Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[Ani_Ibi]

Zerith:

Canada and America contributed to the war

I’m honestly dumbfounded at such a remark! How did Canada and America contribute to the War? By American naval vessels being attacked at Pearl Harbour? By Canadian civilian vessels being attacked in the Gulf of St Lawrence?

Zerith:

but it is very ignorant to say you “Bailed Europe out”.

You are resorting to personal attack which really lacks all courtesy, is not a friendly gesture, and indicates to me that you have conceded the argument.

Zerith:

You’re looking at one, arrogant, factor, regarding yourselfs as the rescuers, and not at the whole picture.

And it’s yourself who is going to go to all the trouble of setting out a detailed argument for the ‘whole picture’ with evidencing links? Riiiiight. As for us being the rescuers: surely you most grievously jest. In view of the most eggregious, horrific, and brave sacrifices made by Canadian troops for people on the other side of a wide ocean, surely such a statement on your part was a slip of the tongue, unintended, and ill-advised.

By the way, wasn’t the Republic neutral?

Zerith:

As someone who’s greatly interested in history, I get easily annoyed over such innacurate statements.

Greatly interested enough to grace us with demonstrations of awareness of the Canadian role in the War? Well get annoyed with yourself then for not putting up a more persuasive demonstration of historical acumen. ‘Greatly interested in history’ is something easily said. Demonstration of same alas requires something other than mere saying, I suspect.

What you have demonstrated is a great deal of difficulty respecting the original topic which is the proposed ban on handguns by the Liberal Party of Canada in the present election campaign. This despite more than a couple of requests from me and one request from the moderator.

 

[MikeWM]

Sir Knight:

Oh, yea of litte faith, here’s the Holy See’s statement to the UN Small Arms Conference from the Vatican’s own website … … bolding & underlining added by me.

Try reading the whole thing. I’m sure you know the meaning of the word ‘can’ just as well as I do. The very next sentence says

This is not an absolute right, since there are specific conditions placed on the licitness of the production, possession and acquisition of arms.

and that entire speech is a statement about the desirability of strict controls on arms.

Mike

 

[Eireann]

MikeWM:

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

Mike

Responsible for the lives of others, like your play on words I’ll ask you where does it say military and police ?

It say’s those in authority.

Is a father not responsible for the lives of his household if some criminal decides to shorten their lives ?

You of all people should know an Englishman’s home is his castle, and castle’s were defended with firearms.

By the time we call those in the police authority, and by the time they get here, we’d be dead.

 

[rlg94086]

“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 or transfer of arms”. (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).This is not an absolute right, since there are specific conditions placed on the licitness of the production, possession and acquisition of arms. Nonetheless, in our meeting today the topic is fairly limited. Here we are discussing illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. This is, in a manner of speaking, a negative statement of the fundamental question of the legitimacy of the international arms trade.

So, the two bolded segments taken together means, to me anyway, that private ownership is okay, but some restrictions may apply.

I don’t think absolutes are in order on either side of the debate. For example: it can be argued that a handgun is the best form of personal defense in a home. On the other hand, it can be argued that there is no need for a sub-machinegun.

At least, that’s the way I see it.

:twocents:

 

[MikeWM]

Eireann:

Responsible for the lives of others, like your play on words I’ll ask you where does it say military and police ?

It say’s those in authority.

Is a father not responsible for the lives of his household if some criminal decides to shorten their lives ?

You of all people should know an Englishman’s home is his castle, and castle’s were defended with firearms.

By the time we call those in the police authority, and by the time they get here, we’d be dead.

You are confusing responsiblity and authority. They are not the same thing.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

You are confusing responsiblity and authority. They are not the same thing.

Mike

Any course in management or leadership will reveal the fallacy there – you cannot have responsibility without the authority to act. Nor can you have authority without responsibility.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Sir Knight:

Oh, yea of litte faith, here’s the Holy See’s statement to the UN Small Arms Conference from the Vatican’s own website … … bolding & underlining added by me.

Thanks for this Sir Knight. Very interesting. Here are some excerpts:

…it is impossible to banall kinds of small arms and light weapons…

"In a world marked by evil … the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists…

there are specific conditions placed on the licitness of the production, possession and acquisition of arms…

We are all aware that, in terms of political and economic realism, those who engage in the illicittrade of arms, as well as warlords and armed bands with terrorist or criminal intentions, have little to gain from a specific international arms agreement.

The kind of gun control which the Vatican seems to be envisaging is the removal of guns from illicit sources and from child-soldiers. Removing guns from those on whom criminals prey does not make sense. This is not to say that efforts to promote peace should be abandoned. I don’t think anyone here has said that peace efforts should be abandoned.

I myself have said that Toronto is a city full of community peace initiatives, including some very notable individuals who put everything on the line to act as beacons for confused children and youth. The influence of reason and of neighbourliness is not to be taken lightly. Reason and neighbourliness are not effective tools, however, with those who have abandoned such virtues for raw dominance, violence, and predation.

We have said nothing thusfar about child soldiers. The equivalents in our society are armed mules. It’s one thing that a child defends herself, himself, or a family member. It’s another thing that a child defends a drug lord. None of this is comfortable. Some of this is, however, justifiable or, as the Catechism says, ‘legimate.’

 

[Ani_Ibi]

rlg94086:

For example: it can be argued that a handgun is the best form of personal defense in a home. On the other hand, it can be argued that there is no need for a sub-machinegun.

Do you think I should buy a tank?

 

[rlg94086]

That’s not an accurate assessment. Please note the juxtaposition of these two statements.

This is not an absolute right, since there are specific conditions placed on the licitness of the production, possession and acquisition of arms. Nonetheless, in our meeting today the topic is fairly limited. Here we are discussing illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.

The author stated the conditions, before going on to say “nonetheless” we are discussing illicit trade… To paraphrase…there isn’t an absolute right in general, but we are here to talk about this case…
Ani Ibi:

Thanks for this Sir Knight. Very interesting. Here are some excerpts:

The kind of gun control which the Vatican seems to be envisaging is the removal of guns from illicit sources and from child-soldiers. Removing guns from those on whom criminals prey does not make sense. This is not to say that efforts to promote peace should be abandoned. I don’t think anyone here has said that peace efforts should be abandoned.

I myself have said that Toronto is a city full of community peace initiatives, including some very notable individuals who put everything on the line to act as beacons for confused children and youth. The influence of reason and of neighbourliness is not to be taken lightly. Reason and neighbourliness are not effective tools, however, with those who have abandoned such virtues for raw dominance, violence, and predation.

We have said nothing thusfar about child soldiers. The equivalents in our society are armed mules. It’s one thing that a child defends herself, himself, or a family member. It’s another thing that a child defends a drug lord. None of this is comfortable. Some of this is, however, justifiable or, as the Catechism says, ‘legimate.’

 

[rlg94086]

Ani Ibi:

Do you think I should buy a tank?

Not necessarily, but I wouldn’t recommend a wet noodle either. Besides being limited in their effectiveness, they dry out.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

Any course in management or leadership will reveal the fallacy there – you cannot have responsibility without the authority to act. Nor can you have authority without responsibility.

Vern is right. Having authority means having legitimate power. That legitimate power includes knowledge and therefore responsibility. In the US and Canada, we have no problem considering a well-informed street person to be responsible and therefore a person with authority to make decisions in a democracy, notwithstanding that he/she may neither have attended Harvard nor have a chauffeur to park the Rolls. More or less it’s a case of what you know, not who you know.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

rlg94086:

That’s not an accurate assessment. Please note the juxtaposition of these two statements.

The author stated the conditions, before going on to say “nonetheless” we are discussing illicit trade… To paraphrase…there isn’t an absolute right in general, but we are here to talk about this case…

I’m not following you rlg. And as for the wet noodles not being a wise choice in self-defence tactics: this is so true; they do dry out.

 

[rlg94086]

Ani Ibi:

I’m not following you rlg. And as for the wet noodles not being a wise choice in self-defence tactics: this is so true; they do dry out.

From a logical progression point-of-view, the juxtaposition of the two statements is important. The author makes a clear distinction:

X is true, but we are here to talk specifically about Y. In this format, X is a general truth and doesn’t apply only to Y.

In this case, ‘X’ is the statement “not an absolute right” and ‘Y’ is “illicit trade…”

Your analysis that the “The kind of gun control which the Vatican seems to be envisaging is the removal of guns from illicit sources and from child-soldiers.” is true as far as the totality of the document. However, it is not a valid assessment of the statement that ownership is not an absolute right.

Further evidence is in the previous paragraph:

Unfortunately, however**, it is impossible to ban all kinds of small arms and light weapons**. “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 or transfer of arms”. (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).

To me, it is clear that the use of the word “all” in the first bolded segment implies that it is possible to ban “some”. In the second bolded (and italicized) segment, the word “all” is not used. So it doesn’t justify the possession or transfer of “all” arms.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

It’s in the Bill of Rights.

Not in Canada’s, apparently, yet something tells me you’d insist that the right to carry firearms is a right granted to Canadians as well.

Which article of the Bill of Rights are you quoting here?

I was thinking more along the lines of the Declaration of Independence. If you can get “handguns” out of "right of self defense, surely it’s not much of a stretch to get “universal health care” out of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

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.

Let’s make sure this is exactly quid pro quo. You agree to give up your gun should you find yourself unemployed or facing financial hardship, and I’ll agree to stick with our current health care system. Or, alternatively, I’ll grant you universal gun access if you grant me universal health care.

 

[Libero]

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?

Bailing us out, ahem what? We won the battle of Britain, and further more, perhaps you forget that should the Nazi’s try to invade us, we still had our Navy virtuallu intact - the most powerful navy in the world we were perfectly capable of defending ourselves. Also the Russians were constantly attacking, Hitler had other problems. Canada and the US played an important role, but essentially they just helped to finish the Nazi’s.

Problems have solutions.

Lemme guess - more guns?

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.

Improvising can go wrong so easily.

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

It also seems logical that the shooter shocked by what he has just done would want to flee. The cases that are used here involve people filled with such hate that they seem almost imaginable. Have people here been fed propoganda?

A gate can be shot open.

A door is like a gate.

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

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

No criminal goes through all this, can you really evidence a situation where all these have been overcome, in the case of normal people? And did you ever think that in the 10 minutes it takes the criminal to do all this, you could just get to safety, sneak out the back door, get to your car etc?

What attributes would this room have? Invisibility?

A locked door with all the furniture stcked up behind it, he cant shoot a ton of wardrobe, bed, desk, and cabinet out of the way, he just would not bother, then you call the police, or climb out the window or something, or the criminal may just assume no one is home.

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

And if you are not? Your family are all killed.

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.

Detterant? Have you ever thought that if there is a person willing to go to such lengths to get into your home as you have described, he is gonna look for a fight, he could be a better gunman than you, he might actually be attracted to this pro gun community.

 

[Eireann]

Libero:

No criminal goes through all this, can you really evidence a situation where all these have been overcome, in the case of normal people? And did you ever think that in the 10 minutes it takes the criminal to do all this, you could just get to safety, sneak out the back door, get to your car etc?

Out the back door umm ! well if you have SKY TV try watching Reality TV from the USA.

People behind counters have no escape, their only escape is through the gunman, it’s either comply or die, sadly for some they die anyway.

 

[Achatius]

How about these people behind the counter oblige to the gunpersons’ wishes? Does it hurt that much to, instead of taking a life, whether it be the criminal’s or the shopkeeper’s, for the person behind the counter to give the criminal what they desire then claim it on insurance?

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

Any course in management or leadership will reveal the fallacy there – you cannot have responsibility without the authority to act. Nor can you have authority without responsibility.

I would agree. It still doesn’t make them the same thing though.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

To me, it is clear that the use of the word “all” in the first bolded segment implies that it is possible to ban “some”. In the second bolded (and italicized) segment, the word “all” is not used. So it doesn’t justify the possession or transfer of “all” arms.

I agree. It seems quite clear to me that they are specifically discussing certain situations. It needs to be remembered that they are discussing the totality of world affairs here, and so are including situations of civil war, and those horrible sights we see on the TV of 10-year-olds lugging around AK47s. I can see in some such situations having a gun might well be necessary to have a chance of surviving sensibly. I’m not convinced he is really saying anything at all about day-to-day living in civilized peaceful societies like our own.

It doesn’t follow that they are talking in big general terms, indeed he specifically says the topic is limited. I don’t see any inconsistency between this statement and the posiiton of the USCCB.

Mike

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero:

Bailing us out, ahem what?

Ahem: bailing you out.

Libero:

We won the battle of Britain, and further more, perhaps you forget that should the Nazi’s try to invade us, we still had our Navy virtuallu intact - the most powerful navy in the world we were perfectly capable of defending ourselves.

So when you were ‘asking’ the Canadians for help, you were in essence crying wolf? Noted for the next time you ask. As for your Navy: it’s best advantage has been the volatile weather of the English Channel.

Libero:

Also the Russians were constantly attacking, Hitler had other problems. Canada and the US played an important role, but essentially they just helped to finish the Nazi’s.

They just helped finish the Nazis? We’ll remember how much store you put in the Canadians helping to ‘finish off’ the Nazis. Finish off indeed.

Libero:

Lemme guess - more guns?

Not necessarily. Just that problems have solutions. That is, rather than rolling over and appeasing the oppressor, a solution can be sought to resist the oppressor. Radical notion! Tea?

Libero:

Improvising can go wrong so easily.

Is this a justification for appeasement? Improvising can go wrong. Planning can go wrong. And appeasement can most definitely go wrong, in fact is guaranteed to go wrong. Solutions in general can go wrong. Does that excuse just laying back and letting someone else take care of the problem? Laying back would create a kind of class system would it not? One class would experience problems and another class would have to provide solutions.

Libero:

It also seems logical that the shooter shocked by what he has just done would want to flee.

This is wishful thinking and grasping at straws. It is not logic. The shooter may want to flee. The shooter may want to kill all the witnesses so that he/she can avoid being identified, caught, and therefore prevented from continuing a career in crime.

Libero:

The cases that are used here involve people filled with such hate that they seem almost imaginable.

This is a personal attack which indicates that you have exhausted your cache of reasonable responses and have therefore conceded the argument.

Libero:

Have people here been fed propoganda?

Well what do you think?

Libero:

No criminal goes through all this, can you really evidence a situation where all these have been overcome, in the case of normal people?

It is not necessary to evidence this. You proposed that gates, doors, double-glazed windows, dogs, and second-story rooms can stop gun-toting intruders. I demonstrated that they cannot.

Libero:

And did you ever think that in the 10 minutes it takes the criminal to do all this, you could just get to safety, sneak out the back door, get to your car etc?

10 minutes. Is that how long it takes?

Libero:

A locked door with all the furniture stcked up behind it

How many minutes do you propose it takes to stack all the furniture up behind the locked door? Or do you propose that as a preventive measure the furniture be stacked behind a locked door everytime you come home from work – in which case, how many minutes would it take you to unstack the furniture in the event of a fire?

Libero:

he cant shoot a ton of wardrobe, bed, desk, and cabinet out of the way, he just would not bother, then you call the police, or climb out the window or something, or the criminal may just assume no one is home.

Climb out the window? The same window that the intruder might blow a hole through after discovering the furniture stacked behind the door? And after the criminal assumes no one is home, he does what? Waits until you come back to rob you? Or breaks, enter, loots, and takes off into the sunset without your knowledge? Or hides in the kitchen and waits until you come back to do whatever else he/she had in mind if he/she was not content to merely rob you. Like maybe he/she wanted your credit cards too? Or something more personal?

continued…