Fr. Edward Fride (courtesy wxyz.com)

“Several people have said to me, ‘I’m afraid of guns.’ My response to one woman was, ‘Well, how do you feel about rape?’ While that may seem extreme, when we choose against one option, we do, in a sense, empower the other.” – Fr. Edward Fride’s letter to his Ann Arbor, Michigan congregation [via National Catholic Reporter]

52 Responses to Quote of the Day: Guns Make Us Safer, Right? Edition

  1. Merely dialing 911 also proved to be safer than arming oneself, as the National Crime Victimization Surveys found that threatening with a gun nearly triples the likelihood of getting injured, as opposed to just calling the police.

    Okay. So how about actually using that gun to put down your attacker?
    Guns aside there is an epidemic of passive victims who for whatever reason will not take appropriate action to defend their own lives armed or not. This needs to be fixed.

    • “Guns aside there is an epidemic of passive victims who for whatever reason will not take appropriate action to defend their own lives armed or not. This needs to be fixed.”

      It is wrong, I am told to believe America is a moral Christian nation, and I accept it no longer is. Those weak people are what the liberal progressive Darwin called the inferior species that nature replaces.

      • Yep. The bible is a manual, a guidebook that tells a people how to build a society, a culture based on life affirming principles of caring for the soul, and providing for a stable and safe place to raise a family of mature and responsible children .

        Which is what built this country.

        This is what has been violently rejected by many in our country, embracing a belief system that worships death. As evidenced in those that accept the murder of the unborn as a “right”.

        History is replete with what happens to a culture that embraces such a nihilistic and suicidal belief system.

        Survival of the fittest. Those that live by the principles of life as shown to us in the bible will prosper, those that embrace death will reap what they sow.

        • So up with slavery, death penalty for adultery (that will go over well!) and down with shaving, tattoos, and shellfish.

        • Oh now sian. That’s old testament stuff. That’s what the Christ was here to do. Bring in the NEW testament. You know “He who is without sin, cast the first stone”. The dietary stuff? Old testament. Even the modern day Jews aren’t practicing the Old Testament commands (their Torah or holy book); in stoning adulterers.

          The only people that I am aware of that are practicing the old school killing of adulterers and Homosexuals are the Muslims in Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalist muslim countries.

        • And slavery? When slavery was the norm around the world, it was the Christian west, first in europe, then in America, that slavery was first outlawed. It was America and Britain that fought the Ottoman (muslim) empire to stop the slave trade out of Africa and the slave trade of captured American and British sailors.

    • “Threatening with a gun”

      Isnt that 100% against SOP? These tools are not for threatening. Either use it if the situation justifies it or *leave it alone*.

      If you try to use it in a garlic vs vampire role, you’re going to be disappointed and victimized.

      • SOP is only SOP if you have received the proper training to understand. And based on my interaction with people in general the larger majority that have not been in the military don’t even know what that acronym stands for to begin with.

        SOP? (blinks uncomprehendingly) What’s that? (and then you tell them and quite a few still have deer in the headlights syndrome…)

        What percentage of guy buyers do you believe get any training at all, other than their buddy, husband, or friend ‘maybe’ taking them to an indoor range to shoot a few rounds?

        How many buy a gun with zero training at all? Quite a few as a guess.

        Worse, how many get WRONG training from yet another yahoo who does not know what they are doing? Sadly, this is probably a foolishly large group of new buyers.

        • I am a strong advocate for training – the best training you can afford – and as much as you can afford. And I do what I advocate; I’ve accumulated about 100 hours of diverse training during the past couple of years.

          That said, there are lots of resources available today. Lots on-line; lots of books; lots of friends, fellow-shooters, RSOs. By no means is formal training according to a prescribed curriculum the ONLY path to knowledge.

          Moreover, guns are not rocket-science. It really is possible to figure-it-out-for-yourself (albeit I don’t advocate this route.) As it happens, this was my learning approach when I began.

          I was a neglected child. No one paid much attention to me. What I learned, I mostly had to figure out for myself. I could always ask questions; people around me knew the answers and were willing to share. But, I didn’t find this necessary with any frequency.

          At the age of 7 or 8 I whiled away many pleasurable hours in my father’s hardware store fiddling with the inventory, including a couple of break-action shotguns. No one cared; not grand dad, dad, the justice of the peace (who worked there) nor any customers. It simply wasn’t remarkable to see a kid playing with a shotgun inside a hardware store.

          When I was 13 I asked my dad to order a .22 for me. When it arrived I sold myself a box of cartridges and took the gun and ammo – by myself – to the countryside to plink. I was never supervised in shooting until I was old enough to drive; whereupon I joined a gun club. There, the supervision was even looser than it was in the hardware store.

          With no formal training and minimal coaching I managed to get along without a ND for 45 years before any formal training. What is far more important than training is attitude. The ability to recognize that that object in your presence, or in your hand, can be extraordinarily dangerous. You have to know how everything works and handle it accordingly. Logged time in courses can’t make-up for this attitude.

          Im my case, my environment (hardware store, farms) were overflowing with dangerous objects. To survive, one had to learn from toddlerhood to be careful. A young child had to learn that a stick match was an enormous danger in a barn full of hay. Those hours whiled away playing with the shotguns . . . those were spent sitting on a stool a 1 foot away from the shelf-stock of dynamite.

        • I get all my training from dynamic pie videos on YouTube. They’ve got a great one on pimping out your Hi~Point.

  2. It’s a shame the higher ups made him cancel his CHL class. They told him the churches are “gun free zones”
    Good luck with that.

      • Apparently Catholic Churches are gun free zones anywhere, not by decree of our government, but of church officials.

        It’s their church, and I’m glad I don’t ever darken their doors except, rarely, as a tourist in Europe.

        • God’s law trumps man’s any day of the week and 10 fold on Sundays.

          When in I am in Omaha with one of my Brothers, he takes me to mass at St. Cecilia. There are at least five guns between the both of us carried into that gunfree zone.

          If we would have been there for when the feral savages attacked that old lady, the news lines would have said “Illegally carried firearms killed two young black parishioners”.

          The racial double standard and statist worship is exactly what the Second Amendment is for, because my life and the lives of innocent people around me mean more than a street criminal or state sanctioned one.

        • I believe it depends on the diocese or archdiocese.

          Here in IL, church concealed carry is allowed unless specifically prohibited with posted signs. I make a habit of checking whenever I drive past a church and so far the only catholic church I’ve seen posted in my area was connected to a school. Even they eventually removed the signs from the front doors and left them on the school doors so carry was allowed in the church part of the building.

      • Danny,

        You do realize that many churches will not allow open carry … and many churches will not give permission to carry concealed? As a result, many (and I would argue most) churches are de-facto “gun free” zones.

        Furthermore, it is next to impossible to carry openly if you are a man and wear a suit to church.

        A far better condition is for the State to remove churches from their list of “gun free” zones, er, “open carry with a concealed handgun license only” zones. Scratch that. A far better condition is for the State to eliminate ALL “gun free” zones.

        • The pastor that married myself and my wife carries, the son of my cpl instructor is a minister, that would be a decision factor for me to attend a church. I don’t spend money/time in GFZs, why spend Sunday in one?

        • The law doesn’t prohibit OC in a church, and a church has the legal authority to allow CC. Just because some churches won’t allow guns doesn’t mean this pastor couldn’t allow guns. That’s my point. MCL 28.425o states CC is not allowed on “Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless authorized by the presiding official. Pastor could have given the okay.

        • Danny Griffin,

          “… unless authorized by the presiding official. Pastor could have given the okay.”

          I agree with the accuracy/correctness of all your statements. That doesn’t change the fact that many presiding officials (such as the Bishop of the Southeastern Michigan Catholic Church) have/will ban both open and concealed carry. It also doesn’t change the fact that State has criminalized concealed carry in churches that have not given any thought one way or another and have not banned carry in church … churches that will decide when someone shows up carrying openly.

          In other words, were it not for the State, a person with a concealed carry license could, by default, discretely carry concealed in any church which has not explicitly banned carry in church and NOT run afoul of the law — but the State preemptively took that option off the table. Rather than the default position being that discrete carry in church is legal, the default position is that discrete carry in church is “illegal”.

          I want the default position to be that carry in church, whether openly or concealed, is legal, and doesn’t require prior approval of anyone. If a church purposely evaluates armed parishioners and decides to ban carry, that is a different matter. But the State should stay out of it. It is none of their business.

          Speaking of, it is funny how Progressives insist on keeping the church out of the State, but they are all too happy to inject the State into the church.

        • I agree with what you’ve said. The state should stay out of it. CC used to be legal until we got “shall issue.” There were no gun-free zones before then, not even schools.

        • You’d be surprised at the number of churches that allow CC. A number of people in my church carry. The only church I’ve heard that is against it is a Pentecostal church one of our members attends. They are totally against gun ownership. Most aren’t. It doesn’t surprise me that the Catholic hierarchy is against it because they are pretty left-wing from what I’ve read in Catholic publications.

  3. That cold hard brutal response to a woman…”how do you feel about rape?”…sorta puts that whole democratic anti gun condoning rape, murder, and robbery conversation to rest.

  4. Does anyone know if Shannon is Catholic? Probably not since she hasn’t mastered that thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s stuff and her infidelity before her divorce and remarriage but just asking

  5. The usual tissue of lies, distortions and misrepresentations that says that having a gun is more dangerous to the gun owner than being powerless, helpless and defenseless.

    What?

    They do, after all, have the example of the police and the military, (just a bunch of human beings dressed in fancy uniforms); and that they have the example of the politicians , the rich and the famous with thier armed body guards, as a way of being safe.

    I guess it is part and parcel of being a liberal/progressive/statist. They already consider themselves as not being mature and responsible adults, not able to provide even the most basic of necessities such as food, shelter, warmth without government assistance.

    So of course, they would not consider themselves mature enough, not emotionally stable enough, to carry a lethal tool like a gun and use it wisely, or effectively.

    To think we have gone from a nation where a family would go into a howling wilderness full of wild beasts and savage men and carve a new life for themselves, with Ax, plow, mule and gun, to this.

    • IF . . . “having a gun is more dangerous to the gun owner than being powerless, helpless and defenseless”
      THEN, why does Bloomberg keep a dozen armed guards in his home?

  6. The comments section is gold, as usual. There’s some guy on there, claiming to be former military, suggesting that select-fire “conversion kits” are easily obtainable. Of course when someone who hasn’t had their head up their ass for the past three decades corrects him, he starts gibbering insanely about “reasonable restrictions”.

  7. If having one gun is dangerous, I should be dead like 50x over, seeing as how I’ve had guns over half my life, and most of that time they number in the dozens..

  8. The best argument to have with most liberals who drink a glass of wine or beer or smoke ganja is this:

    My hands start shaking, my stomach gets upset, and fear grips my body when I see someone have 1 alcoholic drink and get behind the wheel of a car.
    That is an irrational fear to have, which I don’t, but it is just like liberals pissing themselves at the sight of an armed American citizen, not subject.

  9. … when we choose against one option [armed self-defense], we do, in a sense, empower the other [rape]. – Fr. Edward Fride

    Go figure. Just yesterday I posted almost the exact same comment to someone who supports our state mandated “gun free zones”. I asked that person if they would support a state law that restricts a woman’s right to resist rape. They said “no”. Then I asked them how they can support “gun free zones” which restrict a woman’s right to use a firearm to stop a rapist in a “gun free zone” … which includes schools and university campuses among others. Their response: there are no rapes in “gun free zones”. Really? Violent criminals have never raped someone in a school or university campus? They had no response.

  10. “How do you feel about rape?”

    How exactly would one argue with that? Arming up makes you more likely to get raped? I guess there’s the tried and true “oh honey you’d never get a shot off” BS. Who would rather be a victim with nearly 100% surety? On one hand you have a tool that enables self defense against nearly any human alive, on the other you have… what? A rape whistle? Peeing on your captor? How can anyone actually advocate for that as a replacement for a weapon?

    When it comes down to it I think all anti-gunners really have to rely on is their mistaken beliefs grounded in ignorance. “Guns are bad. Guns make you more likely to kill someone. Guns are easy to take away from you. Guns are magic death rays.” When you strip it all away what are they left with? Women can’t be trusted to defend themselves. Leave it to someone more capable. Does it really need to be pointed out how patronizing and misogynistic that is?

    Well I believe that no amount of government or society can replace your self-determination and personal liberty. I have no doubt that many people mean well. Your friends and neighbors at least. But let us not excuse evil just because it was perpetrated with good intentions. Civilian disarmament is a false panacea. It cannot lead to the end it’s meant for. It never has and never will. You must cure the individual of ill intent.

    • Don’t you know it’s guaranteed your attacker will just use it against you? Don’t you watch TV? TV never lies!

  11. I believe a slight and important correction is in order for Fr. Edward Fride’s comment

    … when we choose against one option [armed self-defense], we do, in a sense, empower the other [rape].

    I see no reason to sugarcoat it. Disarming someone does not sort-of, kind-of, maybe empower their attackers. It definitely empowers their attackers.

  12. Perhaps like lemmings, people who live in large cities in close proximity to each other, lose some cognitive abilities and feel a need to intellectualize their suicide?

  13. DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN.

  14. Good on this priest-have they de-frocked him yet? Meanwhile in Chiraq fadda’ phfegma is determined that his congregants are raped, murdered,attacked and disarmed…

  15. I disagree that you should immediately open fire when drawing your firearm.
    Many crimes are stopped when the intended victim draws and shows determination to defend themselves. When the criminal(s) immediately turn and run, you cannot shoot them in the back.
    Just last night one of our doctors was accosted by two men while buying gas on the way back from a late night hospital emergency.
    They demanded money and he displayed his holstered gun.
    The station attendant came out with his gun at low ready position.
    The would be robbers remembered an urgent appointment elsewhere and left at the run
    Cops were called by him as a defense against any claim by crooks that he menaced them.
    Score one for the good guys and no one was shot and the cops are on the lookout for the 2 seen on tape.

    • I agree that one must use great caution in the 2 seconds between the decision to draw and the decision to pull the trigger.

      Tragically for public safety, this cautionary stance means that most criminals who should be stopped (permanently, or after arrest, temporarily) will carry on with their chosen craft. The remaining hope is that some – after repeated experience – will consider alternative crafts.

      My sense is that the law is squeezing the CCier in a kind of vice. The law will punish the carrier very severely if he pulls the trigger but fails to prove each of the several antecedents that justify use of deadly force. This is one jaw of the vice.

      The second jaw of the vice is that the CCier exposes himself to a rapidly escalating series of lesser punishments for assault, brandishing, aggravated assault if he gives any expression of deadly force. Nearly to shout: “Stop, I have a gun!” is to open oneself to a charge of assault. To draw opens to a charge of blandishment. To aim is aggregated assault.

      The prudent CCier will delay the draw until he is convinced he can sustain an assertion of having been victimized by aggravated assault to the degree of death or previous bodily injury. What this means – effectively – that you should delay drawing until you conclude you have a right to pull the trigger.

      Now, you are 1.5 to 2 or 3 seconds to the point where you decide to pull the trigger. In that extremely short period of time something – anything – may change; such as a retreat motion by the perpetrator. The eye and mind must be quick enough to interrupt the decision to pull-the-trigger.

      As the practice of CC becomes more common there will be more incidents. More criminals who deserve to be shot will be shot and will sue. More criminals won’t be shot but they will accuse CCiers of aggregated assault or brandishing or simple assault.

      We should begin to think about how to frame appeals to the legislature for a relaxation of the laws of assault, blandishment and aggravated assault to make it much more difficult for prosecutors to press charges against CCiers. E.g., the burden of proof should shift to the prosecutor to convince the jury that the alleged perpetrator was not – in fact – assaulting the defendant defender.

      Without such a relaxation in the law, we should argue, there are two adverse consequences. More CCiers will either:
      – hesitate to allude to being armed or drawing and be killed or gravely injured; or,
      – shoot preemptively to ensure that they will be the only survivor to bear witness to the event.

      Until that happens, I’m looking for tactics that might represent a less vulnerable response. For example, shouting “Get back or I’ll stop you!”

      My conjecture is that the assailant will recognize that string of words as “Get back or I’ll shoot you!” If he does and retreats then there will be no draw and no shooting. Nevertheless, the assailant may report the incident to the police according to what he thinks he heard. Then, the CCier will counter that he has trained to say “. . . stop you!” which does not constitute an assault.

      I’d like to collect more and better ideas for tactics.

      • I believe the best tactic is to take one (or more) steps backwards while putting your weak hand up in a “stop” position and yelling “STOP!” or “BACK OFF!”

        The hand signal combined with the shouted verbal signal combined with your step/s backward clearly indicate that you believe the other person is a threat and they must immediately stop their advance. If the person who was advancing is a criminal who planned to attack, they will immediately recognize that you “made” them … and either bug out (at which point the confrontation is over) or advance (at which point you can argue that you are reasonably in fear of an assault). If the person who was advancing is not a criminal, your reaction will shock them and they will at least stop to evaluate what is going on. Once they have a chance to evaluate, they will almost certainly go around you but not advance toward you.

  16. Hmm. That’s kind of interesting to me. Me and the miss watch a lot of Catholic news programs online. And there’s a lot of serious political infighting amount the Catholics. Specifically between the traditional Catholics and liberal extremist which are sadly seem to have the run of the church anymore. Of course ‘liberal’ Catholics aren’t exact the same kind of liberal we usually talk about. But you see some of the same kind of Saul Alinsky BS from liberal Catholics as you see from anti gun political liberals.

  17. It’s reasonable to have fear of a firearm, so long as the fear is an intelligent responsible fear. Fear is as we know a defense mechanism wired into our brains for what we do not understand. It is the opposite to the type of fear the anti-gun community spreads. Irrational fear leads to hysteria, increasing personal danger. Educating responsible firearm use whether one chooses to own or not is the proper method to keep us all safer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *