Why is the Catholic Church Anti-gun?

[2shelbys]

Zerith:

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

Not really. Criminals do not go in to gun stores and get their guns legally. They are far cheaper and easier to get on the street.

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.

That is why it is our job as parents (and even as unrelated adults) to protect our children.

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.”

Than they reach for any one of dozens of potential weapons including the car. The point is that we have a defense against such people.

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.

In chases the police are far more concerned with the damage that the criminal can do with the car than they are with any weapon inside the car.

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 spite of all of the media hype there really are not that many, and you never hear about incidents like the one in Alabama a few years ago where a school shooting in the making was ended by an administrator with his own shotgun (that he was not supposed to have on school grounds but thank God he did) because that does not support the message that the media is trying to get across.

 

[2shelbys]

Ray_Scheel:

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.

Two that stick out in my mind are Alexander Hamilton’s comments in Federalist Papers numbers 28 and 29 and James Madison’s in Federalist papers number 46. they are a good place to start.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Libero:

Further more, swimming pools are not designed to kill people.

Gun are not “designed to kill people” either. In fact, as previously mentioned, the guns designed with people in mind as targets are built to try to maim or wound more than kill.

Libero:

JPII’s would be killer was released this week, the pope was shot numerous times, yet he did not reach for a gun, nor did he subsequently have the asassin executed.

You realy ought to look into the armaments carried by the Swiss Guard on the pope’s detail before raising this point again. They are mercenaries, and very well funded ones at that. If they would have had a clear shot at the would-be assassin, there wouldn’t have been a need for a trial. (2shelby’s description of the foiled rape also mentioned that part of knowing how to use a gun means not shooting if you don’t have a clear shot, which leads into a need for folks in enforcement/protection to have alternate means of dealing with an armed threat in cases where a gun isn’t the most efficient answer.)

Libero:

Shooting in your own yard, does that not disturb the neighbours and the wildlife? And surely it cannot help the police. What if an officer hears a gun being fired, and goes to investigate, that is wasting police time. What if a neighbour or passer by hears the gun going off, then calls the police, that too is wasting police time.

I’m not sure where to start on the presumptions here. In a rural area where firearm use is common, hearing occasional gunshots is not a cause for concern unless its outside normal shooting hours. If you have a property large enough to be shooting on in the first place, it doesn’t other the neighbors because they are not that close. Wildlife does get a little skittish for a while after nearby gunfire, but even they quickly figure out the differnece between sources of gunfire engaged in target practice and a hunting threat. If planning a night-time foray to lure in a coyote pack that has been harrassing livestock, an advance call to the sheriff and neighbors is recommended so they know in advance what’s going on (but often, the neighbors will offer to pitch in and help with the task). And for picking off a 4-footed maurader caught in the act, a shot (or two) with the smallest appropriate caliber will generally not wake the neighbors even on a quiet night. When I

Libero:

But you see, this simple method to follow seems brilliant to you, but to many it would not. I/ or maybe some women for that matter would not be that happy. I would be really nervous, I wouldn’t want to shoot anyway, incase I did kill someone, then my hand could be shaking, thus the gun is nit straight, then I would probably get a really bad shot, if I shot at all. This is the problem, to you, firing a gun would be fine, it wouldn’t bother you, but it would me, I would, really suck at it.

This is an argument against someone with no understanding, exposure, or training with firearms trying to use a gun for self defense. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t want my wife to try to use one of our guns for self defense, as she’s refused to take any sort of instruction on their use.

 

[2shelbys]

Ray_Scheel:

Gun are not “designed to kill people” either. In fact, as previously mentioned, the guns designed with people in mind as targets are built to try to maim or wound more than kill.

Exactly the goal of the NATO 5.56mm (.223) round and the Russian 5.45x39mm. If you kill a soldier it takes only him out of the battle. If you wound him, two other guys have to carry him out so you effectively take three guys out of commission, at least temporarily.
Cold but effective military thinking.

 

[Brendan]

2shelbys:

Exactly the goal of the NATO 5.56mm (.223) round and the Russian 5.45x39mm. If you kill a soldier it takes only him out of the battle. If you wound him, two other guys have to carry him out so you effectively take three guys out of commission, at least temporarily.
Cold but effective military thinking.

Sort of, the .223 round was already in existance. It was developed by Winchester as a ‘varmit’ round. So the round was designed to kill racoon, fox and skunks.

The military found in it’s testing that that same high velocity but low power had the added benefit of being accurate but producing wounds more often than kills.

 

[Isidore_AK]

2shelbys:

Exactly the goal of the NATO 5.56mm (.223) round and the Russian 5.45x39mm. If you kill a soldier it takes only him out of the battle. If you wound him, two other guys have to carry him out so you effectively take three guys out of commission, at least temporarily.
Cold but effective military thinking.

Of course, that isn’t working so well with the Islamic extremists (or anyone else who doesn’t have a sense of self-preservation). It often takes multiple hits to stop many of the attackers, especially the suicide bombers. Our current batch of small arms is based on a doctrine designed to fight ‘reasonable’ opponents- particularly those like the Soviet & Chinese conscripts, many of whom just want to survive to make it home again. Using varmint rounds, 'cause thats what the .223 (M-16 ammunition) is folks. A round designed to kill groundhogs & other varmints…coyote’s, dogs, cats & other small pests. Not an effective round against people…

 

[Isidore_AK]

Brendan:

Sort of, the .223 round was already in existance. It was developed by Winchester as a ‘varmit’ round. So the round was designed to kill racoon, fox and skunks.

The military found in it’s testing that that same high velocity but low power had the added benefit of being accurate but producing wounds more often than kills.

Thats what I get for leaving my desk for 10 minutes…I duped your post!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Isidore_AK:

Of course, that isn’t working so well with the Islamic extremists (or anyone else who doesn’t have a sense of self-preservation). It often takes multiple hits to stop many of the attackers, especially the suicide bombers. Our current batch of small arms is based on a doctrine designed to fight ‘reasonable’ opponents- particularly those like the Soviet & Chinese conscripts, many of whom just want to survive to make it home again. Using varmint rounds, 'cause thats what the .223 (M-16 ammunition) is folks. A round designed to kill groundhogs & other varmints…coyote’s, dogs, cats & other small pests. Not an effective round against people…

That’s why we should go to the .308! An AR-15 is fun to shoot but when it’s time to get serious, it’s time to reach for the AR-10.

 

[JSmitty2005]

I don’t see where anyone got this idea of the Church being anti-gun. I remember seeing a picture of a bishop (I think from the midwest, but I may be wrong) going out on a benefit shoot with some of the members of his diocese. I believe this was in the Knight’s magazine Columbia. The Church is not anti-gun, that’s an absurd accusation and just more evidence that liberal pacifists are trying to take over the Church.

 

[Isidore_AK]

Sir Knight:

That’s why we should go to the .308! An AR-15 is fun to shoot but when it’s time to get serious, it’s time to reach for the AR-10.

No offense, but I think I’ll go with a H&K G3 clone or a FAL if I want something in .308…

Or maybe one of the VEPR’s in .308…I love my AK’s Y’know!

 

[Sir_Knight]

I never warmed up to the AK’s but I heard that in .223, they are even more reliable than the AR15/M16.

 

[2shelbys]

Isidore_AK:

Of course, that isn’t working so well with the Islamic extremists (or anyone else who doesn’t have a sense of self-preservation). It often takes multiple hits to stop many of the attackers, especially the suicide bombers. Our current batch of small arms is based on a doctrine designed to fight ‘reasonable’ opponents- particularly those like the Soviet & Chinese conscripts, many of whom just want to survive to make it home again. Using varmint rounds, 'cause thats what the .223 (M-16 ammunition) is folks. A round designed to kill groundhogs & other varmints…coyote’s, dogs, cats & other small pests. Not an effective round against people…

I know someone that is in Iraq and he said the M-14 is becoming popular again because of it’s greater punch and long distance accuracy. The only problem with it is that in full-auto mode the first shot is dead center, the second is way high, and after that it is an anti-aircraft weapon.

 

[2shelbys]

Isidore_AK:

No offense, but I think I’ll go with a H&K G3 clone or a FAL if I want something in .308…

Or maybe one of the VEPR’s in .308…I love my AK’s Y’know!

I am an AK guy too. I have one full stock and one under-folder. Simple to breakdown and clean, absolute reliability. Unless you run over it with a tank or fill it up with cement it is simply going to fire every time. I have nothing against the AR though, I love them too. I have always wanted an SVD. They are not anywhere near as accurate as an M-40 or M-14 but they are just cool.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[she_he]

thistle:

With regard to murder statistics the UK has an average of 1000 murders annually, and 10% of murders are committed by guns.
With regard to London, the 11 months to November 2005 totalled 158 murders. These are the official numbers released by the Metropolitan Police.
Considering USA has a population 4.5 times the UK then America’s total annual homicides would have to be less than 4500 to be better than the UK murder rate.
Maybe somebody can give me the total murders annually in the USA and what percentage are committed by guns.

That tells me that if you had gun ownership rights that possibly up to 90% of murders could have been avoided…

as you brits would say “PROOF POSITIVE”
John

 

[she_he]

thistle:

Anyone who keeps a gun in nearly every room of their house is either a gun fanatic or terrified all the time that someone might break into their house.
As for me only God knows if I will be mugged or murdered but I put my trust in God and do not live my life in fear.

Obviously you do live in fear… Fear that citizens may own guns…

Its funny the only ones here that are for gun control have had someone in thier family shot,CRIMINALS and the news…also a few others but they jump on the band wagon for any new law because it makes them feel like a “BOSS” of other people.usually these men are really dominated at home, and the women have Bad childhood memories of dad and brothers going hunting for a week and she wasnt allowed, But NOWadays the largest growing group of hunters in the USA is women…they are also the biggest group of peoples buying firearms in the USA and not just handguns for self defense…

Most Police organizations are against gun control.they only wanted it a lil harder to buy one instead of being easier than a bottle of beer to buy, they got thier wish…and its not a bad deal as it is now, we can all live with what we currently have…
John

 

[she_he]

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.

well i have said for years I would NOT hesitate to shoot someone.
BUT when push comes to shove its actually a little bit different.
I have had the barrel of a loaded shotgun in a mans face,and I hesitated,and gave him a chance to release his weapon,that hesitation could have gotten me injured but in all fairness I had his weapon in a safe position at that instance.Its easy to say it till you are in the situation I do know there would have been no hesitation on my part had anyone elses life been in jeopardy besides mine at that time.
The man did release his weapon and cried because he thought he was a dead man…

But even heavily trained Police have this “human” hesitation.
matter of fact the police when they got there told the guy he was very lucky he was alive as they said they would have shot him on site.had they been in my situation.
so until the adreniline is flowing confidence is all we have.
its not a “Trigger happy” confidence, I dont think any of us WANT to be forced to kill someone,its something we would always wonder well we had the gun and aim could we have stopped the situation without a death? That also is a part of resonsible gun ownership that all us “gun owners” understand killing a human is not something we “look forward” to doing at all…
I think the confidence you are “seeing in us gun owners” is more of we Know our weapons, we now our ammo, we can shoot the hair off a flys rear at a given range without thought or deliberate action,the safty on the weapon is on till the weapon is brought up then its off and we didnt even think about it its just an instinct to us as responsible owners of our weapons to know everything about them…its not trigger happy. Its more like taking a breath you dont think about it…
John

 

[she_he]

Zerith:

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?

Here is a hard fact KIDS THAT ARE BROUGHT UP AROUND GUNS dont use them wrongly or unsafely.

My kids have known how to load every "long gun"in my house since they could pick them up,BUT the first thing i did was take them out to the woods have them try to break a small tree or tear it out of the ground,when they gave up I blew the thing apart with a shotgun and 1 shot,showing them full well what the gun can and will do.then I told them to put the tree back up,they couldnt i said that right in real life when a gun is shot you cannot fix what it will do,if its pointed at a person they are dead forever,same with an animal,and anything not alive will be broken.
I didnt keep my guns hidden from the kids,its a pain sometimes when they ask and your busy to see a given gun but i found that "satisfy the curiosity rather than hide is best,they dont even think about trying to get a "view " or play with it when you are not around.
My kids are now 16 and 17,they own thier own shotguns and 22 cal rifles and each a deer rifle.I have never had cause or reason to ever tell them ok i cannot trust you around guns,from the first bb gun they had they have been totally respectful of them.
guns that are hidden from kids are the dangerous guns to kids
they want to “check it out”…
as far as them knowing at a young age My oldest son at 7 saved his Grandmothers dog from an attack by a bobcat by shooting the critter,Probably saved half my chickens as well.
My mom actually had no idea how to use load or shoot the gun.
and was impressed when my son stepped up grabbed the gun,loaded it(outside the house even) and quickly dispatched the attacking animal.then unloaded the gun, left the action open and handed it barrel up to my mom and said have dad double check it when he gets home, In that note he also went up to the animal and put a second shot in at close range to make sure it “was not suffering”

Pretty responsible to me
John

 

[she_he]

Brendan:

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?

also on your note how many deaths due to cars? they kill far more than guns do everyday… but the anti gun folks own cars so these are ok…

 

[katewithak]

I think we could go deeper than this question. The simple meditation on the great gift of the Resurrection should tell us that we do not want anyone cut off from it. Guns kill, guns are used in war, guns are used in gang fights, guns simply kill. I was reflecting on war and other violence last night and it seems a great shame that anyone should be killed before they had the chance to be baptized or know Christ. Anyone. What a sorrowful occurrence. So many ways to kill in our society- so few hours in a day to help people come to know their worth before God. Why would the Church, then, be anything but anti gun? Or anti abortion? Or anti death penalty? Or not easily declare a war justified?

 

[she_he]

Libero:

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.

Not to sound to “arrogant or cocky” but in all fairness taking into consideration an unarmed police officer,they would have little effect on a person like me. I train police,prison guards and even military personel in self defense and hand combat techniques,
one of the first things i do when i do this is go in and get 5 to 9 of them to try and subdue me,this helps to get them to pay attention to me when i am teaching them.they have yet to ever be able to subdue me and most times are not even able to land a hand on me.
I also teach them how to remove weapons (not guns) from people such as a baton or baseball bat.they have not hit me with either in all my years and you know what there are a lot of people out there that can do the same things as me and even lots more.
and some of these people are not nice guys…the only thing they would have a fair chance with is a gun. unless i messed upand they were lucky dont seem fair to make a man try and do something like that…

On that note an unarmed police officer wouldnt last 2 minutes in LA against one of them gangs he would be used as an initiation.
John