S
- Status
M
MikeWM
Guest
And what the Pope says is true. But he is talking about that whole world, including war zones where you are at constant risk of death, rape, or child abduction. The word ‘can’ appears in that a number of times. The US Bishops have obviously decided that in the case of America, a reasonable lawful society with not that much real risk for most people, that ‘can’ is not satisfied. And I agree with them.
Mike
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
All states are required to perform a federal background check.
And why does the Pope feel differently? Shouldn’t the bishops follow the teachings of the Pope instead of the other way around?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
The teachings of the bishops is not infallible and given the fact that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police are NOT required to protect us, how are we to fulfill this GRAVE DUTY of defending ourselves and others from death and serious injury?
You can not tell me that I have a GRAVE DUTY to do something and then deny me the means by which to do it. If you do, then it can not be such a “grave” duty.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
And did JP2 stopped having armed guards or did he depend on the rosary alone?
C
Cat
Guest
Maybe this has been stated already and I missed it. If so, I apologize for being redundant.
I don’t think that it’s reasonable to compare the U.S. with many other countries and make statements like, “We have more gun crimes.”
For one thing, our population is much, much larger than that of Great Britain or any of the European countries.
Also, we have a number of large metropolitan areas, while many countries have only one large city surrounded by small towns and rural areas.
Our population is diverse, whereas many countries have a more homogenous population, e.g., Finland is 95% Lutheran, and most of the people are white and have always lived in Finland. The U.S. has a large population of all the races and religions, and hundreds of nationalities, and thousands of first-generation immigrants. It’s no wonder we don’t all “get along.”
The U.S. has a hstory of gun use by ordinary citizens. When Americans started moving West, they brought guns with them and used them to protect themselves and to kill their food. This all happened less than 200 years ago. If you read the “Little House” series, Pa and everyone else carried guns. Interestingly, Laura Ingalls Wilder died the year that we sent up the first space satellite. THAT’S how close we are to a generation that carried and used guns on a daily basis.
There are so many other ways in which the U.S. differs from other countries, but these, I think, are most pertinent.
I don’t think that it’s reasonable to compare the U.S. with many other countries and make statements like, “We have more gun crimes.”
For one thing, our population is much, much larger than that of Great Britain or any of the European countries.
Also, we have a number of large metropolitan areas, while many countries have only one large city surrounded by small towns and rural areas.
Our population is diverse, whereas many countries have a more homogenous population, e.g., Finland is 95% Lutheran, and most of the people are white and have always lived in Finland. The U.S. has a large population of all the races and religions, and hundreds of nationalities, and thousands of first-generation immigrants. It’s no wonder we don’t all “get along.”
The U.S. has a hstory of gun use by ordinary citizens. When Americans started moving West, they brought guns with them and used them to protect themselves and to kill their food. This all happened less than 200 years ago. If you read the “Little House” series, Pa and everyone else carried guns. Interestingly, Laura Ingalls Wilder died the year that we sent up the first space satellite. THAT’S how close we are to a generation that carried and used guns on a daily basis.
There are so many other ways in which the U.S. differs from other countries, but these, I think, are most pertinent.
S
seekerz
Guest
I think we can safely say that the Pope doesn’t personally carry a gun but that he leaves that duty to those suitably trained.
Maybe the widespread use of weapons for personal protection was justified in centuries past because social infrastructure was very different from what it is today, but name me one modern Catholic saint who carried a gun as a private citizen.
When we send Catholic missions to war torn countries where children are maimed and women raped, do we provide the populace with guns as well as the necessities of life? Maybe we’re failing in our Christian duty.
In a world where we agree that standards of decency and morality are increasingly subjective and where even the quality of justice depends on the morals (or lack thereof) of individual judges we propose easy arming of private citizens!
Would you make it easier to arm people to whom abortion and euthanasia are “rights”? How about those for whom violence is sport and a life’s worth is measured in dollars? Could any law be drafted that would give those people less easy access to guns than you?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Imagine you’re in a classroom where a man has just entered with two guns and an I-don’t-care-because-I’m-going-to-die-today attitude.
Would you be wishing for:
a) More numerous and tougher laws against what’s about to happen to you?
or
b) A big bore semi-auto with a large capacity magazine?
Would you be wishing for:
a) More numerous and tougher laws against what’s about to happen to you?
or
b) A big bore semi-auto with a large capacity magazine?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
I never said that the Church teaches that a gun is the best means of defense. I said that the Church teaches that we have a GRAVE DUTY to protect ourselves and if you think that YOU think that you can defend yourself better by some other means than a gun, I’d like to hear how?
But the point is that he IS protected via firearms. Are you saying that we should all go out and hire professional bodyguards? That’s out of reach for most of us. How to you propose that those who can not afford professional bodyguards fulfill their GRAVE DUTY to protect themselves?
But violence IS the answer when faced with violence. Otherwise Jesus would have never instructed His followers to sell their outer garments to buy a sword.
If they were brave enough to approach Jesus when someone was chopping ears off, they would have been brave enough to approach when someone fired a gun.
M
M-Dent
Guest
Well, Laws help put the muderer in jail. They don’t help avoid one being a victim.
Yet, I’d be scared if I was in a room w/ an untrained teacher with a .22 - nervously reacting like Barney Fife struggling for a bullet and in a panic blew the one out of the chamber at the class.
Training is the key. Preparedness. A class for such self defense is as important a life skill as math and science.
Non-letal weapons in a school enviornment are effective.
Worst case, I’d take whatever trained kids who knew it was time to bull rush the killer and be willing to make the sacrifice, far all.
S
seekerz
Guest
I don’t think Jesus had a problem with His disciples protecting themselves ( the world was a very different place; they likely didn’t even have regular police and journeys were often long desolate treks).
But tell me, when is it ever appropriate to turn the other cheek then, if violence is the answer to violence?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Jesus did not intend us to turn the other cheek when faced with death or serious injury. Otherwise He would have never instructed us to buy a sword.
The CCC is very clear on this – when we are faced with death or serious injury. As a matter of fact, a licensed private citizen is allowed to only draw his weapon when faced with death or serious injury. Drawing a gun under any other conditions is considered aggravated assualt.
J
jc-servant
Guest
I worked for a well trained university police force for many years. I started as a dispatcher/communications officer when I turned 18 while still a student and later I returned there as a patrol officer after working patrol in a small city. The municipality actually had a much smaller area to patrol with fewer people and less training for officers. The university had a SWAT team and about 1/2 of our officers were veterans also. We worked closely with the Secret Service on VIP security including presidential details.
All of that being said, I don’t believe we could have stopped an attack like the one at VT before at least a couple of people got shot. We did have to deal with students with weapons every year, but thankfully nothing of this magnitude happened. We were a lot quicker to get someone out of campus housing and issue a trespass warning even if they did nothing “illegal” because our university had enforceable regulations. Once the written warning was issued (with a photo taken if possible) as soon as the person returned to housing or the campus they could be arrested.
One of the biggest problems I encountered with working on a campus was that lots of students are just immature, self-absorbed and unlikely to pay attention or follow directions even from an armed, uniformed police officer. I had students argue that I could do nothing to them and then physically fight even as they were being told they were under arrest.
I was in charge of the uniformed dorm security officers for a while and we had students who refused to evacuate dorm towers even as sirens sounded and we had a real fire. They would hide in their closets or showers and ignore the sirens as if it could possibly be a “drill” at midnight in the dead of winter! The RAs had to waste precious minutes to do a room to room when sirens went off which of course placed in them in more danger.
Some campus police also have to deal with some liberal faculty who have a serious bias against having armed police on campus and hence like to argue and interject themselves in police operations. Although were state commissioned and trained police officers, we had faculty try to get our guns taken away as if there was a bubble over the campus grounds that would have magically prevented other weapons from coming in.
We regularly had to waste personnel by holding back or trying to run off crowds of “lookie loos” who would just want to gawk even if it placed them in danger. We had people who wanted to wander through the scene at bad traffic accidents even as bleeding victims were still being tended and awaiting extrication and/or transport. This is one of the reasons that I shake my head when people say that mainly VT needed better communication to let the students know there was a dangerous situation. IMO, there is a larger percentage of people on campuses than in the regular population that seem to need protection from their own poor judgment. It is probably due to the age range of most students and their lack of life experiences at that point.
The best things that I can think of to improve campus safety is to have well-trained professional police departments on campus and for the students to actually listen to the security precautions given to them and to follow them. Not every situation is preventable, but the harm can usually be lessened with good planning and cooperation.
We advised students to never leave their dorm rooms unlocked or open even if they were just sitting inside and hanging out with some people. There are incidents of guys stalking or otherwise being aggressive/inappropriate or even more bizarre than the VT shooter every year on campuses. I dealt with students who even brought machine guns to college, so the VT killers handguns were no shock. In OK and TX tons of regular folks have handguns more powerful than a 22 caliber. Keeping the door locked to your own room/apartment at least means that you have more time to call for help if they try to break in.
Everyone needs to pay more attention to their surroundings and less to their cell phones, Blackberrys, car stereos, iPod music, etc while walking/driving around. These students had loud construction that made it harder to hear the initial shots, but many people miss hearing sirens and other important sounds daily because they are too absorbed to observe their surroundings. As an officer I was trained to ride with my window open at least a couple of inches unless the weather was super severe because it allowed better sound into the car even over the radio noise. Being aware of surroundings can sometimes allow someone a minute or two to act before danger gets right on top of them.
Sorry for the long response, but as you can imagine this hits really close to home for me after working so many years in law enforcement and on a university campus.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Most states include a requirement for training before issuing a license to carry a concealed weapon.
But the training issue is vastly overstated. As a professional in that field, I often discuss this on firearms-oriented forums, and point out that “Training is a solution. Before you advance a solution, you ought to be able to articulate your problem. And in the ideal world, there ought to be some sort of relationship between the problem and the solution.”
And no one can produce an actual problem in response to this challenge.
How do you know that?
I recommend you watch “Shaka Zulu” the next time it’s on TV. There is a scene – accurately reproduced from the actual event – where four Europeans armed with flintlocks turn back a mass of charging Zulus armed with shields and spears.
The killer at Virginia Tech had more than a flintlock. And the students weren’t Zulu warriors, and didn’t have shields and spears.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Remember the episode where Barney had to qualify with his gun? He got a perfect score beating out everyone else at the range.
M
MikeWM
Guest
…which would be criminal records check and possibly immigration status, wouldn’t it?
There’s no evidence he does. The Pope is covering every eventuality in the entire world. The Bishops are talking about the situation in America.
Mike
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
I say again, you can not tell me that I have a GRAVE DUTY to do something and them limit the means by which I can do it. If you do, then it can not be so “grave” and the CCC does say that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others.
M
MikeWM
Guest
We’ve been here before too. Weapon is correct, at least. Many Biblical scholars believe he is referring to the Word Of God here, which indeed is ‘sharper than any double-edged sword’, and hence a far better weapon. (Else why would Jesus say two swords was ‘enough’? There were certainly more than two people there).
See
christianethicstoday.com/Issue/052/Jesus%20And%20Swords%20By%20Norman%20A.%20Bert_052_11_.htm
for one example. I’m sure you can google many others if you don’t like the credentials of that particular gentleman.
Mike
M
MikeWM
Guest
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Let me get this straight. You’re telling us we must buy the word of God? That it’s for sale, and we must sell our cloaks to buy it?
And can you see the word of God – because the Apostles showed Him two swords!
- Status