The Right to Bear Arms

[triumphguy]

Sauce. I must admit, though, that I mispoke about the rape rate. A person is only 2.25x more likely to be raped in England than in USA. The last debate I had was with a French person and I accidently recalled the wrong statistic.

And the definition of “rape” for statistical purposes is different in the UK than the US. It includes sexual assault that did not involve penetration

US Crime statistics for rape include any deficiency of consent, including statuatory rape (where the victim may have given consent, but such consent was legally valid).

At any rate, the statistics were provided by UN survey to level the playing field on what crimes were considered.

They were provided but not collected. Anyway - 1 rape is too many - and there’s far too many in either country.

Suicide will happen whether or not guns are involved. As for murder, the vast majority of firearms murder victims fall into the category of 14-24 year olds with a history of criminal activity. The idea that masses of innocent citizens are being gunned down by each other is simply false. In fact, in the United States you have a higher chance of being murdered by a police officer than you do of being murdered by a concealed carry permit holder.

Strangely, if we look at the case of Sweden, which has an extremely high rate of private home possession of firearms, their murder by firearm per capita rate is significantly LOWER than Englands, with a rate of 0.25 per 100K, just shy of Germany’s 0.2 per 100K. England, by comparison, has a 0.7 rate. The USA’s rate is 3.0 per 100K, but again, I hold that that is a problem with the PEOPLE, not the weapons being present.

There is also the strong use of defensive gun use, with an estimated 0.75-3 MILLION times where guns are used to defend against crime per year.

 

[triumphguy]

TG…I’m a little disappointed by this response…being that it is the only comment you made on the post…

I ask you to consider the rest of the post…
There is great outcry when, as happened in Connecticut, a single person kills many…A situation with one criminal and multiple victims.
But consider the situation in the dee burk’s post. Here you have three criminals and one victim… Thee guys were beating up on one guy.
A second guy shows up…without a “force multiplier” such as a gun, what chance does one healthy man have against three healthy assailants?

It just shows that there are two sides to this coin and many people seem to only want to look at one side.

Peace
James

I got interrupted - life continues even when I’m in the middle of a post!

 

[JRKH]

I got interrupted - life continues even when I’m in the middle of a post!

Fair enough. I hope you get a chance to comment on my point later.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

:dts:

It’s a serious point. It’s almost the same point.

How many gun deaths are due to the drug trade. How many illegal guns are owned by drug dealers.

Decriminalize drugs and in the same way that decriminalizing alcohol reduced crime you will see a drop in drug crime.

How much crime is down to the illegal drug trade?

The “war” on drugs was lost long ago.

I bet thousands of the homicides in the US each year are down to the illegal drug trade.

You may just have a very good point here.

Peace
James

 

[triumphguy]

Ok, then, if you are serious, don’t be sarcastic. I’m perfectly capable of being sarcastic and rude myself, and could probably phrase everything I say in a thoroughly insulting way.

When you’re sarcastic in a serious argument, it makes it look like you are just disregarding the other side’s position; which is no way to conduct a conversation.

Settle down - I’m not being sarcastic.

I’m being serious.

Maybe it’s time to look at the drug trade.

There’s not as many homicides over it in Canada as the US, but it’s a huge business, the number 1 crop in BC. Decriminalize it, get the gangs and cartels out of it and they will starve and fade away.

We would have to get rid of human trafficking and the sex trade too as the number 2 money maker for gangs.

However, the sex trade SHOULD stay illegal since it is intrinsically evil.
I wouldn’t call cannabis intrinsically evil, in the same way that I would not call alcohol intrinsically evil.

 

[dshix]

Settle down - I’m not being sarcastic.

I’m being serious.

Maybe it’s time to look at the drug trade.

There’s not as many homicides over it in Canada as the US, but it’s a huge business, the number 1 crop in BC. Decriminalize it, get the gangs and cartels out of it and they will starve and fade away.

We would have to get rid of human trafficking and the sex trade too as the number 2 money maker for gangs.

However, the sex trade SHOULD stay illegal since it is intrinsically evil.
I wouldn’t call cannabis intrinsically evil, in the same way that I would not call alcohol intrinsically evil.

I agree with you. There are many other evils in this world to look at.

However, this thread is about the right to bear arms, so you should make a new thread.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Fascinating. And as demonstrated by the post-election discussion of cessation I suppose?

The word you want is “secession,” which means to secede from the Federal Union, as the 11 southern states did which precipitated the Civil War.

 

[triumphguy]

TG…I’m a little disappointed by this response…being that it is the only comment you made on the post…

I ask you to consider the rest of the post…
There is great outcry when, as happened in Connecticut, a single person kills many…A situation with one criminal and multiple victims.
But consider the situation in the dee burk’s post. Here you have three criminals and one victim… Thee guys were beating up on one guy.
A second guy shows up…without a “force multiplier” such as a gun, what chance does one healthy man have against three healthy assailants?

It just shows that there are two sides to this coin and many people seem to only want to look at one side.

Peace
James

Fair enough. I hope you get a chance to comment on my point later.

Peace
James

I agree with your point. I would not hesitate to use my firearms if necessary (and morally right - ie., legitimate self-defence).

We’ve had the gun debate in Canada fairly recently and the government got rid of the long gun registry - all long gun owners had to register their weapons, It had cost $16billion and did very little to fight crime. The registry was created after someone (I will not use his name - the scum doesn’t deserve to be remembered) used a ruger mini ranch (baby assault rifle) to kill women like a coward in a Quebec college - he let the men go. The fact that he was a mentally ill Moslem with an Arabic name and not just the western name he was known by in the media is very rarely mentioned

Obviously gun crime has not gone up since the registry was dumped.

 

[jwinch2]

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."

– Thomas Jefferson

pp.46 - 47, “The Living Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, Presented by John Dewey”, Fawcett Publications, Inc., Greenwich, Conn.

 

[triumphguy]

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."

– Thomas Jefferson

pp.46 - 47, “The Living Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, Presented by John Dewey”, Fawcett Publications, Inc., Greenwich, Conn.

Thanks for the quote - this explains a lot to an outsider.

 

[Actaeon]

And the definition of “rape” for statistical purposes is different in the UK than the US. It includes sexual assault that did not involve penetration

Then it’s still a sexual assault, still wrong, and still something that the woman should have had the wherewithall to defend herself from.

I don’t know about the UK, but the US Supreme Court ruled in the 1970s that police do not have a duty to prevent crime. Their only binding duty is to investigate crime after it occurs. If the police show up on time and stop a criminal, that’s a great thing… but they aren’t BOUND to do so by law.

Given, then, that there is NO organization whatsoever appointed and legally responsible for protecting citizens from perpetration of violent crime in the United States, it sounds a bit morally reprehensible to deprive citizens of the legitimate means to defense against assault.

They were provided but not collected. Anyway - 1 rape is too many - and there’s far too many in either country

Sure, and that’s the wonderful thing about a gun: it’s the great equalizer. A woman holding a 9 mm is just as deadly (given range) as a man holding a 9 mm. A woman who finds herself on a dark street with a shady character following her and catcalling her CAN possess the legitimate means to defense by having a firearm. A knife, club, taser, etc… all these depend on physical characteristics such as reach, strength, and dexterity. A firearm, by comparison, has a longer reach by default than the average distance at which a gunfight occurs and does not require strength or dexterity to use. As a result, women are MUCH safer against forceful assault by males when armed with appropriate and equalizing defense.

 

[JRKH]

I agree with your point. I would not hesitate to use my firearms if necessary (and morally right - ie., legitimate self-defence).

Thanks.

After I had posted my comments, it occurred to me that while a person armed and motivated can do a great deal of damage, likewise a person who is armed and motivated can prevent a great deal of damage.

We’ve had the gun debate in Canada fairly recently and the government got rid of the long gun registry - all long gun owners had to register their weapons, It had cost $16billion and did very little to fight crime. The registry was created after someone (I will not use his name - the scum doesn’t deserve to be remembered) used a ruger mini ranch (baby assault rifle) to kill women like a coward in a Quebec college - he let the men go. The fact that he was a mentally ill Moslem with an Arabic name and not just the western name he was known by in the media is very rarely mentioned

Obviously gun crime has not gone up since the registry was dumped.

Yes - we have had similar things here…waiting periods and such and they haven’t had any effect on crime either…

Peace
James

 

[jwinch2]

Thanks for the quote - this explains a lot to an outsider.

You’re welcome. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution is worth a look as well.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Peace,

 

[Bill1940]

It could be because I come from a different culture (England/ Ireland), but I find it difficult to reconcile gun ownership with a moral Catholic position…

Yes, it could be that you are from England. Here is an excerpt from a jury instruction from an English trial judge in 1820: “The subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions,…”. Throughout history, the ruling class never disarmed itself. They disarmed the underclass. The Romans disarmed the Jews. Peter carried an illegal for a Jew sword but Our Lord did not rebuke him for doing so. “Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responible for the lives of others or the common good” CC2321. Undoubtedly, I fall into the category of a “whoever”. I am 72 years of age and owned firearms since childhood. I have hunted and gone shooting many times but only once many years ago displayed a revolver to disuade a drunk and violent intruder from harming me and my wife holding our baby in her arms. Never have I understood myself to be contrary to Catholic morality in such regard, nor in regard to my service in the Army. Did you know that in the early days of World War Two, Americans donated private firearms to England? Not to beat up on you but until the Lord returns, we who await His coming must live in the world that is.

 

[triumphguy]

On the Catholic and moral issue:
now.msn.com/vaticans-cardinal-rambo-sticking-to-his-many-guns

One of the Catholic Church’s top cardinals has an unusual hobby for a man of the cloth: a love of firearms. Dubbed “Cardinal Rambo” by Italian newspapers, 68-year-old Domenico Calcagno, the head of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See, has at least 13 weapons in his personal armory, including, as Dirty Harry used to say, “a .357 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world,” as well as a Hatsan shotgun. “I used to go to shooting ranges,” he told Il Fatto Quotidiano, Agence France-Presse reports. “Unfortunately since I’ve been at the Vatican I had to stop. It’s innocent.” What would Jesus think?

And there is a Catholic Patron Saint of shootingp

St. Gabriel Possenti

possentisociety.com/

 

[liturgyluver]

Strangely, if we look at the case of Sweden, which has an extremely high rate of private home possession of firearms, their murder by firearm per capita rate is significantly LOWER than Englands, with a rate of 0.25 per 100K, just shy of Germany’s 0.2 per 100K. England, by comparison, has a 0.7 rate. The USA’s rate is 3.0 per 100K, but again, I hold that that is a problem with the PEOPLE, not the weapons being present.

It’s academic because the rates are both so low but both these sources list the UK below Sweden for the homicide by firearm rate. The UK rate is 0.04 compared with Sweden at 0.19 (or 5 times lower).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

 

[agnes_therese]

I think that’s a valid reason for owning a gun Agnes.

But in your first post of the thread, you said the Catholic Church is “against gun ownership.”

 

[Lost_Sheep]

OK - so the constitution says, in effect, that an American my keep his/her arms, EVEN if the government says hand them in?

Oddly enough, it is because of the constitution that the government CAN’T say hand them in. (This isn’t to say the govt. won’t try.)

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’m going to guess this is a very touchy subject on here, but try to open a reasoned debate in any case. I have read quite a bit here and elsewhere, in defence of gun ownership. It could be because I come from a different culture (England/ Ireland), but I find it difficult to reconcile gun ownership with a moral Catholic position. I completely understand that the basic argument is that guns equate to defence. If you are armed, you are able to defend yourself. I also do not think you could disarm, certainly not quickly. That would mean that the only people left with guns would be those who do not accept the rule of law, and law abiding citizens would then have little or no defence against them.

However, I would like to suggest that the Catholic Church is very solidly, very calmly against gun ownership and that this is very clear and consistent in Catholic teaching. I have written something about it here outlining my argument and providing references and I would invite you to review and please, comment and help me to understand where and if I’ve got this wrong.

News article you cite in your article is prudential judgement on the part of the Bishops. Gun control is not an infallible teaching

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection, (55) Evangelicum Vitae, and Catechism say using a gun for legitimate defense is a right

 

[FightingFat]

I am a gun owner and have a concealed carry permit. i have never had to use my weapon except for targets. my husband has been required to use his for a incident involving a young college couple that were ran off the road by another vehicle with 3 young males over a road-rage incident. the 3 pulled the young driver out of his vehicle and started beating him. my husband was in his truck behind them and saw the whole scene unfold and pulled his .357 and held the 3 at bay until the sheriff could arrive. thankfully, no shots were fired. the young couple were very relieved my husband was there and was carrying and was able to stop the incident.

I would be glad too, but out of interest, this sounds like every member of society has the right/ duty to threaten lethal force. Are you comfortable with that?

just a side note about outlawing weapons in this country being a “solution”…our country has outlawed drugs for many years and yet we have a larger drug problem than ever. our country has a religious problem - pride, greed, and self-absorption are this countries “Gods”, not Christ.

my 2 cents

Interesting, but I think there’s a huge difference between the two.