Gun Control

[gamewell45]

Gun Ownership - It’s The
Law In Kennesaw
By Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch
Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writers
mdjonline.com/StoryDetail.cfm?id=10017128&Section=Home%20Page
3-14-1

KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to “protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.”

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone “went crazy.”

“People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes,” he said. “Of course, that wasn’t the case.”

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law’s passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

“It did drop after it was passed,” he said. “After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years.”

It should be noted that those who were convicted felons, those who could not afford a weapon or those with religious convictions contrary to owning guns were exempt from the law.

Furthermore I am not aware of anyone ever being fined for failing to keep at least one weapon and ammunition in their house as well.

 

[tommcguire]

A community with guns does produce peace. Jesus called us to a peace the world cannot give. Wow…that means loving the enemy, doing good to those who persecute us. He even had something to say about “gun control”, only in his day it was swords. His followers had swords. But what he told them after the servant struck the enemy with a sword…NO MORE OF THIS.

See Luke’s Gospel.

When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

Would it be great if all followers of Jesus were to heed Jesus when he tells us NO MORE OF THIS…about guns and we worked to heal our enemies.

Looking at what is happening in the Middle East and North Africa suggests that those who are not followers of Jesus have discovered His way and are attempting to put it into practice. They are willing to suffer and die from the violence of their oppressors rather than take up arms to fight.

Oh, if we would follow Jesus’ admonition NO MORE OF THIS, and put away our guns and work for justice in non-violent ways that would heal those who would harm us.

 

[Ender]

A community with guns does produce peace. Jesus called us to a peace the world cannot give. Wow…that means loving the enemy, doing good to those who persecute us. He even had something to say about “gun control”, only in his day it was swords. His followers had swords. But what he told them after the servant struck the enemy with a sword…NO MORE OF THIS.

See Luke’s Gospel.

Luke’s gospel? Does that include Lk 22:36?

"He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

The problem with relying on personal interpretation of Scripture is that there is no defense against others who do the same. It is not enough to quote Scripture and include your interpretation, if your argument is solid you should be able to cite the Church citing the passage and present her interpretation.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

Looking at what is happening in the Middle East and North Africa suggests that those who are not followers of Jesus have discovered His way and are attempting to put it into practice. **They are willing to suffer and die from the violence of their oppressors rather than take up arms to fight. **

Oh, if we would follow Jesus’ admonition NO MORE OF THIS, and put away our guns and work for justice in non-violent ways that would heal those who would harm us.

WOW! So may I conclude that you are also against defending the Constitution, and freedom and personal liberties against tyrannical and oppressive rulers?

 

[centurionguard]

Seems to me that gun control advocates regard guns as some kind of malevolent force … somewhat mystical and perhaps even “magickal”, perhaps even with a life of their own.

They don’t seem to look at guns as simple mechanical devices that any handy person can fabricate with basic hand tools.

In fact, I would say that gun control advocates have no personal mechanical or DIY skills at all. They cannot even begin to conceive of how someone might make a gun or what they are made of.

So, to the gun control advocates, guns are mysterious and to be eliminated, as if others WITH mechanical skills could not make one.

…

For the most part I can appreciate what you wrote here.
In Canada gun laws are far more stiffer than in the United States.
In Canada there are lobbyist seeking greater freedom and leniency owning a gun.

But don’t you think this so called freedom of owning firearms has taken a personal stance far beyond the norm of owning a gun for sports and gaming.

People are obsessed about owning guns. In bigger cities crime rates are through the roof with many being perpetrated with the accompaniment of using firearms.

Personally I hate guns due to the crimes affiliated to them and this overwhelming sense of false power they represent to many people who desire owning them.

Yes I hate guns, because I was one of three victims confronted in a crime.
It left a huge life altering fear in me. But I do admit that it was the trauma due the crime itself that induced more fear than the gun itself. Yet if no gun was involved in the perpetrated crime it wouldn’t have taken place. One victim died as result of the aftermath of the crime.

I have long asked myself if I would ever consider owning a gun.
I am forced to conclude if it was necessary to hunt and provide food for my loved ones.

If Living in a city were the crime rate was through the roof…it would be a very difficult choice considering the notion of having need of protecting my loved ones became a necessity.

But how many people can say that their decision to owning a gun was inspired by fear or a sense of overwhelming insecurity? Or even the illusion of that insecurity?

Peace
Chris

 

[tommcguire]

The Bishops of the United States said in a statement on hand guns:
We believe that effective action must be taken to reverse this rising tide of violence. For this reason, we call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society. Of course, reasonable exceptions ought to be made for the police, military, security guards, and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions.

I have been a victim of a crime in which a hand gun was used. I assure you, that if I had had a hand gun, death would have been more likely of myself or the perpetrator. I am glad I did not have a gun. I consider my not owning a gun as a way of being pro life.

As for using violence to defend my idea, my Country’s constitution, my freedom, my property, my rights: what are these compared to the life of one human being? Jesus showed us a way that requires risk, even the risk of dying. Just before He was killed Jesus healed one who came to arrest him. His instruction to us did not include to kill another human being in defense of what is mine. He did tell us to give up all and follow him. Give up ALL, an extremely radical idea seldom put into practice!

 

[Ender]

The Bishops of the United States said in a statement on hand guns:
We believe that effective action must be taken to reverse this rising tide of violence. For this reason, we call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.

Ah, well that’s a problem as the elimination of handguns (from the law abiding) would in all likelihood increase the level of violence since only the criminals would have guns.

This demonstrates the main problem with pronouncements like this from “the bishops”: they have no business pontificating on issues that have no moral component to them. This is an entirely prudential question and I am getting really tired of seeing the USCCB churn out these political tracts.

I consider my not owning a gun as a way of being pro life.

I believe that owning a gun to protect ones family is another way of being pro life.

His instruction to us did not include to kill another human being in defense of what is mine. He did tell us to give up all and follow him. Give up ALL, an extremely radical idea seldom put into practice!

Is it your position then that the Church misunderstands what Jesus taught, given that she accepts killing in self defense, capital punishment, and just wars?

Ender

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Need to read more:

dchandguninfo.livejournal.com/tag/concealed%20carry

johnrlott.blogspot.com/

 

[centurionguard]

Ah, well that’s a problem as the elimination of handguns (from the law abiding) would in all likelihood increase the level of violence since only the criminals would have guns.

This demonstrates the main problem with pronouncements like this from “the bishops”: they have no business pontificating on issues that have no moral component to them. This is an entirely prudential question and I am getting really tired of seeing the USCCB churn out these political tracts.
I believe that owning a gun to protect ones family is another way of being pro life.
Is it your position then that the Church misunderstands what Jesus taught, given that she accepts killing in self defense, capital punishment, and just wars?

Ender

"the bishops": they have no business pontificating on issues that have no moral component to them. This is an entirely prudential question and I am getting really tired of seeing the USCCB churn out these political tracts.

Really now! I surely don’t think the Bishops were pouncing on the liberties of legitimate responsible law-abiding citizens like your self were they?

You seem awfully defensive when you should have really known the Bishops position is one against the overwhelming violent use of firearms. and crimes attributed to such circumstances. Quite frankly I’m a little surprised you can’t pick up on at least that much.

Peace
Chris

 

[Paul1961]

I am not quite sure where to ask this question. I have been a Catholic for 51 years and have never heard anything on gun control. Now I am seeing all over the internet of how the church is for gun control. Where does the church satnd on this issue?

Bob this is really not directed at you in particular.

We may be Catholic, but we are able to think for ourselves. Do we really need the church to think for us about everything?

Does the church have a position on toilet paper? Is Charmin Ultra too extravagant? If I use too much, is that a sin? I await the infallible pronouncement.

 

[Tigg]

The Bishops of the United States said in a statement on hand guns:
We believe that effective action must be taken to reverse this rising tide of violence. For this reason, we call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society. Of course, reasonable exceptions ought to be made for the police, military, security guards, and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions.

Perhaps you are not aware that when the bishops of the U.S. promote **political **ideology we are not bound in conscience to agree. I, for one, disagree with their judgment that controlling handguns will decrease the violence.

 

[centurionguard]

Perhaps you are not aware that when the bishops of the U.S. promote **political **ideology we are not bound in conscience to agree. I, for one, disagree with their judgment that controlling handguns will decrease the violence.

You (“might”) have a different view if you were a victim of a violent life altering crime or your loved ones or friends were wronged by a heavily laden crime brought to bear against your liberty if guns were used.

But sticks and stones can cause violence too

 

[Tigg]

You (“might”) have a different view if you were a victim of a violent life altering crime or your loved ones or friends were wronged by a heavily laden crime brought to bear against your liberty if guns were used.

No, it wouldn’t because evil people will always use whatever means they can to cause harm. My right to legitimately bear arms may protect innocent lives as well.

 

[centurionguard]

No, it wouldn’t because evil people will always use whatever means they can to cause harm. My right to legitimately bear arms may protect innocent lives as well.

I see your point. But don’t you think that every citizen who has the legal right to bears arms creates a false sense of security to some greater or lessor degree?

To me it can to varying degrees create an overwhelming sense of anarchy when faith in ones countries internal security system and justice system is loss.

Peace
Chris

 

[Ender]

Really now! I surely don’t think the Bishops were pouncing on the liberties of legitimate responsible law-abiding citizens like your self were they?

Of course they were; you don’t really think their comments were directed at removing the criminals right to bear arms do you? If laws were passed to implement their recommendations who would lose their right to own handguns? Responsible law-abiding citizens like myself would.

You seem awfully defensive when you should have really known the Bishops position is one against the overwhelming violent use of firearms. and crimes attributed to such circumstances. Quite frankly I’m a little surprised you can’t pick up on at least that much.

They are proposing a practical solution to a social problem and are abusing their moral authority when they do so because, whenever they speak on something, it automatically carries with it the perception that (a) their position is the moral one and opposing positions are immoral, and (b) that Catholics have a moral obligation to accept their position. In fact, both of those perceptions are wrong.

Paul1961’s comment about a USCCB position on toilet paper is apropos here and I give no more heed to their firearm comments than I expect you would give if they came out with an endorsement of Charmin over Scott. The USCCB, however it was intended to be when it was created, has become little more than a political action committee, pushing its own agenda with woefully inadequate oversight from the bishops.

Gun control is a political issue, not a moral one, and it is inappropriate for the bishops to choose sides.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

I see your point. But don’t you think that every citizen who has the legal right to bears arms creates a false sense of security to some greater or lessor degree?

To me it can to varying degrees create an overwhelming sense of anarchy when faith in ones countries internal security system and justice system is loss.

Peace
Chris

We have a gun in this household. My husband has taken me to the range to learn how to shoot properly and coached me in safety. But it certainly does not lend me an inflated sense of security; indeed I shudder to think I would ever be forced to use it. But I will if my life or the life of my grandchildren are ever threatened. Further, I believe the push for gun control comes straight from the aims and political principles of progressives and the United Nations who hope to eliminate our right to bear arms and leave us defenseless. As we well know from history, an unarmed citizenry is vulnerable to political tyranny.

 

[centurionguard]

Of course they were; you don’t really think their comments were directed at removing the criminals right to bear arms do you? If laws were passed to implement their recommendations who would lose their right to own handguns? Responsible law-abiding citizens like myself would.

They are proposing a practical solution to a social problem and are abusing their moral authority when they do so because, whenever they speak on something, it automatically carries with it the perception that (a) their position is the moral one and opposing positions are immoral, and (b) that Catholics have a moral obligation to accept their position. In fact, both of those perceptions are wrong.

Paul1961’s comment about a USCCB position on toilet paper is apropos here and I give no more heed to their firearm comments than I expect you would give if they came out with an endorsement of Charmin over Scott. The USCCB, however it was intended to be when it was created, has become little more than a political action committee, pushing its own agenda with woefully inadequate oversight from the bishops.

Gun control is a political issue, not a moral one, and it is inappropriate for the bishops to choose sides.

Ender

Gun control is a political issue, not a moral one, and it is inappropriate for the bishops to choose sides.

Yes it is a very secular political system. However; when the rights of the innocent become victims of firearms and the political system fails these victims, then I see nothing wrong with Catholics Bishops stepping in and voicing their legitimate moral concerns.

Peace
Chris

 

[Ender]

Yes it is a very secular political system. However; when the rights of the innocent become victims of firearms and the political system fails these victims, then I see nothing wrong with Catholics Bishops stepping in and voicing their legitimate moral concerns.

What moral question is involved in determining how best to confront violence? There is none. Is it immoral to believe that society is safer if individuals are allowed to own firearms? Nowhere does the Church teach that societies should outlaw handguns and when bishops support such an idea they mislead people into believing that they have a moral obligation to accept the bishops’ opinions - and this is entirely untrue.

Gun control is not a moral issue and we are deceived when anyone - bishops included - imply otherwise.

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

What moral question is involved in determining how best to confront violence? There is none. Is it immoral to believe that society is safer if individuals are allowed to own firearms? Nowhere does the Church teach that societies should outlaw handguns and when bishops support such an idea they mislead people into believing that they have a moral obligation to accept the bishops’ opinions - and this is entirely untrue.

Gun control is not a moral issue and we are deceived when anyone - bishops included - imply otherwise.

Ender

**What moral question is involved in determining how best to confront violence? **

I’d say there have been many great men in history who have had the strong courage
to fight the moral question against violence.

Nobel Prize Winner Nelson Mandela comes to the forefront in present times today…

And how about the beautiful great late American Martin Luther King

Both men have fought valiantly for moral freedom from violence.
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-acceptance.html

**I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. I believe that even amid today’s mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men. I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land. “And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid.” I still believe that We Shall overcome!

This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.**

Ender wrote:

Nowhere does the Church teach that societies should outlaw handguns and when bishops support such an idea they mislead people into believing that they have a moral obligation to accept the bishops’ opinions - and this is entirely untrue.

I think your taking what the bishops said in a direction to suit your own agenda.
Is it really true that the bishops are asking that all citizens lay their firearms down (“which I don’t believe is the issue at hand”)

The issue has more to do with greater governmental strict controls towards which citizens can and cannot own firearms. Tell me how does that restrict freedom and liberty and the right to bear arms?

 

[tommcguire]

I wonder if what Jesus taught can have any real influence on how we see things today? For some it depends only on what the Bishops say, not “private interpretation of what Jesus said”, for others the Bishops are promoting political agendas.

Today, Seventh Sunday of Ordinary Time, the Gospel gives us the words of Jesus: “You have heard it said: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.” Mt 5: 38-41

These words of Jesus do not give us the answer to gun control, but if we are His followers, should they not have some influence?

I live in an urban community where many people who commit crimes and people who do not commit crimes have guns. The possession of guns DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SECURITY NOR PEACE in this community.

Not long ago, I little boy sleeping in his bed was shot and killed because people who had an argument decided to solve the argument using guns. The victim was the child, and all who knew his family.
The little boy’s best friend told me: “My friend got shot because he used bad language.” The effects of violence impacts every aspect of human life in the community.

Jesus gave us a way. His way is one of self sacrifice. That may mean being willing to put self and others in danger in order to bring about a more compassionate community. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” I pray more followers of Jesus will choose the non-violent way to respond to violence and work for the conversion of those who would choose violence in dealing with problems.