the disintegration of family life, media influences, growing substance abuse, the availability of so many weapons, and the rise of gangs. Traditional liberal or **conservative **approaches by themselves cannot effectively overcome this plague. In confronting a culture of violence, our Church calls for:
- opposing the violence of abortion;
- curbing the easy availability of deadly weapons;
- supporting community approaches to crime prevention and law enforcement;
- pursuing swift and effective justice without vengeance and effective reform of our criminal justice system;
- attacking the root causes of violence, including poverty, substance abuse, lack of opportunity, racism, and family disintegration;
- promoting more personal responsibility and broader social responsibility in our policies and programs;
- overcoming the tragedy of family violence and confronting all forms of violence against women;
- continuing to work for global disarmament, including curbs on arms sales and a ban on land mines.
M
melensdad
Guest
Bennie I think what you believe be sensible and what others believe to be sensible may be the crux of the hangup.
Further, you cite Chicago’s handgun “registration” as proof that registration works. In fact, Chicago has a ban on handguns. There is a huge difference. No honest citizen may posses a handgun in Chicago unless he was a resident prior to the effect of their ban (I think that was 1973?) and they legally possessed a gun at that time. Consequently Chicago is full of illegal guns and devoid of legal gun owners.
With regards to what you quoted from the church, I am in total agreement with all of that, and always have been. I might define ‘easy access’ a bit differently than the church defines it, but I’ve always believed in those issues.
The sad fact is that issues like PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, which also are a focus point, often get left out of any real discussions. The same is unfortunately true for any effective work on attacking the ROOT CAUSES of violence. Realistically our society is distancing itself from those root causes and from personal responsibility. Abortion is legal, unwed mothers are too common, absent fathers feel no need to support their kids . . . and none accept any responsibility for their actions! Why would they accept responsibility for crimes they commit, spousal abuse, or anything else?
5
57classic
Guest
Good luck, I asked a few hundred messages ago for practical suggestions as to how to deal the very real, rural situations of varmits and critters needing to be put down and never received a reply.
Perhaps if the anti gun crowd would imagine being the parent of a child about to be raped, would you then shout out, “Turn the other cheek, honey”? Yes, that is a gross question, but what is one to do? The martyers defended their virtue to the death. Would the anti gun crowd have me attempt to brain the rapist with a clock?
M
melensdad
Guest
Well you are correct, these types of questions never seem to be addressed. I’ve asked them of FightingFat and several others and they get danced around and avoided like the plague. I’ve been told that I was violent for using a gun to kill rabid raccoons on my property but when asked if it was LESS violent to beat them to death with a shovel when they won’t get off my porch? I never got an answer to that either.
So here we go again, this takes us all the way back to the points that I was asking about at the very beginning of this thread.
First a practical question. Then a theological one. The questions do not refer to offensive use, concealed carry or anything other than a simple defense question and the first is not even specifically asking about guns, but just about defense in general.
- if faced with an armed attacker, how would a dis-armed citizen defend him/her self?
- if the church is pro-self-defense, and if the church is anti-gun, then how do the two issues reconcile in a real world scenario?
B
Brendan
Guest
Actually, Bennie is correct here.
St. Thomas Aquinas has a section on bearing arms in the Summa. He supports the bearing of arms by persons of goodwill for self defence,(A1) but goes on to say that the clergy are to not bear arms but are to rely instead on the Spiritual weapons granted by their Sacrament.
The fact is, the clergy ARE armed, but differently that the rest of us.
ST II-II, Q40 A2
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
In particular, whether his definition of “sensible” places the gun regulations he likes in principle is more important to him than implementing regulations correlating with increased public safety in practice. Currently, it appears that he knows he is using “sensible” to mean “what I want” rather than “what works”.
~ Based on Bennie’s refusal to clarify his justifications for simple registration (beyond this incorrect reference to Chicago as an example of registration), I’m thinking that the Chicago method of registration was exactly what he had in mind - to get the legal gun and their owners registered once, then close the books on legal ownership to anyone not grandfathered in.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
In all my arguments I have not promoted the banning of firearms and many, including you keep making presentation as if that is what all gun control proponants want, too many present it as this or that, this is just a red herring when addressing the issue of gun control and is just a way of shutting down any disccussion and prevent any measure that could have a postive affect on the situation of violence in America.
May I ask, are you going to be the armed body guard at your child’s side 24 hours day? or are you going to give your child a pistol to carry to school? while playing in yard? to the school dance? etc.,etc? For the situation is basically just that in the cities where crime is high and guns flood the streets. By the tatics of shutting down the dicussion with these red herring arguments we just leave things as is, no you are not going give your child a gun to carry, but children in these areas are carrying guns in order to protect themselves just like you say you want the ability to do for yourself. A parent cannot be with thier child 24/7 and children shouldn’t be carry guns. All these “what if’s” are really just that ‘what if’, but children dying in the streets by bullets meant for another are “what is”. Real situations that are happening everyday…
If I lived out in rural America, under the proposed types of gun control which I have presented, and I needed to shoot to a varmit I would take out my gun and shoot it, and hope PETA doesn’t find out. For what I have proposed would not stop you owning a gun unless you were a convicted felon, or mentally unstable. You may have to go through some inconveience in the purchasing a Handgun, but convienience for keeping the things the way they are now creates the inconvenience of inner city mother’s and father’s taking time off from thier minimal wage job in order plan and attend thier 9,10 or 16 year-old’s funeral, shot by a stray bullet fired out of gun by some other child. That is not “what if”, but “what is” happening now. And this is not just in the large cities but medium size cities also and at higher rates.
As Catholics IMO, defense should be understood in the same way as we understand salvation, unlike protestants, we should not view it as just a personal thing, for it is also communal, that is why we are called the Church.
Gun control is not anti-gun but anti-death, thus pro-life. IMO
I hope that is an answer, maybe not the way you want it, but it is my answer.
M
melensdad
Guest
But you keep citing examples of cities that have bans (Chicago, NYC, Wash DC) in your arguments. Its easy to draw the conclusion!!!
Then you turn every simple defense question in one that talks about arming children, something that only you seem predisposed to talk about.
Then you go on to imply that your proposals are sensible additions to controlling weapons but you constantly ignore the 20,000 current laws, many of which are apparently not enforced. Something that gun owners have ASKED for countless times. You say that your proposals would only be an inconvenience and only stop convicted felons and mentally disturbed people from having guns but we already have laws that prevent that. Again, look to Chicago, NYC and Washington DC as a place where **those laws are not enforced.
**
Not sure how that works with the CCC, given that defense is BOTH a personal thing and something you should do communally.
To anyone who would propose that Chicago, Washington DC or NYC or similar gun restrictions are a good model, if you are in your home and you cannot have a defensive weapon . . .
- if faced with an armed attacker, how would a dis-armed citizen defend him/her self?
- if the church is pro-self-defense, and if the church is anti-gun, then how do the two issues reconcile in a real world scenario?
B
Bennie_P
Guest
Would the registration of all handguns prevent you from owning a handgun?
Would restrictions of multiple purchases prevent you from owning a Handgun?
Would licensing of Handgun owners along with proper training of firearm use prevent you from owning handguns?
Would reform of current laws and having thier applications uniformily applied and enforced across the nation prevent you from owning a Handgun?
The idea is get armed attackers off the street - you do not do this by making it usier to get guns - if self-defense is your real concern wouldn’t it make sense to prevent the would-be attacker from having access to guns? by taking loop holes out the system? It almost seems like you relish the idea to have the opportunity to defend yourself by making sure there will be armed attackers to defend yourself from.
Another problem with “I most have a gun to defend myself” is that peditors usually go after easy prey, that is those that cannot defend themselves, such as the elderly, the handicapped and children. They are the ones we need to protect, so how does lax gun laws help those, that are not able to carry or use a firearm to protect themselves? Are you going volunteer your time to be the innocents’ body guard?
The armed man is usually the one that least likely needs protection, even on the days they are **not **carrying.
[
](http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0707/441591.html)
B
Brendan
Guest
Because there is no way to do that. As I have mentioned before, I’ve made a firearm from scratch, using metal I bought at a junk yard and tools I bought at a local hardware store.
How would any firearms regulations prevent a criminal from doing the same.
The only really effective deterent is for the attacker to know that their intended victim has a good chance of being armed, or that the people nearby are armed.
Think about it Bennie, is a thief going to risk their life on a mugging if they think they have a good chance of being shot in the process?
Or how about the violent ex-boyfriend, how likely is he to try and hurt his ex, knowing that she keeps a .45 in a pocket and a shotgun by the bed?
No more so than a Marine relishes the idea of going into battle. They recognize it’s a necessary evil that they might have to do. But the very fact that the US HAS Armed Forces prevents conflicts. Do you really think the Russians stayed out of Europe out of benevolence? Or was it the fact that NATO had weapons.
The same is true for personal defence. We carry them because it’s the best way to deter agrression and hope to God we never have to use them.
- Status