Gun ownership in this day and age

[pnewton]

They are essentially defenseless and useless men when it comes to wariorship.

I assure you, guns are not the only form of home defense. Yes, they might be in a very narrow situation the only way to defend a rare situation, but that kind of thinking will always have limits. There are always potential scenarios that require more firepower for self-defense. Should people have ground-to-air missiles in case someone tries to fly into their building, as in 911? People need to draw their own line where self-defense is prudent.

I would argue that an over-dependence on a gun might also have a scenario where one is forced to defend his family without it. The one thing we always have is ourselves.

 

[Dracarys]

It is breath of fresh air to see a reasoned response to my posts. I recommend that @Dracarys study your style and learn from it.)

I am not used to dealing with someone so sensitive. I also spend time in forums where four letter words are commonly thrown. I actually would be considered restrained in these other forums.

This assumes that one has already made the prudential judgement that armed mitigation is worth the risk of having the weapon on hand, and that the mitigation could not be handled in a more intrinsically safe way, such as with lights, alarms, barriers, a dog, etc.

Your “intrinsically safe” ways will not deter a determined person who wants to gain entry. I know of one case in particular where two drug addicted crack heads method was to throw a large rock through the homeowners picture window to gain entry. If the homeowner was present they would simply beat him with baseball bats. For some reason you seem to think home invaders will be as caring and sensitive as you.

Obviously all the precautions you listed won’t help you if you are carjacked like in the news story I listed earlier. The same is true if you happen to be in an area where an active shooter situation occurs.

London bobbies famously often carry no firearms. But when the London anti-terrorism squad is on duty, they are very highly armed.

By the time they do get around to securing guns it will be too late. London has a very active knife culture, so it is absolutely nuts that bobbies are not armed. I once talked to a member of Scotland Yard who told me many “unarmed” police do indeed carry firearms, but they will not display or admit to it. Here in America we already have over 300 million guns in circulation.

I just checked that statistic, and I don’t think it is true. In one year there were 14,800 gun homicides out of a population of 320 million or so.

Once again you miss the point and your “statistics” don’t tell the whole story. One does not have to die to be a proper victim. In the story I related above a person successfully brandished a gun to a would be carjacker and the bad guy ran away. Those type of incidents occur frequently, but are sometimes not reported. What about victims who are physically harmed by attackers? If someone gets stabbed by an attacker and does not die it doesnt mean his life is not severely altered by his injuries. You cant put attacks in a nice neat compilation of “statistics.” That is why I asked you the difference between someone saving their life by scaring away a would be attacker vs a lifeguard pulling a swimmer to safety. Just because no one actually dies does not mean a gun did in fact save the life or lives of innocents.

 

[Dracarys]

Everyone has the immediate right of self-defense, but I don’t see how it follows that they should be armed.

Ok, maybe your super ninja martial art man, but most are not. If your attacked by a gun, knife, baseball bat wielding, or even a large strong male what are you going to do? Throw your rosary at hm?

That is why, for instance, we are not allowed to carry a gun onto a commercial flight, but we are allowed to patrol our ranch with a high-powered semi-automatic rifle.

On an airplane even armed marshals use special ammunition that will not break window glass. That is a special situation. However when you bring up other soft targets like schools, businesses that don’t allow guns that is where active shooters go because they know they wont receive armed resistance.

I would argue that an over-dependence on a gun might also have a scenario where one is forced to defend his family without it. The one thing we always have is ourselves.

The unarmed person is at a distinct disadvantage. It makes sense to have more odds in your favor.

 

[Dracarys]

I assure you, guns are not the only form of home defense.

Why are deliberately limiting yourself? I have been in the martial art and gun world for over 40 years. I can assure you that a firearm is the best method of self defense. If someone forcefully enters your house while it is occupied you and your family are at great and immediate risk.

 

[prayerrider]

I’ve heard it stated that everyone should be–not paranoid, but in a kind of “condition yellow” at all times in public. And perhaps at home too, depending on where one lives.

 

[prayerrider]

But can’t we just reason with home invaders? Once we give them the valuables, won’t they just go away?

 

[pnewton]

They do go away 92% of the time, on average. Less than 8% of the time, someone is injured. An alarm system greatly reduces the odds of being burglarized. One can always install an interior door with a deadlock to make a quick safe room allowing for police response, which always works.

The point is, there are a lot of factors to consider in home safety, and a gun may not be the best option. All this talk of home invasions, for example, would not apply to places where home invasions are rare or non-existent.

 

[Dracarys]

But can’t we just reason with home invaders? Once we give them the valuables, won’t they just go away?

I honestly think some posters here believe that. Are they naive, hopeful, out of touch with reality?

 

[Dracarys]

The point is, there are a lot of factors to consider in home safety, and a gun may not be the best option. All this talk of home invasions, for example, would not apply to places where home invasions are rare or non-existent.

All it takes is once, so why not just have a gun there you or your wife can us to defend yourselves? You probably have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. A gun is just a tool.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

prayerrider:

But can’t we just reason with home invaders? Once we give them the valuables, won’t they just go away?

I honestly think some posters here believe that. Are they naive, hopeful, out of touch with reality?

For those of you keeping track, this is yet another straw man argument. Dracarys would rather argue against the position of giving your valuables to the invader (because it is so easy to argue against) rather than address anyone’s serious arguments.

pnewton:

The point is, there are a lot of factors to consider in home safety, and a gun may not be the best option. All this talk of home invasions, for example, would not apply to places where home invasions are rare or non-existent.

All it takes is once, so why not just have a gun there you or your wife can us to defend yourselves? You probably have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. A gun is just a tool.

“All it takes is one” assumes that the risk in not having a gun is still greater than the risk of having a gun, regardless of how small the chances are of the occasion to use the gun. Make no mistake. There is a risk in having a gun. It is a small risk, but to use the words of Dracarys, “all it takes is one” time when a child, or even an adult, is injured or killed by accident - an accident that would not have happened if the gun were not there. So it comes down to a comparison of risks - both of them small - but both of them non-zero. “All it takes is one” can be applied to either risk. What matters is which risk is larger. In some locations and at some times, I can see it being totally necessary to have a gun to protect against home invasions. In other times and places, I think the other risk - the risk of injury or death from an accident - is the greater risk. It depends.

 

[Brendan]

That I will dispute. The situation the police find themselves in is not the same as the situation of a private citizen. The police are exposed to (or rather they expose themselves to) threats of violence much more often than a private citizen.

Here you are talking frequency, not nature. I agree that the police will more often have to use their firearm, but that does not mean that a firearm is not the appropriate tool to use. If it was not the correct tool to address the situation, then the police would not have it in the first place. I agree that the London police are often not armed, but that again, speaks to the NATURE of the threats that they encounter, not to the frequency.

So it stands to reason that the cost/benefit calculation of being well-armed comes down very hard on the side of being well-armed.

The cost\benefit analysis would refer to the value of the item being protected multiplied by the risk. Of course, an argument could be made by a parent that the life if their child is of immense value, ergo the cost of the firearm would be miniscule. As mentioned, there are risks associated with owning (and carrying a firearm), but since those risks are highly variable, I would claim that no ‘catch all’ policy, such as the banning of firearms is either realistic nor valuable.

 

[Brendan]

I just checked that statistic, and I don’t think it is true

I my term as ‘threats’, with is not necessarily the same as gun deaths. For example, the threat posed by an adult male intruder to a elderly woman is not the same as the threat posed by the same adult male to a police officer. The threat of severe bodily harm is much greater to the elderly woman.

Likewise with cases of armed robbery, I do not have the necessarily statistics, but I would hold that police offiers are subjected to armed robbery at rates lower than the general population, especially when on duty.

If someone invents a “church” whose doctrine is to organize and promote an armed rebellion against the state, that “church” will not be free to practice their faith. So a “reasonableness” criterion is assumed in the statement of the right.

The evaluation of that right would happen after the fact, correct? It would not be presumed that simply because a pastor desires to build a church, that it would be prohibited prior, on the grounds that the MIGHT preach armed rebellion. But is that not what is being asked of gun owners?, that the prohibition on the materials necessary for the exercise of their right is enforced, not out of any stated illegal\immoral intent, only on the grounds that the materials should not be owned in the first place.

In regards to the commercial flight, I fully recognize the right of a property owner \business owner to regulate the goods and materials that would enter their property. But a private aircraft owner may bring their firearm onboard, and likewise would have equal claim to public property. As far as setting limits on ‘what is reasonable’, why would anyone set limits on Reason? It would seem counter intuitive to do so, would it not?

 

[Sarcelle]

They’re just discussing guns they like or own.

Nothing wrong with that.

It’s not forbidden for a Catholic to own a gun.

 

[pnewton]

All it takes is once, so why not just have a gun there you or your wife can us to defend yourselves?

This question is easily answered. Why not? Because a gun can, and often is, used to kill someone other than a home invader. I do not mean to go over what you and Leaf just did, but if you really do not understand “why not”, then you miss the point of risk assessment. Gun ownership is simply not a one-sided issue. Taking any significant step without understanding both the pros and the cons is unwise. That is why points like “all it takes is once” cannot apply to any decision with any potential down side. One does not accidentally put out the wrong fire. Hammering the wrong nail can be reversed.

Are they naive, hopeful, out of touch with reality?

I will accept being hopeful. It is a theological virtue, after all. As to the other two, disagreement does not make one naive. Part of the lessons learned here for those who have ears to hear is that people disagree, even knowledgeable and learned people. I have been dealing with criminals for over thirty years, giving me more experience with crime than most here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here you are talking frequency, not nature. I agree that the police will more often have to use their firearm, but that does not mean that a firearm is not the appropriate tool to use. If it was not the correct tool to address the situation, then the police would not have it in the first place. I agree that the London police are often not armed, but that again, speaks to the NATURE of the threats that they encounter, not to the frequency.

Frequency (or more precisely the likelihood) of a threat is part of the nature of the threat. A riot is not a very frequent event, but when police know that a riot is brewing they arm themselves appropriately. Even though it is conceivable that a riot might break out spontaneously without the police having any advance knowledge, it is still unlikely enough that they do not patrol with riot armament all the time. So the police do take likelihood into account when deciding how to be armed.

Brendan:

LeafByNiggle:

So it stands to reason that the cost/benefit calculation of being well-armed comes down very hard on the side of being well-armed.

The cost\benefit analysis would refer to the value of the item being protected multiplied by the risk. Of course, an argument could be made by a parent that the life if their child is of immense value, ergo the cost of the firearm would be miniscule.

I never said anything about the monetary cost of having a gun. I only considered the cost in terms of exposing the society at large, as well as the owner, to the risk of accidents involving the gun, which could very well involve loss of life. So in that sense, the cost is also immense (multiplied by the probability of such an event).

As mentioned, there are risks associated with owning (and carrying a firearm), but since those risks are highly variable, I would claim that no ‘catch all’ policy, such as the banning of firearms is either realistic nor valuable.

I agree, and I would not propose to ban all firearms. But I would suggest that a best-estimate of that “highly variable” risk of accident be made for specific situations, and policy set accordingly. For example, if a person has a mental illness, or is very young, we estimate the risk of accident to be high, and so the policy for that person is set differently than for a 30 year old rancher who has been proven to know and be willing to follow certain safety standards.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If someone invents a “church” whose doctrine is to organize and promote an armed rebellion against the state, that “church” will not be free to practice their faith. So a “reasonableness” criterion is assumed in the statement of the right.

The evaluation of that right would happen after the fact, correct? It would not be presumed that simply because a pastor desires to build a church, that it would be prohibited prior, on the grounds that the MIGHT preach armed rebellion.

That’s right. We would have to know objectively that the particular “church” was of that sort before enacting sanctions.

But is that not what is being asked of gun owners?, that the prohibition on the materials necessary for the exercise of their right is enforced, not out of any stated illegal\immoral intent, only on the grounds that the materials should not be owned in the first place.

I don’t think so. Certainly for prohibitions based on a prior criminal behavior, that is true. But I was not talking about those kinds of prohibitions. I was talking about regulations, not a ban, on the owning and using of firearms. And the the regulations I would consider good are ones that take into account the situation of the proposed gun owner in a way that balances individual freedom with the common good.

In regards to the commercial flight, I fully recognize the right of a property owner \business owner to regulate the goods and materials that would enter their property. But a private aircraft owner may bring their firearm onboard, and likewise would have equal claim to public property.

But if Delta Airlines decided it wanted to allow passengers to carry guns on board their commercial flights, they would be prohibited from doing so by law. After all, there is a common security checkpoint at the airport shared by all the airlines. The prohibition against carrying a firearm on board Delta or Southwest or American or Jet Blue, etc., is not a case of business owners regulating their own business. It is the law. Private aircraft is another matter. In fact, if you fly a small plane in certain remote areas of Canada, you are required by Canadian aviation law to carry some sort of firearm for survival in case of a forced landing.

As far as setting limits on ‘what is reasonable’, why would anyone set limits on Reason? It would seem counter intuitive to do so, would it not?

I don’t see it as setting limits on Reason. I see it as determining what is reasonable. I’m sure the word “reasonable” appears thousands of times in American law.

 

[prayerrider]

I think that user name may have morphed into another user name. Whether or not that user name morphed into a third, is uncertain.

 

[Ridgerunner]

if a person has a mental illness, or is very young, we estimate the risk of accident to be high, and so the policy for that person is set differently than for a 30 year old rancher who has been proven to know and be willing to follow certain safety standards.

Problem is, somebody gets to decide whether that 30 year old rancher “knows” and is “willing” to follow “certain safety standards” (and which ones are they?)

I remember when Janet Napolitano had prolife demonstrators on her “potential terrorist” list. How did she decide the criteria upon which she based her list? And is the determiner of standards going to be a country person who has had encounters with feral hogs or dogs, or is it going to be an urbanite who wouldn’t even touch a gun. There are definitely ideologues who would ban all guns. After all, they did that pretty completely in Australia. And so are similar persons going to determine who gets to have a gun and who doesn’t?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This does not appear to be an argument against government making gun regulations specifically, as it could just as well apply to all sorts of government decisions made in the name of the people. In fact you highlighted that fact by using your Janet Napolitano example, which of course had nothing to do with guns. Therefore what you are really arguing against is the principle of government making decisions for the people at all. That would include government making decisions about who you can hire (must be a citizen), what sort of animals you can raise in the city, how close to your property line you are allowed to build a garage, etc. Some of these decisions I think you are perfectly willing to have made by government. So if your complaint is that government should not make these decisions on principle, then you would be inconsistent.

If however you have an issue with specific decisions made by government (such as what safety standards should be followed with regard to guns) then I think you have to cite specific proposals and make your case about them, rather than against the whole principle of government deciding these things at all. Frankly, I don’t think there is any doubt that government can and should set safety standards for guns in society. However it is valid to debate what those standards should be, and to petition your government with those concerns the same way we petition the government for all other concerns over civil policy. Church teaching does have a lot to say about respect for legitimate authority acting in the common good. So unless you can prove that your government is definitely not a legitimate authority, you are bound to live by the laws of that government (unless, of course, doing so requires that you violate a core teaching of the Church, such as performing an abortion). And in the case of an illegitimate government, the Catechism gives criteria for determining when armed resistance against that illegitimate government is justified. I don’t think we are anywhere near satisfying those criteria yet.

 

[pnewton]

I agree, and I would not propose to ban all firearms.

There have been very few here who have gone that far. Most of the discussion has been whether one should own a gun or not, and what factors might affect that. Banning guns, at least in our society, makes no more sense to me than mandating gun ownership.