Gun Control

[chain]

Texas has had restrictions on knives for longer than I can rember - but the restrictions are somewhat arbitrary. I can own a butcher knife (it is a tool). I could have a butcher knife in a collection. But if I carry the same knife as a weapon, it is illegal due to it’s blade length. Likewise tools such as machette’s or gurkha are fine in the tool box, but illegal if carried as a weapon. Switch Blades and other assisted opening knives are illegal to carry (but not sure if they are illegal in collections. I think there has even been a ruling on one assisted opening knife that has no spring, but has a hook to snag your pocket as it is drawn.

With all of this, knifes are still used to stab people - and I am willing to beat that the rate these are criminal is over 100 times more than unjustified shoots fired by chl holders.

Funny, I don’t think there has even been a crime committed with a licensed “machine gun” in the US. Crimes with CHL’s do happen, but at a fraction of the rate found in the general population.

 

[tommcguire]

Gun control is about finding a reasonable way for people to own guns and at the same time restrict the use of guns so innocent people are not harmed. We probably will never achieve the ideal. I hope we do find some balance of restrictions.

As Catholics, we pray so we believe. Today I prayed, with the Whole Church in the Liturgy of the Hours, Psalm 43: *For it was not in my bow that I trusted nor yet was I saved by my sword: it was you who saved us from our foes, it was you who put our foes to shame. All day long our boast was in God and we praised your name without ceasing. * In the Midday Antiphon, I prayed: As I live, says the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, rather let him turn from his evil way and live.

This prayer is in a way suggesting Gun Control, not by government, but rather from the deep trust we place in God. May this be our prayer.

 

[Desert_Catholic]

Even if what you said was true, that for “some” the opposition to gun control demonstrated nothing more than a psychosis, it wouldn’t change the validity of the arguments. A statement is true or false on its own and doesn’t become invalid even if made by a lunatic. If you can’t refute the argument it doesn’t matter how you describe the people making it. Your position stands or falls on the validity of the argument you can make on its behalf, and so far your arguments have been inadequate.

Ender

Because there is evil, good men defend good people with weapons. I retired from 32 years in law enforcement and never feared good men with guns. Being a Christian Catholic Policeman I didn’t fear bad men with guns. I rendered them harmless and never fired my weapon on duty. I’ve been shot at by bad men. I have had friends murdered by being shot and stabbed and ran over by bad men. Bad men do bad things and the bad man gets to chose his weapon and his evil act. Guns just make it noisier.

Luke 22:35-38:
Then Jesus asked [his disciples], “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 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. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

God Bless
DC

 

[tommcguire]

Desert Catholic,

I admire your attitude as a law enforcement officer. Would that more human beings had that attitude. As for the quote from scripture, I have checked it out and the reference to sword is metaphorical. We argued this earlier in the thread.

Jesus also said: “Go sell what you have and give it to the poor, then come follow me.” Could be one would have to sell the sword to follow Jesus.

In any case, your attitude as a law enforcement officer reflects that freedom from things and freedom from fear that is what Jesus means in His directive to the rich young man: “Go sell all you have, give it to the poor then come follow me.”

 

[Darkbloom]

How is it that we trust a government that funds Planned Parenthood, invented the “Constitutional” right to abortion out of whole cloth and dithers about cutting miniscule amounts from a budget that will leave America in straights as desperate as those recently experienced by Greece to decide who can have which guns?

If we as a people, and especially as Catholics, haven’t realized that our federal government is at best incompetent and inefficient and at worst positively immoral then the cause is already lost.

 

[AHapka]

What I am pointing out is that for you to get all afraid and carry a gun around because that person living down the street is a gang banger shows that you are being judgmental of him and unloving. You are called to LOVE everyone.

It is possible to love someone while still being ready to defend against a threat they might pose. When I worked in the jail, I loved everyone to the best of my ability. But I was still ready to use force at any point in time if necessary.

 

[Peepers]

As I perused this thread, and I did not take all of it in, just the highlights my wandering eye landed on as i scrolled through it, i could not help but wonder how many have actually squeezed off a round to kill a person? i am a former US Marine, deployed three times to combat duty. i have killed. i have made one mistake that i am aware of when i have killed a person. i struggle with that. i lose sleep over that. it is difficult for me to forgive myself. God is more generous with me than i am. i know that. i oppose gun control while i understand the ramifications of that statement. it is a very difficult issue when you have bad people on the loose with guns. i don’t know how you control that or if you can.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How is it that we trust a government that funds Planned Parenthood, invented the “Constitutional” right to abortion out of whole cloth and dithers about cutting miniscule amounts from a budget that will leave America in straights as desperate as those recently experienced by Greece to decide who can have which guns?

If we as a people, and especially as Catholics, haven’t realized that our federal government is at best incompetent and inefficient and at worst positively immoral then the cause is already lost.

This does not address the question of gun control at all. You have just pointed out areas in which the government has taken objectionable actions. But if we follow your line of reasoning, then we would have to conclude that there is no significant role that government should be filling. But that goes against Catholic teaching that holds that government is necessary for the common good. How do you reconcile that teaching with your argument that seems to be giving up on government?

What you would need to do is show why gun control in particular is inappropriate for government.

 

[Darkbloom]

This does not address the question of gun control at all. You have just pointed out areas in which the government has taken objectionable actions.

I established a pattern of conduct which would reasonably raise doubt as to the government’s ability to exercise authority it abrogated to itself.

What you would need to do is show why gun control in particular is inappropriate for government.

I’ll refer you to the second amendment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I established a pattern of conduct which would reasonably raise doubt as to the government’s ability to exercise authority it abrogated to itself…

And why wouldn’t that doubt apply to all authority exercised by the federal government, such as the authority to make war? That seems to be just as weighty a matter as the other areas you mentioned in which the government has failed.

 

[Darkbloom]

And why wouldn’t that doubt apply to all authority exercised by the federal government, such as the authority to make war? That seems to be just as weighty a matter as the other areas you mentioned in which the government has failed.

Maybe, maybe not. That’s beside the point of this thread. The issue at hand is gun control, and it is very reasonable to question the governments role in such a program.

 

[Desert_Catholic]

Jesus sent the Apostles out as sheep among wolves unarmed the first time the second time he told them to carry swords because they would have a purse.

Jesus sent the Apostles out to be judgmental and they were.

Obviously Jesus was and is Judgmental.

You don’t have to hate someone to not trust them. You can pray for someone you have to physically defend yourself or a loved one from.

I believe in a passive approach to confrontation but if things get physical I intend to save the other guy from mortal sin by hurting or killing me. I will insure they have the opportunity for extreme unction.

Remember during all the persecutions of the faith that the first thing Catholics were stripped of is the right to arm themselves. Highland Scots and Irish come immediately to mind.

Remember even the Popes body guards carry Uh Oh ya GUNS. So guns by default aren’t evil. When they step between the Pope and a suspicious person are they being judgmental… I hope they are!

So if you have a thug next door pray his or her heart turns toward God and the Sacraments. But don’t trust them trust God.

Regarding being judgmental. If your not judgmental, how are you going to know who needs your prayers.

God Bless You All

DC

 

[tommcguire]

There is a movie out called “Of Gods and Men” about a group of Trappist Monks who chose to stay in Algeria when they knew staying might mean being killed. One of those monks, Dom Chretien de Cherge, before he was murdered, wrote a letter reflecting on the meaning of his possible death, in the last paragraph he addressed the person who might murder him:

“And also you, the friend of my final moment, who would not be aware of what you were doing. Yes, I also say this THANK YOU and this ADIEU to you, in whom I see the face of God. And may we find each other, happy good thieves, in Paradise, if it pleases God the Father of us both.”

The words of this monk are not what most of us could write. Yet in some profound way Chretien de Cherge imitated Jesus Christ in accepting his unjust death and forgiving even thanking the one who was to murder him.

I wonder with the intention to kill another, even in self defense or the defense of another, how is that intended action an imitation Jesus Christ who was unjustly killed on the cross with two thieves?

 

[Desert_Catholic]

There is a movie out called “Of Gods and Men” about a group of Trappist Monks who chose to stay in Algeria when they knew staying might mean being killed. One of those monks, Dom Chretien de Cherge, before he was murdered, wrote a letter reflecting on the meaning of his possible death, in the last paragraph he addressed the person who might murder him:

“And also you, the friend of my final moment, who would not be aware of what you were doing. Yes, I also say this THANK YOU and this ADIEU to you, in whom I see the face of God. And may we find each other, happy good thieves, in Paradise, if it pleases God the Father of us both.”

The words of this monk are not what most of us could write. Yet in some profound way Chretien de Cherge imitated Jesus Christ in accepting his unjust death and forgiving even thanking the one who was to murder him.

I wonder with the intention to kill another, even in self defense or the defense of another, how is that intended action an imitation Jesus Christ who was unjustly killed on the cross with two thieves?

I hope you don’t think policemen intend to go out and kill someone. That sounds a bit arbitrary. I took an oath before god to defend the innocent. For me it would be a mortal sin to allow someone to murder another without intervening. Jesus wasn’t killed he was executed and died for our sins which was his mission to fulfill the prophets. Chretien de Cherge obeyed the tenets of his order to do less or to take up arms would have been sinful for him. Maximilian I Emperor of Mexico paid his executioners in gold shook their hands adjusted their uniforms forgave them asked them to shoot straight and was executed. History is re pleat with accounts of such nobility at the point of execution but I guess it’s a good movie.

No one can completely imitate Jesus sacrifice… When he asked his apostles to carry swords for protection he didn’t say go out and slay anybody.

 

[tommcguire]

You are right I do not mean that police go out intending to kill someone. However, if a law enforcement officer is to stop someone from doing a terrible deed, the officer will shoot to kill, no? Paul talks about Christ living in him, the Gospel of John talks about being one in Christ. That is all about imitating Christ, no? We are not yet perfect, so no one imitates Christ perfectly.

To understand the reference to Jesus telling the disciple to get a sword. Read what Paul’s says about the Sword of the Spirit. My reading of this scripture does not refer to a real sword, but a metaphorical means of dealing with evil.

We are living in a world where human’s, including me, do not do the will of God. We do need police. I have called the police when held up at gun point. I depend on the private security company in my Detroit neighborhood. I have been stopped and ticketed when driving too fast, a vehicle that can be a lethal weapon.

When I read the Gospel, I think about how hard it is to live the life Jesus calls us to live. It is so different than the life we choose because of our own sinfulness. What if more of us were to live a non-violent life style? What if we did not need gun control because our faith community was a source of healing and where people would come to experience the great power of God’s merciful forgiveness? Would that move the human community to more perfectly reflect God’s will on earth as it is in heaven?

 

[AHapka]

However, if a law enforcement officer is to stop someone from doing a terrible deed, the officer will shoot to kill, no?

I was a Racine County, WI deputy sheriff for nine years.

We were trained to shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill. The intent of firing your weapon was to stop the crime in progress. Once the threat is stopped, your next priority is the preservation of human life on the scene.

The intent was never DIRECTLY to kill. Now there may be times you can’t hit the torso (the preferred target, due to it’s size) and you might have to take a head shot. But the only reason you are shooting is to stop what the person is doing. You do not will their death, your main objective is to stop them from what they are doing. Once they stop what they are doing, you no longer have a right to shoot at them. You are then obliged to care for human life at the scene. The killing of anyone is never a goal or willed.

 

[Peepers]

I was a Racine County, WI deputy sheriff for nine years.

We were trained to shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill. The intent of firing your weapon was to stop the crime in progress. Once the threat is stopped, your next priority is the preservation of human life on the scene.

The intent was never DIRECTLY to kill. Now there may be times you can’t hit the torso (the preferred target, due to it’s size) and you might have to take a head shot. But the only reason you are shooting is to stop what the person is doing. You do not will their death, your main objective is to stop them from what they are doing. Once they stop what they are doing, you no longer have a right to shoot at them. You are then obliged to care for human life at the scene. The killing of anyone is never a goal or willed.

True, but it is reasonable to assume that a .45 cal round to the face, or several such “stopping” rounds to the center of mass will kill the target. The military makes a distinction between the correct action given the state of mind of the combatant in the moment, and the correct action in after action review. I was a “guinea pig” in some exercises to test some non-lethal weapons. Some of those are interesting. One of them was this sort of goo that you spray on people. It is super sticky so you end up unable to move. The only way to get it off is to cut your clothes off.

My municipality was criticized for its seeming overuse of lethal force by police. I noticed that all of the police officers are equipped with stun guns and mace now. I don’t know what their protocol is to determine when to try non-lethal means of stopping a criminal.

This does raise the question of what training should be required to have a weapon? Should it be necessary for people to be properly trained as to the lethality of their weapon, and how to use it to most effectively stop an assailant? Or should it just be a right to have a gun, without regard to its proper care and use?

 

[AHapka]

True, but it is reasonable to assume that a .45 cal round to the face, or several such “stopping” rounds to the center of mass will kill the target.

That is true. I guess the point I was trying to make is that it’s about intent.

The only reason I would have shot someone was to stop them from what they were doing. The motive was never to kill them, but yes, I know that was a very high probability. In a way, it’s kind of like a “double effect” thing.

 

[Peepers]

That is true. I guess the point I was trying to make is that it’s about intent.

The only reason I would have shot someone was to stop them from what they were doing. The motive was never to kill them, but yes, I know that was a very high probability. In a way, it’s kind of like a “double effect” thing.

What was your policy on non-lethal alternatives? Did you carry non-lethal weapons such as TASER?

 

[tommcguire]

The points made here indicate the need for training before gun possession, an affirmative argument for gun control.