Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[Ani_Ibi]

Lapsed:

Because a ban on handguns has general appeal to left-leaning urban voters without creating nearly as much backlash from rural voters as trying to ban long guns would.

I agree. Another Liberal doublespeak.

Lapsed:

I see it as a deliberate ploy on the part of the Liberals to gain urban votes in the West, especially Vancouver, where they don’t have anywhere near the support they have in Ontario.

Ontario is interesting. Toronto is upside down with funerals for highschool-age gangland victims. Traditionally Liberal. The suburbs are traditionally Conservative. The big story is in the Golden Triangle. The NDP made a big mistake by trying to foment unrest and then to capitilize on the Morgentaler award at UWO. There was a huge underground Catholic backlash and now that whole region is leaning Conservative.

Lapsed:

They know the Sponsorship Scanadal is going to cost them a lot in Quebec

Why it isn’t costing them elsewhere in Canada is really crazymaking.

Lapsed:

and the Tories are making strides in Ontario, so they’re targeting urban Western voters since they know they have little hope in rural ridings out here.

What are the strides being made in Ontario? Do have the latest word?

Lapsed:

In short, they’re after the tradtional NDP vote in the West to try and cling to power.

I gather the Liberal Party is actually trying to get people to vote NDP in order to walk away with a split vote: ie, that the NDP will take votes from the Conservatives.

 

[otm]

Libero:

You take your guns out on the street? !!! {/QUOTE]We can get concealed weapons permits here, after the requisite training. And you are more likely to be accosted on the street in certain areas than you are to be burglarized.
lLibero:

Deranged psycho? Are these popular in America? If so that can only indicate huge problems. If not, then your just making up highly unlikely situations to support a terrible thing. You could always however, get a heavy mahogony door, get double glazed windows, and if your incredibly paranoid get a “safe room”.

Which is only useful if you can get to it before the intruder gets to you. You watch too much tv.

[QUOT=Libero]No, infact I think that when your child is still psychologically scarred from their childhood because you put a bullet through someones head in front of the child you will not be laughing, neither will anyone else. See if guns are quite so easy to justify then, when your child at the age of fifty can still hear the gushot in their head, when they can remember asking “daddy why is that person not moving?” “daddy why is he all red?”

Of course, you are presuming the child won’t be asking “Daddy, why was he trying to hurt you” and saying"My daddy saved me from a bad man who was trying to hurt us".

Guns are designed for target practice as well as killin.

Oh, and by the way, you should learn wht the Catholic Church really teaches, which is that in defense of self or others, killing is permitted if there are no other options.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero:

I have looked, but look elsewhere and you shall find that there are instances that are completely contradictory to what you have backed up with evidence. Ireland for example.

Please provide links please – and not about the Irish War. The Irish War has political motivations, not criminal motivations.

Libero:

Well in that case, how does a gun help you, when you are sitting in your front room, a person whizzes by in a car, how does owning a gun really help?

Criminals own and use guns because they want instant, easy gains. Instant, easy gains are not possible in neighbourhoods where citizens own guns.

Libero:

These instances you have exampled show a terrible society, rather than trying to fight and erradicate it, why don’t you try to correct it?

What evidence do you have for us not trying to correct it? Do you think we do not have social agencies, church groups, recreation centres, and community workers on every block? We do. The really serious gangs in Toronto are not local gangs and therefore do not have any social investment in the community.

That is, they do not know everyone’s grandma, brother, cousin, and so on. The trouble is with armed, international gangs. These are not highschool kids that one can hope to influence through good social programming. These are folks that have chosen crime a long time ago and have now become hardened to this kind of lifestyle.

Libero:

DAC Paddick effectively tackled crime and particularly drugs in his area not by fighting it, but by liason with the community, he was extremely liked by the people in his borough, and saw incredible crime reduction rates.

Please provide a link to this story.

Libero:

This is merely cherry picking where you put that philiosophy, it appears to be the case when it comes to guns, but when homosexuality or bad songs in lyrics are involved, then you wish to protect your children forever.

I believe you claimed to be Catholic earlier on. Catholic teaching includes legitimate self defence, just war, and the principle of double effect. And oh, yes, I have noticed that you have changed the subject. The topic of the thread is not homosexuality or bad songs. Staying on topic is not cherrypicking. Finally, are you arguing for or against protecting children?

Libero:

I did read the answers, and I was astounded, never before have I encountered something like this, when I see programs about guns in America (comedy or not) I always think “oh this is just beign exaggerated for effect” - apparently not.

I really didn’t intend this thread to be a pretext for anti-Americanism. I myself am Canadian. Another poster is Australian. Do you have a problem with the statistics? If so what is the problem – without resorting to nation-centric tactics?

Libero:

Such brilliant characteristics. These may guns a must for me :tsktsk:

Do you have a problem with Catholic teaching on legitimate self-defence, just war, and the principle of double effect? If so what specifically is the problem?

I am afraid I do not understand your response to my pointing out that guns are used to threaten, coerce, and murder – and where no gun control exists, violent crimes including threats, coercision, and murder occur at dramatically lower rates than where gun control does exist. The pro-gun lobby did not invent violent crime. Are you suggesting that we did?

Libero:

I am now more greatful than ever that I live in England.

Resorting to nation-centric dismissiveness really doesn’t contribute much that is useful to discussion.

Libero:

P.S. Sorry about the incorrect fact about the Swiss Guard, it was from a book that is now outdated.

OK.

Libero:

Question - Is anyone else on CAF anti guns?

Yes.

 

[Zerith]

Semper Fi:

lol, if locks worked 100% of the time and if you wanted to keep your door locked 100% of the time then I would agree. Unfortunately, locks do not work all the time especially when some of the criminals out there have guns which can blow 'em off.

Amazing. Is it not?

We have locks on our doors, we use them. Yet we’re not “Prisoners”.

Guns are illegal for civilians and Gardaí (Police) in Ireland, amazingly, yet again, no problems. The only problems we have, or had, were the factions of the IRA involved in organised crime, which is not high, or a significant problem. The worst we ever get are knife attacks here and there (Er, mostly Limerick, any (REAL) Irish person will understand that).

The most severe is the shooting of a drug dealer now and then, no civilians. Recently, the CIRA were about to pipe bomb a drug gang. But somehow, I doubt you can compare terrorists to the average civilian in America.

Our Gardaí do not have weapons, only a select few, and then our armed/heavily armed police (Not widely used).

Very few civilians have weapons, very few petty/average criminals have weapons. You may buy a hunting licence, though, and use a rifle, but that is rare, and confined mostly to farmers (Which, a few years back, a farmer did shoot, and kill someone; he was not heavily prosecuted, due to the fact he was being intimidated by the member of the travelling community - It is illegal to fight an intruder in Ireland, and Britain)

Ani - What are you on about an “Irish War”? War of Independance, Civil War? Those are the only two “Irish Wars”. Everything else, is not a war, contrary to your opinion.

But, would you not expect, with a disarmed police force and civilian population, that a country would be over-run? Obviously not in the case of my country, which even has the problem of terrorists.

Heh, doing it for the children, yes, I can clearly see that in American school shootings, well done, America, well done, I commend the safety of children in your country, supply more guns, not only do criminals get it, but you cancel that out, by giving them to civilians, to kill eachother with, not only that, there’s an added bonus - Children too!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Zerith:

Amazing. Is it not?

Amazing how I ask people to stay on topic and not discuss the Irish War and yet yall just go right on ahead.

Zerith:

The only problems we have, or had, were the factions of the IRA involved in organised crime, which is not high, or a significant problem.

That is – or has been in recent history – a flat misrepresentation of the facts.

Zerith:

The worst we ever get are knife attacks here and there (Er, mostly Limerick, any (REAL) Irish person will understand that).

Oh and you are discussing what is the true inner group of Irishness now are you? And by what authority do you engage in such a questionable misadventure?

Zerith:

Ani - What are you on about an “Irish War”? War of Independance, Civil War? Those are the only two “Irish Wars”. Everything else, is not a war, contrary to your opinion.

And just what is my opinion on the Irish War? I have not declared my opinion on the Irish War on this thread. Nor do I intend to. It is off topic.

Zerith:

Heh, doing it for the children, yes, I can clearly see that in American school shootings, well done, America, well done, I commend the safety of children in your country, supply more guns, not only do criminals get it, but you cancel that out, by giving them to civilians, to kill eachother with, not only that, there’s an added bonus - Children too!

Again, I think that nation-centric attacks do not contribute anything useful to discussion.

Nor does sarcasm.

Neither does making accusations without any evidentiary support.

Neither does deviating off topic.

So is it contributing to discussion that you are on about or is it flaming?

 

[Isidore_AK]

Zerith:

It is illegal to fight an intruder in Ireland, and Britain)

Whats up with that anyway? How can it be illegal to defend you life & property? I’ve heard crazy stories about squatters taking over peoples home while they’re on vacation and not being able to throw them out…? What happened to common sense over there…

How can it be illegal to fight a criminal intent on harming you?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Zerith:

Very few civilians have weapons, very few petty/average criminals have weapons. You may buy a hunting licence, though, and use a rifle, but that is rare, and confined mostly to farmers (Which, a few years back, a farmer did shoot, and kill someone; he was not heavily prosecuted, due to the fact he was being intimidated by the member of the travelling community - It is illegal to fight an intruder in Ireland, and Britain)]/quote]

You are fortunate to live in a culture where there is little violence – that is not the case everywhere, particularly in a country like the US, with its hetrogenous population and porous borders.

By the way, the Church recognizes the right of self-defense. Why doesn’t Ireland?

 

[Robert_Bay]

OK folks. Please stay on the topic of the OP.

If you have forgotten what that was, and I did, re-read the original post.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Robert

 

[PhillyMatt]

Yes, I’m sure all criminals will turn in their guns if a gun ban goes into effect.

I can see it now, all the thugs handing in their guns.

I’m glad I have guns, training, and a license to carry a handgun to protect myself and my family.

It’s VERY rare that a law abiding citizen in this country with a legally obtained gun uses it for violent reasons. It’s the criminals you have to worry about.

More people were killed by cars last year than were killed by guns. Maybe we should ban cars?

We should also ban all pointy objects too…

 

[MikeWM]

The reminder to re-look at the original article is an interesting one. All sides are arguing for greater gun control, they are just disagreeing on how to do it It sounds rather similar to the debate here in Britain.

In answer to Libero, yes, I am strongly anti-gun, but then I am a ‘liberal’ Brit, so that doesn’t surprise anyone. We don’t have general gun ownership, and we don’t want it. The police don’t generally carry guns, they don’t want to, and we don’t want them to.

Rather more key, I think some people should re-familiarise themselves with the USCCB’s position on this issue:

All of us must do more to end violence in the home and to find ways to help victims break out of the pattern of abuse.(35) As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.(36)

(36)However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions (i.e., police officers, military use), handguns should be eliminated from our society. “Furthermore, the widespread use of handguns and automatic weapons in connection with drug commerce reinforces our repeated ‘call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.’” U.S. Catholic Bishops, New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1990), 10.

usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.htm

Mike

 

[PhillyMatt]

Hey man,

If you want to put your safety and that of your family’s into the hands of others, that’s your prerogative.

Personally, I like being responsible for my own.

I like the idea of being able to defend my home from any criminal that may come in and try to do harm to my family. In Britain, self-defense seems to be frowned upon and basically illegal.

“Here sir, rape my wife! Steal my property! I won’t hurt you, I promise!”

Just plain sick.

Any real man would defend himself and his family any way possible.

 

[MikeWM]

PhillyMatt:

Hey man,

If you want to put your safety and that of your family’s into the hands of others, that’s your prerogative.

That’s called society. It’s why we have a police force and a military.

I like the idea of being able to defend my home from any criminal that may come in and try to do harm to my family. In Britain, self-defense seems to be frowned upon and basically illegal.

No, self-defence is perfectly legal, even to the level of relatively disproportionate defence. We do draw the line at shooting a fleeing burglar in the back with an illegally-owned gun though (the Tony Martin case).

Any real man would defend himself and his family any way possible.

We are safer without widespread gun ownership. Conversely, I have no problem with self-defence when necessary.

Are you volunteering to go to your local bishop and telling him he isn’t a ‘real man’ and ‘plain sick’?

Mike

 

[PhillyMatt]

Self-defense has it’s place in society. But, unfortunatly, criminals aren’t very civil, nor do they go by the laws placed upon them by the very society that they live in.

I never said anything about shooting a criminal in the back, that is illegal, I would land in prison for that.

Police? Police usually show up after the crime has been committed. And I’m sure a robber would wait and let me call the cops while he’s doing harm to my family.

Yes, a real man defends himself and his family when neccessary. I’m sure my bishop knows that. Any person willing to sit back and watch while his home is being robbed and family harmed is NOT a man in my book.

Hasn’t crime actually gone up since britain passed all the anti-gun laws? The criminals actually are handing in their guns? I hear soon that knives will be illegal in Britain…

 

[Sir_Knight]

MikeWM:

All sides are arguing for greater gun control

Don’t assume that you speak for ALL sides.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Image provide by “Guns … a basic human right” website

 

[Philip_P]

Sir Knight:

Most people will never be in a fatal car accident, yet most people wear seatbelts when they drive. Most people will never have a fire in their homes, yet most people have fire insurance. Most people will never even have their homes broken into yet most still lock their doors. I could go on and on. The point being that you hope for the best but prepare yourself for the worst …

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Image provide by “Guns … a basic human right” website

So, uh, you also walk around with a fire extinguisher at all times I take it? I mean, you never know when a fire might break out. Could be any time at all. And there are far more fires than attacks by muggers and so forth in this country. Maybe you should wear a hard-hat as well. Head injuries can be quite nasty, and you never can be absolutely sure something heavy won’t fall from the sky, like maybe an airplane.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Better to have and never need than to need and not have.

MikeWM:

We are safer without widespread gun ownership.

That’s why places like NYC and Washington DC which have strick gun laws also have a high violent crime rate while places like Vermont which have very little gun owner restrictions have a low violent crime rate.

MikeWM:

Are you volunteering to go to your local bishop and telling him he isn’t a ‘real man’ and ‘plain sick’?

I would be more than happy to ask my bishop how I am suppose to fulfill the GRAVE responsibility that the CCC says that I have to protect myself and others from harm if I am denied the means by which to do it? If I have a GRAVE duty to do something, then there should be no restrictions on what tools I use to accomplish the task.

 

[PhillyMatt]

I bet the citizens of France wished they had a means to protect themselves in the “Civil” city of Paris during those riots…

 

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

The reminder to re-look at the original article is an interesting one. All sides are arguing for greater gun control,

Mike

Wow Mike, what posts are you reading? The only gun control the vast majority of posters here are interested in is the ability to hit your target.

 

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

That’s called society. It’s why we have a police force and a military.

You could not be more wrong. Police only respond after the fact, they protect no one. It was decided here in court that the Police have no duty or obligation to protect anyone nor could they if they did. The purpose of the military is not to protect your family from criminals.

We are safer without widespread gun ownership.

This notion has been disproven for you in other threads but I will show you some numbers to refresh your memory:

According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its gun ban in 1997.

In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.“You are much more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States,” stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. “The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and
the British burglary rate is nearly double America’s.” The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, “the difference between the two countries has narrowed dramatically over the two years since the ban went into effect.”
The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

 

[Isidore_AK]

MikeWM:

Rather more key, I think some people should re-familiarise themselves with the USCCB’s position on this issue:

usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.htm

Mike

Yeah, this is one of the key reasons I think the USCCB is a bunch of idiots…