Gun Control

[Ender]

To some owning a Gun gives them psychological Power
To others owning a Gun means defending their Freedom (“IF”) it entails living in Peace.
And yet with others owning a Gun means they can uncharitably Lord it over others.

The power and responsibility of owning a Gun means so many things to people who wish to possess them for whatever reason. Personally; I sometimes can’t help but see the acquisition of owning a Gun so extremely important in peoples lives that in someways the overwhelming desire of having a Gun for whatever legitimate or illegitimate reason leaves the materialistic Gun in itself in someways becoming a God unto itself.

Think about the psychological power driven behind possessing a Gun for whatever reason.

Your judgments of others is not simply inappropriate it is irrelevant. There are two question here: does the Church have a position on gun control and (if not) how do we determine what controls are “best”? Neither question is addressed by your psychoanalysis of why someone might want to own a gun.

As to the first question: no, the Church has no position.
As to the second question: evidence suggests that strict controls are counter productive (not to mention unconstitutional). Few people object to reasonable controls where the emphasis is on controlling firearm ownership rather than preventing it.

So long as mankind continues to reject God there can never be Gun Control.

If this was true you might expect the Church to have said something about it. Since she hasn’t, the probability is high that this claim is … flawed.

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

Your judgments of others is not simply inappropriate it is irrelevant. There are two question here: does the Church have a position on gun control and (if not) how do we determine what controls are “best”? Neither question is addressed by your psychoanalysis of why someone might want to own a gun.

As to the first question: no, the Church has no position.
As to the second question: evidence suggests that strict controls are counter productive (not to mention unconstitutional). Few people object to reasonable controls where the emphasis is on controlling firearm ownership rather than preventing it.
If this was true you might expect the Church to have said something about it. Since she hasn’t, the probability is high that this claim is … flawed.

Ender

But it is YOU who say I am judging. Your not even on the same wave length of what I spoke about in my last post. I mentioned nothing about the Church’s views, so why speak of it? Anything the Church has to say about Gun Control is opinion Only, Not Dogma.
I not discrediting what the Church says. Nothing that the Church in her wisdom thus far has offered any solution to Gun Control except to say citizens have the right to bear arms.

That’s not a solution to Gun Control. Some might see it as stuffing more logs in the fire.
Fact is the Church has NO solution and anything is could say positive about advocating stricter Gun Controls would fly in the wind anyways.

So where do we stand amongst a bunch a Gun Freaks who wouldn’t have the foggiest of damned clues how to control crime due to an overwhelming excess of firearms on the streets?

Oh and by the way when I said Gun Freaks…count me in as being one of them too.
Because I need to defend my family and loved ones against law-less fragrant idiots.

Gun Control is a bloody laughable irony!

Peace
Chris

 

[ddarko]

Then explain why in EVERY single community where concealed carry laws were passed, violent crime went DOWN. There is not a single instance where violent crime went up when people were given access to firearms.

I am afraid it explains something wrong with your logic than anything else.

What I showed you was that there are OTHER factors that are vastly different between the two communities. INFACT, a major indicator of crime which is POPULATION DENSITY is vastly higher in NYC than VERMONT. So for all we know, the reason for the lower crime rate is less population density in VERMONT and has nothing to do with Guns.

It is incorrect usage of statistics like you did to make conclusions that many statisticians warn about.

God Bless

 

[tommcguire]

http://www.fixgunchecks.org/detail/34americans

Check out this short video. Let the victims of gun violence speak to you.

St Augustine said: “Listen therefore, beloved brethren; what you cannot see with your eyes, you must study with your mind and intellect and see that ‘precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.’”

Choosing to defend myself or my loved ones does not mean I am called to kill or injure the person who attacked me. To follow Jesus, means to sacrifice, to even give up my life for another.

In my encounter with the one who robbed me at gun point, I hope I demonstrated that one did not have to match violence with violence. I had no opportunity to have a long talk with my attacker. But I pray he felt that I loved and forgave him. As Jesus loved and forgave those who killed Him: “Forgive them for they know not what they do”

 

[ddarko]

I got newsflash for you – many interpret this passage in exactly the way that I outlined. The fact that the Vatican’s own website says that we have a right and a duty to defense with arms seems to further support this position.

Blatantly FALSE. The accepted Theological exegesis of the passage is different from what you stated. INFACT, we know your interpretation is bogus because it contradicts Scripture and Tradition in other places.

Just think about it, Jesus asks them to get swords, but when Peter uses it, he blames Peter. So if we interpret it your way, Jesus is suffering from multiple personality disorder.

So I am afraid you need to do some theological reading on this site itself to find out the correct meaning of those lines

SECONDLY, the Vatican DOES support defense with arms. BUT

1. IT is NOT based on that Scripture passage you cited
2. IT is NOT for every namby and pamby who is afraid of a ‘gang banger’ to carry around a gun to ‘level the playingfield’

So it might help to actually UNDERSTAND what the church says about guns. It is clear from its actions. From the UN to other councils concerning Guns, the Vatican has always raised the issue of NEED for Gun control. In fact, it speaks of taking all guns away from the civilian population except for sport activity.

Think about it for a moment. We are not called to live in fear of our brothers and sisters. Do you carry a gun afraid that your wife is going to stab you or anything? Or your sister, or your brother? So to say that you carry a gun afraid that some ‘gang banger’ (who is your brother) is going to stab you is not very Christian.

Now if you do live in a warzone, by all means do carry a gun. I recommend it. But last time I checked, “Hills & valleys of PA” is not exactly Kabul or anything

God Bless

 

[Ender]

SECONDLY, the Vatican DOES support defense with arms. BUT

1. IT is NOT based on that Scripture passage you cited
2. IT is NOT for every namby and pamby who is afraid of a ‘gang banger’ to carry around a gun to ‘level the playingfield’

That the “Vatican DOES support defense with arms” is pretty much the point Sir Knight was trying to make whether he quoted the right passage or not.

As for the nambys and pambys among us who are not to be allowed to own weapons, just where in the Vatican statement did you find this restriction?

So it might help to actually UNDERSTAND what the church says about guns.

Isn’t this point resolved? The Church supports the right of armed defense of oneself, one’s family, and one’s neighbors.

It is clear from its actions. From the UN to other councils concerning Guns, the Vatican has always raised the issue of NEED for Gun control. In fact, it speaks of taking all guns away from the civilian population except for sport activity.

So your claim is that on the one hand the Vatican supports the right of armed self defense and on the other hand supports the elimination of arms from public ownership. You don’t see those positions as somewhat incompatible?

Do you carry a gun afraid that your wife is going to stab you or anything? Or your sister, or your brother? So to say that you carry a gun afraid that some ‘gang banger’ (who is your brother) is going to stab you is not very Christian.

I think most of the violence we see here is being done to language. If my brother is my parent’s other son then no, I am not afraid of what he might do to me, but if my “brother” is every other male on the planet then yes, I have good reason to be afraid of what he might do as I see him every night on the news killing, raping, and pillaging. It is hardly un-Christian to be wary of such people; it would be irrational not to be.

Ender

 

[momor]

That the “Vatican DOES support defense with arms” is pretty much the point Sir Knight was trying to make whether he quoted the right passage or not.

Actually, in his response to me he went way beyond supporting self defense to making it a moral DUTY to arm yourself and be ready to defend yourself and others.

 

[ddarko]

I think most of the violence we see here is being done to language. If my brother is my parent’s other son then no, I am not afraid of what he might do to me, but if my “brother” is every other male on the planet then yes, I have good reason to be afraid of what he might do as I see him every night on the news killing, raping, and pillaging. It is hardly un-Christian to be wary of such people; it would be irrational not to be.

Ender

There in lies your major hodgepodge of theology.

With Christ’s death on the cross, everyone is our brother and sister in Christ. The whole point of being Christian is to accept that. To love every man and woman on the planet like they are our brother and sister. God’s plan can certainly look foolish to us but who are we to question him?

Now since we do not live in our families afraid that our brother or sister is going to stab us to death, we do not carry around guns because we fear others either. To do so with such fear IS actually UN-Christian.

This of course doesn’t mean guns should not exist. Guns are certainly required for those who maintain order and civil law. Military, Police etc. Or someone who is stuck in a war-zone. But if we are at peace, we really do not need guns. And in Sir Knights case, as far as I know, hills of PA isn’t exactly looking like Libya or anything.

Just to add, normal civilians having guns actually makes little sense as well. What happens when the police need to arrest an individual with guns? Do you think him/her would be very willing to stand down without a fight? Those kind of scenarios actually end up being some of the major gun related deaths/crimes.

So other than the military or police, or in time of War, it really makes no sense for the common person to carry a gun.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

That the “Vatican DOES support defense with arms” is pretty much the point Sir Knight was trying to make whether he quoted the right passage or not.

snAs for the nambys and pambys among us who are not to be allowed to own weapons, just where in the Vatican statement did you find this restriction?

My dear friend,

This is not in one specific document, this is the CORE of Christianity. It is in EVERY DOCUMENT of the church. Through Christ’s death, we are all brothers and sisters. Do you carry a weapon afraid of your brother or sister in your own house? Your wife or kids perhaps?

If your answer to the above is YES, then you of course need to rethink a lot of things. Assuming it is ‘NO’, then you should act the same way towards the rest of the planet. That is what Christianity is. If you do not try to accept everyone on this planet as your brother or sister and love them that way, you have failed as a Christian. And of course, carrying a gun afraid of your fellow brothers or sisters is certainly NOT a step in the right direction.

God Bless

 

[hxcCatholic413]

My dear friend,

This is not in one specific document, this is the CORE of Christianity. It is in EVERY DOCUMENT of the church. Through Christ’s death, we are all brothers and sisters. Do you carry a weapon afraid of your brother or sister in your own house? Your wife or kids perhaps?

If your answer to the above is YES, then you of course need to rethink a lot of things. Assuming it is ‘NO’, then you should act the same way towards the rest of the planet. That is what Christianity is. If you do not try to accept everyone on this planet as your brother or sister and love them that way, you have failed as a Christian. And of course, carrying a gun afraid of your fellow brothers or sisters is certainly NOT a step in the right direction.

God Bless

good take on it ddarko I’m going to copy/paste the above info. Thanks!

 

[Sir_Knight]

lol probably because there was no violent crime there in the first place…I have a hunch that these communities are various small towns with little population

According to the October 17, 1994 edition of the Independence Institute Issue Paper, after passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).

Additionally, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second and assaults fell and additional 250% faster in the second year.

More to the point, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports of 2004, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws and states that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’ve heard this tiresome argument time and time again. The world is filled with a million “what if’s”.

The answer is, arm yourself with a cellphone and call the police; they have the training, equipment and skills (even if its a 120lb female officer) to deal with this type of situation. We don’t need civilians running around playing John Wayne and getting innocent bystanders injured or killed.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Sir_Knight]

umm not sure about this info…do you have a link? Sir Knight there’s no reason to stoop down to a lower level…best means of personal self defense is the mind and the ability to communicate. Do you really think that you will intimidate someone with a gun just because you have one? Try that in downtown Newark and see where it gets you. God Bless!

It’s not about being able to “intimidate” someone. It’s about being able to protect oneself and others from harm. It just so happens that this evening the cashiers were threatened by some lunatic customer who said that he was going to come back the shoot them up. The police were called. Took a report and said that they would stop by as we were locking up. Guess what? They didn’t show. Everybody was happy that I was carrying my Colt .45ACP 1911 Combat Commander.

And for your information, I lived in Newark from the time of my birth until the age of 27. Publicly carrying a firearm in prohibited in New Jersey. That accounts for their higher crime rate because the criminals know that their victims are going to be unarmed.

 

[ddarko]

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_options.jpg

Dear Sir Knight,

Are you saying that when a rape “IS IN PROGRESS”, one needs a gun to stop it?

Second, I’ve never really heard someone getting raped when bystanders CHOOSE to do anything. Note, usually what happens is that bystanders DONT do anything when someone is getting raped. INCLUDING calling 911 and simply yelling out.

This is a well documented psychological phenomenon known as the bystander effect.

I don’t think that ANY rapist is going to continue in his merry way if you or any other person walked in and said “What are you doing? Stop, Somebody help!!!”. Even that would be enough to stop a rapist. I’ve not heard of someone ever raping a woman in the presence of a stranger right in front of him and telling him to stop and crying out for help.

I think in short, you and I and all Catholics can agree that our duty is to LOVE everyone as our brother and sister. Our duty is to maintain good mental, physical, and spiritual health in all members of Christ. You are certainly correct that in our society, some might turn out to be bad people. Our duty is NOT to shoot the rapist BUT to make sure that the person NEVER becomes that ‘what if’ rapist. Our duty is to GET RID of the Guns on the streets that are used by drug dealers and all other kinds of people who engage in violent organized crime. We can’t do this by having a gun ourselves. The other person would just use a bigger gun. So we do that our duty by giving the young would be ‘gang bangers’ a good education and most of all, teachings of CHRIST.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Our duty as Catholics is to OPPOSE evil. Also, recall that scripture tells us that Jesus was always in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father AND we see numerous times in the Old Testament when God commanded the people to kill the aggressor. In fact, God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23 … clearly showing that pacifism is not always pleasing to God.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am afraid it explains something wrong with your logic than anything else.

What I showed you was that there are OTHER factors that are vastly different between the two communities. INFACT, a major indicator of crime which is POPULATION DENSITY is vastly higher in NYC than VERMONT. So for all we know, the reason for the lower crime rate is less population density in VERMONT and has nothing to do with Guns.

It is incorrect usage of statistics like you did to make conclusions that many statisticians warn about.

God Bless

When gun laws were loosen in the SAME community, violent crime DECREASED. This has nothing to do with population density or any of the other factors because we are talking about the SAME community. Note, what I said above …
According to the October 17, 1994 edition of the Independence Institute Issue Paper, after passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).

Additionally, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second and assaults fell and additional 250% faster in the second year.

More to the point, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports of 2004, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws and states that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.

 

[ddarko]

Our duty as Catholics is to OPPOSE evil. Also, recall that scripture tells us that Jesus was always in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father AND we see numerous times in the Old Testament when God commanded the people to kill the aggressor. In fact, God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23 … clearly showing that pacifism is not always pleasing to God.

Of course. I am certainly not talking about pacifism.

What I am pointing out is the type of relationship we must have with our fellow brothers and sisters. It must be with acceptance of the fact that everyone is our brother and sister in Christ. That is why we do not carry a gun around. Just as we do not fear our brother or sister harming us, we do not fear the spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, this is the essence of Christianity. Our life is a strife to get ourselves to love everyone as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Does that mean Pacifism? No. Those in authority will have to step in and discipline the flock. So in the case of the Church, God has given this authority to the Church. In the case of the law, God has given this authority to those who we have elected as leaders. They have a moral duty to maintain the law just as the church has a duty to maintain Christ’s teachings and laws.

But of course, when things go wrong, when authority is corrupt, when there is war, THAT IS CERTAINLY the TIME to bear arms. BUT, we are not yet in such a time and place, correct? And that is certainly not the type of situation that you are addressing either if I understand you correctly.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

When gun laws were loosen in the SAME community, violent crime DECREASED. This has nothing to do with population density or any of the other factors because we are talking about the SAME community. Note, what I said above …
According to the October 17, 1994 edition of the Independence Institute Issue Paper, after passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).

Additionally, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second and assaults fell and additional 250% faster in the second year.

More to the point, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports of 2004, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws and states that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.

I am sorry but I spoke to you about none of the above. I was specifically addressing your example of Vermont and NYC. And in that case, what you did state was a logical mistake.

Even in the cases you mention above, you have to remember that correlation DOES NOT imply causation.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

http://www.fixgunchecks.org/detail/34americans

Check out this short video. Let the victims of gun violence speak to you.

St Augustine said: “Listen therefore, beloved brethren; what you cannot see with your eyes, you must study with your mind and intellect and see that ‘precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.’”

Choosing to defend myself or my loved ones does not mean I am called to kill or injure the person who attacked me. To follow Jesus, means to sacrifice, to even give up my life for another.

To let an aggressor take your life when it could be avoided is in direct contradiction with OFFICIAL Catholic Church teaching which tells us that we have a DUTY to protect ourselves – it isn’t optional.

In my encounter with the one who robbed me at gun point, I hope I demonstrated that one did not have to match violence with violence. I had no opportunity to have a long talk with my attacker. But I pray he felt that I loved and forgave him. As Jesus loved and forgave those who killed Him: “Forgive them for they know not what they do”

And if you could have stopped him and didn’t and he went out and hurt others, or even killed them, how do you feel about that? That your pacifism, which was displeasing to God when Saul did it, could have resulted in someone’s death?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am sorry but I spoke to you about none of the above. I was specifically addressing your example of Vermont and NYC. And in that case, what you did state was a logical mistake.

I modified the example to remove the objections that you brought up

Even in the cases you mention above, you have to remember that correlation DOES NOT imply causation.

God Bless

Something had to cause these result to happen and the only common thing was the loosen guns laws. Thus, what is the logical conclusion?