Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero:

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

What point are you making? What does this have to do with guns as a deterrant? The argument about guns being a deterrant is that most predators want an easy take. If they know that a citizenry is armed, they will either find an unarmed neighbourhood or they will be more subtle in their habits. Having said that, there will be criminals who go to extremes.

In the scenario of a criminal facing myself and my family, you are assuming that if he/she kills me then I am the only one who knows how to use a gun in my family. The posters here who have been talking about getting proper gun training have been saying that all members of the family should know how to respect the dangers of guns and learn how to use them safely and accurately. In your scenario, while the criminal is busy killing me, the family has him through the crosshairs of their own guns. Like an intruder is going raise a gun to ten armed householders. Not very likely.

Libero:

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.

Most predators are not looking for a fight. They are looking for an easy take which is not possible against an armed ‘victim.’ For those predators who are ‘looking for a fight’ maybe getting a tank would be preferable to getting a wet noodle.

As for people being better than me: that is close to being 100% of the population of earth. Being better isn’t everything. Being resourceful, calm, and persistent goes a long way; much further, in fact, than being better. That’s the essence – in part – of the American dream: the little guy can make it.

 

[Eireann]

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?

How about giving the gunperson your life and then claiming it off the insurance ?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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?

What effect on the economy do you think astronomically elevated insurance rates would have? In fact, you are asking shopkeepers and by extension insurance companies to subsidize criminals. Do you think criminals are likely to be content with the amount of money available from welfare? I somehow doubt it. I think you are looking at large amounts of money.

If you want to see the real harm that such practises do to real human beings, real economies, and real societies, then look at the bloody dictatorships in the world. Same principles at work.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Eireann:

How about giving the gunperson your life and then claiming it off the insurance ?

Double indemnity?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Eireann:

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.

More often than not in Toronto the shopkeepers have become a feisty lot. I’ve seen so many videotapes of masked robbers holding up a shopkeeper at gun point, the shopkeeper reaching into the cash register, and then bopping the robber with a baseball bat or some such thing, shouting and carrying on, pulling the mask off. The thing about cash registers is that the range is pulled into arms length. It’s still very risky – but not impossible – to disable the robber.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

rlg94086:

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:

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.

So, in your interpretation, what is the Vatican saying about private citizens owning small arms for self-defence?

 

[Sir_Knight]

MikeWM:

I don’t see any inconsistency between this statement and the posiiton of the USCCB

Except that they clearly state that our right to self defense, specifically mentioning those who are responsible for the safety of others and the good of the family, JUSTIFIES the possession of arms – that is a statement in SUPPORT of gun ownership.

MikeWM:

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

can v. - able to; used to indicate possession of a specified power, right, or privilege* The President can veto congressional bills – The President is able to veto congressional bills.

• That right alone can justify the possession of arms – That right alone is able to justify the possession of arms.

MikeWM:

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.

While the DESIRABILITY is to control arms, the church recognizes that our duty to protect ourselves, our families and society JUSTIFIES the possession of arms – again, an official statement of the church in support of gun ownership.

Combine THAT with what is said in the CCC regarding our GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others, and the only conclusion that can be drawn is in SUPPORT of gun ownership.

 

[2shelbys]

Libero:

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.

The U.S. “just helped to finish the Nazis”. Your knowledge of WWII is seriously lacking. Without Lend-Lease and American protection of American-built convoys Britian would have been lost. In fact, Britian was well on it’s way to defeat when Churchill decided to take advantage of a German navigator’s mistake to influence a major change in German tactics. An He111 crew that could not locate it’s target because of weather decided to ditch it’s bombs in the Channel but they were actually over London and caused damage to a residential area. Churchill used this as an excuse to deliberately attack residential areas in Berlin knowing that the embarrasment to Hitler and Göring would result in them turning away from concentration on England’s nearly decimated RAF bases to attacking London. Churchill decided to sacrifice civilians in order to survive and it worked. If the attacks had continued to focus on the RAF for a mere few weeks more Britian would have been defenseless. The Navy you brag so much about would have been sitting ducks without air cover.

The U.S. played the major role in defeating the Nazis in the west, not a supporting one. The U.S. led not only in manpower but particularly in industrial capacity. While building up our own strength we were supplying not only Britian with weapons but also Russia. We supplied the vast majority of the merchant ships that kept Britian alive. When it became obvious to Bomber Command that Britian could not support the losses incurred when bombing Germany by day the U.S. 8th Air Force took on the duty and let the RAF bomb by night which was MUCH safer. I could go on and on but will not because this is off topic. It just really bothers me to see the U.S. role belittled by someone who owes their freedom and their life to American efforts.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

2shelbys:

The U.S. “just helped to finish the Nazis”… It just really bothers me to see the U.S. role belittled by someone who owes their freedom and their life to American efforts.

Ditto for owing freedom and life to America’s northern neighbour, Canada.

Dieppe:

The attack upon Dieppe took place on August 19, 1942. The troops involved totalled 6,000 of whom 5,000 were Canadians, the remainder being British Commandos and 50 American Rangers… Conflicting assessments of the value of the raid continue to be presented. Some claim that it was a useless slaughter; others maintain that it was necessary to the successful invasion of the continent two years later on D-Day… Of the 4,963 Canadians who embarked for the operation, only 2,210 returned to England, and many of these were wounded. There were 3,367 casualties, including 1,946 prisoners of war; 907 Canadians lost their lives.

That settled, Libero, – although an apology would have been preferable – shall we return to the notion of private citizens having hand guns?

 

[Achatius]

Ani Ibi:

As for your Navy: it’s best advantage has been the volatile weather of the English Channel.

How dare you insult the status and credibility of the Royal Navy: the best navy this world has ever seen, with a history of the greatest battles ever won at sea under its belt. ‘Britannia rules the waves’

 

[Libero]

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.

We invented the Dreadnought which inspired and won the Naval Race, it also revolutionised armed naval craft, our navy has been the most powerful throughtout history, the French ofcourse are notably powerful, we have far more than rough sea on our side.

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.

Tell me, where the Canadians and the Americans when war was declared, when Poland was attacked, and when France surrendered? In all reality the Canadians decided to join the war at a late stage, Hitler had suffered signifcant defeats, and was waiting to be destroyed, with the Americans, Canadians, French and British, and all others, a pre emptive strike was launched and Hitler was “finished off” as I have put it. I am not downplaying the significant acheivement the Canadians made, but I am not going to accept what I know to be incorrect.

 

[Achatius]

Here here old chap, jolly good show!

 

[Achatius]

I think that Canadians have a very good history with war efforts though, in both world wars.

 

[Libero]

The U.S. “just helped to finish the Nazis”. Your knowledge of WWII is seriously lacking. Without Lend-Lease and American protection of American-built convoys Britian would have been lost. In fact, Britian was well on it’s way to defeat when Churchill decided to take advantage of a German navigator’s mistake to influence a major change in German tactics. An He111 crew that could not locate it’s target because of weather decided to ditch it’s bombs in the Channel but they were actually over London and caused damage to a residential area. Churchill used this as an excuse to deliberately attack residential areas in Berlin knowing that the embarrasment to Hitler and Göring would result in them turning away from concentration on England’s nearly decimated RAF bases to attacking London. Churchill decided to sacrifice civilians in order to survive and it worked. If the attacks had continued to focus on the RAF for a mere few weeks more Britian would have been defenseless. The Navy you brag so much about would have been sitting ducks without air cover.

You have forgotten to mention the significant dent the RAF had made in the Luftwaffe, sitting ducks is not the term, rather defensive eagles. The navy I brag about so much requires such, it has acheived brilliant feats, and whilst you are keen to write it off as useless in defending Britain against the Nazis, I shall not.

The U.S. played the major role in defeating the Nazis in the west, not a supporting one. The U.S. led not only in manpower but particularly in industrial capacity. While building up our own strength we were supplying not only Britian with weapons but also Russia. We supplied the vast majority of the merchant ships that kept Britian alive. When it became obvious to Bomber Command that Britian could not support the losses incurred when bombing Germany by day the U.S. 8th Air Force took on the duty and let the RAF bomb by night which was MUCH safer. I could go on and on but will not because this is off topic. It just really bothers me to see the U.S. role belittled by someone who owes their freedom and their life to American efforts.

That is your historical opinion, whilst America and Canada did acheive great feats in battle, they really would not have gotten anywhere without the knowledge that the British had, they would have been useless if it were not for intelligence acquired with great help from Britain.

Whilst I shall apologise if it appears that I have downplayed the importance of the Canadian and American forces, I shall not apologise for my historical opinion, history is all about interpretation of events, that is why two books by authors of similar credentials shall differ on any one subject. It is hardly suprising that I have a different opinion of the war, based on fact, to that of some people here.

Anyway, back to the topic …

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero:

I am not downplaying the significant acheivement the Canadians made, but I am not going to accept what I know to be incorrect.

Yes, you are downplaying the significant achievement the Canadians made. No question about it.

As for accepting what you know to be incorrect: you seriously overstate your case. We have shown that your notion of English military supremacy is incorrect, yet you persist.

Ultimately, I remind you that this is not a thread on WWII. If you want to discuss English military supremacy then please do so – but on a separate thread.

PS: The days of the British Empire are over.

PPS: For a clear insight into the actual behavior of gun-toting criminals, please read the statement made by Governor Schwartzneggar on not commuting Tookie Williams’s death sentence: **STATEMENT OF DECISION ****(corrected version) Request for Clemency by Stanley Williams
**

 

[Achatius]

I doubt that anyone would doubt the effort and achievement that the Canadians made in the war, and I definately do not believ that this is what Libero is doing.

P.S. May I remind you that the British commonwealth appears to still be intact…

 

[Achatius]

I don’t think that anyone can take Governor Schwarznegger seriously.

 

[Libero]

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.

Is this not pesimistic thinking?

How did the song go again?

“Always look on the bright side of life…”

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.

Appeasment is not guarenteed to go wrong, but is a gun really a solution? It is infact a way to combat the issue, not to address the issue, and whilst you may argue that there is no real way to address the problem, I am sure that the police, with some of their best officers, and the community could make a way.

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

Sorry if you think it is a personal attack, it is not meant to be, however there is some truth behind it, to me, the typee of people that are talked about as performing these crimes seem to be filled with such hate and no other aim that they are unimaginable.

10 minutes. Is that how long it takes?

I dont know, but it wont take 30 seconds.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Achatius:

How dare you insult the status and credibility of the Royal Navy: the best navy this world has ever seen, with a history of the greatest battles ever won at sea under its belt. ‘Britannia rules the waves’

Chill, seriously.

 

[wabrams]

Achatius:

How dare you insult the status and credibility of the Royal Navy: the best navy this world has ever seen, with a history of the greatest battles ever won at sea under its belt. 'Britannia rules the waves ’

Until World War II, when the US Navy surpassed them.