Gun Control

[momor]

Almost exactly three years and one month ago, a woman got a restraining order against her husband. He had taken up drinking and was becoming abusive toward her and fearful for her safety and that of her children, she obtained a court ordered PFA (Protection From Abuse) Order against him.

Learning of the restraining order against him, he decided to teach his wife a lesson and went to her place of employment. Not finding her there, he grabbed one of the cashiers and began beating her demanding that she tell him where his wife was.

Customers gathered to see what was going on but being a big & muscular man, everybody was afraid to get involved. Everyone except for one elderly man who was licensed to carry a firearm. He went to see what all of the yelling was about and when he got there, he saw the man hit the cashier in the face with a hammer. He immediately drew his gun and ordered the man to drop the hammer.

It is unclear whether the man hear this and decided to ignore it or if he was totally oblivious to it but he swung the hammer over his head to hit her a second time and that is when the man with the gun opened fire. It took three shots to the chest before the man dropped the hammer and collapsed himself.

The man with the gun did not wear a uniform. He wasn’t a police off officer or anything in any type of authority. Just a regular citizen with a gun. When the police arrived, he was not charged with any crime and was permitted to leave.

Shaken up by the experience and feeling guilty that he took a human life, he sought out counseling not only with the priests in his parish but also with the priests in the Bishop’s office in the dioceses where he belonged. None of the priests told him that he committed any sin. Instead, they told him that he did a good and righteous thing by opposing evil and saving the life of an innocent individual. If the guy would have hit her on top of the head with the hammer, he could have killed her or turned her into a vegetable. Because of this man’s actions WITH A GUN, that did not happen. As it is, she was left disfigured for life.

By carrying the gun, the man was able to perform this “good and righteous” deed. Not carrying a gun would have prevented him from performing this “good and righteous” deed. How can doing something (carrying a gun) which contributes to being about to perform a “good and righteous” deed; and not doing this act (not carrying the gun) result in that “good and righteous” deed not being performed, be considered wrong? It can’t!

What about if it was you being attacked by this guy with the hammer? Or, your newly wedded bride? Or, your sister, or daughter or mother? Would you have preferred for someone to dial ‘911’ and wait a few minutes for the police to arrive as your face was pounded with a hammer? Or, would you have performed the man with the gun to have acted in the way that he did? Anyone who picks the former, has a incorrect understanding of the Catholic faith and the message of Christ. Period.

For every one example like this I could give you a thousand examples of someone who bought a weapon for protection and ended up shooting a loved one in a rage or fit of passion.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Almost exactly three years and one month ago, a woman got a restraining order against her husband. He had taken up drinking and was becoming abusive toward her and fearful for her safety and that of her children, she obtained a court ordered PFA (Protection From Abuse) Order against him.

Learning of the restraining order against him, he decided to teach his wife a lesson and went to her place of employment. Not finding her there, he grabbed one of the cashiers and began beating her demanding that she tell him where his wife was.

Customers gathered to see what was going on but being a big & muscular man, everybody was afraid to get involved. Everyone except for one elderly man who was licensed to carry a firearm. He went to see what all of the yelling was about and when he got there, he saw the man hit the cashier in the face with a hammer. He immediately drew his gun and ordered the man to drop the hammer.

It is unclear whether the man hear this and decided to ignore it or if he was totally oblivious to it but he swung the hammer over his head to hit her a second time and that is when the man with the gun opened fire. It took three shots to the chest before the man dropped the hammer and collapsed himself.

The man with the gun did not wear a uniform. He wasn’t a police off officer or anything in any type of authority. Just a regular citizen with a gun. When the police arrived, he was not charged with any crime and was permitted to leave.

Shaken up by the experience and feeling guilty that he took a human life, he sought out counseling not only with the priests in his parish but also with the priests in the Bishop’s office in the dioceses where he belonged. None of the priests told him that he committed any sin. Instead, they told him that he did a good and righteous thing by opposing evil and saving the life of an innocent individual. If the guy would have hit her on top of the head with the hammer, he could have killed her or turned her into a vegetable. Because of this man’s actions WITH A GUN, that did not happen. As it is, she was left disfigured for life.

By carrying the gun, the man was able to perform this “good and righteous” deed. Not carrying a gun would have prevented him from performing this “good and righteous” deed. How can doing something (carrying a gun) which contributes to being about to perform a “good and righteous” deed; and not doing this act (not carrying the gun) result in that “good and righteous” deed not being performed, be considered wrong? It can’t!

What about if it was you being attacked by this guy with the hammer? Or, your newly wedded bride? Or, your sister, or daughter or mother? Would you have preferred for someone to dial ‘911’ and wait a few minutes for the police to arrive as your face was pounded with a hammer? Or, would you have performed the man with the gun to have acted in the way that he did? Anyone who picks the former, has a incorrect understanding of the Catholic faith and the message of Christ. Period.

Playing devil’s advocate here wouldn’t it have been smarter if he shot the man in the legs?, but whose to know unless one was actually there. God Bless!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Thats quiet the story and appeals to emotion. But when it comes to ACTUALLY understanding Church position and teachings, we need to stick to REASON.

You can find emotional arguments and examples like the above among those who support gay marriage, abortions, women priests to all sorts of other not very Catholic things.

In our emotional attachments, environment and upbringing, we can sometimes make illogical conclusions. This is why, to arrive at objective conclusions, one needs to stick to REASON.

In my Post #188, #189 and others, I have shown why so far, there has been no REASONABLE arguments from gun supporters to back their position. Only Straw-man attacks and counterexamples to counterexamples (sprinkled in with the occasional mistake of thinking Causation is implied from an observed Correlation).

God Bless
ddarko;7602492:

You do realize that providing me with a counter example TO my counter examples do not disprove them right ? The whole point of the counterexamples were to show that your position is logically flawed.

Let me illustrate. Lets say person X believes that all prime numbers are odd. Now I give him a counterexample. “2 is a Prime number and it is also EVEN”. Now for X to say I am wrong because there are all these prime numbers like “3, 5, 7…” that are Primes but not EVEN is logically invalid.

Similarly, in your case, your theory of Jesus supporting the carrying of sword is invalidated by the passages I provided. What you should then do is try to change your view in such a way that it fits both you have and what I presented. Thats how reason works.

Now don’t make this as me supporting Pacifism. That is a straw-man. The opposite of Handgun possession is NOT Pacifism. I’ve noticed many gun lovers love to attack this straw man all day. Meaningless stuff. I am totally against handgun possession by you and other civilians. NOT those in authority.

Now don’t play me the ‘everyone is equal and therefore if authority can do it, we can to card’. The obvious counter example to that is the Pope. The Pope has authority to declare Dogma and teach without error. You don’t have that authority. So that’s a counterexample to that. Now before you try and give me examples where your position works, read back on what I said about providing counterexamples to counterexamples.

Finally, you might want to go back and re-read those quotes again… see if you can really hold that all Prime numbers are Odd anymore

God Bless

Where your argument falls short is that the OFFICIAL teaching of the Catholic Church as found in the CCC says that EVERYONE has a GRAVE duty to self defense. A “grave” duty REQUIRES that the BEST means possible be used. Otherwise, it can not be considered “grave” and the best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a firearm.

PS: I noticed that you didn’t answer the question asked …* if it was you being attacked by this guy with the hammer? Or, your newly wedded bride? Or, your sister, or daughter or mother? Would you have preferred for someone to dial ‘911’ and wait a few minutes for the police to arrive as your face was pounded with a hammer? Or, would you have performed the man with the gun to have acted in the way that he did?*

 

[Sir_Knight]

Playing devil’s advocate here wouldn’t it have been smarter if he shot the man in the legs?, but whose to know unless one was actually there. God Bless!

And you obviously having been watching too many movies. When one shoots, one aims for the center mass. Not the legs, or the arms or the head because there is a greater chance that one may miss and go on to shoot an innocent by-stander.

PS: I noticed that you didn’t answer the question asked …* if it was you being attacked by this guy with the hammer? Or, your newly wedded bride? Or, your sister, or daughter or mother? Would you have preferred for someone to dial ‘911’ and wait a few minutes for the police to arrive as your face was pounded with a hammer? Or, would you have performed the man with the gun to have acted in the way that he did?*

 

[Sir_Knight]

For every one example like this I could give you a thousand examples of someone who bought a weapon for protection and ended up shooting a loved one in a rage or fit of passion.

Just because one person may abuse a right does not means that all should be denied that right.

PS: I noticed that you didn’t answer the question asked …* if it was you being attacked by this guy with the hammer? Or, your newly wedded bride? Or, your sister, or daughter or mother? Would you have preferred for someone to dial ‘911’ and wait a few minutes for the police to arrive as your face was pounded with a hammer? Or, would you have performed the man with the gun to have acted in the way that he did?*

 

[bbarrick8383]

For every one example like this I could give you a thousand examples of someone who bought a weapon for protection and ended up shooting a loved one in a rage or fit of passion.

Let’s be realistic here, they obviously had an anger problem. And they had something in them that most people do not, the ability to kill cold blooded. The gun has nothing to do with the story, other than it became the weapon of choice.

Better that they used the gun than a blade or blunt force object.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Playing devil’s advocate here wouldn’t it have been smarter if he shot the man in the legs?, but whose to know unless one was actually there. God Bless!

There are so many factors involved here.

Yea, a young guy, good shot with enough distance might stand a chance at the legs if there is nobody else around. I’ve seen people shoot at bears to scare them away like this, aiming around their legs. But a guy with a hammer, might be on drugs, he might be running at a close range.

Either way, he just got through beating someone with a hammer, does it matter where he gets shot? He went on to face immediate judgement for his actions.

 

[Tigg]

The problem of carrying a gun is because of its sinful intention.

And herein lies the fallacy, presumption and judgment: Just how could you possibly know the intention of any gun owner, let alone condemn it as sinful? I find this argument ludicrous.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Thats quiet the story and appeals to emotion. But when it comes to ACTUALLY understanding Church position and teachings, we need to stick to REASON.

You can find emotional arguments and examples like the above among those who support gay marriage, abortions, women priests to all sorts of other not very Catholic things.

In our emotional attachments, environment and upbringing, we can sometimes make illogical conclusions. This is why, to arrive at objective conclusions, one needs to stick to REASON.

In my Post #188, #189 and others, I have shown why so far, there has been no REASONABLE arguments from gun supporters to back their position. Only Straw-man attacks and counterexamples to counterexamples (sprinkled in with the occasional mistake of thinking Causation is implied from an observed Correlation).

God Bless

I see absolutely no reasoning in your argument, I just came to this thread and looking back you are trying to use your stance on handgun control and illogical arguments to discredit others points.

Just because two arguments sound similar but are on two entirely different subjects, does not discredit either one of them.

The average homeowner, can not trust police protection to defend them in the case of a home invasion. Now, there might be circumstances where a homeowner was able to fend off an intruder or somehow hide long enough for the police to arrive. But the fact of the matter is that police are usually called to the scene of the crime, not called to the crime in progress.

We have a local bank that is right next door to a police station that has been robbed on more than one occasion.

I’d much rather be in a shootout than a shooting, even if I wasn’t the one shooting back.

Tell me, would you rather be in a shooting than a shootout?

Where is the reason and logic behind that?

 

[Tigg]

Let’s be realistic here, they obviously had an anger problem. And they had something in them that most people do not, the ability to kill cold blooded. The gun has nothing to do with the story, other than it became the weapon of choice.

This is the part the gun control advocates just don’t get, bbarrick! They simply can’t understand why anyone would want to own a gun, or how the Church herself does not condemn it. After all, guns are EVIL and kill people! Or, if that argument doesn’t work, we are condemned because we don’t “love our brothers and sisters” and are separating ourselves from them by virtue of the fact that we own a gun!

:hypno:

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

When right to carry was first signed into law by Governor G.W. Bush [was voted in during Gov Ann Richards time but she was a gun control wacko so she would not sign it into law]

Under the new a law a man was shot and killed in Dallas by a CHL holder—the Lame Stream Press (LSM) went nuts “Gov Bush was wrong to sign this into law”! Former Gov Richards said, “That’s the reason I wouldn’t sign it into law I knew it would be the wild, wild west in Texas.” Dallas Police Chief, “I knew innocent people were going to be murdered with this new law you cannot have armed citizens out on the streets this law needs to be repealed.”

What the LSM failed to report:
It happened during a traffic accident what was not reported when the CHL holder said he was going to call the police just to report the accident for insurance purposes; he was in his vehicle in the middle lane and could not escape. The other person who caused the fender bender did not have a driver’s license and started to severely beat the CHL holder who was sitting in his vehicle the CHL holder grabbed his gun fired shooting the person the person walked back to his vehicle sat down beside it and died.

The Grand Jury did not indict the CHL holder stating, “This is exactly why we have this new law for an incident like this.”

Less than a month ago a punk kid tried to run me off the road in the city I grabbed my revolver still kept it concealed to see what this fool was going to do. Did I feel my life was in danger—YES! Would I have used deadly force to stop the threat—YES! Not to kill but to stop the threat.

Luckily this punk drove away at a fast speed was I mad—yes did I follow him—no that would have been stupid on my part. What this punk didn’t know I have a flip video camcorder mounted on my dash I had everything he did on video.

If this can happen to me—it can happen to you.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I’m not familiar with what they have to say about the matter.

Then get a copy of the CCC and read what is written.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Thats quiet the story and appeals to emotion. But when it comes to ACTUALLY understanding Church position and teachings, we need to stick to REASON.

You can find emotional arguments and examples like the above among those who support gay marriage, abortions, women priests to all sorts of other not very Catholic things.

In our emotional attachments, environment and upbringing, we can sometimes make illogical conclusions. This is why, to arrive at objective conclusions, one needs to stick to REASON.

In my Post #188, #189 and others, I have shown why so far, there has been no REASONABLE arguments from gun supporters to back their position. Only Straw-man attacks and counterexamples to counterexamples (sprinkled in with the occasional mistake of thinking Causation is implied from an observed Correlation).

God Bless

I believe the CCC trumps REASON as you put it. If a person has a permit to carry that means they can own and carry a firearm for legal reasons. The CCC says it is our duty to protect ourselves and others. The “REASON” I find here is not to go where you KNOW you will place yourself in danger if at all possible. “REASON” also lets you know that you can not control everyplace you must go.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Sir Knight, I’ve answered this in sufficient detail and as I said before, I am not willing to continue this debate with you as per reasons I gave you. So this is not addressed to you.

But I write this so that anyone else who reads this doesn’t get stumped by what you said.

The quotes above are about defending against aggressors. That is PERFECTLY fine. No one is arguing that. People who present these quotes are trying to make it look like the opposite of owning a hand gun is Pacifism. That is FALSE.

The problem with Gun possession is that it is based on the priori suspicion that someone is going to attack me as I walk the streets. Just read some of the posts by the above person and other gun supporters on the forum. They say stuff like

"Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Or where some of us live that do not have local police protection.

Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the
crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
This is what they do where we live. Unless someone has been injured the State Police truly have no time to investigate much less to do much protecting.

Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to
take a butt whoopin’."
I carry a gun to protect myself so I am still around to feed and house my family. I carry a gun to have the ability to protect my family.

That is a mistrust in authority AND suspicion of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I don’t mistrust my brothers and sisters in Christ. I just don’t believe that everyone is my brother or sister in Christ. Some out there belong to OLD SPARKY.

Notice that none of them are concerned about fixing the Police system or anything. They’d rather own a gun. Makes you wonder …
NONE? a real strong word. Some of us have family members that are now or at one time were police man and women. Some of us are policemen/women.

So the problem with Gun control is the presupposition and mistrust of brothers and sisters in Christ. It is the division that one makes that ‘these are my loved ones’ and ‘these are not’ that makes it inherently unchristian.
**I don’t mistrust my brothers and sisters in Christ. I just don’t believe that everyone is my brother or sister in Christ. Some out there belong to OLD SPARKY. **

As Christian’s our call is to LOVE EVERYONE as our BROTHERS and SISTERS. Jesus never told us to be blind to the evil in the world. This includes the ‘gang-banger’ down the street to the rapist who got released from prison and lives next door. Jesus said to vist those in prison. They have the opportunity to be “saved” behind prison walls. No place has Jesus ever told us to “sacrafice” our families to evil and with societies laws as they are many of those released are not “reformed” but just waited their time out. Just as we do not carry a weapon around in our house to defend ourselves against our own brother or sister, we should not be doing such things against our spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ. “Spiritual bothers and sisters” are not the ones that intend harm to others. It is those that are not “with God” but against God that we must protect ourselves and our families from. To do so undermines the true nature of Christ’s very sacrifice. Through his suffering and blood poured out on the cross, we have all becomes brothers and sisters. To be Christian is to live like we accept that truth.

God Bless

P.S. This does not apply to hunting either. People don’t carry a gun concealed as they walk in the mall for hunting. What are they hunting? Humans? So that’s another straw man.
Guns are of course allowed for hunting purposes and can be kept in safe storage at a hunting reserve. Not in concealment as they go for the early morning stroll.

IF everyone was a TRUE believer in CHRIST, then your argument would be valid. As long as the DEVIL is still active on earth your argument IMHO is not.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Well, I’m not a liberal so I guess that shoots down your theory.

Emotionalism? You mean like your emotional, ignore the facts position on that other thread we’ve been on?

I saw no facts to support your position on the other thread.

 

[momor]

I saw no facts to support your position on the other thread.

None are so blind as those who will not (refuse to) see.

There are plenty of facts outlined there. You chose to ignore them and continue to post inflammatory and emotional statements because you cannot refute the facts.

BTW, I must have missed the quote from the CCC that says we have a grave duty to protect ourselves and others from danger, not just that we are morally allowed to do so. Perhaps you could post it again.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

.
Now don’t make this as me supporting Pacifism. That is a straw-man. The opposite of Handgun possession is NOT Pacifism.

I never accused you of pacifism and you’re always quoting the “Straw-Man” thing!

Well I’m a real man ok and you can live in your fantasy world, you can go down the street and kiss those gang-bangers on the cheek, you trust them, you kiss them.

I and my family are not going to be victims because a bunch of people running around saying peace and love, praise the Lord, and living with blinders on and trying to take away my God given right to defend myself and family.

I thank God there are more common sense people in our country than those people with blinders on.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

None are so blind as those who will not (refuse to) see.

There are plenty of facts outlined there. You chose to ignore them and continue to post inflammatory and emotional statements because you cannot refute the facts.

BTW, I must have missed the quote from the CCC that says we have a grave duty to protect ourselves and others from danger, not just that we are morally allowed to do so. Perhaps you could post it again.

Post# 181

 

[Tigg]

BTW, I must have missed the quote from the CCC that says we have a grave duty to protect ourselves and others from danger, not just that we are morally allowed to do so. Perhaps you could post it again.

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

You may read the entire section here:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I see absolutely no reasoning in your argument, I just came to this thread and looking back you are trying to use your stance on handgun control and illogical arguments to discredit others points.

Just because two arguments sound similar but are on two entirely different subjects, does not discredit either one of them.

The average homeowner, can not trust police protection to defend them in the case of a home invasion. Now, there might be circumstances where a homeowner was able to fend off an intruder or somehow hide long enough for the police to arrive. But the fact of the matter is that police are usually called to the scene of the crime, not called to the crime in progress.

We have a local bank that is right next door to a police station that has been robbed on more than one occasion.

I’d much rather be in a shootout than a shooting, even if I wasn’t the one shooting back.

Tell me, would you rather be in a shooting than a shootout?

Where is the reason and logic behind that?

I’d rather die in a state of Grace than to know that I killed someone (whether it was self-defense or not). Everyone has their own gifts that God gives us…you have yours, I have mine, I can learn from you in some regards, you can learn from me. Love is one of those gifts…each one of us has a certain understanding of “true” love. What is true love? that’s what this topic is really about.

I personally would rather die knowing that I followed God’s will, I didn’t persecute my brothers and sisters, I wasn’t spiteful, I didn’t act out of “revenge”. It’s better to die with true love in one’s heart than to die in anger. So be it a robber has a gun…doesn’t = I’ll stoop down to his level and “show him whose boss”…I’ll show him/her the same love that Christ had when he died for us (Us includes me, you, and the robber…not just ME).

Look at St. Maria Goretti’s life if you want an example of true love. God Bless!