Gun ownership in this day and age


Can you provide stats?


Of course not, wasn’t my point. Seems everyone of my posts on this thread either get misrepresented or taken out if context.


What was the point?


That using a gun for self defense does not happen all that often.
Which,BTW, was in response to another point I made about the second amendment being misrepresented.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear cut. The militia is necessary to the security of a nation, but the people won’t have their right to bear arms infringed because of that.

I’ll agree, self defense use of guns is not super common.

I’ll agree, few people need to carry a firearm.

But we have a bill of rights. Not a bill of needs or privileges. If you want sweeping gun control passed you’ll need to repeal the second amendment. And that’s not likely to happen.


The logic you used to arrive at this conclusion is flawed.


Canada lets your wife be your character witness? Here in NJ we need two “references” but neither of which can be a family member.


Perhaps, of course I did not say it was definitive, just what I thought.


Again, let me be clear, I am all in favor of individual ownership of guns and the right to self-defense.

But this the second amendment is not clear cut.

@TK421 was entirely accurate when he/she stated that the idea the second amendment protects an individual right to own a gun is a recent event, 2008 as a matter of fact. Before District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, the second amendment had always been interpreted as referring to barring arms as part of a well-0regulated militia. Which is exactly how the amendment reads. It was the first time, in 240 years, the supreme court had ruled that an individual has a right, under the constitution, to own a gun for self-defense.
I am a, for the most part, a constitutional originalist. And I do not like when the courts “make-up” a right that was not the original intent of the framers. Conservatives should be more consistent and admit that the 2008 decision was certainly a violation of originalism.


If you want to be real originalisr, we need to stop applying the constitution to individuals. It was originally a limit on the federal government. Not states. The incorporation of the first amendment didn’t happen until the 1900s.

Which honestly I’d be fine with going back to not having the federal constitution apply to the states. I do believe California should be able to regulate guns all they want and Kentucky should be able to have them as unregulated as they want with no federal interference on either states freedom to legislate.

I would love to have an established religion and restriction of freedom of speech and assembly at the state level.


That is a whole 'nother topic, and one worthy of discussion, but it is even more thread drift that we have already experienced. I will just say that I certainly understand you point of view, I have a die hard supporter of subsidiarity in our political structure. I feel like it has been completely abandoned thoughout the industrialized world and its not going to end well. OTOH, I said I was for the most part am originalist. I am not for sure I want to see the bill of rights not applied to the states. But it might be better than what we now have.


Having a weapon is not a sin. Using that weapon to take a life is. Except in the case of self defense.
In the United States, there are too many people here who should not own guns, who do. Emotionally or mentally disturbed people, who want to use a gun for something other than self defense or hunting.
All see bumper stickers that say, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”
People kill people. But guns just make it easier.


We need to remember that the use of force for self-defense must be in proportion to the threat. I do not get the feeling that most people who advocate having a gun for self-defense often consider this.


We can instruct people on how to use a weapon.
We cannot instruct them on how to react to a people who may come at them with harmful intent forcing them to discharge a weapon in a matter of seconds.


I have the strange ideas that the ability to defend oneself from evildoers is a moral good, that no government may legitimately deprive an otherwise law-abiding citizen of the right to own the tools of self-defense, and that no one is bound to obey unjust laws. So no, it is not necessarily a sin to purchase a gun without a license.


Sure we can. The instruction is “shoot at their center of mass until the threat no longer exists”.


Absolutely. It’s called training.


Actua!ly that is integral to CCW training.


I cannot carry in schools or government buildings. Other than that I don’t care if an establishment prohibits guns. If I’m carrying concealed it’s none of their business.The worst they can do is kick me out.


The whole “mental illness” argument opens up an entirely new can of worms. First of all, the Constitution applies to everyone; not just those of sound mind. Do we deny First Amendment rights to people with mental illness? No. Do we deny Peaceful Assembly rights to people with mental illness? No. Do we deny the right to vote to people with mental illness? No. The right to defend oneself is no different.

Second, the term “mental illness” paints with a very wide brush. OK, maybe we don’t want firearms in the hands of hardcore psychopathic sociopaths. But what about people at the opposite end of the Mental Illness spectrum; those with an easily-treatable mild depression? Are they to be denied the right to firearms as well?

And what kind of a scale to we use? How crazy is crazy enough to be denied firearms? What criteria is used to decide? And who makes these decisions?

The truth be told, more people walking around armed would mean less gun crime; not more. Ever notice that no one goes into a bar where off-duty police officers hang out and try to rob the place? No, because the would-be robber would know he’d never get away with it. It’s best to stick to a “safer” place like a gun-free zone.

In 1981, the city of Morton Grove, IL passed an ordinance* against the possession of handguns ostensibly to make the city “safer.” But violent crime numbers went up. In 1982, in response to the Morton Grove ordinance, the city of Kennesaw, GA passed an ordinance requiring the head of every household to own and maintain a gun. That cities crime rate went down.

Guns make the world safer. Period.

Oh, and one last thought: Of all the rights secured to the people in the US Constitution, why is the right to keep and bear arms the only one you need the government’s permission to exercise?

*In 2008, Morton Grove repealed the handgun ban in light of the DC vs, Heller decision.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit