Gun Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob_Sevigny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pira114;The real problem is that its to easy for criminals to get guns because they don’t enforce the laws.Everyone shhould have the right to carry a gun if they are a law abiding citizen.However we know that law breaking citizens can get them if they want to.
 
Right to own gun not an issue. I assume most people have guns. in my city. Yet look at the statistics. Wake up to reality.
 
Gun control is not the answer. When England banned handguns in 1997, gun related killings increased fourfold by 2005 according to the Times. timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

Now, that couldn’t have had anything to do with the fact that the law-abiding populace was disarmed. :rolleyes:

In reality, the only effective gun control is the ability to place all of your shots in a tight group. 😉
 
yup, we need gun control in America… I just hope it works as well as drug control -oh wait, drugs are out of control… Nevermind. 🤷
 
Beat your swords into plowshares. Oh, if we could only see that violence brings violence. WHere does it stop?
 
Beat your swords into plowshares.
Translation: Leave yourself defenseless.
Oh, if we could only see that violence brings violence.
“The idea that “violence doesn’t solve anything” is a historically untrue and immoral doctrine. Violence, force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”
(Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein, 1959)
WHere does it stop?
When we have eliminated or rendered harmless, every evil human.
 
Jesus has an answer for those who judge others to be evil: “Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. …Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own?” Luke 7: 37; 41

Each human who commits sin, I am a sinner, contributes to the evil present in the world. our real and only hope is in Christ Jesus, the Savior of the world who redeemed us from sin. Death has no power for one who accepts the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. As Catholics, we are called to be disciples of Jesus Christ, whose mission is to proclaim the good news of salvation to all nations. Cannot proclaim good news with a gun!
 
Gun control is not the answer. When England banned handguns in 1997, gun related killings increased fourfold by 2005 according to the Times. timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

Now, that couldn’t have had anything to do with the fact that the law-abiding populace was disarmed. :rolleyes:

In reality, the only effective gun control is the ability to place all of your shots in a tight group. 😉
This is kind of an old-ish article. I wonder if there’s an update …

From The Sunday Times
August 26, 2007
Ministers ‘covered up’ gun crime
David Leppard
THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.

This weekend the Tories said the figures challenged claims by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, that gun crime was falling. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, tells her in a letter today that the “staggering findings” show her claims that gun crime has fallen are “inaccurate and misleading”.

The political row erupted as Merseyside police continued to question a 15-year-old boy about the murder last week of Rhys Jones in Croxteth, Liver-pool. The 11-year-old was returning from football training when he was shot by a hooded teenager on a bicycle.

RELATED LINKS
Applause, not silence, is tribute to Rhys
Gang murder ‘anniversary’ that may have killed Rhys
Police fiddle while children are killed
MULTIMEDIA
Pictures: Rhys Jones shooting
Experts are examining a BMX bike abandoned in another area of the city. Six other teenagers, including two girls, from the Croxteth and Norris Green areas were in custody last night. Two others have been released on bail.

Senior officers believe Rhys died because he walked into the line of fire between the gunman and his intended target, who is thought to have been one of three teenagers 30-70 yards away.

Bernard Hogan-Howe, the chief constable of Merseyside, said yesterday: “We still need help in solving this crime. We need witnesses who are prepared to stand up in court.”

Hogan-Howe said he had invested “a huge amount of policing” into the gang-related problems in the Croxteth area and had had a great deal of success.

A minute’s applause was held yesterday at Goodison Park stadium where Everton, the team Rhys loved, were playing Black-burn Rovers. The 11-year-old’s murder has led to a public outcry against Britain’s gang and gun culture and a furious political debate about the government’s efforts to tackle the problem.

Smith last night proposed the setting up of neutral “drop-off zones” where illegal weapons could be handed in. “This means we can actually take that gun out of circulation and stop it from doing harm,” she said.

The Home Office has repeatedly denied gun crime is rising. Last week it pointed to the latest annual crime statistics, which appeared to show that overall gun crime was 13% down on the previous year.

But in his letter to Smith, released today, Davis said these claims were contradicted by figures “buried” in a Home Office statistical bulletin, published ear-lier this year. “[Here] we find the most revealing indication of the true gun-re-lated violence sweeping Britain. Gun-related killings and injuries (excluding air weapons) have increased over fourfold since 1998,” he wrote.

The Home Office said: “We remain fully committed to tackling gang culture and gun and knife crime through responsive policing, tough powers and funding prevention projects.”

Rhys’s killing fell on the anniversary of the fatal shooting of Liam Smith, a senior figure in a local gang known as the Strand Gang. Several members of the rival Croxteth Crew were found guilty of his murder.

Locals had said they believed members of the Strand Gang were planning a reprisal shooting to mark the anniversary.

“We always deploy additional resources around these anniversaries,” said Chief Superintendent Chris Armitt. “But we are over half a mile here from Croxteth, and Norris Green is further away again. The additional resources [were] focused only where gangs predominantly operate.”

Extract from letter by David Davis, shadow home secretary, to Jacqui Smith, home secretary, August 24, 2007

Dear Jacqui, We are all concerned at the rising tide of violent crime that has manifested itself this week in a spate of shocking killings, including the tragic death of young Rhys Jones. You told GMTV this morning that “statistics aren’t a help but gun crime is down”. That is an extraordinary claim.

According to Home Office figures, gun crime (excluding air weapons) has almost doubled since Labour took office. The annual crime figures, released by the Home Office in July, suggest a 13% decrease on the previous year, which neglects the 18% increase in firearm homicides.

However, perhaps most telling is the massive increase in gun violence, disclosed on 25 January of this year (Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005-06, Home Office). Buried at page 36 . . . we find [that] . . . gun-related killings and injuries (excluding airguns) have increased by over fourfold since 1998.

In light of this information, your claim that gun crime is down is both inaccurate and misleading. One clear fact on gun-related violence is that if you don’t count it, you won’t be able to tackle it. Your predecessors opted for spin over substance. I hope that is a path you will avoid and would be grateful for an explanation of what action you plan.

Yours sincerely, David Davis
 
Cannot proclaim good news with a gun!
Why did Jesus instruct His follows to acquire a sword, if they did not have one, when they went out to proclaim the good news?

The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equivalent of what a gun is today.
 
From your same source, had you read a little farther, it says:

“What therefore, He says, concerns Me, has an end,” as far, that is, as relates to My suffering death in the flesh. And then shall those things which were foretold by the holy prophets in old time, happen to those who slew Him.

And in foretelling these things, the Lord was speaking of what was about to happen to the country of the Jews. But the divine disciples did not understand the deep meaning of what was said, but supposed rather that He meant that swords were necessary, because of the attack about to be made upon Him by the disciple who betrayed Him, and by those who were assembled to seize Him. For this reason they say, “Lord, behold, here are two swords.” And what is the Saviour’s reply? “It is enough.” Observe how, so to say, He even ridicules their speech, well knowing that the disciples not having understood the force of what was said, thought that swords were required, because of the attack about to be made upon Himself. Fixing His look therefore upon those things which happened to the Jews because of their wicked conduct towards Him, the Saviour, as I said, ridicules their speech, and says, “It is enough:” yes, forsooth, two swords are enough to bear the brunt of the war about to come upon them, to meet which |682 many thousand swords were of no avail. For a mighty resistance was made by the pride of the Jews against the forces of Augustus Caesar: but they availed nothing; for they were besieged with overpowering might, and suffered all misery.

Jesus was ridiculing the apostles for taking his words literally about swords and not understanding the deeper meaning.
Knowing that they misunderstood and that He was depending on them to carry forth His teachings to the ends of the earth, the great teacher did not explain the teaching so they would carry forth the incorrect message? Try again!
 
Sir Knight,

Be grateful for a loving and merciful God, whose Son Jesus Christ, as He was dying said: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing.” Luke 23:34.

Could it be that we sinful people, like the disciples, often misunderstand Jesus’ teaching: Love your enemy, do good to those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, etc? Yes, even when he uses the word sword in a metaphorical sense, we misunderstand. But again be grateful for a loving merciful God.
 
We’ve been through this a number of times in the past and If Jesus was not referring to physical swords, nobody has been able to answer the following questions:

  1. *]What is the reference to swords is suppose to mean if it doesn’t mean physical swords. If we don’t have “it”, we are suppose to sell our cloak and buy what?

    *]Scripture tells us that Jesus ALWAYS explained things to His Apostles when they misunderstood his figurative language. He didn’t do so here. Either he didn’t need to explain it because they understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actual swords or the INFALLIBLE Word of God is WRONG and Jesus did not explain everything to them when they misunderstood. Which is it?

    *]Jesus was giving His message to the Apostles to carry to the four corners of the world. Seeing that they misunderstood, why would He not clarify what He meant? Wouldn’t that ensure that they would spread the message incorrectly to others? Is that something that you would expect from the Great Teacher?

    *]This Gospel account was written after the minds of the Apostles were opened by the Holy Spirit. Seeing that they themselves misunderstood Christ’s meaning, why wouldn’t they clarify it when writing the Gospel to prevent others from also misunderstanding – which they DID in other places where they misunderstood something?
 
We’ve been through this a number of times in the past and If Jesus was not referring to physical swords, nobody has been able to answer the following questions:

  1. They have been answered time and time again, yet the hard at heart will always stumble in their blindness. Pharisees suffered the same problem.
    *]What is the reference to swords is suppose to mean if it doesn’t mean physical swords. If we don’t have “it”, we are suppose to sell our cloak and buy what?
    The whole reference of “buy a cloak and get a sword” is referring to the Disciples to prepare spiritually for the turmoil that is about to come. The attack is a spiritual attack. This is the reason why NONE of the disciples, apostles, followers/ lay Christian converts at any point took to arms against the persecutions of the Roman Empire or the Jews. If we take that passage as literal, then all these early Christians would have disobeyed Jesus’ command to defend themselves with force.
    *]Scripture tells us that Jesus ALWAYS explained things to His Apostles when they misunderstood his figurative language. He didn’t do so here. Either he didn’t need to explain it because they understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actual swords or the INFALLIBLE Word of God is WRONG and Jesus did not explain everything to them when they misunderstood. Which is it?
    This is not true at all. The false claim here is that “Jesus explained EVERYTHING to his disciples at all times”. We see number of situations in the gospel where he did not. When he spoke of his suffering and passion, the disciples did not understand. Did he explain things to them? NO!

    So the question here poses a false dilemma. It already pre-assumes a false premise i.e. Jesus always explained everything to the disciples AT THAT very moment.

    Frankly, this is not the Catholic teaching either. **The apostles only understood Jesus’ words fully for the first time ON THE DAY of PENTECOST when the holy spirit came to them. **
    *]Jesus was giving His message to the Apostles to carry to the four corners of the world. Seeing that they misunderstood, why would He not clarify what He meant? Wouldn’t that ensure that they would spread the message incorrectly to others? Is that something that you would expect from the Great Teacher?
    Again, a beautiful case of creating false dilemmas. Jesus never had to clarify things immediately and in the gospels we have numerous cases where he did not clarify things immediately. The holy spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost to clarify, and enlighten the apostles and disciples in to understanding all that was said by Jesus.

    The person who asked this question seems to be utterly confused about his theology.
    *]This Gospel account was written after the minds of the Apostles were opened by the Holy Spirit. Seeing that they themselves misunderstood Christ’s meaning, why wouldn’t they clarify it when writing the Gospel to prevent others from also misunderstanding – which they DID in other places where they misunderstood something?
    They have clarified it completely in the entire acts of the apostles. Not once did they go out and buy a sword to defend themselves against persecution. NONE of the followers were instructed to buy swords either. That is clarification enough and a sign of coming to understand that Jesus was concerned with the spiritual health of the person when he spoke of arming themselves and not the physical well being.

    The apostles clarified their mistakes through their actions and teachings. Not by adding extra clarifications to Jesus words. I would consider them to be reasonable in hoping that those who would read the new testament would have sufficient intelligence to verify Jesus’ teachings as displayed in the early church described in the acts of the apostles.

    So my dear friends, always remember, in this world there are those who want to twist Christ’s teachings to justify their own state of life. It’s easier to justify one self than admit that ones life style is wrong. Be aware of them and take their ramblings with a grain of salt.

    But pray for them to the holy spirit, so that they may be enlightened in their minds and realize the true meaning of the Jesus’ words just like the apostles did.

    God Bless 🙂
 
Thank you ddarko.

Look at the whole of Jesus teaching! Where do you see Him encouraging the use of violence to resolve anything? He, who is the Son of God, chose death, and he calls us His disciples to sacrifice even our life for the love of other.

I join you ddarko in praying for God’s mercy upon us.
 
I’m joining this thread late, but a few observations from the recent postings:
  1. Just because Jesus’ metaphorical use of the word sword wasn’t an encouragement to go out and purchase a weapon, we can’t make the leap to say that he was condemning anyone who did so. It just means he wasn’t talking about an actual sword! That’s it.
  2. Guns are not purchased by most people for the sake of living out a violent life-style. Leaving hunting entirely out of this debate, they are bought for self-defense. The Church does not condemn the capability of the individual to defend oneself from an aggressor. Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean letting someone mercilessly take your life. Jesus chose to give himself over, he was under no obligation to let the Jews kill him. It was truly a gift. You can only turn the other cheek if you’re still alive to move your head.
It seems to me that even the anti-gun Christians are apt to twist the words of Christ in order to justify their displeasure with guns.
 
We all twist His words to meet our needs. Thankfully we have a merciful God.

It does seem His call to discipleship requires a lot more than most of us are willing to give. I would say, maybe wrongly, even to the point of giving my life rather than take the life of another. May God have mercy on me if I am wrong.
 
We all twist His words to meet our needs. Thankfully we have a merciful God.

It does seem His call to discipleship requires a lot more than most of us are willing to give. I would say, maybe wrongly, even to the point of giving my life rather than take the life of another. May God have mercy on me if I am wrong.
Giving up our life for the sake of another or for the faith is one thing but failing to stand up to evil is another thing and is inconsistent with Catholic Church teaching which tells us that we not only have a right but also a duty to defend our lives.
 
They have been answered time and time again, yet the hard at heart will always stumble in their blindness. Pharisees suffered the same problem.

The whole reference of “buy a cloak and get a sword” is referring to the Disciples to prepare spiritually for the turmoil that is about to come. The attack is a spiritual attack. This is the reason why NONE of the disciples, apostles, followers/ lay Christian converts at any point took to arms against the persecutions of the Roman Empire or the Jews. If we take that passage as literal, then all these early Christians would have disobeyed Jesus’ command to defend themselves with force.

This is not true at all. The false claim here is that “Jesus explained EVERYTHING to his disciples at all times”. We see number of situations in the gospel where he did not. When he spoke of his suffering and passion, the disciples did not understand. Did he explain things to them? NO!

So the question here poses a false dilemma. It already pre-assumes a false premise i.e. Jesus always explained everything to the disciples AT THAT very moment.

Frankly, this is not the Catholic teaching either. **The apostles only understood Jesus’ words fully for the first time ON THE DAY of PENTECOST **when the holy spirit came to them.

Again, a beautiful case of creating false dilemmas. Jesus never had to clarify things immediately and in the gospels we have numerous cases where he did not clarify things immediately. The holy spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost to clarify, and enlighten the apostles and disciples in to understanding all that was said by Jesus.

The person who asked this question seems to be utterly confused about his theology.

They have clarified it completely in the entire acts of the apostles. Not once did they go out and buy a sword to defend themselves against persecution. NONE of the followers were instructed to buy swords either. That is clarification enough and a sign of coming to understand that Jesus was concerned with the spiritual health of the person when he spoke of arming themselves and not the physical well being.

The apostles clarified their mistakes through their actions and teachings. Not by adding extra clarifications to Jesus words. I would consider them to be reasonable in hoping that those who would read the new testament would have sufficient intelligence to verify Jesus’ teachings as displayed in the early church described in the acts of the apostles.

So my dear friends, always remember, in this world there are those who want to twist Christ’s teachings to justify their own state of life. It’s easier to justify one self than admit that ones life style is wrong. Be aware of them and take their ramblings with a grain of salt.

But pray for them to the holy spirit, so that they may be enlightened in their minds and realize the true meaning of the Jesus’ words just like the apostles did.

God Bless 🙂
Your explanation is inconsistent with the passage. You say that the sword is suppose to represent a spiritual attack but that doesn’t make sense in the context of what is being said. The walking stick represents a walking stick and the money bag represents a money bag but the sword represents a spiritual attack? And how is selling their cloak going to help them prepare for a spiritual attack? On the one hand Jesus is telling them to have a money bag and a walking stick but they are to get rid of their cloak in order to be ready for the spiritual attack? That makes no sense.

Let’s be clear that Jesus is not telling His followers to form some sort of militia to go up against the Romans. Instead, Jesus is talking about PERSONAL defense – being able to protect oneself against wild animals, robbers, etc. Jesus knew that when He was with them, He would protect them and they didn’t need anything. Neither walking stick or moneybag and Jesus makes that clear in the passage but now Jesus wasn’t going to be with them and they were going provide for themselves which is why they were going to need a walking stick, a money bag AND a sword to be able to defend themselves.

When Jesus said “sword”, he MEANT sword. Being God, Jesus knew that Peter carried a sword. If the sword severed no purpose and Jesus never intended for it to be used as a weapon, why didn’t He ever tell Peter to sell the sword and give the money to the poor. Every place we look, we see Jesus telling His followers to help the poor. Why not say something to His chief apostle to sell something that is NEVER suppose to be used and give the money to the poor?

The only time Jesus ever says anything is when Peter tries to mess up the divine plan and prevent Jesus from dying for our sins and even then Jesus doesn’t tell Peter to throw the sword away but to put it away.
 
Your explanation is inconsistent with the passage. You say that the sword is suppose to represent a spiritual attack but that doesn’t make sense in the context of what is being said. The walking stick represents a walking stick and the money bag represents a money bag but the sword represents a spiritual attack? And how is selling their cloak going to help them prepare for a spiritual attack? On the one hand Jesus is telling them to have a money bag and a walking stick but they are to get rid of their cloak in order to be ready for the spiritual attack? That makes no sense.
Aaah, for those following, this is the classic mistake the person above repeatedly makes. He takes the “Sword” passage separate from the “money bag” passage etc.

The point is that the entire passage is a figurative call to prepare spiritually to the turmoil about to come. Not get a money bag or a sword to fend off attackers. This is blatantly obvious that it was not Jesus’ teaching from reading acts of the Apostles and Jesus’ other teachings. Jesus specifically advised disciples to not take any money and worry about what they would eat etc as they preach. If Jesus was indeed speaking literally in any part of that verse in Luke, then Jesus is contradicting himself.
Jesus is talking about PERSONAL defense – being able to protect oneself against wild animals, robbers, etc.
Sometimes one wonders if the people who write these things think twice about what they write.

The above person’s argument is that it was not good to use the sword against the Romans or Jews when they wanted to kill the first Christians because it would not be … uhm… personal defense on the Christian’s part BUT it is still considered personal defense for robbers and wild animals :doh2:

The fact that the first Christians never bothered to keep swords and individually fight off Roman persecutors as personal defense is proof that Jesus was not asking to take swords for personal defense.

After Pentecost, when all the Apostles were enlightened by the holy spirit, they didn’t go out and get a sword and money bag. Instead, they went out and preached the good news and gave their lives for those they loved. St. Stephen in the acts of the apostles, as he was getting stoned to death, didn’t talk about personal defense but said the prayer Jesus made on the cross, “Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them.’ When he had said this, he died” – Acts 7:60. Oh how far Christians have strayed from the early church.

So some people love to avoid contradictions and inconsistencies like these for their own benefits and to justify their own life styles. No matter how blatantly obvious their reasoning, the folly of self-justification seems to be the order of the day. Do not be FOOLED!

God Bless 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top