Gun ownership in this day and age

[Dracarys]

Yes, and it would be entirely my fault for thinking that I can pull a John Wayne and do a better job than a police officer or the military. And even they have injuries and sometimes die also.

Yeah when seconds count the police are minutes away.

Yes you may die in the attempt, but you also may prevail or at least stall the bad guys till SWAT gets there.

Jesus said many things which should not be taken literally (e.g. better to cut off a hand than go with hands to hell), please do not try to sabotage Jesus’s message to fit your narrative. Je

Did Jesus tell his apostles to take a sword with them or not? Yes he did. I am not sabotaging anything. The Catholic Church favors using deadly force in either self defense or the defense of others. That is a fact, so look it up. I am taking the step saying that we as men (or strong women) have the responsibility to defend Innocents. Teachers in schools with PROPER TRAINING and who are willing can be valuable assets to stop active shooters. That tricky part is getting a willing person. Call me sexist, but I do believe it is the role of men to step up (Women are often better shots, so I have no problem with them assuming the job.). Grow some cahones guys. Do what needs to be done.

By the way, the Catholic Church has been also advocating for common sense gun control.

Problem with gun control laws is that criminals, by definition, ignore laws.

 

[vz71]

I’m sensing unneeded and unwarranted hostility. I just would rather not kill someone.

Understand.
But if the occasion has progressed to the point that you need to fire your weapon, you should be shooting center mass.

If I have to draw and fire, your health is no longer my concern…mine is.

 

[Dracarys]

Why shouldn’t safety issues be open to litigation like everything else in our society is? Why are gun manufacturers exempt?

You are not making sense. A gun sitting on a table is not in and of itself dangerous. It won’t “go off” or spontaneously shoot. When someone picks up a loaded gun, points, and shoots the target is hit. The gun manufacturer has no control over who uses that gun any more than GM has over a drunken person choosing to get behind the wheel.

 

[Dracarys]

There are also sheep who follow the Good Shepherd.

Yeah, what’s your point? In my example you’ll be sheep going to slaughter. I assume you are aware the church sanctions use of deadly force in defense of yourself and Innocents? Jesus addressed many soldiers and never condemed them for their job. As I have said, he ordered his apostles to sell their property to have and use a sword.

 

[Dracarys]

If I have to draw and fire, your health is no longer my concern…mine is.

Oh yeah, that’s what I am talking about!

 

[SimonAnoff]

Fair, I’ll concede that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There are also sheep who follow the Good Shepherd.

Yeah, what’s your point?

My point is your trichotomy of sheep, wolves, and dogs is not the only way to look at life. Since you brought up sheep, I thought I would show there is more than one way to look at sheep.

In my example you’ll be sheep going to slaughter.

If I do so following the example of the many Christian martyrs then I will be in good company.

I assume you are aware the church sanctions use of deadly force in defense of yourself and Innocents?
Jesus addressed many soldiers and never condemned them for their job. As I have said, he ordered his apostles to sell their property to have and use a sword.

Then go ahead and buy a sword. He never told them to buy a gun. And I’m not saying using a gun is wrong either. But I am saying that banning guns is also not wrong. It is up to each legitimate authority (i.e. government) to decide that question for themselves. The Church does not weigh in on one side or the other in that question of civil gun policy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Pattylt:

Why shouldn’t safety issues be open to litigation like everything else in our society is? Why are gun manufacturers exempt?

You are not making sense. A gun sitting on a table is not in and of itself dangerous. It won’t “go off” or spontaneously shoot.

The gun manufacturer has no control over who uses that gun any more than GM has over a drunken person choosing to get behind the wheel.

That is an argument that could be made when a case comes to court. So let the argument be made. But there is no sense to short-circuit the legal process by denying the possibility of a lawsuit just because it is a gun manufacturer. Despite your comment about a drunk behind the wheel of a car, we do not prohibit lawsuits against car companies. Each case is tried on its merits. Why not do the same for guns?

 

[Dracarys]

I do so following the example of the many Christian martyrs then I will be in good company.

Will you take your wife and kids down the path to martyrdom? Are you going to stand by while you watch them die when with enough preparation you could posses and use a weapon?

Then go ahead and buy a sword. He never told them to buy a gun.

Uh…you do know guns had not yet been invented yet? Just saying.

Governments who ban guns are in the company of Hitler and Stalin. Is that the way you want to go?

 

[Pattylt]

allow victims of gun violence to have their day in court when a gun dealer or manufacturer has acted negligently

Is this the comment you are objecting to? This falls under the idea of requiring gun manufacturers to be liable for defects…just like every other product except guns currently has. Why shouldn’t a citizen be able to have their day in court if a manufacturer was negligent? It’s not talking about suing when someone is shot any more than knife manufacturers are sued when someone is stabbed.

If this isn’t the idea then please tell me which one. You seem to be rejecting them all because you don’t like one of them.

 

[Dracarys]

Despite your comment about a drunk behind the wheel of a car, we do not prohibit lawsuits against car companies. Each case is tried on its merits. Why not do the same for guns?

How are the manufacturers culpable? They are making a legitimate legal product. Now if a dealer sells a gun to someone who is not legally supposed to have a firearm you may have something. Face it, suing Smith and Wesson is just a money grab because they have deep pockets.

,

 

[Dracarys]

allow victims of gun violence to have their day in court when a gun dealer or manufacturer has acted negligently

See my comment above. A manufacturer may be liable if they don’t bore the barrel completely and it explodes, but what does the manufacturer have to do with how the gun is used by a criminal?

 

[Pattylt]

From what I see being proposed, it only applies to product manufacturers. Right now, gun manufacturers cannot be sued for bad barrels or any other manufacturing fault. They can not be sued at all. No one is suggesting opening lawsuits for criminal use. Either you or I am misreading that proposal. I’m a gun owner and support my right to own a gun but I am not a stooge of the NRA and freaking out over any reasonable steps to curb abuse.

 

[LilyM]

John10:

And many others have lost it or been injured while “accidentally” triggering it, or while using it to defend themselves. The most tragic part is that all too often children and guests pay the deadly consequences.

The answer to all that nonsense is TRAINING. Those who buy a gun should not just go to the range and plink at a target or two. They should attend classes in scenerio training. You will learn how to enter and clear a room, how to approach and use stairs, and stair landings, how to use your gun by yourself and with partners, and a lot of other challenging but fun stuff. Training is AWESOME. Do it!

All the training in the world will not prevent gun suicides, which by the stats upthread account for a bit under half of gun deaths in the US.

What is scary is that the majority of those suicides are probably by the gun owners, as I cannot for the life of me imagine someone going to the effort of stealing a gun in order to commit suicide with it.

And I note the reluctance in this thread to legislate for mental health screening (which presumably would flag and prevent at least a portion of potential gun suicides). So that statistic is unlikely to go down any time in future.

Can you, or anyone on this thread, state with any sort of confidence that you will not in future become suicidal and, if in legal possession of a firearm, then use it to take your own life? Of course not - anyone can in certain circumstances.

 

[John10]

Yeah when seconds count the police are minutes away.

Yes you may die in the attempt, but you also may prevail or at least stall the bad guys till SWAT gets there.

Maybe, but you could also get killed by police who might id you as the mass shooter (not to mention the risks of cross-fire, needing to have a super aim in a split second decision, etc) just one more one reason of why arming everybody does not make sense). Of course NRA couldn’t be happier more guns to everybody more profit for them, even if it is all blood money.

Did Jesus tell his apostles to take a sword with them or not? Yes he did. I am not sabotaging anything. The Catholic Church favors using deadly force in either self defense or the defense of others.

Jesus favors peace, and “turning the other cheek”, which obviously goes against arming yourself as our first option. Jesus however did say: " “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52)” Clearly he is favoring a peaceful resolution rather using deadly force. The Catholic Church “permits” using the deadly force if no other option is available and either your life or somebody else is in danger. It is clearly a last resource option, never the first.

Problem with gun control laws is that criminals, by definition, ignore laws.

Of course they do not, however that does not mean that there should be no laws (or for them to be relaxed), or how would you held criminals accountable and prosecute them ?

 

[prayerrider]

Yep. And take away gang shootings and we’re waaaay down the list.

 

[graciew]

No need to keep demeaning this poster …
And for the record, if you think you can be “en garde” 24/7 you are most likely to go paranoid than to help anyone around you
Superman either…

 

[prayerrider]

Yeah when seconds count the police are minutes away.

Right-o. How often do police prevent home invasions or car jackings? They come along afterward, take a report, investigate…

 

[Brendan]

Why shouldn’t safety issues be open to litigation like everything else in our society is? Why are gun manufacturers exempt?

What liability should an automaker have if the car they manufacture is used in a drunk driving incident? What liability should a rope manufacturer have if someone hangs themselves with a rope they purchased?

Or a manufacturer of baseball bats in a bludgeoning incident?

Under current tort law, those manufacturers exempt from wrongdoing for misuse of their product, why should gun manufacturers be any different?

If their product malfunctions and causes injury, gun manufacturers have no less liability than any drug manufacturer. But if the product works exactly as it is supposed to do, but does so by a person who is misusing the product, they should be treated no differently than any other manufacturer, correct?

 

[prayerrider]

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.”
Yes, the CDC determined that. And Obama commissioned the study:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

So much for the nonsense that ‘gun owners are more likely to have their own guns used against them’ yaddi-yaddi.