R
reconman
Guest
I bet quite a few of us here do as well.
Gun Totting Catholic? Disagree with The Church on Gun Control
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
They don’t track lawful use? Meaning what? They’re basing it on what gunowners tell them? Of course to someone who is deluded or mistaken, anyone who looks at them funny might be a ‘criminal assailant’ about to launch a ‘deadly attack’. Thing is, since none of these ‘deadly attacks’ eventuate, we don’t find out that often whether the threat was real or entirely in the gun-owners deluded or mistaken mind.
Great. So if you own a gun, that gun is more likely to be used by you to harm yourself, or some other innocent to harm themselves, than for anyone to actually shoot it to defend themselves against some hypothetical criminal? How’s that working for you?
Some other interesting points - ‘oftentimes just brandishing the weapon is enough’. How about brandishing a real-looking toy instead then? And 2.5 million deadly attacks a year? That’s a massive number. And that’s WITH the knowledge that heaps of citizens are legally packing heat? I’d expect it to be closer to zero with all those wonderfully deterrent legally-owned guns around
M
Moore11
Guest
Yup that is the one I was looking for!
I wonder how many anti violence Catholics think St Michael the archangel should not be depicted with a weapon?
B
bearer
Guest
Dr. Kleck (I apologize for the typo in my previous post), is a criminologist at Florida State University. I don’t have the details of his research methodology, and have only read summaries of his findings. Suffice it to say that he is and has long been a renowned expert on firearms use in America. He isn’t someone who went out and interviewed a few gun nuts here and there. His research of defensive use involved the criminal threat of deadly force, which in legal terms refers to force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury. His research is widely cited by government and academia, and he has testified in court and before Congress numerous times.
This is simply incorrect. You’re talking about several tens of thousands of suicides, murders, and accidental shootings each years versus millions of lawful, defensive uses. The fact is that areas of the country that have strict gun control laws also have higher criminal use of firearms. The thugs tend to go where the pickings are easiest. Gun ownership works quite well for the innocents out there.Great. So if you own a gun, that gun is more likely to be used by you to harm yourself, or some other innocent to harm themselves, than for anyone to defend themselves against some hypothetical criminal? How’s that working for you?
That’s a good way of getting yourself killed. If it gets to the point that you need to draw a weapon, you may very well actually have to use it. That’s in fact the case about 9% of the time. Some criminals are drugged up, crazy, or think that they’re the better shot. If you draw, you’d better be ready to shoot.
The thing is that when people carry concealed weapons, the criminals usually don’t know it until they pull something stupid. If they did, they wouldn’t attack to begin with. Surveys of violent felons have shown that they fear armed citizens who aren’t restrained by police regulations more than the police themselves.
P.S. And now that I think about it, it’s almost impossible to get a realistic-looking “toy gun” out there. Lawmakers have effectively prevented toy-makers from selling them nowadays. But again, that’s irrelevant considering that pulling a toy when you need the real thing may get you killed.
M
Moore11
Guest
I think you are misunderstanding.They don’t track lawful use? Meaning what? They’re basing it on what gunowners tell them? Of course to someone who is deluded or mistaken, anyone who looks at them funny might be a ‘criminal assailant’ about to launch a ‘deadly attack’. Thing is, since none of these ‘deadly attacks’ eventuate, we don’t find out that often whether the threat was real or entirely in the gun-owners deluded or mistaken mind.
Great. So if you own a gun, that gun is more likely to be used by you to harm yourself, or some other innocent to harm themselves, than for anyone to defend themselves against some hypothetical criminal? How’s that working for you?
Here is an example that happened to me just a little while ago.
I was walking my newest baby girl in a stroller, I also have a little Jack Russell dog. (dont ask) and a pit bull in the neighborhood I was walking in comes barreling out of an open gate while the owner is mowing his weeds (lawn) and as this slobbering, beast is bearing down on me and my little one while I am holding the leash of my pit bull bait dog, I am screaming at the owner to control his dog. He says (and I’m not kidding} Oh, he just wants to say hi." This dog was beelineing for my little one and I know dogs well enough to know, he did not want to say hi. I reached for my sidearm and wouldn’t you know the owner was able to control his dog. After some choice words and a discussion we went our separate ways. No cops were called and no one got hurt. I used a gun in self defense and there are no stats on the situation.
(here are some disclaimers)
1 I would never pull a weapon out that I did not intend to use. I would have taken that dog down WAY before it jumped up on my baby.
2 If I had discharged my weapon within city limits there would have been an investigation and I would have had to have been judged to have used my weapon justly.
3 There may have been a better way to handle it but for the life of me, in a split second decision I cant think of one.
4 During the verbal exchange afterward there were things said by me that werent nice, however the guy with the gun ususally gets to say anything he wants
When he complained about me pulling a gun I responded that it just wanted to say hi and had never shot anyone before: Like a common phrase by irresponsible dog owners to justify their dog jumping up all over you.
L
LilyM
Guest
I feel for you. I am having problems with a neighbour’s dog - not bad-tempered, but uncontrolled and over here with my dogs as often as at home, in spite of numerous warnings to the owner to keep it confined.I think you are misunderstanding.
Here is an example that happened to me just a little while ago.
I was walking my newest baby girl in a stroller, I also have a little Jack Russell dog. (dont ask) and a pit bull in the neighborhood I was walking in comes barreling out of an open gate while the owner is mowing his weeds (lawn) and as this slobbering, beast is bearing down on me and my little one while I am holding the leash of my pit bull bait dog, I am screaming at the owner to control his dog. He says (and I’m not kidding} Oh, he just wants to say hi." This dog was beelineing for my little one and I know dogs well enough to know, he did not want to say hi. I reached for my sidearm and wouldn’t you know the owner was able to control his dog. After some choice words and a discussion we went our separate ways. No cops were called and no one got hurt. I used a gun in self defense and there are no stats on the situation.
(here are some disclaimers)
1 I would never pull a weapon out that I did not intend to use. I would have taken that dog down WAY before it jumped up on my baby.
2 If I had discharged my weapon within city limits there would have been an investigation and I would have had to have been judged to have used my weapon justly.
3 There may have been a better way to handle it but for the life of me, in a split second decision I cant think of one.
4 During the verbal exchange afterward there were things said by me that werent nice, however the guy with the gun ususally gets to say anything he wants
When he complained about me pulling a gun I responded that it just wanted to say hi and had never shot anyone before: Like a common phrase by irresponsible dog owners to justify their dog jumping up all over you.
As you said, reiterating my point earlier, you didn’t even have to pull out your sidearm. You would have been just as well off in your circumstances carrying a realistic-looking toy gun in that pocket or holster as a real one. And no risk (as there is a very real risk with your gun) that you or your child might have accidentally been shot rather than the dog.
R
reconman
Guest
yea, right, lawful gun owners do that all the time. Why don’t you look at the number of ccw permit holders who commit crimes with their guns. It’s almost non-existent. How’s that working for you?
Again, how many “deluded” permit holders have committed gun crimes?
Wrong again.Great. So if you own a gun, that gun is more likely to be used by you to harm yourself, or some other innocent to harm themselves, than for anyone to actually shoot it to defend themselves against some hypothetical criminal? How’s that working for you?
lol… try telling that to a cop
Yes it is. Just another reason to never go anywhere unarmed
States with “shall issue” ccw laws, have lower violent crime rates than those that do not.And that’s WITH the knowledge that heaps of citizens are legally packing heat? I’d expect it to be closer to zero with all those wonderfully deterrent legally-owned guns around
How’s that working for you?
M
Moore11
Guest
We may agree on gun rights but not on the above statements.
You should be real careful when talking of our Shepards this way.
I admit, in my diocese we have a liberal bishop. But I dont think “most” of them are. And I admit that the USCCB has been a tad “left” on some things but just as shown recently with the HHS mandate, they are learning. Remember, they are not politicians they are spiritual leaders. Appointed by the Pope to shepherd his flock. They deserve respect and charity.
R
reconman
Guest
I’m not intending disrespect. But when they choose to get into politics, they should be prepared for the inevitable response.
When the USCCB issues a statement, it’s because the majority of them agree with that statement. That makes the majority of them social liberals.
A “tad” left? They were delighted at the prospect of a government forced health care system. Until the contraception issue arose.
Agreed. And when they choose to make political statements, they should be prepared for the criticism that is certain to ensue.
I give them all the respect and charity and prayers I can. But if they want to enter the political ring, and make blatantly left-wing political statements, then I’m not going to hold their hands and play nice.
You can read (and watch) Cardinal Dolan’s (and the USCCB) stance on immigration here:
hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/cardinal-timothy-dolan-weighs-in-on-immigration-reform-and-contraception/15616/
In it, he claims that republicans want soup kitchens to “ask for documentation” before serving people . Outrageous
L
LilyM
Guest
You yourself said it - you don’t know what methodology he used. Lots of experts come up with dreck (think about ‘experts’ on diet and weightloss, for just one example). Even well-honoured and well-respected ones, sometimes.
A few gun nuts? No. 2.5 million, maybe.
‘Force known or intended by the actor to cause etc etc …’ What does that mean? That he actually asked the criminals whose crime was prevented what they knew and intended to do? Intention and knowledge can’t often be proven any other way than by direct statement of the actor.
And 2.5 million people freely and voluntarily dug themselves into a massive legal hole by saying ‘oh yes, I intended to use force that I knew was capable of being deadly against this person and was only prevented by them brandishing their weapon’? Hardly likely.
Uh huh. Tell that to the many many countries other than the US that have nowhere near the rate of gun ownership that the US has and STILL, somehow, have much lower rates of violent crime than the US.
Clearly societies can find and have found effective ways of preventing dangerous crime that do NOT involve an armed-to-the-teeth citizenry. That in fact are far more effective than arming the citizenry to the teeth.
And the right to bear arms appears not to have been particularly intended as a crime-prevention measure either, but as defence against military invasion. It is sad to see it hijacked.
And to see people who are so great in so many ways go for, if I may say so, one of the cheaper and easier but ultimately less-effective and less well-thought-out methods of crime control and delude themselves that it is not only great but so important that it cannot possibly be tampered with.
B
bearer
Guest
Lily, I can tell you either have a phobia of guns or otherwise uncomfortable with gun ownership in general. That’s fine, but with all due respect, the more agitated you become, the more irrational you sound. You really don’t seem to understand what I’m writing, let alone know much about guns or their uses. I can’t make you listen to one of the foremost experts on guns and crime, but the least you could do is refrain from writing childishly about the man’s life’s work. He knows what he’s talking about, and he’s not the only one, just one of the most respected and accomplished.
Basically, the threat of deadly force means the physical and mental capability to kill or gravely harm someone. If someone pulls a gun or other weapon capable of killing someone and is in range of the target and appears to be prepared to use it, that is the threat of deadly force. Let’s say pulling a pistol within 50 yards of a potential victim, or pulling a knife within 7 yards, etc. It does not refer to assuming a fighting stance, flexing muscles, or grimacing. It means someone is ready to kill you.
That’s comparing apples to oranges. If a country has never had widespread civilian gun ownership, it is nothing like the U.S. Like I wrote previously, there are over 250 million guns in America spread among at least 80 million people. You can’t put the genie back into the bottle.
Besides, on a per capita basis, gun deaths in the U.S., even criminal ones, are comparable to quite a few developed nations around the world. Going further, the UK recently banned almost all civilian handgun ownership and most civilian longgun ownership, and violent crime has skyrocketed. The thugs, who don’t obey the law to begin with, are having a field day victimizing people who can no longer defend themselves.
You’re making the kind of arguments that the anti-gun nuts were screaming back in the 1990s, which have been proved false again and again since then.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.” --Thomas Jefferson, quoting Essay on Crimes and Punishments by Cesare Beccaria
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” --Samuel Adams
“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them.” --Thomas Paine
Etc., etc…
History and the present have proved you wrong. Try to get over your fears and realize the truth of individual defense.
Z
Zooey
Guest
Not to mention all the people who are poisoned, pushed down flights of stairs, etc, etc…
We have a saying here in the states: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns”.
(And by the bye,** some** of us
] are willing to become outlaws rather than give up the weapons that won our freedom:thumbsup:, & have protected it ever since:thumbsup:. Always have, always will).
R
reconman
Guest
QUOTE=Zooey;9375712We have a saying here in the states: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns”.
(And by the bye,** some** of us] are willing to become outlaws rather than give up the weapons that won our freedom:thumbsup:, & have protected it ever since:thumbsup:. Always have, always will).
Righteous!
(And by the bye,** some** of us
] are willing to become outlaws rather than give up the weapons that won our freedom:thumbsup:, & have protected it ever since:thumbsup:. Always have, always will).Righteous!
R
reconman
Guest
Righteous!
We have a saying here in the states: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns”.
(And by the bye,** some** of us
L
LilyM
Guest
I’m sorry, but you gun-toting American zealots have always sounded more than a little irrational to just about the entire rest of the planet. Including all the countries out there that have every reason the US could possibly have, and more, to be vigorously in favour of arming their citizenry to the teeth, but don’t do so, and still have lower rates of violent crime.
Of course the rest of the world is all wrong and you’re right, and your super-duper low crime rates just prove it brilliantly
I’ll tell you who you remind me of. You know those suburban mothers who buy huge great big beasty SUVs to tote their children around in?
And how many of them say ‘oh, they’re so much safer than smaller cars.’
‘No they’re not’, you tell them. ‘In an accident you’re actually more likely to roll over, for example, because they’re top heavy’.
‘But but but … everyone knows they’re safer’.
‘No they’re not’, you tell them. "There is actually no evidence that you or your children will in any way be better off in an accident in one of those things than in a solidly-built smaller car’.
At which point they put their fingers in their ears and go ‘la la la, I’m not listening.’ The fact that they FEEL safer is what matters to them, so much so that they don’t care about the reality of whether those cars are actually more likely to let them survive an accident.
That is the attitude I’m feeling from you guys (exaggerated for effect of course). Never mind that there are probably plenty of things out there that you could learn from other countries that could allow you to drastically improve your crime rates and STILL feasibly and safely restrict gun ownership at least a little. That sounds too much like real useful work that could achieve long-term results for your politicians and law enforcers to be interested.
Far easier to have heat-packing cop-wannabe civilians like George Zimmerman to try to scare away the criminals for them. And then they can cop the blame when things go belly-up, as they too frequently do when too many of them are on the streets with too many guns.
B
bearer
Guest
Here’s one of Kleck’s studies, which explains the research he conducted in his National Self-Defense Survey in 1994:
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.
S
someperson555
Guest
the church is actually correct in their stance. there is no real need for people to bear arms anymore. when our founding fathers decided to allow citizens to bear arms it was a very different time when the government could not protect everyone. in fact that was the basis for the second amendment “if government cant protect you, then you can protect yourself”. but nowadays the police are a phone call away. the streets would be a far more safe and peaceful place if maniacs couldnt get their hands on firearms so easily.
B
bearer
Guest
You are making outlandish generalizations in what may very well be a projection of your own zealotry. I cite research and documented trends, you compare me to suburban mothers.I’m sorry, but you gun-toting American zealots have always sounded more than a little irrational to just about the entire rest of the planet. Including all the countries out there that have every reason the US could possibly have, and more, to be vigorously in favour of arming their citizenry to the teeth, but don’t do so, and still have lower rates of violent crime.
Of course the rest of the world is all wrong and you’re right, and your super-duper low crime rates just prove it brilliantly
I’ll tell you who you remind me of. You know those suburban mothers who buy huge great big beasty SUVs to tote their children around in?
And how many of them say ‘oh, they’re so much safer than smaller cars.’
‘No they’re not’, you tell them. ‘In an accident you’re actually more likely to roll over, for example, because they’re top heavy’.
‘But but but … everyone knows they’re safer’.
‘No they’re not’, you tell them. "There is actually no evidence that you or your children will in any way be better off in an accident in one of those things than in a solidly-built smaller car’.
At which point they put their fingers in their ears and go ‘la la la, I’m not listening.’ The fact that they FEEL safer is what matters to them, so much so that they don’t care about the reality of whether those cars are actually more likely to let them survive an accident.
That is the attitude I’m feeling from you guys (exaggerated for effect of course). Never mind that there are probably plenty of things out there that you could learn from other countries that could allow you to drastically improve your crime rates and STILL feasibly and safely restrict gun ownership at least a little. That sounds too much like extra work for your politicians and law enforcers.
Far easier to have heat-packing cop-wannabe civilians like George Zimmerman to try to do their work for them. And cop the blame when things go belly-up, as they inevitably frequently do when too many people are on the streets with too many guns.
I’ve noted that you are using British or perhaps Commonwealth spelling. Do you live or have you lived in the United States? Do you truly understand the socio-political dynamics of crime, violence, and victimology in this country?
We’ve tried gun control. It has failed. The thug culture is thriving. Enough is enough.
R
reconman
Guest
No one’s begging you to move here.
No one’s begging them to move here either.
Yes exactly. In the USA we have rights the rest of the world does not. Not the least of which is the right to own firearms. Our rights were endowed by our Creator. Not a bunch of socialist zealots.Of course the rest of the world is all wrong and you’re right, and your super-duper low crime rates just prove it brilliantly
Get over it
M
Moore11
Guest
And what is this stance you speak of?
- Status