Terrorism, Guns, And You

Let us imagine that the attack in Nice had happened with, ceteris paribus, the gun laws and the attitudes of a traditionally gun-friendly US state like, say, New Mexico or Montana.

What would have happened is that dozens, possibly more than 100 people would have been able to shoot – and to shoot effectively, because well-trained – at the terrorist and/or at the truck’s tyres. A 1.7 km savage butcher run would have been all but impossible.

Instead, the terrorist was able to go around mowing people down for half an eternity, slaughtering or wounding almost 200 unprotected lambs; and was finally stopped by… armed policemen under a rain of bullets.

Guns in the hands of the right people save lives. It is absurd to prevent the good guys from carrying them. The bad guys will always get the weapons, because hey, they don’t care it’s illegal.

“But Mundabor, Mundabor! This is a Catholic blog! What is all this to do with Catholicism?”

It is, a lot.

We in Europe (and some even in the US) have forgotten the Catholic doctrine of Subsidiarity to the point where we consider it normal that one of the most elementary rights and duties of a man, self-protection and protection of those under his care, should be contracted out to people who will not be there when we need them fast, causing us to be taken down by the dozen – like in Paris in November or in Nice yesterday – without the possibility of a reaction.

Subsidiarity is important not only as an economics tool, but also as a moral one. As a man, and in lesser measure also as a woman, the right and duty to protect yourself and yours is, first of all, on you.

Not on the police. Not on the army. Not on the secret services. On you.

All these beautiful things (police, army, secret services, you name it) cannot but be an extension and integration of your fundamental right and duty, to meet the needs and cares of life starting from the first, smallest step: you.

Europe has had now a long tradition of statalism – certainly preceding socialism and communism – demanding that a bigger and bigger part of what is your fundamental right and duty be taken away for you, because Nanny knows best. We see the results now, as we are again confronted with entire minutes of senseless slaughter of wilfully unprotected men, women, children. But we saw them already in the past, where a small number of highly motivated, violent people was used to seize power in the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary. Imagine those same populations well-armed and ready to fight for their freedom and their faith, and the scenario suddenly becomes far more difficult, and very possibly impracticable. Movies like Red Dawn may be factually improbable, but they teach an important principle: a well-armed, trained and determined citizenship can crush every threat.

This is not a theoretical discussion. This is very real. Every armed good citizen could have stopped, yesterday, the deadly action far before the police came on the scene.

How much of yesterday’s dead and wounded realised this? Very, very few.

They chose to be put in the position of being slaughtered instead.





Posted on July 15, 2016, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 17 Comments.

  1. Excellent argument for arming the citizens and concealed carry laws.

    • I personally think open carry is useful, too.
      However, it is clear with concealed carry any criminal would know that everyone could be carrying. Good luck with trying a robbery on that situation.
      I would allow both. Italian police carries open exactly so that there is a constant warning of the fact the policeman is, in fact, armed.

  2. “But Mundabor, Mundabor! This is a Catholic blog! And Catholicism, the true one which appeared with Vatican II, is against guns and the death penalty and believes in dialogue and tolerance!”
    Sorry, couldn’t resist to paraphrase you to give a typical “liberal Catholic” argument.

  3. I thought of the lack of self-defense as I watched the news this morning and saw many able-bodied men running away like scared sheep and how different it would have been had they been armed and raised with the understanding that they are the protectors first and foremost of their families and themselves.

  4. I think sir Robert Peel aptly summed up your position:

    “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

  5. Good points. The right to self defense includes being armed.

  6. You’re absolutely right. Against hidden snipers and bombers we can’t do much, but armed, trained individuals can be very effective against crowd-attackers who expose themselves using vehicles or guns to hit as many people as they can. This message needs to be heard everywhere. Thank you.
    The phony pacifist message from the hierarchy here in the U.S. also needs to be eradicated.
    St. Vincent Possenti, Pray for us.

  7. sixlittlerabbits

    Dear Mundabor, you have hit the nail on the head. If people in the crowds had been legally armed, they could have defended themselves and others from the murderer.

  8. I’ m sorry but I don’ t agree. The United States’ civil population is one of the more (if not the most) armed populations in the world. And the degree of street vaiolence and massive attacks and murders are also very large. The solution is not puting arms in the hands of common people. The law of the jungle? Definitevely not, and I am not a “liberal”

    • Well, obviously you are. You just don’t know it.
      The question between freedom and slavery is a philosophical one, not necessarily a practical one. Even if you could demonstrate that Nazi Germany is the safest bet, I still wouldn’t choose Nazi Germany.

      As to the “degree of violence”, it is also no argument. Illegal violence is extremely closely linked to the use of illegal weapons; therefore, how many boys grown without a father kill each other is not a function of the legality of weapons; it is a function of the dissolution of moral values. However, how many good men can defend themselves in case of illegal attacks is *most certainly* a function of how free they are to defend themselves.

      You also start from a purely secular point of view, but do not get at the root of the question: that subsidiarity is at the root of the matter of self-defense. You can’t deny the first without denying the others. Then you can as well say that we need Obamacare because subsidiarity “doesn’t work”.

      You need, like millions os others, to get rid of what the media (wrongly) tell you “would work” and to focus on what is right. That what is right *also* works is a side effect, but not the real argument.

      Freedom to defend me and mine must come before any reasoning about security or practicality. If it isn’t so, I might as well give my backside and vote to the next Adolf.



    • catholicstrongblog

      The violence in our U.S. streets is because of abandonment of the Kingship of Christ, MORAL DECLINE, crappy parents and bleeding heart liberals.
      I guarandamntee you had this truck attack [sic] happened in my locale, he wouldn’t have made it the length that he did, given the armed and POLITE population that surrounds me.
      I go NOWHERE without a firearm, including Mass. My priest once even lamented to me that he has in the back of his mind the fear of being shot while offering Mass. I conceal carry and have carried long before he told me this.
      I need not go into the example of last year’s shootings in the Charleston church, where just one armed person there would have made all the difference.

      Then said He unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.
      -JESUS (Luke 22:36, D.R.)

      Again, swords were the finest military weapons available at that time.

      I am my first line of defense. 911 is for back up and/ or clean up.


    • “I go NOWHERE without a firearm, including Mass”.


  9. catholicstrongblog

    Self defense is BIBLICAL.
    When Christ commanded His Apostles to sell their cloaks and buy swords, He wasn’t telling them to lie down, submit to an enemy that political correctness has morphed into a “religion of peace”, and dialogue their way out of violence. No. The sword was the finest weapon available at that time.

    Today, we have firearms; it is totally Catholic to discuss and support firearms, our finest weapons.

    And since we’re talking about guns, what chaps my ass is the gun-hating ignorant constantly referring to my AR15 as an “assault rifle”.
    They are hating on things of which they know nothing.
    “But, but the ‘A R’ stands for ‘assault rifle’!”

    No iit does not.
    It stands for ARMALITE RIFLE.

    And an assault rifle, by definition is this:
    By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

    So, since my AR, and everyone else’s, is SEMI automatic, it is NOT, by definition, an “assault rifle”. It doesn’t matter how military-styled the rifle is, what it looks like; it’s NOT AUTOMATIC.

    And contrary to the lunatic on the news the other day, my AR (and my finger!) is totally incapable of firing 700 rounds per minute.
    Islam is the problem. Not me. Not you. Not guns. Or bullets. Or magazine capacity. Or trucks.


  10. I went to my local car dealer and asked for an assault truck. He did not have one in stock.

%d bloggers like this: