Why is the Catholic Church Anti-gun?

[DreadVandal]

Sir Knight:

The church is very much pro-gun. Note what is said on the Vatican’s own website …

Cool, I’m glad to know this. Now if I can just convince my wife to allow a gun in the home…

 

[2shelbys]

Libero:

Are you implying that the UK has only become violent because it has banned fire arms? What a silly insinuation.

Perhaps the fact that crime in general has risen is something to do with it, I personally believe it to be due to the fact that Britain is now effectively an atheist country, nobody values life anymore, we have no standards, there is a huge lack of love and the sense of a community. In general the UK is not that violent, Crime and violence thrives in all cities, this is a point to remember.

While your comment about the lack of God in certainly correct, the assertion is not so silly. Everywhere that guns are banned, violence skyrockets. It is realy not hard to understand. Criminals are going to be far more comfortable in attacking people when know know there is little chance that their target will be armed. It is not silly, it is simple logic. A poll conducted among convicted and incarcerated felons back in the 90’s showed that the biggest fear they had was not the Police or even being caught. It was running into an armed citizen.

 

[Libero]

Agreed, but why exactly does it thrive twice as much in London as it does in New York, or Detroit?

Is New York less athiestic than London, or perhaps those in the Bronx value life more than those in Soho?

There are large amounts of immigrants in London, huge social issues revolving around religion, and also social groups you may have heard in threads with English people the terms “chavs” or “scals” used - these are effectively social groups that people become a part of.

The police in London are also not that effective, I remember some of my friends coming back from America, and saying that in NY, the police had just shot some people dead immidiately without being 100% sure of the situation. That would not happen in England, even if all police did have guns.

 

[Libero]

While your comment about the lack of God in certainly correct, the assertion is not so silly. Everywhere that guns are banned, violence skyrockets. It is realy not hard to understand. Criminals are going to be far more comfortable in attacking people when know know there is little chance that their target will be armed. It is not silly, it is simple logic. A poll conducted among convicted and incarcerated felons back in the 90’s showed that the biggest fear they had was not the Police or even being caught. It was running into an armed citizen

But that is in America though, we cannot overlook the difference in our societies, I am not entirely sure that responsible citizens in England would have such a “trigger happy” attitude. Also, guns were banned so far ago in England, that looking at rising crime statistics and the banning of guns is no longer effective, culture in Britain has changed so quickly over such a short amount of time.

 

[2shelbys]

Libero:

But that is in America though, we cannot overlook the difference in our societies, I am not entirely sure that responsible citizens in England would have such a “trigger happy” attitude.

So we Americans are irresponsible? I would say thet the number of instances where armed American citizens stop crimes without firing a shot (over 1.4 million a year) versus the number of murders shows exactly the opposite of your “trigger-happy” claim.

Also, guns were banned so far ago in England, that looking at rising crime statistics and the banning of guns is no longer effective, culture in Britain has changed so quickly over such a short amount of time

But the immediate and huge increase in crime over just the first two years after your bans is very telling and can not be ignored.

 

[Zerith]

Sir Knight:

The United States is not now, nor has it ever been, a democracy. From the day that it was founded, it has been a democratic Republic. There are significant differences between a democracy and a democratic republic.

Reality has shown over and over again that more guns equals LESS violence. May I suggest the book “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws” by John R. Lott, Jr. He started out trying to prove the horrors of gun ownership but the more he researched the matter, the more his own research showed that the benefits of gun ownership far outweigh their liabilities.

“Democratic Republic”? If this is so, it’s news to me, and probably the world.

Is America not a Constitutional Federal Republic? (Usually shortened to just “Federal Republic”)

As far as I know, there’s no government type of “Democratic Republic” - It has featured in names of Socialist dictatorships, Communist Dictatorships and other countries with similar ideology. Though “Democratic Republic” not being their government type.

I could be wrong, if I am, please do correct me.

2Shelbys - I’ll get to the rest your post later, I just don’t have time at the moment - But I do find your… Hmm, “tactic” funny . Unfortunately we do have certain people like that, though they’d mainly be IRA supporters, and racist towards the British. I’d put the number more around 1.5/10

But to clear things up, the IRA did have contact with the Germans on many occasions, though the Germans, in the end, thought they were fairly useless. Though they did start a bombing campaign of Britain during the war. DeValera - Who supported the IRA (I do not like DeValera, to be honest. I’m more of a Collins fan ), was forced to initiate a crack down on the IRA - unwillingly, to avoid a decleration of war on Ireland, by Britain. And yes, DeValera did call the German ambassador to send his sympathies - This was a complex matter, but to cut it short (As I didn’t intend this to be too long), he did it to show that Ireland was truly neutral - even though Germany had committed war crimes, massacres and ethnic clensing.

And on your second quote of mine, I believe, as a fault of my own, you mis-understood me. I actually meant, yes there would’ve been a war against the USSR, but not before a war with the Allies. But I do believe Stalin wanted to secure Russia’s position before conquering the world (Trotsky wanting to set up many other Socialist Republics accross the world, then collectively building up equally - Which got him expelled from the USSR, and later killed, by Stalin’s orders.) Mainly because Hitler had a deep seeded hatred for the French (He also hated Vichy France, and that’s why he didn’t hesitate to dissolve it in… When was it, '43?)

2Shelbys, it was mainly a forested region, but it had some mountainous or hilly features, along with underground water caves/passages which posed a problem, so yea, they couldn’t build the massive fortifications through there. And even if they could, I believe Germany would’ve attempted air and sea landings, though of a weaker magnitude, could have worked. Or even through Italy.

Your knowledge on history is good.

 

[Libero]

So we Americans are irresponsible? I would say thet the number of instances where armed American citizens stop crimes without firing a shot (over 1.4 million a year) versus the number of murders shows exactly the opposite of your “trigger-happy” claim.

No no no, that is not what I am trying to say, here many of the gun owners are deemed responsible, and they say, that they would not hesitate in shooting someone who was a threat, however in England, I am not sure that people of the same responsible state would be quite so confident in being able to shoot at a person, as they have not been brought up in such an environement, thus guns may be to some extent a “novelty”, therefore why I put “trigger happy” in speech marks.

 

[wabrams]

Libero:

No no no, that is not what I am trying to say, here many of the gun owners are deemed responsible, and they say, that they would not hesitate in shooting someone who was a threat, however in England, I am not sure that people of the same responsible state would be quite so confident in being able to shoot at a person, as they have not been brought up in such an environement, thus guns may be to some extent a “novelty”, therefore why I put “trigger happy” in speech marks.

I think the difference isn’t the willingness to protect oneself, but the in America you won’t be prosecuted (usually) for self defense were as in England they’ll nail your butt to the wall for for protecting yourself.

 

[Zerith]

2shelbys:

While your comment about the lack of God in certainly correct, the assertion is not so silly. Everywhere that guns are banned, violence skyrockets. It is realy not hard to understand. Criminals are going to be far more comfortable in attacking people when know know there is little chance that their target will be armed. It is not silly, it is simple logic. A poll conducted among convicted and incarcerated felons back in the 90’s showed that the biggest fear they had was not the Police or even being caught. It was running into an armed citizen.

Just one point though: You’re giving these criminals easy access to weaponry. Increasing their “power” so to speak.

And what of children? A paedophile with a gun? What do you propose - Give children guns? I realise that a Paedophile’s tactics don’t [normally] involve violence, but rather trickery. But still, it is a possibility - Especially if a paedophile uses the same victim over and over, they then start to threaten them if they wish to tell.

And what if a person is stressed, has a breakdown? Roadrage? “You angered me, and in this fit of rage, I can reach for my handgun.”

Especially in police chases, what could’ve been something simple, becomes complicated with a firearm, causing the police to use force, and sometimes, extreme measures - If he didn’t have this gun, there’d be no need. And if the police had no guns too, like in Ireland, there’d be no need for this “dominating power” - I mean, someone expressed concerns, above, about the state controlling people? Well, you do have an armed police force, I’d be more worried about the government using the armed police and army to gain control, rather than simply saying: “Ah, you know what, let’s take your guns, and without force through the police/army, we’ll just ban Democracy, simple as that.”
As I said, the Irish police are trying to be recruited by the Australians and Americans, due to their ability to handle a situation unarmed.

And what about school shootings? None in the history of my country. In America? What is it? One a year? Two years? Is that an “Acceptable” risk, or loss?

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

There are large amounts of immigrants in London, huge social issues revolving around religion, and also social groups you may have heard in threads with English people the terms “chavs” or “scals” used - these are effectively social groups that people become a part of.

Hmmm, large immigrant population, issues about religion, yep, sounds like New York to me.

The police in London are also not that effective, I remember some of my friends coming back from America, and saying that in NY, the police had just shot some people dead immidiately without being 100% sure of the situation. That would not happen in England, even if all police did have guns.

Hmmm, what happened to that Brazilian carpenter in the London subway last July

 

[wabrams]

Zerith:

Just one point though: You’re giving these criminals easy access to weaponry. Increasing their “power” so to speak.

Where did you get that idea?

Zerith:

And what of children? A paedophile with a gun? What do you propose - Give children guns? I realise that a Paedophile’s tactics don’t [normally] involve violence, but rather trickery. But still, it is a possibility - Especially if a paedophile uses the same victim over and over, they then start to threaten them if they wish to tell.

A pedophile is going to use threats whether they have a gun or not.

Zerith:

And what if a person is stressed, has a breakdown? Roadrage? “You angered me, and in this fit of rage, I can reach for my handgun.”

RARELY happens. So rare in fact that I can’t remember reading about a case like that in a long time.

Zerith:

Especially in police chases, what could’ve been something simple, becomes complicated with a firearm, causing the police to use force, and sometimes, extreme measures - If he didn’t have this gun, there’d be no need.

And what about school shootings? None in the history of my country. In America? What is it? One a year? Two years? Is that an “Acceptable” risk, or loss?

In all those scenarios, it will most likely be a weapon illegally purchased.

And if the police had no guns too, like in Ireland, there’d be no need for this “dominating power” - I mean, someone expressed concerns, above, about the state controlling people? Well, you do have an armed police force, I’d be more worried about the government using the armed police and army to gain control, rather than simply saying: “Ah, you know what, let’s take your guns, and without force through the police/army, we’ll just ban Democracy, simple as that.”
As I said, the Irish police are trying to be recruited by the Australians and Americans, due to their ability to handle a situation unarmed.

Sorry to cut and paste your statement, but this is one that I wanted to address seperately. You aren’t going to be able to use the police in this country to subdue the citizens: we have for weapons than the police!

With regards to the army: so much of the US is rural and everyone so well armed the army would quickly find itself fighting a guerilla war against a large population of the US.

 

[Anim8]

I haven’t read everything said before this because frankly I’m lazy and there is waaayyy too much to read. But here is my take.

As far as I know the catholic church has made no statement to the effect that guns are bad. Because they are not. A gun is just as bad as a phone. If I have a gun, it will do nothing unless I pick it up and use it. Therefore it would be me doing the wrong (if a wrongful act is committed). Anything…*anything *can be used for good or for evil. Scripture (as Satan showed us) right on down to a rock. There is nothing wrong with a gun, anymore then there is anything wrong with a car. If my previous statement is correct then owning a gun is perfectly fine.

My father owns a gun, living in the country has told us that at times you need one to ward off unwanted varmints…like a coon that is frothing at the mouth right in our backyard where the kids play.

It also can be used for self defense. Anyone who dismisses the possibility that a gun could be useful for self defence is naive. Not that you need one, but there is no reason why it would be wrong to, unless its an illegal weapon.

Or just for hunting, that’s another perfectly legitimate use…

Basically my point is that there is nothing wrong with owning a gun, and there never has been.

 

[Libero]

Hmmm, what happened to that Brazilian carpenter in the London subway last July

That was a travesty, the fault of incompetent police officers and poor communication, there was subsequently an inquiry.

However, to some extent it is understandable, and if an accident were to happen with guns, it would have been after the bombings.

 

[Brendan]

Zerith:

And what about school shootings? None in the history of my country. In America? What is it? One a year? Two years? Is that an “Acceptable” risk, or loss?

In 2003 to 2004, there were 18 deaths due to firearms in schools (that includes suicides)

In that same time were 48 deaths due to High School Football, and 96 due to High School swimming programs.

So which is more dangerous? Should we ban High School swimming teams. What is the ‘acceptable risk’ there?

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

That was a travesty, the fault of incompetent police officers and poor communication, there was subsequently an inquiry.

However, to some extent it is understandable, and if an accident were to happen with guns, it would have been after the bombings.

But Libero, how does that ‘jive’ with this quote of yours

That would not happen in England, even if all police did have guns.

 

[Servant1]

vluvski:

When discussing most crimes committed with guns, it is necessary to realize that the gun laws have more often than not been broken.
Restricting gun ownership only puts limitations on legal gun ownership. Illegal gun ownership, the means by which a majority of criminals obtain their weapons, remains uncurbed by putting more and more gun laws into place.
I’m happy to hear that the original statement was a misinterpretation of the USCCB.

Well said. Criminals - as opposed to those who fall into crime inexpectedly (e.g. “crime of passion”) - do not get their guns through legal means. They don’t walk into stores, produce valid IDs, sign their true name, etc. I spent too many years as a cop to have any other statement to make about that issue. Not only are they not going to go through the hassle, they are not going to expose themselves to the legal system and its records. You can make owning knives, forks, sharpened spoons, baseball bats or stones larger than 1cm illegal. The law abiding citizens won’t have them but the criminals will still have bazookas, RPGs, and machine guns.

 

[Sir_Knight]

“Democratic Republic”? If this is so, it’s news to me, and probably the world.

How long has the American “pledge of allegiance” been around? What are it’s opening words?
I pledge allegiance to the Flag … and to the Republic for which it stands – no mention anywhere of a democracy.

 

[Libero]

But Libero, how does that ‘jive’ with this quote of yours

Well, for starters, there would not always be an after a bombing situation. Also, these officers were supposedly highly trained, if all officers were given guns, then they would not all be specialists, and most probably be resilliant to firing guns. In fact, I could imagine alot of officers getting annoyed, thinking that it was an insult to their abilities, and also just a waste of money.

 

[2shelbys]

“Democratic Republic”? If this is so, it’s news to me, and probably the world.

Is America not a Constitutional Federal Republic? (Usually shortened to just “Federal Republic”)

As far as I know, there’s no government type of “Democratic Republic” - It has featured in names of Socialist dictatorships, Communist Dictatorships and other countries with similar ideology. Though “Democratic Republic” not being their government type.

I could be wrong, if I am, please do correct me.

2Shelbys - I’ll get to the rest your post later, I just don’t have time at the moment - But I do find your… Hmm, “tactic” funny . Unfortunately we do have certain people like that, though they’d mainly be IRA supporters, and racist towards the British. I’d put the number more around 1.5/10

But to clear things up, the IRA did have contact with the Germans on many occasions, though the Germans, in the end, thought they were fairly useless. Though they did start a bombing campaign of Britain during the war. DeValera - Who supported the IRA (I do not like DeValera, to be honest. I’m more of a Collins fan ), was forced to initiate a crack down on the IRA - unwillingly, to avoid a decleration of war on Ireland, by Britain. And yes, DeValera did call the German ambassador to send his sympathies - This was a complex matter, but to cut it short (As I didn’t intend this to be too long), he did it to show that Ireland was truly neutral - even though Germany had committed war crimes, massacres and ethnic clensing.

And on your second quote of mine, I believe, as a fault of my own, you mis-understood me. I actually meant, yes there would’ve been a war against the USSR, but not before a war with the Allies. But I do believe Stalin wanted to secure Russia’s position before conquering the world (Trotsky wanting to set up many other Socialist Republics accross the world, then collectively building up equally - Which got him expelled from the USSR, and later killed, by Stalin’s orders.) Mainly because Hitler had a deep seeded hatred for the French (He also hated Vichy France, and that’s why he didn’t hesitate to dissolve it in… When was it, '43?)

2Shelbys, it was mainly a forested region, but it had some mountainous or hilly features, along with underground water caves/passages which posed a problem, so yea, they couldn’t build the massive fortifications through there. And even if they could, I believe Germany would’ve attempted air and sea landings, though of a weaker magnitude, could have worked. Or even through Italy.

Your knowledge on history is good.

As is yours. Your assessment of the situation in Ireland is right on the money. While it is known that there were contacts between Germany and the IRA, as in February 1939 when German agent Oskar Pfaus travelled to Ireland to meet with prominent IRA leader Jim O’Donovan, they never produced anything noteworthy.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

siamesecat:

My dad says he feels they have no point here in regular life, but he feels people have the right to have them in case of some kind of disaster or crisis, because when regular law breaks down …snip… I dont know…maybe its hard for me to understand because around here I’ve never seen a situation besides police related that a gun was put to any good use.

Look into the reason a right to bear arms was built into the Constitution in the first place The breakdown/failure of government was fresh on the minds of the colonists who wanted that protection. I think a couple of the Federalist papers addressed the issue, documents from that era would certaily be a good start on the history of the amendment, and should be something you have enough background knowledge about to understand their reasoning, once you get the straight story on what thier reasoning really was.