Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[Sir_Knight]

Libero:

Catholic teaching teaches legitimate self defence, there is nothing legitimate about shooting unarmed burgulars in the back.

Who ever said anything about shooting ANYONE in the back. You shoot at a threat to neutralize a threat. Someone with their back toward you is not a threat to you UNLESS they are about to attack another family member and even then, shooting them in the back is not a good idea because your loved one will be in the line of fire.

Libero:

It is so hard to be just with a gun.

What is so hard about being WITH a gun. I have a gun on my person right now as I type this in my home. I had a gun on me yesterday when I attended Sunday mass. AND, I know that at least one of the priests that was distributing the Eucharist during Communion also had a gun under his vestments.

There is nothing hard about being with a gun.

Libero:

I am for protecting children, just not with guns - that is a sorry excuse to own a gun.

So you do not believe in using the best tool possible to accomplish a task. Why? Why would you use something less effective? Do you do this in all other areas of your life as well?

Libero:

I have no doubt that my parents would protect me, yet they do not own a gun - does that mean they would not attempt to protect as much?

It means that they are not as prepared as they COULD BE to protect you.

Libero:

I doubt that even if we could get guns that my family would want to just so they could “protect their children”.

So your family has limits to what they would do to protect you. Given the fact that the church tells me that I have a GRAVE duty to protect my family, I place no limits on that responsibility.

Libero:

I am saying that guns are the most brilliant thing that has happened to violent criminals - in allowing guns, it does not make the situation any better, fighting fire with fire is not working.

Reality has proved your conclusion to be wrong. Criminals want easy targets. Victims who are not as well armed as they are. When private citizens are allowed to carry guns, it puts everyone on the same playing field and the government’s own statistics have shown that violent crime has decresed in communities where private citizens are allowed to be armed.

 

[Isidore_AK]

MikeWM:

There is ‘assumption of risk’ in the law. You are not responsible, unless, again, you set up specifically nasty booby traps for example.

Mike

What ever happened to the sanctity of a man’s home?

A ‘No Tresspassing’ sign means just that. DO NOT COME ON MY PROPERTY- OR ELSE!!!

Criminals who break into your home deserve whatever happens to them. If I choose to booby-trap my house, or keep vicious attack dogs, or whatever else, thats my choice- and the Criminals problem if he chooses to invade my scantuary.

 

[MikeWM]

Sir Knight:

… And maybe the USCCB should bring their position into alignment with the official position of the rest of the Catholic church which was place on international public record at the UN’s 2002 Conference on Small Arms where a representative from the Vatican OFFICIALLY representing the Holy See stated that the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is in SUPPORT of the PRIVATE ownership of firearms.

Care to provide a link to that?

A person who has entered my home ILLEGALLY is already a criminal. I do not have mind-reading powers to know if he is there to rob or to rape & kill.

Almost always he is there to rob. Sure he is breaking the law. Are all laws equally serious?

What if he isn’t? Am I suppose to gamble with my life and the life of my family that a criminal will not want to hurt us?

You’re gambling all the time. You gamble every time you drive your car (assuming you have a car). Everything has an element of risk.

Wrong. Criminals have injuried themselves by accidents without any booby traps and have sued the home owner and won.

Given some of the wild and wacky decisions that come along with the compensation culture in the USA, I’m not totally surprised - though I’d like to see some evidence.

I’m not aware of such cases in the UK.

I was also mugged. The police officer investigating the case told me that I should have shot the mugger. When I told him that I didn’t own one, he told me that was my mistake right there. Ever since then, I’ve been following his advise.

Hmm, how helpful. So you would have shot someone in the middle of the street. And if you’d missed, and hit an innocent bystander?

When I was mugged, I was drunk. Do you think it would have been wise for me to try to shoot someone in that condition?

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the police have NO OBLIGATION to provide protection to private citizens – their role is to protect society, not individuals. So your tax dollars is not ensured to provide ANYONE with protection.

Nothing is ensured - you’re not ensured your gun won’t jam, or the robber won’t get a shot in first. In general, the police do an excellent job, and have training that most of us don’t.

Then please explain why violent crime rates have decresed in every single state that has allowed private citizens to carry firearms?

How about some links to that, too?

Yeah and maybe he can also explain why their position is not consistent with the OFFICIAL church position on this subject because (as I already mentioned) at the UN’s 2002 Conference on Small Arms where a representative from the Vatican OFFICIALLY representing the Holy See stated that the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is in SUPPORT of the PRIVATE ownership of firearms.

Again, waiting for some proof.

Mike

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

2002 Statisitics

Firearms Deaths per thousand, **Vermont: **10.06
Firearms Deaths per thousand, **New York: **5.19
Firearms Deaths per thousand, **New York City: **4.4 (2001 data)

State info from CDC. NYC info from NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Here’s a little fact for you: the CDC doesn’t distinguish between deaths committed in the course of a crime, accidental deaths, suicides and I believe deaths from when an officer of the law uses his/her weapon.

Why don’t you go get those statistics where it breaks down the causes of those firearm deaths?

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

We have plenty of beat cops too but unless their beat is at your front and back door they can not protect you.

I just can’t imagine the siege mindset that sees murderers and rapists everywhere lurking in the shadows. I don’t choose to live that way. I take sensible measures to make my life safe - I lock my front door, and usually remember to close my windows too. I take a little care where I walk at night, though not too much.

So, you now admit that bans are useless and have no effect?

No, I’m saying it didn’t effect all that many people. I don’t know anyone that kept or keeps a handgun in their house, and I don’t know anyone that knows anyone either.

But you are not the only one in the country. It does affect others greatly.

If people want to get involved in drug dealing or gang warfare, and then shoot each other, that’s up to them. Frankly I live my own life and leave the police to sort out idiots like that.

Actually you are partly right and partly wrong. British crime is notoriously under-reported to make the country look safer and convince people that their efforts are working.

We could debate that all day - but the British Crime Survey figures, which deal in crimes committed, not crimes reported - show the number of crimes coming down.

According to The BBC, “Officers said the lower recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed.”

Of course not, but that has always been the case.

One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of
tricks that rendered crime figures ‘a complete sham.’ A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime.

Again, that has always been the case. Then it is reformed so that crimes are recorded properly, and everyone shrieks ‘oh, crime is going up, that must be because handguns were banned!’

British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low too. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all.

Nothing at all? Proof please.

Because Gun control has a near perfect record of making crime worse and enactment of right-to-carry laws does have a perfect record of causing crime to decrease greatly.

Even if true, so? Locking up everyone in prison would reduce crime 100%. Do you recommend that?

Mike

 

[2shelbys]

wabrams:

Here’s a little fact for you: the CDC doesn’t distinguish between deaths committed in the course of a crime, accidental deaths, suicides and I believe deaths from when an officer of the law uses his/her weapon.

Why don’t you go get those statistics where it breaks down the causes of those firearm deaths?

Exactly. Just another example of their manipulation of data to support a position.

 

[Libero]

Who ever said anything about shooting ANYONE in the back. You shoot at a threat to neutralize a threat. Someone with their back toward you is not a threat to you UNLESS they are about to attack another family member and even then, shooting them in the back is not a good idea because your loved one will be in the line of fire.

And have you ever had to shoot an intruder to your home at 4 oc’lock in the morning, still hazy from sleep? This theory sounds brilliant in theory, but is probably very different in practice.

What is so hard about being WITH a gun. I have a gun on my person right now as I type this in my home. I had a gun on me yesterday when I attended Sunday mass. AND, I know that at least one of the priests that was distributing the Eucharist during Communion also had a gun under his vestments.

I find this truly unbeliveable, really I do, this makes your community sound so terrible.

So you do not believe in using the best tool possible to accomplish a task. Why? Why would you use something less effective? Do you do this in all other areas of your life as well?

How many times has your house been broken into, and you have had to use your firearm? Protecting someone is not an everyday task - please remember that!! Owning a gun is far more likely to cause a terrible accident than having to actually be used on a criminal. Further more, I do not think that I could bring myself to possibly kill a person in such an instance - even if it is church “teaching” I would easily disobey it.

It means that they are not as prepared as they COULD BE to protect you.

They would give their own life - that is far more honourable than any gun. I am more than confident that nobody would ever break into our home and then confront one of us. It is a incredible irregularity if they do.

Reality has proved your conclusion to be wrong. Criminals want easy targets. Victims who are not as well armed as they are. When private citizens are allowed to carry guns, it puts everyone on the same playing field and the government’s own statistics have shown that violent crime has decresed in communities where private citizens are allowed to be armed.

Thats not the case where I live - THANK GOD!!!

Actually you are partly right and partly wrong. British crime is notoriously under-reported to make the country look safer and convince people that their efforts are working. The British media has remained quite critical of authorities for “fiddling” with crime data. Consider some of the headlines:

I cannot believe this, our police force is incredibly effective - I would see stories every other day in the press about it if this were not the case - do you really think our notorious tabloids would let it go?

 

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

I just can’t imagine the siege mindset that sees murderers and rapists everywhere lurking in the shadows. I don’t choose to live that way. I take sensible measures to make my life safe - I lock my front door, and usually remember to close my windows too. I take a little care where I walk at night, though not too much.

You do not have to have such a mentality to desire preparedness. Nothing is so absolute. Do you have to believe that disease and injury are so rampant that you can not leave your house in order to justify medical insurance?

No, I’m saying it didn’t effect all that many people. I don’t know anyone that kept or keeps a handgun in their house, and I don’t know anyone that knows anyone either.

So what does that prove? You are a self-admitted liberal. Gun ownership among your associates would be surprising. Most of the people I know own at least one gun but that is to be expected when you associate with conservatives.

If people want to get involved in drug dealing or gang warfare, and then shoot each other, that’s up to them. Frankly I live my own life and leave the police to sort out idiots like that.

So only those actively involved are affected? No one is ever killed by a stray bullet that some lowlife drug dealer meant for someone else? No one is ever robbed by someone who needs drug money?

We could debate that all day - but the British Crime Survey figures, which deal in crimes committed, not crimes reported - show the number of crimes coming down.

What kind of doubletalk is that? The issue is that crimes that were committed are not being reported by the police or the government which in turn gives the false impression that crimes rates are coming down. If you are alluding to the fact that some crimes are never reported to the police or anyone else that just shows another reason why crime is worse than reported.

Of course not, but that has always been the case.
Again, that has always been the case. Then it is reformed so that crimes are recorded properly, and everyone shrieks ‘oh, crime is going up, that must be because handguns were banned!’

The cited articles made no claim that this has always been the case. Can you show proof of this?

Nothing at all? Proof please.

Do not ask me for the proof. Ask the Telegraph or the Scotland Yard veteran they were quoting.

Even if true, so? Locking up everyone in prison would reduce crime 100%.

No it would not. There is a new batch of criminals born every day.

 

[Philip_P]

CDC data:

cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

You can run your own reports, using whatever criteria you like. Knda neat.

I ran the numbers from the Fatal Injury Reports, Data 1999 and later, selected 'all intents" and, under cause/mechanism of injury, “firearms.”

As far as the CDC not distinguishing between crime, accidental deaths, suicides, etc, I don’t see that this is really all the relevant. As I pointed out on another thread, gun laws don’t appear to have much, if any, effect on crime. Anyone arguing that it does, pro or con, is really arguing against the evidence. What IS worth looking at, though, is gun regulation and its effect on gun violence.

And as far as the CDC being “anti-gun activists,” that’s really a rather astounding depth of cyncisim on display there.

 

[2shelbys]

Libero:

Owning a gun is far more likely to cause a terrible accident than having to actually be used on a criminal.

That is a long-discredited myth. The number of gun accidents pales into near non-existance in comparison to the number of instances of successful defensive uses of firearms. Anti-gun activists skew the numbers by pretending that you are only successful in defending yourself if the criminal is killed. In the overwhelming majority (over 95%) of defensive uses of guns the mere appearance of the weapon was sufficient to thwart the crime and no one was hurt.

Further more, I do not think that I could bring myself to possibly kill a person in such an instance - even if it is church “teaching” I would easily disobey it.

That is an excellent reason for you to never attempt to use a gun as protection but not everyone is like you.

They would give their own life - that is far more honourable than any gun.

Honorable yes, but also a terrible and unnecessary waste of innocent life.

I cannot believe this, our police force is incredibly effective - I would see stories every other day in the press about it if this were not the case - do you really think our notorious tabloids would let it go

As evidenced by the number of articles I found in one short internet search I would say they are not letting it go. Both the press and the police themselves are talking about how many crimes go unreported to make the country seem safer.

 

[Philip_P]

2shelbys:

No it would not. There is a new batch of criminals born every day.

People are born criminals?

 

[2shelbys]

Philip P:

People are born criminals?

Of course not but are you saying that all of the criminals our nation is going to ever have are already alive? That is great news! All we have to do is wait for them to die and everthing will be all better.

 

[2shelbys]

Philip P:

And as far as the CDC being “anti-gun activists,” that’s really a rather astounding depth of cyncisim on display there.

When a person or organization is repeatedly caught minipulating data to support a specific postion it is not cynicism to consider them as biased.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero:

The old irish war was political, the new one is merely men with guns thinking that they can make a difference through force. Generally Ireland is peaceful - particularly Connaght, Munster and Leinnster, admittedly Dublin and Limerick have problems but they are cities. Ireland do not permit this casual ownership of guns, in some areas they don’t have access to an armed police force division - do you think these places and Ireland in general would be better off with guns?

Ireland is off topic. I have asked you not to discuss Ireland. I have asked Zerith not to discuss Ireland. Robert Bay, the moderator, has asked all of us to stay on topic. Please comply.

blink.org.uk/print.asp?key=524
(this is merely one he is a really popular guy - apparently)

Thank you for the link. I’ll read it.

Libero:

Catholic teaching teaches legitimate self defence, there is nothing legitimate about shooting unarmed burgulars in the back.

This is a claim. Please substantiate this claim.

Libero:

Countries are the perfect examples oof how guns do and do not work effectively.

Another claim. Please substantiate, keeping in mind that we are not talking about politics. We are talking about dealing with criminals or – in the case of First Nations hunting which requires rifles not handguns.

Libero:

I am saying that guns are the most brilliant thing that has happened to violent criminals - in allowing guns, it does not make the situation any better, fighting fire with fire is not working.

The statistics say otherwise.

How do you propose protecting children against a gun-toting intruder when you yourself or your parents do not own a gun? The person with a gun has a range of attack far longer than the range of attack for a knife or for hand to hand. Maybe a bow and arrow would be comparable to a gun. Do you or your parents own a bow and arrow? Know how to use one?

What makes a bow and arrow different from a gun?

For that matter, what makes hand to hand different from a gun?

The idea in hand to hand is to render the intruder unable to get up again and therefore unable to continue being a threat. Often that means delivering a lethal blow or at least a blow which seriously injures, depending on the circumstances. That makes hand to hand the same as a gun.

While it is true that Aikido, Jiu Jitsu, and Judo, to name a few, do have moves which allow someone to be held under the control of another person – as opposed to killed or injured – the original purpose of that was to capture folks alive so that they could be tortured for information. Once the information was had, they were killed. All of these disciplines also have moves which kill or disable.

So what means are left for you to protect the family from intruders effectively?

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

You do not have to have such a mentality to desire preparedness. Nothing is so absolute. Do you have to believe that disease and injury are so rampant that you can not leave your house in order to justify medical insurance?

I don’t need medical insurance, I’m covered by the state

So what does that prove? You are a self-admitted liberal. Gun ownership among your associates would be surprising. Most of the people I know own at least one gun but that is to be expected when you associate with conservatives.

No, it shows I live in Britain. I mix with people of all manner of views (I wouldn’t stay around here if I only wanted to talk to liberals).

So only those actively involved are affected? No one is ever killed by a stray bullet that some lowlife drug dealer meant for someone else? No one is ever robbed by someone who needs drug money?

Yes, of course they are - but the people needing drug money will rarely be armed. The big dealers are the armed people.

And yes, people are killed by stray bullets. That’s why I want as few guns around as possible.

What kind of doubletalk is that? The issue is that crimes that were committed are not being reported by the police or the government which in turn gives the false impression that crimes rates are coming down. If you are alluding to the fact that some crimes are never reported to the police or anyone else that just shows another reason why crime is worse than reported.

How is that doubletalk? Say only 1 in 4 crimes were reported, and now 1 in 2 are. If reported crime has risen by say 5%, overall crime nevertheless has fell considerably.

The cited articles made no claim that this has always been the case. Can you show proof of this?

Not of the top of my head, but can you show the converse? I seriously doubt the government are fiddling the figures just to justify a handgun ban that is only an issue for a very small majority of people anyway.

No it would not. There is a new batch of criminals born every day.

Not if you stick all children in prison too. You see demonstrated therefore, that there is a level beyond which reducing risk is (name removed by moderator)racticable in a free society.

Mike

 

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

I don’t need medical insurance, I’m covered by the state

Ah, that is right. You live in a country where the government takes far more money from you in taxes to cover your “free” medical care than we will ever pay for insurance.

And yes, people are killed by stray bullets. That’s why I want as few guns around as possible.

The only problem is that criminals big or small do not buy their guns in gun stores. It is far easier and cheaper to buy them on the street and they do not have to pass a background check. Every time a load of drugs is seized coming into the country a load of illegal guns is found with it. All the gun bans in the world will never keep guns out of the hands of those who ignore the law, only those who obey it.

Say only 1 in 4 crimes were reported, and now 1 in 2 are. If reported crime has risen by say 5%, overall crime nevertheless has fell considerably.

The tone of the articles I posted was that the under reporting of crimes was more rampant after the ban, not that is was consistant.

Not of the top of my head, but can you show the converse? I seriously doubt the government are fiddling the figures just to justify a handgun ban that is only an issue for a very small majority of people anyway.

Again, if you seek proof look to the sources in your own country that are making these claims.

Not if you stick all children in prison too. You see demonstrated therefore, that there is a level beyond which reducing risk is (name removed by moderator)racticable in a free society.

The fact that locking everyone up (a silly notion) would be going too far does not mean that anything is going to far.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero, I have read the link you provided about the police officer. It doesn’t say anything about hand guns.

 

[Libero]

Libero, I have read the link you provided about the police officer. It doesn’t say anything about hand guns.

Oh, sorry, I din’t know you wanted it to be about handguns, I only mentioned him because of the new methods he was using and the sucess that it has had. I think you may struggle to find anything interesting about guns and our police officers

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

Ah, that is right. You live in a country where the government takes far more money from you in taxes to cover your “free” medical care than we will ever pay for insurance.

Except that you actually pay 15.3% of GDP

cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/highlights.asp

and we only pay about 9%. Oh well, nice theory.

The only problem is that criminals big or small do not buy their guns in gun stores. It is far easier and cheaper to buy them on the street and they do not have to pass a background check. Every time a load of drugs is seized coming into the country a load of illegal guns is found with it. All the gun bans in the world will never keep guns out of the hands of those who ignore the law, only those who obey it.

Or alternatively they take them from a legal owner or a legal gun shop. You don’t have those, there are fewer sources for guns in the first place.

The simple fact can’t be got around that the weapon of choice in the UK for the average burglar or mugger or shoplifter isn’t a gun.

The tone of the articles I posted was that the under reporting of crimes was more rampant after the ban, not that is was consistant.

Again, if you seek proof look to the sources in your own country that are making these claims.

I don’t see they were implying that the under-reporting has got worse. I certainly don’t see that it has anything to do with gun-related crime, either way.

The fact that locking everyone up (a silly notion) would be going too far does not mean that anything is going to far.

Agreed. We then have to determine where the line is to be drawn.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

You may recall, the King of England once decided Americans shouldn’t have guns, and sent out some troops to confiscate them.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif