S
st.jerome
Guest
OK, I’ll look at this and get back to you later. 
- Status
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
A question for you anti-gunners…OK, I’ll look at this and get back to you later.
Are you against self-defense in any form? If I used my knife (which is more deadly than my pistol), or a baseball bat, or a sword, or any other weapon, would you be against it? Is it only the firearms that you are against…or is it the entire concept of self defense?
And please don’t give me any bull about ‘non-lethal’ self defense. The frail, infirm and plain weaklings out there are unable to overpower most criminals without some form of equalizing force. And there is NO SUCH THING as a non-lethal weapon- there are LESS-lethal weapons, but they can still kill.
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
I would much rather have a pistol than a knife. Encroachment limit is 15 feet, then it is double shot, center mass like I was taught.
None of that grapling nonsense, or letting the other person get close to you.
None of that grapling nonsense, or letting the other person get close to you.
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
Agreed. My 1911 goes everywhere with me. But I still carry my knife…a ‘just in case’ measure…
A
Arba_Sicula
Guest
To those several posters who insisted, against all common sense, that the Jews of Christ’s time could carry swords:
Go to Frontpagemag.com, April 12, 2001 “2001, A Faith Oddity”:
“Palestine was a nation under Roman occupation and subject to Imperial dictates. Ordinary people were not permitted to have or carry swords. In Jerusalem, the only non-Romans allowed to carry swords were the Jewish Temple guards, by special Roman dispensation.”
As Peter was carrrying a sword, he was doing so illegally.
Go to Frontpagemag.com, April 12, 2001 “2001, A Faith Oddity”:
“Palestine was a nation under Roman occupation and subject to Imperial dictates. Ordinary people were not permitted to have or carry swords. In Jerusalem, the only non-Romans allowed to carry swords were the Jewish Temple guards, by special Roman dispensation.”
As Peter was carrrying a sword, he was doing so illegally.
A
Arba_Sicula
Guest
For me, I oppose ordinary citizens carrying a concealed handgun in public. I have no beef against those who want to keep a handgun at home or on their business premises.
.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Arba Sicula:
Arba Sicula:
And even though they were not LEGALLY allowed to carry a sword, the Son of God still commanded them to go out and buy one – even selling your coat if you have to in order to purchase one!
Arba Sicula:
And what go is that gun at home going to do for me if I am attacked outside my home? If would be the same as if I told you to leave your life jacket at home while going out boating – it would be of no use to you if you needed it. The same applies to a gun.
A
Arba_Sicula
Guest
Beat is in Brooklyn? Where? It’s a huge city in its own right with some 2.3 million people and many. many different neighborhoods. Where is it that they want to get out of? Red Hook? Okay. Bush Terminal? Okay. East New York? Okay. Park Slope? They’d be fools to want to leave that posh neighborhood. DUMBO (Down Under Manhattan Bridge Overpass)? A great, vibrant neighborhood risen like a phoenix from the old 19th century shipping docks. Carroll Gardens? Very upscale, yuppy streets, good restaurants and shops.
Maybe they’d prefer the South Bronx? (Remember the movie “Fort Apache”?)
That has happened to me in a rough neighborhood along the Gowanus Canal around 1 a.m… There were “toughs” on stoops there, but no one bothered me. I just locked the car and walked to the nearest subway station.
You folks in the boonies have strange notions of the dangers of New York City. It’s a lot safer city than many in the “heartland” or the Old South where every one can go around waving a pistol.
A
Arba_Sicula
Guest
Sir Knight:
If you’re right, I’d never go to your town or city if I’d have to live like that. I’m truly sorry for you to have to live in such a hellhole.
Read some Catholic exegesis of that passage. It’s available on the Internet. Christ’s command was intended to be temporary.
Where do you live, man, that you are petrified of being attacked outside your home? Where in the “Lehigh Valley” is this area full of assailants and robbers that you need to go out armed? Even here in Brooklyn, I can go out without being in fear!
If you’re right, I’d never go to your town or city if I’d have to live like that. I’m truly sorry for you to have to live in such a hellhole.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Arba Sicula:
I grew up in Irvington, NJ just six blocks from the Newark city line. Newark is a mini-NYC and I can honestly tell you that I feel safer in the hills of PA where everyone “every one can go around waving a pistol” than I did in Newark where law-abiding citizens weren’t allowed to be armed and the criminal element ignored those laws and WERE armed and there were no police in sight.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Are you against self-defense in any form? If I used my knife (which is more deadly than my pistol), or a baseball bat, or a sword, or any other weapon, would you be against it? Is it only the firearms that you are against…or is it the entire concept of self defense?
And please don’t give me any bull about ‘non-lethal’ self defense. The frail, infirm and plain weaklings out there are unable to overpower most criminals without some form of equalizing force. And there is NO SUCH THING as a non-lethal weapon- there are LESS-lethal weapons, but they can still kill.
I have nothing against weapons in general. It’s the resistance against reasonable restrictions I have a problem with. Restricting guns in high-density urban areas is a reasonable restriction. No one in NYC needs to be carrying on a daily basis. Hunting equipment, no problem. Assault weapons, ridiculous and unjustifiable. Handguns at home – probably not a good idea given the high frequency in which they are used in suicides or involved in accidental killings, but constitutionally probably beyond the scope of legitimate government regulation. A community should, however, have the latitude to restrict weapons in shared space (sidewalks, streets, restaurants, etc).
Now perhaps in other places it makes more sense to carry a gun. If I lived in a part of Alaska where I could run into bears, for instance, carrying a gun could make a lot of sense.
Now, as to the “self-defense” argument, I have several problems with it. First, if you’re mugged, the best form of self defense is to give the money and run. Trying to be a hero is a good way to die. Throw the money at the ground and take off, even if the mugger has a gun (the odds strongly favor you being missed, whereas confrontation will almost certainly get you shot). Second, I have a problem with the worldview the self-defense argument posits (see post#208).
Also, a point on public policy – you don’t write law based on exceptions. For example, if, for every 1000 lives saved by a seatbelt, 1 person is actually killed by his or her seatbelt; you don’t then conclude that seatbelts should be non-mandatory, or even illegal. Similarly, citing the occasional incidence where a gun saved a life should not be the basis for public policy.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Arba Sicula:
A person could live in a community with a near zero crime rate and have the luck of the draw be against them and find themselves the victim of a crime while another individual who lives in a community with a much higher crime rate have the luck of the draw on their side and never be a victim.
The point is that none of us know when & where crime may strike and therefore it is prudent for us to be prepared at all times.
Most of us will never be in a serious car crash yet most of us wear a seat belt. Most of us will never have a major fire in our homes but most of us still carry insurance. Most of us will never have our home robbed yet most of us still lock our doors most of the time.
It’s called be cautious, being careful. The same applies to carrying guns. Most of us will never have to draw that gun in self defense yet across the country somebody do so everyday. One day, that person may be you.
Far better to be armed and never need to use the gun then to one day not be armed and have need of the gun.
The odds of winning the top jackpot in a lottery are 1 in ten million or some huge figure like that. Most of us can play the lottery all of our lives buying dozens of tickets per drawing and never win the top prize. Yet, almost every week somebody does win that top prize – the luck of the draw was with that person.
A person could live in a community with a near zero crime rate and have the luck of the draw be against them and find themselves the victim of a crime while another individual who lives in a community with a much higher crime rate have the luck of the draw on their side and never be a victim.
The point is that none of us know when & where crime may strike and therefore it is prudent for us to be prepared at all times.
Most of us will never be in a serious car crash yet most of us wear a seat belt. Most of us will never have a major fire in our homes but most of us still carry insurance. Most of us will never have our home robbed yet most of us still lock our doors most of the time.
It’s called be cautious, being careful. The same applies to carrying guns. Most of us will never have to draw that gun in self defense yet across the country somebody do so everyday. One day, that person may be you.
Far better to be armed and never need to use the gun then to one day not be armed and have need of the gun.
A
Arba_Sicula
Guest
Sir Knight:
You want a gun because you perceive a danger that must be protected against. Otherwise, why carry a gun all the time? You say that you feel safer, but you really don’t. If you really felt safe, you’d not need to carry a gun to Mass or to the grocery or to the bank, etc. there in Pennsy.
A
Arba_Sicula
Guest
]
Exactly so. I definitely agree with the rest of your post, but I think that this part expresses the notion most succinctly.
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
Philip P:
I strongly disagree with any city ordinance that restricts the ownership or possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. I have no problem with restricting ownership and use by criminals, and I think that the restriction should be lowered to inlcude people with juvenile records. But leave my guns alone.
I have never broken the law, yet many liberals would try to take my weapons away from me because it makes them feel threatened. Why? I have done nothing wrong. So I own an AK-47? So what. The gun is a tool like any other. I love the military & military history. I love guns, knives, swords, crossbows. Any piece of military equipment. I own many pieces of history that just so happen to be outstanding weapons. So what? I haven’t tried to hurt anyone, I haven’t broken any laws. All I want to do is have the means to protect myself & my family from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And frankly, I feel like there’s more domestic enemies right now than foreign.
Don’t you anti-gun liberals see that you drive people like me into becoming criminals? You attack our rights under the guise of the ‘common good’ and act like we are being unreasonable for not wanting to be lambs led to the slaughter. Your logic leads to a situation like that of the UK or Australia, where people aren’t allowed to defend themselves from criminals. Thats what we’re afraid of. That you will NEVER stop with the restrictions. I’ll lose my right to bear arms, and then when the liberals try to take away my freedoms of speech and religion I will have no way to fight back. I will NEVER give up my arms.
Molon Labe.
Well, feel free to be unarmed. I strongly disagree with your philosophy though. I have been a victim of crime, and I will never be unarmed again. I would rather die a hero than live as a coward.
I strongly disagree with any city ordinance that restricts the ownership or possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. I have no problem with restricting ownership and use by criminals, and I think that the restriction should be lowered to inlcude people with juvenile records. But leave my guns alone.
I have never broken the law, yet many liberals would try to take my weapons away from me because it makes them feel threatened. Why? I have done nothing wrong. So I own an AK-47? So what. The gun is a tool like any other. I love the military & military history. I love guns, knives, swords, crossbows. Any piece of military equipment. I own many pieces of history that just so happen to be outstanding weapons. So what? I haven’t tried to hurt anyone, I haven’t broken any laws. All I want to do is have the means to protect myself & my family from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And frankly, I feel like there’s more domestic enemies right now than foreign.
Don’t you anti-gun liberals see that you drive people like me into becoming criminals? You attack our rights under the guise of the ‘common good’ and act like we are being unreasonable for not wanting to be lambs led to the slaughter. Your logic leads to a situation like that of the UK or Australia, where people aren’t allowed to defend themselves from criminals. Thats what we’re afraid of. That you will NEVER stop with the restrictions. I’ll lose my right to bear arms, and then when the liberals try to take away my freedoms of speech and religion I will have no way to fight back. I will NEVER give up my arms.
Molon Labe.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Philip P:
Philip P:
A few years back a resturant chain prohibited guns in their resturant and on their property. Somebody was mugged in their parking and suedthe chian stating that by limiting his ability to self defense, the resturant had an obligation to provide for his safety. The courts agreed and he received a seven figure settlement and the resturant changed it’s policy.
Philip P:
Philip P:
Japan has a much lower rate of handgun ownership than America yet it has a much higher rate of suicides than America. And as far as accidents are concerned, gun accidents have been declining year after year for over a decade. As a matter of fact, it is 19 times as likely that a child will be injuried or killed in a car accident than via a accident with a gun. Since cars cause 19 times MORE deaths than guns, should the private ownership of cars be outlawed? After all, it will save 19 times as many lives as would outlawing guns.
Philip P:
If a community wishes to restrict my ability to protect myself than that community should provide for my protection and that doesn’t mean having the police show up after the fact when the damage has already been done. And if the community is not willing or able to provide for my protection, then they shouldn’t limit my ability to protect myself.
A few years back a resturant chain prohibited guns in their resturant and on their property. Somebody was mugged in their parking and suedthe chian stating that by limiting his ability to self defense, the resturant had an obligation to provide for his safety. The courts agreed and he received a seven figure settlement and the resturant changed it’s policy.
Philip P:
Suppose you can’t run? Suppose your attacker can outrun you? Suppose your attack needs to prove to his gang brothers how tough he is? Suppose he doesn’t want any witnesses?
Philip P:
The same arguement can be used for placing restrictions on guns as well.
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
Just a thought.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Arba Sicula:
No, you have it backwards. When I have my gun with me I feel safer because I know I have a means of self defense. When I don’t have my gun with me, I feel less safer because I know that if something should happen, I am less equiped to deal with the situation.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Arba Sicula:
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Philip P:
Accidental fatalities by firearms are very low and trending down – you are far more likely to drown in a swimming pool than shoot yourself – yet you don’t call for outlawing swimming pools.
Philip P:
A community should, however, have the latitude to restrict weapons in shared space (sidewalks, streets, restaurants, etc).
Why? What good does it do?
We have clearly shown that liberalized carry laws are associated with reductions in violent crime – at no cost to the taxpayer.
Philip P:
Philip P:
Trying to be a hero is a good way to die. Throw the money at the ground and take off, even if the mugger has a gun (the odds strongly favor you being missed, whereas confrontation will almost certainly get you shot).
You have a very active imagination, but people get killed every day after they have “thrown the money at the ground.”
Philip P:
Also, a point on public policy – you don’t write law based on exceptions.
Amen! And yet because you postulate a few accidents or suicides (you can’t back it up with numbers), you want to infringe on everyone else’s right to self defense.
That’s false – there is no correlation (despite some very disengenuous attempts to prove there is) between availability of firearms and suicide.
Accidental fatalities by firearms are very low and trending down – you are far more likely to drown in a swimming pool than shoot yourself – yet you don’t call for outlawing swimming pools.
Philip P:
A community should, however, have the latitude to restrict weapons in shared space (sidewalks, streets, restaurants, etc).
Why? What good does it do?
We have clearly shown that liberalized carry laws are associated with reductions in violent crime – at no cost to the taxpayer.
Philip P:
You have data to back that up? There is a treaty that says if you give them your money they won’t hurt you? Cripples, elderly people and so on are able to outrun young, tough muggers?
Philip P:
Trying to be a hero is a good way to die. Throw the money at the ground and take off, even if the mugger has a gun (the odds strongly favor you being missed, whereas confrontation will almost certainly get you shot).
You have a very active imagination, but people get killed every day after they have “thrown the money at the ground.”
Philip P:
Also, a point on public policy – you don’t write law based on exceptions.
Amen! And yet because you postulate a few accidents or suicides (you can’t back it up with numbers), you want to infringe on everyone else’s right to self defense.
- Status