Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[melensdad]

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?

Why not just APPLY the EXISTING 20,000 laws that are already on the books and see what effect they have? You seem very willing to keep tossing laws onto the books that don’t need to be there.

Tell me, if one of my guns is stolen (or if I sell it) and it is then used in a crime, and if it can already be traced back to me (which it can) then why should I register it?

And still unanswered remain:

• 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?

The armed man is usually the one that least likely needs protection, even on the days they are **not **carrying.

Just curious what your source is for this little tid bit? I know of many night shift nurses who carry. I know of many pharmacists who keep a gun at their pharmacy for protection because it is an effective deterrent. I know of a couple folks in wheelchairs who carry specifically because they are basically defenseless. I also know of many elderly who have guns in their home for protection because they are often victims of break-ins specifically because they are frail. In fact read some of the defensive use of firearms stories and a very very high percentage of them involve older people. So what was your source?

 

[Bennie_P]

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 majorty of criminals are either too lazy, too stupid or both. they look for the easy way to do things, that is way they choice crime as a way of life. No solution is perfect, but keeping everybody armed, well I think we are smarter then to think that is a solution to crime.

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?

**These are not an arguments against my postion or proposes, for I promote regulation of ownership not elimintation of ownership. **

No more so than a Marine relishes the idea of going into battle.?

Marines are not allowed to carry thier weapons loaded nor are they issued amunition unless they go to battle and each weapon they carry they are trained and qualified to use that particular weapon. Thier weapons are not only registrered but they must memorize thier weapon’s serial number. They have a weapons card for each weapon they are qualified for. They are stored locked up and only issued when needed. They do not have the key to thier own weapons, including thier private owned firearms.

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.

I know the history of the cold war, I was a technician assigned to 56th FA BDE to keep the US ready by maintianing Pershing Missiles. In order to fire one it took an executive order from the president of the United States and two officers with keys. They were highly regualted and the training for thier use and maintence was 24/7. I repeat very Highly regulated.

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.

So by the references you give about the military you should have no problem with the regulation of arms to simliar standards?

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Pershing_missile_BW.svg/360px-Pershing_missile_BW.svg.png

 

[Bennie_P]

And still unanswered remain:

• 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?

Why do you worry about those that choose not to carry if you are allowed to keep your handgun? Myself I have choosen not to carry and just three weeks ago I stood down two car loads of teenage gangbangers that tried to make my street into a dragstrip. I repeat, I stood down eight teengagers with a baseball, not a baseball bat, but a baseball. I trusted in God, step out in faith and he allowed me to live another day.

Hebrew 2:13 And again: I will put my trust in him. And again: Behold I and my children, whom God hath given me.

 

[melensdad]

Marines are not allowed to carry thier weapons loaded nor are they issued amunition unless they go to battle and each weapon they carry they are trained and qualified to use that particular weapon. Thier weapons are not only registrered but they must memorize thier weapon’s serial number. They have a weapons card for each weapon they are qualified for. They are stored locked up and only issued when needed. They do not have the key to thier own weapons, including thier private owned firearms.

This is not currently true in all theaters of operation. It may have been true at one time. It may be true in some areas of the world. It is not true everywhere.

Further it TOTALLY AVOIDS THE POINT that Bendan was making.

You indicated that you feel people relish the idea of carrying/using a gun. Brendan suggest not any more than a Marine relished the idea of going into battle.

CLEARLY Brendan was saying that people who own guns are NOT the bloodthristy beasts that you seem imply we may be. Brendan, if I may be so bold as to reply for him, was OBVIOUSLY indicating that gun owner do NOT want to be faced with the situation of shooting someone. You clearly are twisting things around again and again and again . . .

Why do you worry about those that choose not to carry if you are allowed to keep your handgun? Myself I have choosen not to carry . . .

Why do you constantly avoid the questions?

Further, you keep waxing eloquently about the gun laws you’d like to see and provided a list of cities as examples of shining beacons but those very cities have effective BANS so you “say” that people will be able to keep a gun, but your examples suggest they will NOT be able to do that.

Still I wonder why my questions remain unanswered?

• 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?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I provide here a link to a primer on logical fallacies.

General presumption I’m working with: That the discussion of changing and enforcing gun regulations is for the intent of increasing public safety as the top priority.

Would the registration of all handguns prevent you from owning a handgun?

Error 1: Complex question (tying)
Error 2: Based on begging the question if this was based on the unproven and abandoned) presumption that registration reduces crime, otherwise a meaningless question.

Would restrictions of multiple purchases prevent you from owning a Handgun?

First: my answer in spite of the errors: quite possibly, it could very easily complicate the variety of tools that might be useful for someone very active with firearms
Error 1: Complex question (tying)
Error 2: Based on begging the question if this was based on the unproven and abandoned) presumption that further restricting the legal sale of guns would increase the chances of black market to comply and thereby reduce crime, otherwise a meaningless question.

Would licensing of Handgun owners along with proper training of firearm use prevent you from owning handguns?

Error 1: Complex question (tying)
Error 2: Based on begging the question if this was based on the unproven and abandoned) presumption that licensing and training of already law abiding gun owners reduces crime, otherwise a meaningless question.

Would reform of current laws and having thier applications uniformily applied and enforced across the nation prevent you from owning a Handgun?

Answer: quite possibly, if modeled after the regulations present in the localities you keep referencing as ideal.
Error 1: Complex question (tying)
Error 2: Begging the question, as the poor level of enforcement of existing laws is such that we don’t even have a good guide of where to even start reforming to those are most effective at reducing crime and improving public safety.
Error 3: Failure to state: The questioner has repeatedly refused to answer whether reducing regulations would be acceptable to if that was the common factor in areas with the lowest crime rate.

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.

Error 1: Complex question (tying)
Error 2: Argument by emotive Language
Error 3: Argument by Adverse Consequences and Internal Contradiction (that restricting the law abiding citizen’s methods of getting guns legally it will somehow disrupt the illegal trafficking channels)
Error 4: Ad hominem (“you relish the idea…”)
Error 5: Failure to state
Error 6: Begging the question if this was based on the unproven and abandoned) presumption that registration reduces crime, otherwise a meaningless question.

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?

Error 1: Complex question (tying)
Error 2: Argument by emotive Language
Error 3: Error of False Presumption, namely that the elderly and handicapped are not themselves capable of handling fararms effectively.
Error 4: Ad hominem (“you relish the idea…”)
Error 5: Failure to state

 

[57classic]

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.

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.

As you cannot understand why we continue to balk at additional gun control measures, I cannot understand why you cannot see that the ultimate goal of gun control advocates is to remove all the guns from personal use, period. Gun control is not pro-life it is anti-liberty.
How do you propose to dodge around States’ Rights to regulate their own gun laws? Would you propose to a mostly rural state that they enact strict gun laws on the books for urban areas? Or would you propose to urban areas that they require schools to teach hunter education which includes safe gun handling, respect for life and firing range practice?
Actually, as much as sex education in the schools does not work, I am willing to bet that gun education, with a field trip to someplace where urban kids can see something KILLED, bleeding and twitching AFTER death would do wonders for those who think the victim will get up and “be with us same time next week”. Anything with a brain or spinal cord injury will twitch after brain death. It is not a pretty sight, its sickening especially if they could imagine the next victim would be someone they love, and it might just stay with the little thugs longer than any lecture about “Thou shalt not kill”.

BTW, you did not answer the question, am I to assume you don’t have suggestion to the situation posed? Let’s say the rapist doesn’t have a gun, just out weighs me by 100+ pounds, not hard since I am only 115 and hand to hand combat with a full grown male is a dicey proposition. What is a mother to do??? What would you do??? I want your answer.

 

[Bennie_P]

This is not currently true in all theaters of operation. It may have been true at one time. It may be true in some areas of the world. It is not true everywhere.

Further it TOTALLY AVOIDS THE POINT that Bendan was making.

You indicated that you feel people relish the idea of carrying/using a gun. Brendan suggest not any more than a Marine relished the idea of going into battle.

CLEARLY Brendan was saying that people who own guns are NOT the bloodthristy beasts that you seem imply we may be. Brendan, if I may be so bold as to reply for him, was OBVIOUSLY indicating that gun owner do NOT want to be faced with the situation of shooting someone. You clearly are twisting things around again and again and again . . .

Why do you constantly avoid the questions?

He is assuming I’m proposing to eliminate gun ownership and so how does his questions relate to what I have said about regulation? or my stand? He is and you are also trying to make my position something else then what it is. If you or him feel guilty or assume people look at you as being bloodthirsty that is your problem. I have stated my postion, so please stop accusing me of twisting my answers.

Further, you keep waxing eloquently about the gun laws you’d like to see and provided a list of cities as examples of shining beacons but those very cities have effective BANS so you “say” that people will be able to keep a gun, but your examples suggest they will NOT be able to do that.

Still I wonder why my questions remain unanswered?

• 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?

Unaswered You are attempting to make me say something you want to hear, instead of accepting what I say.

This is as real world as you get what more do you want?

Originally Posted by Bennie P
**Myself I have choosen not to carry and just three weeks ago I stood down two car loads of teenage gangbangers that tried to make my street into a dragstrip. I repeat, I stood down eight teengagers with a baseball, not a baseball bat, but a baseball. **
**I trusted in God, step out in faith and he allowed me to live another day. **

 

[Bennie_P]

BTW, you did not answer the question, am I to assume you don’t have suggestion to the situation posed? Let’s say the rapist doesn’t have a gun, just out weighs me by 100+ pounds, not hard since I am only 115 and hand to hand combat with a full grown male is a dicey proposition. What is a mother to do??? What would you do??? I want your answer.

Statistically: most likely it would be someone close to you and/or that you trusted and in love with, such as your boyfriend, your uncle, your spouse, friend, etc.that would be the rapist, so the gun could be used against you for your guard would be down.

• Stranger rape and sexual assault is only one of several possible types of sexual violence. Here’s the reported percentages according to National Health and Social Life Survey:

• Someone with whom the respondent was in love: 46%
• Someone that the respondent knew well: 22%
• Acquaintance: 19%
• Spouse: 9%
• Stranger: 4%
  (Rathus, Nevid and Fichner-Rathus, 565)

 

[melensdad]

He is assuming I’m proposing to eliminate gun ownership . . .

That is totally untrue.

Unaswered You are attempting to make me say something you want to hear, instead of accepting what I say.

No, my question was to all the folks who are taking an anti-gun position and you still have not answered either one of them.

This is as real world as you get what more do you want?

That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with gun ownership or self defense in/out of a home. In fact, in most (if not all) states if you took a gun out into the street (even if you had a carry permit) and pulled it out in a situation where there were kids racing cars in the street (even if they were gang-bangers) then you would be at fault and subject to arrest.

 

[Bennie_P]

That is totally untrue…

Then he should not address his questions to me as if that is my postion. But present those questions to whom he is addressing them to.

No, my question was to all the folks who are taking an anti-gun position and you still have not answered either one of them…

**Then you should reply to thier post and ask them the questions, for I’m not anti-gun and I do not know what or how they will answer. As for me, I have answered your questions and presented my postion. Just becuase you don’t like the answers you get, it doesn’t mean the questions are going unanswered. **

That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with gun ownership or self defense in/out of a home. In fact, in most (if not all) states if you took a gun out into the street (even if you had a carry permit) and pulled it out in a situation where there were kids racing cars in the street (even if they were gang-bangers) then you would be at fault and subject to arrest.

They threaten to shoot me after I confronted them, it is a real world, real life situition that could have exculated to violence, you seem to be selective about what self-defense is, either you are for it or not. The fact is I didn’t have a gun, but if I had one on my person and after they threaten me with thiers, by your own definition of self-defense in your past posting I would have been obligated(according to you and the CCC, a grave duty) to pull my gun and shoot them in self-defense, legal or not.
**By the way me confronting them was an act of defense of all the children that play on my block. **

You asked about the real world, I gave a real world situation. In the real world things are not in neat little packages with all the “what if” scenarios you present, that isn’t how real life works. “What if” a armed intruder broke into your house you are in living room, but your gun is in the bedroom? What good is your gun going to do you? “What if” you are in the shower and your gun is in the living room on the table? And an unarmed intruder bust down your front door, there with your gun on table in the living room and you are still in the shower? All of sudden an unarmed intruder is armed. Life is not like the movies with the good guys having perfect timing and shooting straight. “What if” an intruder broke into your house, you shoot him with 9, 10 mm and the bullet passes through him, killing him, but continues to go through the wall and strikes your child in the head while she is watching television in the family room? What if?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Statistically: most likely it would be someone close to you and/or that you trusted and in love with, such as your boyfriend, your uncle, your spouse, friend, etc.that would be the rapist, so the gun could be used against you for your guard would be down.

Error 1: Misdirection You were asked what to do in a situation known to occur in real life as an alternative to a firearm equalizing the situation, not whether identifying a circumstance particular to acquaintance rape made addressing stranger rapes unnecessary.
Error 2: Reductive Fallacy: Just because most rapes are by known acquaintances doesn’t make the stranger rapes irrelevant
Error 3: Argument by scenario (or generalization): claiming that the victim wouldn’t have warning to present as a firearm as a reason one wouldn’t be effective anyway, thus dismissing the need to present an alternative

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

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?

Hi 57classic,

Everyday, I’m realising more and more that bad things happend to good people. I don’t know it is so; It just seems to be a fact of the world.

I would never wish hatred upon your daughter, and I’m sorry if she is ever raped. But without being too judgemental upon your parenting skills, I’d like to ask a few questions, not to be answered, but just food for thought…

i) Is a gun the only protection available?
ii) Will a gun protect you if it is not within your reach at the time of the attack, or if you are attacked from behind? (Or shot at from a distance?)
ii) Can you teach your daughter to associate with better people?
iv) Can you prevent your daughter from being out late at night by herself?
v) Can you lock your doors and windows?
vi) Can the gun be used for evil means?

These are questions that I ask myself when contemplating guns.

I just think (no statistics) that people with guns are like children with matches; It’s too dangerous - You don’t know what people are willing or capable of doing with their guns.

The more you make guns available, the more accessible they are too criminals. I don’t buy this argument that all would-be criminals already have access to guns. But, you probably think I’m naive.

 

[Sixtus]

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?

The idea is get armed attackers off the street - you do not do this by making it usier to get guns - wouldn’t it make sense to prevent the would-be attacker from having access to guns?

Another problem with “I most have a gun to defend myself” is that preditors usually go after easy prey, that cannot defend themselves, elderly, the handicapped and children. guard?

Proper firearms training IS required in UK before one is able to obtain them. Then their use may only be under the strict supervision of a qualified Safety Supervisor with emergency back up in event of accidents. I am amazed one is able to discharge a firearm in USA without adequate safety and emergency aid [paramedic] backup.

It is not possible to buy a weapon legally without registering it. I am astonished this can be done in the USA. Have I mis-read?

UK has very strict licencing requirements that do control access to legal firearms. But that has absolutely no impact on gangsters getting them. As laws to access firearms become stricter, crimes involving firearms are becoming more prolific, which goes to prove it is not legal guns which are the problem but illegal ones.

Tough legislation controlling access to legally held firearms is not worth the paper it is written on. It is not the legal guns which are the problem, it is all the illegal ones smuggled in from abroad.

Effective licencing in USA may cause a slight reduction but sadly I anticipate not very much as gangsters are always able to access firearms.

I agree with the sentiment that it is the most vulnerable in society who are most likely to be attacked. I have heard of shocking stories of very elderly being raped. I have often thought that if they carried small pistols, they could have defended themselves. Lets face it, receiving a discharge from even a small 0.22 would definately quench the passions of a rapist.

 

[Sixtus]

Man posted:

I also read an article from the UK where it appears you are also able to shoot (first) and kill an intruder.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

In UK if you discharge a firearm at an intruder, you will most certainly end up being prosecuted and in prison!

If you fire first, then you will definately serve a minimum of 10-years in prison. If the intruder dies, you will get a life sentence.

It makes no difference whether you are on your own at home, whether there are children present or anyone else: In UK you are NOT ALLOWED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to discharge a firearm at an intruder.

You may defend yourself but you have to show that you did not injure the intruder or use unreasonable force. Remember it is you the victim who is in court not the intruder. They are protected by law, householders [as victims] are not. If you cannot prove that you used minimal force or your attacker was injured then you will most certainly end up in prison.

There has been exceptions where people have used reasonable force and got away with it but they are the exeption to the rule.

That is why there is so much anger in UK from ordinary citizens against the system which is felt to protect the rights of attackers while prosecuting the victims.

If an attacker is injured, his victim is not only guilty of a criminal offence but if the attacker reports it, he is then immune from prosecution while his victim may well end up in prison.

Some years ago, my neighbour was attacked by 5-youjng thugs who broke into his house. He defended himself with a piece of lead pipe. He hit 4 out of the 5 with it. He got a 5-year prison sentence [and the loss of his business] while his attackers were not even prosecuted. It was said he had used unreasonable force by using a piece of lead pipe as an offensive weapon to defend himself. Soon after release he had a heart attack and died. That is not unique by any means but a regular event.

You are not even allowed to lay obstacles, If a housebreaker injures himself while burgling your home, he is protected by law and may sue you for damages. Once injured he is immune from prosecution. The householder as victim is then the aggressor. The house-breaker becomes victim and the law is on his side.

My own home was burgled 7 times last year. I told the police the name of the burglar, I know the burglar who taunts me that ‘he can walk into my property whenever he wants’ He has even mocked me about it. I gave the police a list of what to look for in his property which were my possessions as I had received information he had my possessions at his home address. The police refused to go and interview him. He was not prosecuted for house-breaking.

That is the situation in UK.

 

[melensdad]

Hi 57classic,

Everyday, I’m realising more and more that bad things happend to good people. I don’t know it is so; It just seems to be a fact of the world.
…
i) Is a gun the only protection available?
ii) Will a gun protect you if it is not within your reach at the time of the attack, or if you are attacked from behind? (Or shot at from a distance?) . . .

First, if people only rely on a gun then they are sort of silly. A good set of locks. Lights around your home. Having a burglar alarm. Having a yappy dog, big or little. Keeping the exterior of your home neat, these are all things that may prevent your house from being targeted by any criminal.

When not in your home, parking in lighted areas or near observable areas is prudent. Staying in safer areas when possible. Being aware of surroundings. Traveling in groups. Having a designated driver who can be aware when you are not. These are other things that can be used protect you. Often it is simple prudence that is more effective than any weapon.

No weapon will solve every problem and this thread really is not about the issue of concealed carry (although many have discussed it).

I just think (no statistics) that people with guns are like children with matches; It’s too dangerous - You don’t know what people are willing or capable of doing with their guns.

True, but if you walk out onto your street and look at the row of houses on each side of it, realize that there is at least 1 gun in roughly every other house. Most homeowners never use a gun for any violent means but still own them for dozens of different reasons.

Proper firearms training IS required in UK before one is able to obtain them. Then their use may only be under the strict supervision of a qualified Safety Supervisor with emergency back up in event of accidents. I am amazed one is able to discharge a firearm in USA without adequate safety and emergency aid [paramedic] backup.

We are citizens, not subjects. We reserve the right of weapon ownership to citizens.

By the way, I’m amazed you consider weapons to be so dangerous. I’ve been playing with guns for 20 years, active in a couple of shooting clubs, gone to many public and private ranges and have never met anyone who ever had a gun accident. I did meet a guy who knew a guy who died in a hunting accident. I have, however, known and met several people who have used weapons to defend themselves.

It is not possible to buy a weapon legally without registering it. I am astonished this can be done in the USA. Have I mis-read?

This is true. In most areas of the US no registration is required, even if you want to register a weapon there is often no mechanism to do it. However, the B.A.T.F. can trace weapons back to the original purchaser through trace data, so there is defacto registration that nobody seems to mention very often.

Tough legislation controlling access to legally held firearms is not worth the paper it is written on. It is not the legal guns which are the problem, it is all the illegal ones smuggled in from abroad.

Effective licencing in USA may cause a slight reduction but sadly I anticipate not very much as gangsters are always able to access firearms.

I agree with the sentiment that it is the most vulnerable in society who are most likely to be attacked. I have heard of shocking stories of very elderly being raped. I have often thought that if they carried small pistols, they could have defended themselves. Lets face it, receiving a discharge from even a small 0.22 would ,ost certainly quench the passions of a rapist.

Agreed on all these points. However, before any sort of licensing would occur, I’d prefer to see the existing laws enforced and I think most gun owners feel the same way.

BTW, as for the elderly, they actually make up a very large % of gun owners in the USA and in areas where carry permits have been published, the lists show that many people over the age of 55 obtain permits. In fact a surprising large % of older people seem to be concealed carry permit holders as a % of total permit holders based on my (incomplete) studies of the published lists.

They threaten to shoot me after I confronted them. . .

First, you did not say that in your account of the story, secondly, my answer probably is still valid if you were the one who confronted them and if they simply shouted out to you. Remember, we’ve been talking about the DEFENSIVE use of weapons and their use for self defense. Clearly by confronting them, you took an offensive approach.

 

[melensdad]

sixtus:

In UK if you discharge a firearm at an intruder, you will most certainly end up being prosecuted and in prison!

If you fire first, then you will definately serve a minimum of 10-years in prison. If the intruder dies, you will get a life sentence.

Here it is called the Castle Docterine and basically means your home is your castle. In many states you have the legal right to shoot any intruder, often you have the right to shoot someone who is just on your property and threatening you. Most states have a version of this law. Some states have “retreat” laws that require you to retreat until it is unreasonable to do so. At the point you can no longer reasonably retreat, you are then allowed to shoot.

I honestly do not know the law in my state regarding this, however I would retreat. In fact we built a “safe room” that has a reinforced door, door frame and double lock. Realize I live in a rural area and police response time is roughly 45 minutes (40 minutes past death). In an unfortunate event, I would hope to have the family retreat to the safe room and then defend that room from breach.

Even if my state allows me to shoot first and ask question later, I would prefer not to do that.

Sixtus:

My own home was burgled 7 times last year. I told the police the name of the burglar, I know the burglar who taunts me that ‘he can walk into my property whenever he wants’ He has even mocked me about it. I gave the police a list of what to look for in his property which were my possessions as I had received information he had my possessions at his home address. The police refused to go and interview him. He was not prosecuted for house-breaking.

I think here in the US, he would have been stopped by a typical homeowner after the 2nd or perhaps 3rd event. I also think our police would have been more proactive in dealing with the situation.

Further, we’ve had several cases were criminals were injured and then sued homeowners for the injuries . . . that is exactly the cause of public outrage that caused so many states to pass castle laws!

 

[Sixtus]

Melens dad posted:

By the way, I’m amazed you consider weapons to be so dangerous.

I personally do not. I am the member of a club, safety supervisor and secretary. I think that on the whole, licenced guns are the safest around. I think that a person with a knife, bow and arrow or golf club are more dangerous. It is the UK law [and average opinion of the average citizen] who thinks firearms are so dangerous.

I first obtained a firearms certificate at the age of 17, I am now 55. I have never heard of a legal gun being involved in an accident. You ask the average Britain what they think and they are so ignorant of the facts, they will tell you that every legal gun is a real menace to society

The average Britain does not know the difference between a legal gun and an illegal one. Every time there is a shooting by gangsters, Britains are shouting about banning legal guns. They just do not understand that gangsters use illegal ones not licenced guns. It is so frustrating.

I do not tell anyone that I am a firearms certificate holder as it would bring me into such disrepute that many peope would not speak to me. There is such total and utter contempt for people like me who enjoy target shooting. Gun ownership in UK is seen as a sign of mental ill health

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Proper firearms training IS required in UK before one is able to obtain them. Then their use may only be under the strict supervision of a qualified Safety Supervisor with emergency back up in event of accidents. I am amazed one is able to discharge a firearm in USA without adequate safety and emergency aid [paramedic] backup.

A basic training and safety course is required (once per lifetime) for most new hunters now, and is one of the few firearm use regulations than has had a distinct beneficial effect, but the shooting community thought it was a good idea based on the number of new hunters that hadn’t been raised with hunting as a common pursuit and the curriculum was designed by gun-using sportsmen (and women). Licensing is required for concealed carry. But a great many of the places where there are legitimate reasons to need to discharge a firearm are rural enough where pulling in a safety supervisor and keeping an ambulance less than a 30 minute time to get to the hospital just isn’t feasible without bankrupting the local governments. A distinction here is also that those using firearms regularly tend to be fairly safety conscious and/or are in a group where several of the members will insist on proper usage behavior

It is not possible to buy a weapon legally without registering it. I am astonished this can be done in the USA. Have I mis-read?

Depends on the particular locality, but yes. Background checks are required at almost all retail locations now, but not private party sales, and once bought you are usually not required to re-register if you move of if the firearm’s owner passes away and it is inherited as part of the estate distribution.

Lets face it, receiving a discharge from even a small 0.22 would definately quench the passions of a rapist.

Most effectively, and properly placed, permanently. It was a hollow point .22LR that I used on the coyote, though I did have to deliver a finishing shot as she was still struggling when I went out to count heads in the flock and get a closer look at the scene to try to figure out how things had gone down before the racket got me attention and I stuck my head out the window. .

My own home was burgled 7 times last year. I told the police the name of the burglar, I know the burglar who taunts me that ‘he can walk into my property whenever he wants’ He has even mocked me about it. I gave the police a list of what to look for in his property which were my possessions as I had received information he had my possessions at his home address. The police refused to go and interview him. He was not prosecuted for house-breaking.

That is the situation in UK.

IIRC, I’m thinking that unless you got a copy of a police report / investigation for each event, in UK reporting practice, you might not count towards the burglary stats at all, or perhaps only the events that got written up, and if the thief is that cocky, I’m betting the local police are not meeting their obligations on that end either. In other words, the crime situation is worse than what the reports there show…

 

[Bennie_P]

I assigned myself to not use information from one source early in this thread instead of trying to defend that information and I now see how that was a mistake. For I allowed certain individuals more or less bully the flow of information allowed into the thread by allowing them to use the type of fallacious arguments,and tatics, among others listed below. Thier claims of certain information to be false, which was only backed up with sources that themselves are subject to doubt as well as to reliabilty or being truly varifiable except from the third party sources from which they acquired them. They set a standard of authority which they themselves decided which were the rules of discussion and rejecting all dissenting views and authorities as being false.

**Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam):**if you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it
Poisoning The Wells: discrediting the sources used by your opponent. This is a variation of Ad Hominem.
**Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation): assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot. **
**Complex Question (Tying):**unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together. In fact, each point should be accepted or rejected on its own merits. For example, “Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?”

For those that that are interested here is an article on how the 2nd Amendment through the courts has been twisted in it’s meaning and how those of us that believe Gun Control is appropriate and that was wriiten into the constituion as opposed to a prohibition of gun control. There are two links here.1) SECOND AMENDMENT FANTASY: *THE D.C. CIRCUIT’S OPINION IN THE PARKER CASE *

**2) **DECISION BY ERASER:

**HOW THE *PARKER ***COURT OBLITERATED
**HALF OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT **
In this second installment, we explain how the

*Parker *panel also botched its textual and historical analysis of the Second Amendment. At every turn of its decision, the *Parker *panel treated the first thirteen words of the Amendment – containing its militia purpose – as irrelevant surplus, with absolutely no binding effect. In its place, the court assumed that the Second Amendment protects ownership and use of firearms for “private purposes,” even though this is found nowhere in its text or legislative history.5 We have entitled this piece ***Decision by Eraser ***because *Parker *treats the Constitution as if courts are empowered to selectively erase its words and replace them with unexpressed meanings that support the court’s predilections.

Of course, as Chief Justice John Marshall established back in 1803 in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, the *Parker *panel’s approach is contrary to how courts must interpret the language of our Constitution.

***It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible.***6

The *Parker *ruling defied that 200-year-old instruction.

 

[udoc89]

This entire thread deals with the RCC’s stance on gun control, and many people justifying owning and carrying guns…as coinciding with the RCC’s views–when really the RCC believes in self defense, and defending others. I think pro self defense, is very different than pro gun. Respecting life really doesn’t have a lot to do with my choice to defend my family–actually that’s more instinctive than it is about morals, if you get right down to it. In a split second, someone breaks into your home–you have but a moment to think of the next action…and that action will be to possibly shoot someone in defense of your family’s (and your) best interest. It isn’t about respecting life…in that instant, it’s about instinct. (obviously to protect one’s own family from harm) That’s why the RCC condones it–because we are human, and in a situation like that, morality wouldn’t come in…at least not at that moment. I would think it’s pretty obvious that we respect our own lives, and that of our spouses, kids, etc…as it relates to your statement…about the consistency of being pro life with this issue.