Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero:

Are you never afraid about this casual use of guns - that they are a useful tool rather than a weapon and an instrument of hate?

I am afraid of guns. I am afraid of many things. But I think things through and try to make rational decisions.

Libero:

What strikes me is the way in which some people over exercise the use of their guns “fetch me my gun” as if it is something that one can just use without profound thought.

Is this a real example? If so please flesh it out so that we can recognize who these ‘some people’ are.

Libero:

As well as this, an alarm is very different to seeing a person in your home - and you would allow family members to leave bedrooms when it is possible someone has broken in and you are roaming the place with a gun?

You are talking about rules. A scenario which merits loading and aiming a gun is about rules which have gone the way of all flesh: rules which have been violated. While it is very very useful to plan ahead, it is also very very useful to improvise.

Libero:

However good a practice may seem, it could all go wrong in an instant and then you could find yourself being the one saying “I never thought it would happen to me”.

And I never thought I would have been stalked, broken into seven times. As a younger woman I went straight through all the so-called peaceable solutions like a stone through water. All I came up with was intolerable, paralyzing fear. The day I picked up a fire poker and came charging out of my front door after the perp was the day the perp left me alone forever. And it helped that the particular police officer was actually doing his job patrolling my block at the time. Between the officer and myself, the perp had little choice but to seek greener – and easier – pastures.

Sure the poker wasn’t a gun. But it’s the same principle. I didn’t know much about guns in those days. And I was just plain lucky the perp wasn’t wearing a piece.

Libero:

I pray that a situation like this would never happen, how ever the life of a stranger is not something I would ever easily dispose of. I find the attitude about scenarios with guns when there could be a stranger unbelieveable.

On what grounds do you deny evidence?

Libero:

The criminal would not go on to kill everyone

Having started, it seems logical that the shooter would want to eliminate witnesses.

Libero:

If an instance like this ever occurs, then I am unsure what I would do, but that really does not bother me, I am not scared of death.

That’s your decision to make. Other people have their decisions to make; decisions which may differ from your own.

Libero:

You cannot live life creating scenarios like this, there is no end to them.

I found that once I had made a decision about I was prepared to do, I forgot about it and never thought about it again.

Libero:

A wiser thing to do would be to leave the guns in the store, buy a gate to lock,

A gate can be shot open.

Libero:

get a sturdy front door

A door is like a gate.

Libero:

a dog

A dog can be shot.

Libero:

double glaxed windows

double or triple glazed windows can be shattered by a bullet.

Libero:

an alarm

And alarm is good deterrant. Let’s hope the perp doesn’t reach me before the police arrive.

Libero:

and a room upstairs that no one would bother entering.

What attributes would this room have? Invisibility?

Libero:

And what happens if your intruder shoots first, killing or seriously injuring you or one of your family?

If I am alive to shoot second, then shooting me first would have been a costly mistake on the part of the intruder.

Libero:

Will you be asking yourself that question - guns are not making your lives invincible.

No one is claiming that guns make our lives invincible. What folks have been saying is that an armed citizenry is a deterrant to violent crime.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero:

WWII is so totally different, believe it or not after WW1 we were not so eager to jump into battle. We did not have such a strong army as the US, we had encountered the terrible war experiences, we had been crippled economically, lost all our colonies, and would have tried to avoid war at all costs. Futher more, Hitler was no normal man, he would say anything to try and boost his own cause. Appeasement would not have been an option in the first place if it were so hopeless.

I am not following your logic here at all. Is this your way of saying thank you to the US – and Canada – for bailing you out?

Libero:

Brits are not appeasing, we just see that with guns come so many other problems.

Problems have solutions.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

Basic human rights are not subject to the whims of “each community.”

The Human Rights Act is fairly new to England. Some folks don’t understand the dangers of big government. It takes time. Tea?

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Basic human rights are not subject to the whims of “each community.”

Owning guns is a human right? Sure….

I’ve seen you make this argument before. We have a right to life, and that includes a right to self defense…then you make a flying leap to upholding a specific method (firing a gun) as somehow being part of that right. Well you know what, I’ll accept that, with the following condition: that by the same logic, we agree that health care is a human right. After all, without access to health care, thousands of people face shortened lives, or even die outright. So sure, I’ll give you your guns, if you’ll give me my healthcare. And of course, that healthcare will cover injuries inflicted by firearms

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Owning guns is a human right? Sure….

It’s in the Bill of Rights.

The Catholic Church recognizes the right of self defense.

What more do you need?
Philip P:

I’ve seen you make this argument before. We have a right to life, and that includes a right to self defense…then you make a flying leap to upholding a specific method (firing a gun) as somehow being part of that right.

No, I say we have the right to an effective means of defense. I don’t know of a more effective means than a firearm.
Philip P:

Well you know what, I’ll accept that, with the following condition: that by the same logic, we agree that health care is a human right.

Which article of the Bill of Rights are you quoting here?
Philip P:

After all, without access to health care, thousands of people face shortened lives, or even die outright. So sure, I’ll give you your guns, if you’ll give me my healthcare. And of course, that healthcare will cover injuries inflicted by firearms

You have my permission to go out and buy any health insurance plan you choose. Now grant your neighbors the right to buy and carry any firearm they choose.

 

[Zerith]

Eireann:

There are many poor traveller families in Ireland, and there are many poor in all walks of life.
Going out to steal because they say theyr’e poor doesn’t wash with me.
If everyone that was poor went out to steal, rob someone of their belongings what kind of society would we have.
Those traveller’s have state assistance, I’m not rich and I don’t go and break in to people’s homes.
One lady said and she might be right, is the reason the move around is to avoid paying taxes, they drive the newest models, while mine is a clapped out banger.
Those people and I remember the incident, made a choice to rob a farmer who lived in a remote area, they paid the price.
If the farmer hadn’t had the shotgun then maybe he’d be dead by now, who knows.

It would be ideal to have all guns out of society, but we don’t live in an ideal society, and we have the right to defend ourselve’s.

The Gardi have their emergency response units like the British, and there are legally held hand guns in the North.
If things get out of hand theyr’e called in.

This is just plain silly and off topic, we aren’t talking about dogs.

Maybe he just called round at 3am to see how you were keeping.
Assuming he was going to do something, Imagine the conversation, “Are you the window cleaner ?”
NO ! I don’t clean windows at 3am, I’m here to rob you"

OK take what you want, where did you park the van ?

Redicilous, he’s going down if I get the chance.

Not talking about dogs? Neither was I, if you can comprehend English, I was making reference to the fact of “escalating tensions” in a community, asking for clarification.

Northern Ireland is not the Republic, it is Britain. They are British police, the PSNI. Not An Garda Síochana.

Travellers have state assistance? We brought in laws a few years back that created a mass exodus to Britain! And, forgive my stereotyping, travellers are somewhat anti-social. They park caravans illegally, create large amounts of rubbish. There’s a difference between a poor rural countryman, a poor traveller and a poor inner city person.

Of course the Gardaí have emergancy response units, and heavily armed units. What I said was, they’re not used much.

You must not comprehend the Irish legal system (Varient of the Common Law system).
I was not talking about your opinion, but rather, the court.
Can you prove that robber had intent to kill? No.

“Who knows?” -?
What we do know is, a man was ON his property, not IN, and he was killed. Yes? Now it was established he was there for the reason of petty theft/robbery and/or damage to property, as he “Had it in” for the farmer. What was not established, was the motive to kill. There was none. The farmer got manslaughter.
“Who knows?” has no part to play in the court.

Inis Ceithlein - Enniskillen? Am I correct?

I am not following your logic here at all. Is this your way of saying thank you to the US – and Canada – for bailing you out?

Hmm, great logic. Canada and America contributed to the war, but it is very ignorant to say you “Bailed Europe out”. Why? You’re looking at one, arrogant, factor, regarding yourselfs as the rescuers, and not at the whole picture. As someone who’s greatly interested in history, I get easily annoyed over such innacurate statements.

 

[MikeWM]

Personally, I’m still waiting for some proof of the supposed fact that

the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is in SUPPORT of the PRIVATE ownership of firearms.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

Personally, I’m still waiting for some proof of the supposed fact that

the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is in SUPPORT of the PRIVATE ownership of firearms.

Mike

Sounds like a straw man to me. I don’t think the Church takes a position pro or con on private gun ownership. If you can defend your loved ones with a wet noodle, then the Church is okay with that.

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

Sounds like a straw man to me.

How is a direct quote, not taken out of context or split up to confuse the point, setting up a straw man?

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

How is a direct quote, not taken out of context or split up to confuse the point, setting up a straw man?

Mike

The strawman is the pretense that we need a direct quote that the Church approves of firearms. That’s like saying we need a direct quote that the Church approves of antibiotics.

The Church teaches that self defense and medical treatment of the sick. The means are left to those who must make the decisions in those fields.

 

[rlg94086]

How is a direct quote, not taken out of context or split up to confuse the point, setting up a straw man?

Mike

Sorry, but I didn’t see a quote. Whom were you quoting?

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

Sorry, but I didn’t see a quote. Whom were you quoting?

Sir Knight, post #96.

My apologies, I can see if you haven’t followed the whole thread that (a) you’re a wise person and (b) that really wouldn’t be very clear.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

The strawman is the pretense that we need a direct quote that the Church approves of firearms.

I’m not saying we ‘need’ one or otherwise, we’ve been told in no uncertain terms that we’ve been told by a specific person at a specific time and place. I can’t find any evidence of this on the 'net, so I’m hoping to see where it comes from.

Mike

 

[Eireann]

Zerith:

Not talking about dogs? Neither was I, if you can comprehend English, I was making reference to the fact of “escalating tensions” in a community, asking for clarification.

Well when someone calls a dog a dog, I assume theyr’e talking about dogs.

Northern Ireland is not the Republic, it is Britain. They are British police, the PSNI. Not An Garda Síochana.

Both sides of the border have emergency response teams, I’m not actually in favour of firearms, plus I don’t own one, but we have the right to defend ourselves.
But there are many things in our house that in the wrong hands can be lethal.
Poker’s, chair’s, knives,billhooks, chains, and even the motor car is a lethal weapon in the wrong hands.
I’m anti-violence actually, but just wish the crook was too.
Oh and in respect to Ani ibli’s wishes lets keep politics out of this, yes Enniskillen,=Kathleen’s island.

Travellers have state assistance? We brought in laws a few years back that created a mass exodus to Britain! And, forgive my stereotyping, travellers are somewhat anti-social. They park caravans illegally, create large amounts of rubbish. There’s a difference between a poor rural countryman, a poor traveller and a poor inner city person.

There is good and bad in every walk of life, even traveller’s, here in the North, the park outside shopping centre’s and bring down trade, and refuse to move until they get paid a vast sum of money.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4272091.stm

“Who knows?” -?
What we do know is, a man was ON his property, not IN, and he was killed. Yes? Now it was established he was there for the reason of petty theft/robbery and/or damage to property, as he “Had it in” for the farmer. What was not established, was the motive to kill. There was none. The farmer got manslaughter.
“Who knows?” has no part to play in the court.

Most travellers I know don’t call on remote farmhouse’s for the benifit of your health.

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

Sir Knight, post #96.

My apologies, I can see if you haven’t followed the whole thread that (a) you’re a wise person and (b) that really wouldn’t be very clear.

Mike

No problem…Although I’m not sure I like being called a wise guy!

Oh, “wise person” that’s different. Probably inaccurate, but different.

btw…I’m googlin’ to see if I find anything…

 

[Sir_Knight]

MikeWM:

Oh, come on. That is the statement of one pastor on an internet talk board - and the entry at the top of the thread says in no uncertain terms that the cardinal didn’t approve! You must have something more concrete than that.

The post’er is a Catholic priest and I have no reason to believe that he would bear false witness regarding statements made by the Ctaholic Church to the IANSA.

MikeWM:

I know a lot more people that have laid hands on drugs than have laid hands on a gun

Proving that the legality of an item has no bearing on it’s availability.

MikeWM:

Yes they do, of course they do. Other people are deciding things all the time. What is safe in your water, in the air, how your car is constructed, who to let on a plane, what standards the electrics in your house need to be at. You are dependent on other people whether you like it or not.

And you see nothing wrong with that?

YOU might. You might be the most responsible gun owner around. I don’t think you are seriously telling me that everyone in the USA who legally owns a gun has had anywhere near that level of training and competence.

Being able to hit a moving target at 25 feet is nothing to brag about. If I’m not mistaken, most police agencies require a minimum of 75 feet. So, if I were to venture a guess, I would have to say that while my training might be above average, my competence (because of my age) is about average or below average.

MikeWM:

You’re right, YOU don’t drink. Again, I don’t think you are seriously suggesting that every single person in the USA that owns and carries a gun doesn’t drink.

Gun ownership is a responsibility. Just like one shouldn’t drive a car when one is impaired by alcohol, one should not handle a firearm under those conditions either. And if we can trust people not to drink & drive, we should also trust people not to drink and handle firearms.

MikeWM:

And if you mined your front garden it would be less likely still. Do you think you have the right to put landmines in your front yard?

That doesn’t even deserve a reply.

MikeWM:

I can readily believe that if you are in a situation where pretty much everyone has guns to start with, having carry laws for example would reduce crime. The point there is not to get to the situation where pretty much everyone has guns to begin with, so that relaxed gun laws aren’t necessary.

The number of people who have been disarmed and massacred by their own governments in the last century alone is exponentially higher than the number of people killed by gun toting criminals: * In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

• In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were arrested and executed.
• In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were killed by the state.
• In 1935 China established gun control. Between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered by the Communists.
• In 1956 Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million “educated” people (about 1/3 of the entire population!) were executed by the Reds.
• In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.
• In 1970 the Ugandan dictator decreed gun control. During the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were murdered.
• Over 56 million people have died, unable to defend themselves, because of gun control in the last century alone.
  So much for keeping our guns if we register them. On the other hand, lenient gun laws mean less crime. In Switzerland, all males from the ages of 20 to 42 are required to have guns. The Swiss have almost no murders and a very low crime rate!

 

[Eireann]

MikeWM:

Personally, I’m still waiting for some proof of the supposed fact that

the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is in SUPPORT of the PRIVATE ownership of firearms.

Mike

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

---

 

[MikeWM]

Eireann:

For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

That very clearly implies the military and the police, not everyone and anyone.

Mike

 

[Sir_Knight]

MikeWM:

Personally, I’m still waiting for some proof of the supposed fact that

the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is in SUPPORT of the PRIVATE ownership of firearms.

MikeWM:

How is a direct quote, not taken out of context or split up to confuse the point, setting up a straw man?

MikeWM:

Sorry, but I didn’t see a quote. Whom were you quoting?

Sir Knight, post #96.

My apologies, I can see if you haven’t followed the whole thread that (a) you’re a wise person and (b) that really wouldn’t be very clear.

MikeWM:

I’m not saying we ‘need’ one or otherwise, we’ve been told in no uncertain terms that we’ve been told by a specific person at a specific time and place. I can’t find any evidence of this on the 'net, so I’m hoping to see where it comes from.

Oh, yea of litte faith, here’s the Holy See’s statement to the UN Small Arms Conference from the Vatican’s own website …

In a world marked by evil, the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can justify the possession of arms.

… bolding & underlining added by me.

 

[MikeWM]

Sir Knight:

The post’er is a Catholic priest and I have no reason to believe that he would bear false witness regarding statements made by the Ctaholic Church to the IANSA.

It’s hearsay though, and said in the context of quite a heated argument. We need something more dispassionate - such as what was actually said.

Proving that the legality of an item has no bearing on it’s availability.

No it doesn’t. It only shows that some things happen more often than others.

And you see nothing wrong with that?

No. Not if you accept the division of labour as the foundation of every sensible modern society. Heaven forbid I should defend Adam Smith, but…

Being able to hit a moving target at 25 feet is nothing to brag about. If I’m not mistaken, most police agencies require a minimum of 75 feet. So, if I were to venture a guess, I would have to say that while my training might be above average, my competence (because of my age) is about average or below average.

Nevertheless, you are obviously a conscientious and trained owner of firearms. Most people won’t have your level of expertise.

Gun ownership is a responsibility. Just like one shouldn’t drive a car when one is impaired by alcohol, one should not handle a firearm under those conditions either. And if we can trust people not to drink & drive, we should also trust people not to drink and handle firearms.

We don’t trust people to not drink and drive, at least not at first. It used to be viewed as almost acceptable in this country. Only after a lot of effort by the police and a lot of campaigning by the government are we in a situation where it is no longer seen to be acceptable.

That doesn’t even deserve a reply.

Why not? Your house would be less likely to be burgled than it is now.

The number of people who have been disarmed and massacred by their own governments in the last century alone is exponentially higher than the number of people killed by gun toting criminals

You’re seriously suggesting that the Holocaust and similar events would have been prevented if only the people had guns? Pretty much all civilized countries have gun control, to some extent or other. How many countries haven’t had massacres?

Mike