C
cynic
Guest
even if they are to blame, access to guns might have something to do with it…
Pointing out stuff is not telling anyone to do anything. The server is located in the U.S, how does that make them american.
- Status
C
cynic
Guest
Many countries have minorities that are over-represented in the crime statistics. To suggest that the U.S in unique in this is dishonest.
W
Wolseley
Guest
One of the first things you’re taught in police training is that when you start to carry a weapon, you also start to pay attention to what’s going on around you. Or in other words, you don’t just wander around in your own little thoughts, reading a newspaper as you stroll along, thinking about Little Susie next door and whether she’ll go out with you on Saturday night, or have earphones stuck into your ears while you jam along with The Digested Crows, or Percy’s Plush-Lined Commode, or whatever band is popular this week
You pay attention. You check things out. You keep your eyes open. You make sure that you check out your car from 50 yards away to make sure nobody is hiding underneath it or on the other side of it. What this does, is ensure that your chances of getting slammed in the skull are lessened by about 85 to 90%, as opposed to the people who float around saying to themselves, "Oh, it’ll never happen to me!"
Or something like that.
Actually, what you describe is one stance, yes; but it is by no means the only one. You can also shoot while kneeling, squatting, crouching, bending, moving backwards, moving forwards, moving laterally, even while prone. It all depends on what the tactical situation calls for. If you think the only way you can fire a handgun is with both hands, standing straight up, feet apart at shoulder length, and your arms straight out in front of you, then you’ve seen too many Hollywood movies.
If they threaten you, then they are a threat, and you act accordingly until the threat is removed. If he really didn’t want to hurt anybody (just thought he’d do a little mugging on the side here and there to supplement his job delivering pizzas), then he shouldn’t have been out there doing what he was doing in the first place, as he just might encounter somebody who fights back.
But that’s what happens when you decide to break the law: you make your choices and you take your chances. If he ends up collecting a couple of rounds, that’s not the fault the of the victim—it’s the fault of the criminal.
See above.
And you have an idea about firearms that’s straight out of the anti-gunner’s handbook. “Oh, aren’t guns horrible! If we can just get guns banned, then all the crime will evaporate! Our streets will be safe!”
Except for the criminals obtaining illegal guns across the border, or using knives, screwdrivers, baseball bats, chainsaws, hammers, lengths of stove wood, frozen legs of lamb, or that ancient but still very effective old standby, great big rocks.
How are you gonna ban rocks? “The Coalition For Rock Control feels that we should ban rocks, which will make our streets safer.”
How about if you ban criminals…regardless of what type of tool they choose to commit the crime? Wouldn’t that be a whole lot more effective than letting the criminal go while you tie a noose around his gun and hang it from a scaffold?
S
Swan
Guest
Oh, my response to the OP is the following:
we don’t have a nanny state.
we don’t have a nanny state.
S
Swamp_Yankee
Guest
I’ve been following this thread, and am a little disappointed that it has rested on the gun control debate. There are a lot a problems with a nanny state. But if gun control is the argument, so be it. I was under the impression that the Founding Fathers injected the 2nd ammendment not so much for people to protect themselves from each other, rather so people would be able to protect themselves from an oppressive government, ie, our government. Another member of this forum has a quote under their signature that I like alot. It says " An armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a subject". Lastly, the best way to practice gun control is to use both hands. Keep your powder dry brothers!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You people have an out of date, cliched idea that somehow you know how to run our country better than we do.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
BOO!One of the first things you’re taught in police training is that when you start to carry a weapon, you also start to pay attention to what’s going on around you. Or in other words, you don’t just wander around in your own little thoughts, reading a newspaper as you stroll along, thinking about Little Susie next door and whether she’ll go out with you on Saturday night, or have earphones stuck into your ears while you jam along with The Digested Crows, or Percy’s Plush-Lined Commode, or whatever band is popular this week
You pay attention. You check things out. You keep your eyes open. You make sure that you check out your car from 50 yards away to make sure nobody is hiding underneath it or on the other side of it. What this does, is ensure that your chances of getting slammed in the skull are lessened by about 85 to 90%, as opposed to the people who float around saying to themselves, "Oh, it’ll never happen to me!"
Or something like that.
Actually, what you describe is one stance, yes; but it is by no means the only one. You can also shoot while kneeling, squatting, crouching, bending, moving backwards, moving forwards, moving laterally, even while prone. It all depends on what the tactical situation calls for. If you think the only way you can fire a handgun is with both hands, standing straight up, feet apart at shoulder length, and your arms straight out in front of you, then you’ve seen too many Hollywood movies.
If they threaten you, then they are a threat, and you act accordingly until the threat is removed. If he really didn’t want to hurt anybody (just thought he’d do a little mugging on the side here and there to supplement his job delivering pizzas), then he shouldn’t have been out there doing what he was doing in the first place, as he just might encounter somebody who fights back.
But that’s what happens when you decide to break the law: you make your choices and you take your chances. If he ends up collecting a couple of rounds, that’s not the fault the of the victim—it’s the fault of the criminal.
See above.
And you have an idea about firearms that’s straight out of the anti-gunner’s handbook. “Oh, aren’t guns horrible! If we can just get guns banned, then all the crime will evaporate! Our streets will be safe!”
Except for the criminals obtaining illegal guns across the border, or using knives, screwdrivers, baseball bats, chainsaws, hammers, lengths of stove wood, frozen legs of lamb, or that ancient but still very effective old standby, great big rocks.
How are you gonna ban rocks? “The Coalition For Rock Control feels that we should ban rocks, which will make our streets safer.”
How about if you ban criminals…regardless of what type of tool they choose to commit the crime? Wouldn’t that be a whole lot more effective than letting the criminal go while you tie a noose around his gun and hang it from a scaffold?
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
'Fess up – you’re really Roseanne Barr, ain’tcha?
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Loved her TV show.'Fess up – you’re really Roseanne Barr, ain’tcha?
No, I’m a guy.
S
Swan
Guest
**3. Key Principles of Catholic Social Teaching Expanded
**6. The Purpose of Government
The purpose of government is the promotion of the common good. Governments are required to actively participate in society to promote and ensure social justice and equity.**
sao.clriq.org.au/cst/cst_intro.html
- The Dignity of the Human Person**
Human beings are created in the image of God and, therefore, are endowed with dignity. This inherent dignity carries with it certain basic rights and responsibilities which are exercised within a social framework. - The Common Good
- Solidarity
- Subsidiarity
- The Purpose of the Social Order
**6. The Purpose of Government
The purpose of government is the promotion of the common good. Governments are required to actively participate in society to promote and ensure social justice and equity.**
sao.clriq.org.au/cst/cst_intro.html
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Well, No. 6 is completely reprehensible to Republicans. To a Republican, the purpose government is the promotion of the corporate good. To a Republican, at least as we can see over the past six years, governments are required to actively unhinder corporations from all regulation and law and ensure high profits at the expense of society and the common good.
C
cynic
Guest
That’s right, let’s all walk around in a state of perpetual fear of our fellow man, fingering our guns, everywhere we go. How realistic is this?
We should politely request that an assailant not get in our personal space until we’ve had time to draw our gun and aim…
Oh but there’s the grey area, can you shoot someone unless you’re in immediate danger of serious injury and how do you determine that? And how does one determine that… If I feel my life is threatened, if it seems as if it is…
As has been said, criminals are lazy. How many could be described as organized? Ease of access is significant.
So rocks and guns are pretty much the same. Riiiiight.
How about we make it harder for criminals to weild semi-automatic weapons. Or not. Your country, your collective decision. Anyone can have an opinion on guns though.
Another round of lies and gross mischaracterizations…
Perhaps you should preface all of that with a disclaimer letting everyone know that it is only your own (misguided) opinion.
Or perhaps it is your intent to lie to the people on this board???
C
Cajetan
Guest
The more the government hands you, the more they own you: have control over you. Now I’m sure many of the elected Members of Parliament in my country are fine folks, but I don’t like the idea of them having any more control over what I do than they already have. The smaller the government, the more freedom I have. This is important because honest people often find themselves at odds with the ideas of politicians, what they think is best for them, etc. Faithful Catholics, for instance, whose way of life often dissents from the secular ideal. In many places in the world massive governments mean trouble for them, because they aren’t towing the official government line. Like Cuba, the ultimate nanny state. Many nameless martyrs in that country.
In any case, authentic social justice comes from the hearts of free individual men and women, not a monolithic bureaucracy which forces them to act. The latter is not charity.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You gotta remember this is a guy who says voting for Republicans makes him vomit over the keyboard.
And these posts are classic examples of begging the question – they ask you to assume that all these nanny state programs actually work, so they can prove the nanny state is a good idea and in keeping with Catholic teaching.
So let them tell us about things like Cabrini Green in Chicago (a fine examaple of the nanny state in action.) Let them explain the explosion of drug abuse, crime, out-of-wedlock pregnancy and so on that followed the Great Society.
The nanny state has made things worse, not better.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
www.fee.org
These folks have done some excellent publishing over the years.
The “Notes from FEE” are free for the asking.
fee.org/publications/notes/
These folks have done some excellent publishing over the years.
The “Notes from FEE” are free for the asking.
fee.org/publications/notes/
W
Wolseley
Guest
I do it at work every day, chief. I don’t fear anybody, but I am suspicious of everybody. It’s a cop thing----it becomes inbred. There are three basic rules to police work: 1. You always make sure their hands are in plain sight at all times; 2. You never let them in on your six; and 3. No matter how friendly they appear or how benign the situation seems, you always have a plan in the back of your mind how you’re going to defend yourself from them.
And you don’t walk around “fingering your gun”, either. You lock and load it, you holster it, and it stays in the holster until (God forbid) you need to use it.
Right. Let me know how that works out for you.We should politely request that an assailant not get in our personal space until we’ve had time to draw our gun and aim…
If the perp is threatening you with grave bodily harm or death with any sort of weapon----gun, knife, club, car, even his fists, if he’s big enough, you are justified in using your weapon to defend yourself.
How are you going to do that? Tell me. And don’t come back with, “Well, you pass laws restricting the ownership of semi-automatic weapons.” We already covered the fact that criminals don’t obey the laws on owning semi-automatic weapons. If they want one, they obtain one illegally, and if that breaks a law, oh well. So: tell me, O Great Sage, how are you going to keep semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals?
C
cynic
Guest
You reduce the number of semi-automatic weapons in circulation by either banning the (legal) sale of them or restricting it. Of course in the U.S there are already so many guns about, being sold privately etc., it might take quite a while to have the intended effect of the making it more *difficult *for a criminal to get hold of one. If criminals are lazy, then how much work is the guy willing to do, or how much is he willing to pay?
There are also less drastic forms of gun control than banning, which you no doubt won’t like either :
Ideas like these will never get off the ground, because you guys have such a paranoid fear of government.
There are also less drastic forms of gun control than banning, which you no doubt won’t like either :
- Require that anybody who wants to own a gun get a license. Obtaining one will involve full background check, referees to vouch for psychological stability etc.
Ideas like these will never get off the ground, because you guys have such a paranoid fear of government.
K
KatyElizabeth
Guest
In regards to the OP, I like to use this analogy.
How long would a parent be expected to put up with destructive behavior in their child?
Letting their child commit the same mistakes over and over again without consequence.
At some point the goodwill and empathy is just downright
enabling.
It’s the Christians’ duty is to care for the poor, sick etc. The governments job is elsewhere.
How long would a parent be expected to put up with destructive behavior in their child?
Letting their child commit the same mistakes over and over again without consequence.
At some point the goodwill and empathy is just downright
enabling.
It’s the Christians’ duty is to care for the poor, sick etc. The governments job is elsewhere.
W
Wolseley
Guest
And the Columbian drug dealers who manage to fly in multiple tons of cocaine every year simply branch out into weapons smuggling, and we have multiple tons of weapons flooding in. How does banning automatic weapons stop this? It doesn’t.
Difficult but far from impossible.
At least as much as they do to obtain the drugs they sell on the street.
Both are dandy ideas, but what you still fail to understand is that the only people who are going to follow these regulations are the law-abiding citizens who jump through all the hoops. The criminals aren’t going to bother with all this nonsense—they’ll just buy a caseload of AK-47’s from José the Friendly Cocaine Smuggler, and go on their merry way. You can restrict the sale of automatic weapons all you want, and ***it will not stop the flow for anyone except the law-abiding citizens. ***
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
- Status