Why are so many catholics anti-2nd amendment?

[Jaguar]

I agree

To me that sounds discriminatory. Do women and disabled men have the right to have a firearm to defend themselves against criminals & mentally ill or soldiers of desertion?

What about all the folks that break the law & have a gun?

What would you do if a law violator breaks in to your Swedish home @3am with a gun or even a machete, and wants to harm your wife or children.

Do you ask him,to leave nicely? Do you ask him if you can call a time out so you can call a soldier to come over and help?

Also, you mentioned that weapons for self defense were not allowed. What about hunting and target practice? If so. is it ok to protect yourself with those weapons and if so what would be the difference?

 

[Jaguar]

I am not suggesting no guns, just more restrictions and protections for society. I think we should be making evidence based decisions when it comes to policy.

I would be interested in the studies that show that having a gun in the home decreases chances of having a gun related accident or that you are more likely to use a gun in self defense than etc.

Again I am not saying no guns just more restrictions about who has access to weapons and ammo.

Just what other specific restrictions on guns & ammo would you like?

 

[Dan202]

To me that sounds discriminatory. Do women and disabled men have the right to have a firearm to defend themselves against criminals & mentally ill or soldiers of desertion?

What about all the folks that break the law & have a gun?

What would you do if a law violator breaks in to your Swedish home @3am with a gun or even a machete, and wants to harm your wife or children.

Do you ask him,to leave nicely? Do you ask him if you can call a time out so you can call a soldier to come over and help?

Also, you mentioned that weapons for self defense were not allowed. What about hunting and target practice? If so. is it ok to protect yourself with those weapons and if so what would be the difference?

Your talking about two different things, the militia/military in Switzerland is separate from gun ownership as a whole. Women are able to volunteer for military service, and guns are allowed in private hands. The important part about the military weapons is that they are largely responsible for the percentage of homes with weapons and skew the stats when tying to compare Switzerland to other countries without home based military weapons.

Home invasion stats do not outweigh the injury/suicide/murder rates, but again I never said I support outlawing firearms.

When did I mention weapons for self defense being banned?

 

[Dan202]

Just what other specific restrictions on guns & ammo would you like?

I would support the creation of a national “do not buy” registry for guns and ammo.

All weapons and ammo purchases would be required to be processed through the registry. Anyone with a history of violence, criminal activity, domestic violence or mental illness putting them at risk for being a threat to themselves or others would need to show evidence of rehabilitation before being allowed to purchase guns or ammo. This would include private transfers of guns and ammo.

No waiting period except for handguns.

I have no problem with all weapons being registered.

 

[1ke]

I grew up in a mostly catholic town and everyone hated guns. At my bible study I talked about everyone coming to my house to go skeet shooting and I got a bunch a snide comments.

I wouldn’t call a few people in your bible study who made “snide comments” about skeet shooting data that supports the hypothesis that “so many” Catholics are "anti-2nd amendment.

 

[surritter]

It is not a question of rights, it’s a question of what’s best for the society.

I don’t agree with this at all, at least as a general statement. Individuals have rights! If every law is based on “what’s best for society,” then we’d all have a lot less freedom, you realize.
It’s best for society if nobody imbibes alcohol. Should we advocate for prohibition again?

 

[Rau]

I don’t agree with this at all, at least as a general statement. Individuals have rights! If every law is based on “what’s best for society,” then we’d all have a lot less freedom, you realize.
It’s best for society if nobody imbibes alcohol. Should we advocate for prohibition again?

I think your last statements is dubious.

But you misunderstood my original,point. The right to a gun is an outcome of the law and not in debate. Whether it is a good idea is in debate.

 

[surritter]

I think your last statements is dubious.

But you misunderstood my original,point. The right to a gun is an outcome of the law and not in debate. Whether it is a good idea is in debate.

No worries – My statement was meant to sound dubious, but it followed from the logic that you seemed to be presenting.
I agree that in the specific case of gun ownership, your statement makes sense. I’m glad you didn’t intend to make a blanket statement that what’s best for society should trump individual rights.

 

[Jaguar]

If you truly believe your community is safer when all are armed, then I do understand. For me, I am glad I live where that is not the prevailing mindset.

I never said “all” should be armed, Rau. Read my statement again.

I can guarantee you, wherever you live, is not free of crime. Don’t fool yourself. Perhaps it is those with the mindset of denial, that are most vulnerable in the world.

 

[Dan202]

I never said “all” should be armed, Rau. Read my statement again.

I can guarantee you, wherever you live, is not free of crime. Don’t fool yourself. Perhaps it is those with the mindset of denial, that are most vulnerable in the world.

Still the fact is the data shows that you are less safe with a weapon in the home than without. You may however feel like you are safer but it doesn’t change the fact that the data shows an increased risk of homicide/suicide in homes with guns that outweighs the numbers of home invasions. Now the standard response to the data is that people dont report successful prevention of crime if thats the case they have no one to blame but themselves for not reporting crime that merited brandishing or using a firearm.

I still think that no one (on this forum) has suggested outlawing private ownership of firearms, just more regulation of the weapons and while I am thinking about it maybe some validation that they can use them safely. I grew up in a rural area and have shown several friends how to shoot both rifles and handguns I like shooting. I do think that some guy in the city buying a gun and having no idea how to handle it doesn’t make anyone any safer.

 

[Jaguar]

Question for each of you that do not have guns in your home . What would you do if you hear the glass break at 3AM & one or more criminals enter your home?

I’m interested to hear your answers.

 

[Rau]

I never said “all” should be armed, Rau. Read my statement again.

I can guarantee you, wherever you live, is not free of crime. Don’t fool yourself. Perhaps it is those with the mindset of denial, that are most vulnerable in the world.

It’s tricky to argue that “I” should be armed, but not the other 95% who are neither criminals not mentally ill.

 

[Jaguar]

It’s tricky to argue that “I” should be armed, but not the other 95% who are neither criminals not mentally ill.

I’m not sure I follow.

 

[Rau]

I’m not sure I follow.

A generally favorable attitude to guns in the home tends to lead to a large gun population, notwithstanding banning criminals and the mentally ill. Thus, we end up with widespread gun ownership. While “I” may feel I can be a responsible owner and a wise user, that will not be the case for many others, who know doubt believe they will be responsible, wise users.

 

[Rau]

Question for each of you that do not have guns in your home . What would you do if you hear the glass break at 3AM & one or more criminals enter your home?

I’m interested to hear your answers.

In the US, do house burglars typically break into occupied houses and carry guns? It seems to greatly elevate the downside risk for the burglar. Maybe they carry guns for fear the homeowner does?

 

[LongingSoul]

Question for each of you that do not have guns in your home . What would you do if you hear the glass break at 3AM & one or more criminals enter your home?

I’m interested to hear your answers.

I’d have to call the police and wait since I’m not allowed to own a gun as a visitor. That makes me wonder about all the people around you who aren’t allowed to own a gun. What do they do if they hear glass break at 3am and criminals enter? Are they just expendables in this case?

 

[Dan202]

I’d have to call the police and wait since I’m not allowed to own a gun as a visitor. That makes me wonder about all the people around you who aren’t allowed to own a gun. What do they do if they hear glass break at 3am and criminals enter? Are they just expendables in this case?

Here is some good data related to home invasion/burglary:

Most burglaries occur during the day, for more than half of all burglaries no one is home at the time of the crime. When violence occurs it is someone the victim knows over 60% of the time. 61% of perpetrators were not armed during the crime.
bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

The stats show that you are more likely to be killed if you have a gun in the home than if you dont. So far from being expendable they are safer than folks with guns.
huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

 

[Jaguar]

I’d have to call the police and wait since I’m not allowed to own a gun as a visitor. That makes me wonder about all the people around you who aren’t allowed to own a gun. What do they do if they hear glass break at 3am and criminals enter? Are they just expendables in this case?

That’s a good point. The world is not perfect, nor is it fair for everyone. If it were me I would live in a safer community, with my legal choices of defensive weaponry. Protecting my family, is not a choice for me. It is my duty.

 

[Jaguar]

Here is some good data related to home invasion/burglary:

Most burglaries occur during the day, for more than half of all burglaries no one is home at the time of the crime. When violence occurs it is someone the victim knows over 60% of the time. 61% of perpetrators were not armed during the crime.
bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

The stats show that you are more likely to be killed if you have a gun in the home than if you dont. So far from being expendable they are safer than folks with guns.
huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

Let’s do this another way.

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year from 2003 through 2007and about seven percent (266,560) involved some form of violent victimization, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, announced today.

Also remember these figure’s are for the entire country. Your chances are much, much greater if you. like most Catholics live in large metro areas (LA, NY, Chicago, Miami, etc.)

As someone mentioned previously. The most crime ridden places in the country are the same places where guns are forbidden. If I’m a criminal with any sense, I will definitely be more likely to enter a home w/o guns, rather than a home with guns. It’s pure logic for the criminal. As well it should be pure logic for the homeowner as well.

No matter how many regulations you impose, they will only be followed by law abiding people. Criminals are criminals for the opposite reason. They do not abide, respect or follow the law.

 

[Dan202]

Let’s do this another way.

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year from 2003 through 2007and about seven percent (266,560) involved some form of violent victimization, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, announced today.

Also remember these figure’s are for the entire country. Your chances are much, much greater if you. like most Catholics live in large metro areas (LA, NY, Chicago, Miami, etc.)

As someone mentioned previously. The most crime ridden places in the country are the same places where guns are forbidden. If I’m a criminal with any sense, I will definitely be more likely to enter a home w/o guns, rather than a home with guns. It’s pure logic for the criminal. As well it should be pure logic for the homeowner as well.

No matter how many regulations you impose, they will only be followed by law abiding people. Criminals are criminals for the opposite reason. They do not abide, respect or follow the law.

Where exactly are guns prohibited in the home? Even when Chicago’s handgun ban was in place you could legally obtain a shotgun. Did crime drop in Chicago/DC when the handgun bans stopped?