The Right to Bear Arms

[FightingFat]

For example, in the UK a citizen is 4 times more likely to be assaulted. A woman is 8 times more likely to be raped, and a home is 20 times more likely to be invaded (an invasion occurs when robbers break in while people are present in the home). I don’t have hard statistics on the difference in numbers of stabbing victims, but I think we can safely presume that those statistics are higher in the UK as well.

I’d love to know where you got these figures from? I also don’t recognise that description of the UK to be honest. Of course, we still have the ability, right and duty to defend ourselves here, just not with guns. As I put in the blog, the Catechism explains that though legitimate defence of persons and societies is allowed, it does not constitute an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing; the aggressor may die as a result of your taking action to protect, but this is not the intention of your action. The intention is the defence of the innocent, or those unable to defend themselves against an aggressor (CCC2263). Moderation/ appropriateness is key, you are acting to stop the aggressor harming an innocent, but summary justice cannot be your aim: For a bad effect to be imputable, it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it. (cf. CCC 1737). I would argue that firing a gun at close range does constitute an imputable bad effect; you know your action is likely to kill the person you’re aiming at. I would say that many people here would argue that is your aim when you discharge a gun at someone, not to wound, but to kill. This is clearly not good!

From an external perspective the rate of gun crime in the USA is simply stunning - it leaves one breathless when one compares it with pretty much anywhere outside the world’s war zones. It is tens of thousands of times the level of the UK, for example, and even in proportionate terms, it is thousands of times higher.

 

[liturgyluver]

Catechism say using a gun for legitimate defense is a right

No. It doesn’t say that. The cathecism says:

For this reason, **those who legitimately hold authority **also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

 

[FightingFat]

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

I thought I made that clear in the article?

The right to self-defence is rooted in the natural inclination to self-preservation (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, a. 2).

legitimate defence can be more than a right—it can be a grave duty for one, like a husband, or a father, who is responsible for the lives of others (CCC 2264).

 

[liturgyluver]

I’d love to know where you got these figures from? I also don’t recognise that description of the UK to be honest. Of course, we still have the ability, right and duty to defend ourselves here, just not with guns. As I put in the blog, the Catechism explains that though legitimate defence of persons and societies is allowed, it does not constitute an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing; the aggressor may die as a result of your taking action to protect, but this is not the intention of your action. The intention is the defence of the innocent, or those unable to defend themselves against an aggressor (CCC2263). Moderation/ appropriateness is key, you are acting to stop the aggressor harming an innocent, but summary justice cannot be your aim: For a bad effect to be imputable, it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it. (cf. CCC 1737). I would argue that firing a gun at close range does constitute an imputable bad effect; you know your action is likely to kill the person you’re aiming at. I would say that many people here would argue that is your aim when you discharge a gun at someone, not to wound, but to kill. This is clearly not good!

From an external perspective the rate of gun crime in the USA is simply stunning - it leaves one breathless when one compares it with pretty much anywhere outside the world’s war zones. It is tens of thousands of times the level of the UK, for example, and even in proportionate terms, it is thousands of times higher.

FightingFat, see further up the thread, the figures that you are responding to are completely wrong and aceaton accpeted this in a subsequent post. In fact in terms of crimes per 100k citizens the USA has more rape 30.2 than the UK 25.6, and much higher major assault 281.6 than the UK 32.2 though burglury and minor assault are higher in the UK.

Like you I have rarely heard of a home invasion (apparently it is called a “Hot Burglury” in the US) and when I did some research found that 28% of burglaries in the US fall into this category.

The point is that gun advocates cannot look to Europe to prove anything about crime in the US. Some countries in Europe like Switzerland and in Scandanavia have higher gun owenership for specific reasons (but certainly not to arm themselves against criminals) wheras the rest of Europe has low gun ownership and in both homicide, murder, rape is much lower than the US. The US is unique in the western world for high gun ownership and high homicide which as you say is still off the scale in comparative terms, even though it is the lowest for 50 years.

 

[JRKH]

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?

Everyone has the right (or should have the right) to employ the force necessary to either stop or prevent a violent crime. Part of that involves, getting the attention of the perpetrators and getting them to stop and think. The threat of an instantly deadly force can do that better than just about anything else.

Taking dee burk’s example. When coming upon this scene, what was her husband confronted with? What were his options? How could he most quickly and decisively take control of the situation?
In short, what would most quickly STOP the attack while also keeping and holding the attention of the criminals in fear so that they would not attack him?
Psychologically speaking - in a critical and “out of control” situation as described - nothing will do this better than the threat of deadly force.

So yes I am comfortable with this.

Peace
James

 

[FightingFat]

The point is that gun advocates cannot look to Europe to prove anything about crime in the US. Some countries in Europe like Switzerland and in Scandanavia have higher gun owenership for specific reasons (but certainly not to arm themselves against criminals) wheras the rest of Europe has low gun ownership and in both homicide, murder, rape is much lower than the US. The US is unique in the western world for high gun ownership and high homicide which as you say is still off the scale in comparative terms, even though it is the lowest for 50 years.

Thanks for that, very interesting. I agree the real question seems to be why Americans are so much more likely than anyone else to start shooting each other (compare gun ownership rates in the USA with Canada and Switzerland, and then compare shooting-related fatalities)-- of course this is a psychological, psychiatric and emotional mire.

 

[liturgyluver]

Thanks for that, very interesting. I agree the real question seems to be why Americans are so much more likely than anyone else to start shooting each other (compare gun ownership rates in the USA with Canada and Switzerland, and then compare shooting-related fatalities)-- of course this is a psychological, psychiatric and emotional mire.

I agree - it is something which makes the head hurt. The US Bishops attempted to analyse violence in American Society in a Pastoral letter from 1994 which had some interesting observations and recommendations:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/violence/confronting-a-culture-of-violence-a-catholic-framework-for-action.cfm

we cannot ignore the underlying cultural values that help to create the environment where violence grows: a denial of right and wrong, education that ignores fundamental values, an abandonment of personal responsibility, an excessive and selfish focus on our individual desires, a diminishing sense of obligation to our children and neighbors, a misplaced priority on acquisitions, and media glorification of violence and sexual irresponsibility. In short, we often fail to value life and cherish human beings above possessions, power and pleasure. Less obvious and less visible is the slow motion violence of discrimination and poverty, hunger and hopelessness, addiction and self-destructive behavior

*Not all violence is deadly. It begins with anger, intolerance, impatience, unfair judgements and aggression. It is often reflected in our language, our entertainment, our driving, our competitive behavior, and the way we treat our environment. Fundamentally, our society needs a moral revolution to replace a culture of violence with a renewed ethic of justice, responsibility and community. “Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal” are more than words to be recited; they are imperatives for the common good. Our faith challenges each of us to examine how we can contribute to an ethic which cherishes life, puts people before things, and values kindness and compassion over anger and vengeance. A growing sense of national fear and failure must be replaced by a new commitment to solidarity and the common good.

As the only world super power, as the world’s greatest consumer, and as the largest arms exporter, the United States has a special obligation to seek peace and promote justice through creative and responsible world leadership. We renew our commitment expressed in The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace to work against the violence which threatens life in so many lands. Our nation must be engaged in devising new tools for preserving the peace, finding ways to prevent and police conflicts, to protect basic rights, to promote integral human development and to preserve the environment. The United States must move from leadership in supplying arms to leadership in providing resources, technology and knowledge and for replacing conflict with peaceful progress. Rather than restrain the further development of the United Nations, the United States should help improve it by developing tools for preventing conflict, mediating disputes, and rescuing vulnerable populations from internal as well as external aggression. Catholic international education, outreach, and advocacy efforts need to continue to help shape a Church and nation more clearly committed to global responsibility and the pursuit of peace in a still violent world.*

 

[Actaeon]

FightingFat, see further up the thread, the figures that you are responding to are completely wrong and aceaton accpeted this in a subsequent post.

Whoa, slow down, because what you are claiming I said is patently false. In fact, the only thing that I walked back was the rape statistic, and that was only because France is the one with the extreme rape society (not the UK).

However, that doesn’t change the fact that the UK still has a 2.25x rate of rape over the USA (or, in UN report terms, 125% higher rate of rape)

In fact in terms of crimes per 100k citizens the USA has more rape 30.2 than the UK 25.6, and much higher major assault 281.6 than the UK 32.2 though burglury and minor assault are higher in the UK.

I would love to know where you got those numbers, because the nationmaster crime stats from the UN are completely contrary to what you just said. Rape victimes in the UK represent 0.9% of the population per year, while in the US rape victims represent only 0.4%.

As for assault, victims in the UK represent 2.8% of the population. In the United States, assault victims only account for 1.2% of the population. That equates to an english citizen having a +133% chance of getting assaulted in the UK over the USA.

Like you I have rarely heard of a home invasion (apparently it is called a “Hot Burglury” in the US) and when I did some research found that 28% of burglaries in the US fall into this category.

I would really like to see your source… since most jurisdictions in the United States do not have a special category for “home invasion”, which means that all such numbers are extrapolations.

That means the accuracy of your number depends greatly on the source and the methodology used by the source to extrapolate such data… niether of which is revealed by your claim.

Another thing to consider is that the US is somehow “off the charts in gun violence”… a ludicrous claim at best.

Using the wonderful comparitive software at this site, I generated the following charts comparing the US of A against a sampling of countries that report their crime statistics. The following charts show the gun homicide rate for these countries in one. It does not include firearms deaths from military action, police action, suicide, etc.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/530320_10152384053475405_397979149_n.jpg
As one can see when applying CTS, the RATE of homicide in the USofA is not “off the charts”… rather it is slightly above other western nations and massively below other nations which ARE off the charts.

The other chart shows the rate of firearm ownership. Comparitively, the US ranks far and away as the nation with the highest per capita ownership of guns in the world…

https://fbcdn-photos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303625_10152384053865405_1177736685_a.jpg

and yet our gun related homicide rate is proportionally only a smidge higher than other western nations… why? Could it be that guns do not CAUSE crimes, but rather that societal factors play a huge role? Could it be that, despite the fact that the worst offenders have strict gun control, that criminals will, in fact, obtain firearms illegally anyway?

 

[liturgyluver]

Whoa, slow down, because what you are claiming I said is patently false. In fact, the only thing that I walked back was the rape statistic, and that was only because France is the one with the extreme rape society (not the UK).

However, that doesn’t change the fact that the UK still has a 2.25x rate of rape over the USA (or, in UN report terms, 125% higher rate of rape)

I would love to know where you got those numbers, because the nationmaster crime stats from the UN are completely contrary to what you just said. Rape victimes in the UK represent 0.9% of the population per year, while in the US rape victims represent only 0.4%.

As for assault, victims in the UK represent 2.8% of the population. In the United States, assault victims only account for 1.2% of the population. That equates to an english citizen having a +133% chance of getting assaulted in the UK over the USA.

I would really like to see your source… since most jurisdictions in the United States do not have a special category for “home invasion”, which means that all such numbers are extrapolations.

That means the accuracy of your number depends greatly on the source and the methodology used by the source to extrapolate such data… niether of which is revealed by your claim.

Another thing to consider is that the US is somehow “off the charts in gun violence”… a ludicrous claim at best.

Using the wonderful comparitive software at this site, I generated the following charts comparing the US of A against a sampling of countries that report their crime statistics. The following charts show the gun homicide rate for these countries in one. It does not include firearms deaths from military action, police action, suicide, etc.

As one can see when applying CTS, the RATE of homicide in the USofA is not “off the charts”… rather it is slightly above other western nations and massively below other nations which ARE off the charts.

The other chart shows the rate of firearm ownership. Comparitively, the US ranks far and away as the nation with the highest per capita ownership of guns in the world…

and yet our gun related homicide rate is proportionally only a smidge higher than other western nations… why? Could it be that guns do not CAUSE crimes, but rather that societal factors play a huge role? Could it be that, despite the fact that the worst offenders have strict gun control, that criminals will, in fact, obtain firearms illegally anyway?

1. Rape: Here is the UN Comparattive Crime Study which shows Rape per 100,000 pop as 30.2 in the US compared with 25.6 in England. Incidently the study also shows that the US has much higher major assaults per 100,000 population 281.6 compared with 32.3 in England

heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobServer&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=Hakapaino_final_07042010.pdf&SSURIsscontext=Satellite%20Server&blobwhere=1266335656647&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

1. Home Invasions in the US:

crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/30/28-percent-of-burglaries-involve-people-at-home-good-doors-windows-prevent-violent-crime/

The point about this is I have seen so many people on this forum claim they need guns to protect them from an intruder while they are at home. It seems it is not an imaginary fear.

1. The Homicide rate for the USA is certainly off the scale when you compare it to other industrialised countries - on average 4 times higher than elsewhere in Europe. I hardly call that a smudge and comparing the USA to war-torn and thrid-world countries is hardly a heartening statistic.
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
2. As to your final question, as I said earlier, this is a US problem but what is disingenuous is when people use selective statistics from Europe to support the gun stance in the US. The facts are that a few European countries have higher gun ownership but most have neglibile rates of ownership : but nowhere in Europe has anything like the homicide rate in the US.

 

[_Abyssinia]

No. It doesn’t say that. The cathecism says:

For this reason, **those who legitimately hold authority **also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

No Church teaching forbids private gun ownership

Jesus said to the disciples in Luke 22:36

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one

Verse 38 disciples respond

Then they said, ‘Lord, look, there are two swords here.’ But He replied, 'It is enough!"

Jesus’ response does not denote He saw a problem with the swords being carried

 

[Baelor]

and yet our gun related homicide rate is proportionally only a smidge higher than other western nations… why? Could it be that guns do not CAUSE crimes, but rather that societal factors play a huge role? Could it be that, despite the fact that the worst offenders have strict gun control, that criminals will, in fact, obtain firearms illegally anyway?

Your argument seems a bit off.

First, the countries that have more gun violence are poor, war-torn, or otherwise hot messes. That hardly reflects well on the US, a developed country.

Second, given that other countries with lower gun violence also have less gun ownership, why would we not want to reduce gun ownership? Are you asserting there is no correlation whatsoever? If few bear arms legally in foreign countries, why is there still less gun violence?

 

[liturgyluver]

No Church teaching forbids private gun ownership

Jesus said to the disciples in Luke 22:36

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one

Verse 38 disciples respond

Then they said, ‘Lord, look, there are two swords here.’ But He replied, 'It is enough!"

Jesus’ response does not denote He saw a problem with the swords being carried

Abyssinia, I didn’t say it was forbidden, but I was correcting your inaccurate post which claimed that that the cathecism states “using a gun for legitimate defense is a right”. This is not true.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Abyssinia, I didn’t say it was forbidden, but I was correcting your inaccurate post which claimed that that the cathecism states “using a gun for legitimate defense is a right”. This is not true.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

What would ‘legitimate defense’ refer that other than a weapon to defend yourself?

 

[_Abyssinia]

1. Rape: Here is the UN Comparattive Crime Study which shows Rape per 100,000 pop as 30.2 in the US compared with 25.6 in England. Incidently the study also shows that the US has much higher major assaults per 100,000 population 281.6 compared with 32.3 in England

heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobServer&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=Hakapaino_final_07042010.pdf&SSURIsscontext=Satellite%20Server&blobwhere=1266335656647&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

1. Home Invasions in the US:

crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/30/28-percent-of-burglaries-involve-people-at-home-good-doors-windows-prevent-violent-crime/

The point about this is I have seen so many people on this forum claim they need guns to protect them from an intruder while they are at home. It seems it is not an imaginary fear.

1. The Homicide rate for the USA is certainly off the scale when you compare it to other industrialised countries - on average 4 times higher than elsewhere in Europe. I hardly call that a smudge and comparing the USA to war-torn and thrid-world countries is hardly a heartening statistic.
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
2. As to your final question, as I said earlier, this is a US problem but what is disingenuous is when people use selective statistics from Europe to support the gun stance in the US. The facts are that a few European countries have higher gun ownership but most have neglibile rates of ownership : but nowhere in Europe has anything like the homicide rate in the US.

Murder, robbery, rape and property crime continue to decline in US

There is a book called, ‘Guns and Violence The English Experience’ by Joyce Lee Malcolm

Summarisation - saf.org/journal/16/guncontrolinengland.pdf

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674016088

Excerpt

The result of the ban has been costly. Thousands of weapons were confiscated at great financial cost to the public. Hundreds of thousands of police hours were devoted to the task. But in the six years since the 1997 handgun ban, crimes with the very weapons banned have more than doubled, and firearm crime has increased markedly. In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose—by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offences were committed.

…]According to Scotland Yard, in the four years from 1991 to 1995 crimes against the person in England‟s inner cities increased by 91 percent. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.

A person is more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the United Kingdom than of gun crime in America

Wall Street Journal said

Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres

Gun crime doubled in the 10 years after nearly all guns were banned in 1996 in Britain and many turned in their guns

Violent crime per capita in Britain is higher than in America even though Britain has strict gun control

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,60.

John Lott says

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html

 

[liturgyluver]

Murder, robbery, rape and property crime continue to decline in US

There is a book called, ‘Guns and Violence The English Experience’ by Joyce Lee Malcolm

Summarisation - saf.org/journal/16/guncontrolinengland.pdf

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674016088

Excerpt

A person is more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the United Kingdom than of gun crime in America

Wall Street Journal said

Gun crime doubled in the 10 years after nearly all guns were banned in 1996 in Britain and many turned in their guns

Violent crime per capita in Britain is higher than in America even though Britain has strict gun control

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,60.

John Lott says

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html

Abyssina, I am beginning to think that your day job involves trawling the tackiest and most innacurrate sources you can find to make you feel better. I have already posted the official stats from the UN that show conclusively that homicide, rapes, violent crime and major assault are higher in the US than in the UK. Robbery and Burglury are higher in the UK than in the US, but you are 40 times more likely to be shot in the US and four times more likely to be killed. And it doesn’t get much worse than death, does it?

And for the record crime is falling in the UK too: :

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384

guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales

There were 80 crimes per 1000 people in the UK broadly the same as the US.

I am afraid, Abyssina, you are simply wasting your time trying to compare the US to anywhere in Western Europe. Whether the country has high gun ownership (and where they do they certainly don’t own guns for protection) or low gun ownership the homicide rate is less than 20% of that in the US. The US is unique in the industrialised world for having high gun ownership, high gun homicide and high general homicide. I suggest you focus on what the solutions might be for the US and leave Europe out of the equation.

 

[liturgyluver]

John Lott says

Quote:
Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban

Did he really? The murder rate by gun crime in England and Wales last year was 39. And the murder rate is the lowest for 30 years. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384

I wonder how John Lott would explain that?

 

[Colonel_K]

You’re right Mark. this has proved to be a touchy subject but certainly one with discussing. I was surprised to find Father Z takingin favour of gun ownership such a strong stand in favour of bearing arms.

I wouldn’t go quite so far to say that Catholic teaching gives a definite answer to the question. So I would accept To me it seems to be issue over which faithful Catholics can have a legitimate divergence of opinion. Having said that, I firmly believe that objective morality leads to the conclusion that bearing arms as you go about your daily business is wrong. By doing so, one contributes to a militarisation of society which is against the common good. Perhaps this is one case where individual rights must give way to the rights of society as a whole.

There is a lot here about the Second Ammendment. This is a civil code, basically a law, and is such it really doesn’t add any moral weight proponents of gun ownership. As Christians, we must believe our rights derive firstly from our Creator, secondly from natural law and human reason. A law written a long time ago protects my right to do something would not confer any moral licitness to that thing. Civil codes are also relativistic, variable in time and place and don’t give good grounding for any decision making. There are no local rights and wrongs. For these reasons I think the Second Ammendment is a red herring.

From a personal point of view, I’m reminded of a road rage incident that happened to me a few months ago. The details are not too important, but essentially through some inattention and misjudgement on my part, I performed a maneouver which startled another motorist and possibly caused her a little inconvenience. To say she felt quite strongly about this would be an understatement. As we stopped at some lights, she got out of her car, stormed up to mine and tried to open the door. I have no doubt she lost control for these moments. Luckily she was unable to open the door, so was left to shout at me pretty through the window before returning to her own vehicle. It struck me only recently that at NO POINT during this encounter did I actually feel threatened in any way. Although I was a bit shaken, it never occurred to me that I was in any physical danger at all. Only now, thinking about guns ownership, does it occur to me that in another country I could have found myself either facing down the barrel of a gun, or wondering if I would. In this situation, even the fear that she may be armed would have me reaching for my weapon. Escalation. Possibility of needless injury or death.

Ok just my personal point of view. As I said, it is not unfaithful for a Catholic to take a position on eihter side of the debate. Feelings are always going to be stirred when someone tells someone else that they’re breaking a moral code. It’s because we all care so deeply about doing the right thing, as we should.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Did he really? The murder rate by gun crime in England and Wales last year was 39. And the murder rate is the lowest for 30 years. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384

I wonder how John Lott would explain that?

They are using other things to murder.

 

[liturgyluver]

They are using other things to murder.

haha - He would say that, but in fact they are not. Nearly every country in Europe has a muder rate less than a quarter of that of the US (apart from Belgium and Czech Republic which are about a thrid of the US rate)

 

[october_baby]

Specifically when considering Connecticut, the gun was simply the element that enabled the event. If the mother had no guns, the kid who did it wouldn’t have been able to.

Doesn’t it make sense that a society where you’re less likely to get shot for arguing with someone who jumped a stop light (using American English for your benefit there ) would be better? The evidence is that the more guns there are in society, the more gun violence there is: guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map?CMP=twt_gu

what your doing is confusing the facts; 1. the killer tried to purchase weapons, but stopped
when there was a waiting period. 2. the killer KILLED his own mother in order to STEAL
the LEGAL firearms she owned. 3. the SAME week that this happen a man with a KNIFE
attempted to kill 20 children in China, where firearms ownership is illegal.