Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

Washington D.C., Apr 11, 2013 / 02:04 am (CNA).- Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif., has urged legislators to support laws that build “a culture of life” by placing more stringent guidelines around gun ownership and use.

“Sadly, gun violence is too common a reality,” Bishop Blaire, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, wrote to the U.S. senate on behalf of his group.

The “violence that occurs daily in our homes and communities,” the bishop added, “should lead us to answer the call of Pope Francis to ‘change hatred into love, vengeance into forgiveness, war into peace.’”

Another bishop connects a ‘culture of life’ to more restrictive gun laws. The article states the bishop represents a bishop’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

In his letter, the bishop referenced measures included in Senate bill S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013, commending many of its requirements a “positive step in the right direction.”

Bishop Blaire hoped that the bill will provide Congress with “a foundation to continue to address the issue of gun violence in society.”

The bishop also said that these regulations could help support a culture of life “by promoting policies that reduce gun violence and save people’s lives in homes and communities throughout our nation.”

Among the provisions included in the bill are strictures against gun trafficking, including “effective and enforceable universal background checks for all gun purchases.”

He also asked Congress to limit “civilian access to high-capacity ammunition magazines” and to institute a ban on assault weapons.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe he is the same bishop who condemned Ryan’s budget for only allowing for an 8% annual increase in food stamp funding rather than a 12% increase, and for wanting to cut off a $1,000 per child grant to parents of illegal immigrants.

I see a problem in his thinking on this issue; specifically how does he think tougher gun laws (which he apparently doesn’t specify) will aid this government in building a culture of life when it is Culture of Death in every other way?

Wonder if he has or had a position on the Stockton, Cal, city budget?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

Another bishop connects a ‘culture of life’ to more restrictive gun laws. The article states the bishop represents a bishop’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

Yet again he doesn’t explain the real world examples of:

PRC
Soviet Union
Cambodia
Armenia
Germany

And how their tough gun laws and deaths in the 100s of millions were consistent with the Culture of Life?

When a bishop actually addresses those points it will lend credence to their arguments.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe he is the same bishop who condemned Ryan’s budget for only allowing for an 8% annual increase in food stamp funding rather than a 12% increase, and for wanting to cut off a $1,000 per child grant to parents of illegal immigrants.

I see a problem in his thinking on this issue; specifically how does he think tougher gun laws (which he apparently doesn’t specify) will aid this government in building a culture of life when it is Culture of Death in every other way?

Wonder if he has or had a position on the Stockton, Cal, city budget?

First Cardinal Dolan spoke on the gun laws and a culture of life, now another bishop representing a bishop’s committee, which one assumes is made up of more bishops. First we must question his view of a politician’s budget on other social issues? I don’t how that connection is made.

I believe his comments are made to ‘common sense.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yet again he doesn’t explain the real world examples of:

PRC
Soviet Union
Cambodia
Armenia
Germany

And how their tough gun laws and deaths in the 100s of millions were consistent with the Culture of Life?

When a bishop actually addresses those points it will lend credence to their arguments.

A bishop’s statement in support of no more gun controls would lend credence to that argument. But, I can’t find any.

We don’t have men of the Church give guidance on living in a secular world and excuse ourselves by pointing fingers at other problems in the world as justification.

 

[Ridgerunner]

First Cardinal Dolan spoke on the gun laws and a culture of life, now another bishop representing a bishop’s committee, which one assumes is made up of more bishops. First we must question his view of a politician’s budget on other social issues? I don’t how that connection is made.

I believe his comments are made to ‘common sense.’

Common sense is not readily derived from his statement, and others of good sense would, and do, disagree.

As churchmen, they could hardly say they think everybody should carry a submachine gun on his shoulder. But when it comes to specifics, they generally don’t have them. They also want peace in Syria but have no policies to get that done. It’s right that they should want peace, but it’s wrong to identify those statements with particular policies. Likely they would like to see a world free of all weapons, including brass knuckles and knives longer than three inches. But that’s not the world we’re in.

I’ll grant that Bp Blaire, for whatever reason, wants to outlaw magazines carrying greater than 10 rounds. Why ten? Why not only 3? Why not 15? He doesn’t say. It does appear he is taking his stance from the political stance of others. Notwithstanding that he is a bishop, he has every right to express his political opinions and it appears he has. What is not right is for people to represent them as somehow being Church positions.

Cdl Dolan, as I recall, has also made some very general statements, but I think he would be the first to say he is not a policymaker. That is not his function.

Likely few of these bishops have ever been confronted by an intruder. Probably few have ever found themselves in the breaks with a pack of feral dogs. Had they been, they would be slower to advocate a 10-round limitation.

And what about Cdl Burke and his warning about the Dem party becoming the “Party of Death”? I have not seen you endorse that statement. Quite the contrary. If we’re going to talk about cultures of life and death, then let’s look at the political priorities from the standpoint of Church teaching and tell it like it is, rather than pick a lesser issue just because one bishop appears to support the Democrat party’s point of view.

 

[_Abyssinia]

While I respect the Bishop’s opinion on this issue I can’t agree with him looking at the scant evidence that exists that gun control reduces gun crime

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control reported on ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. CDC’s conclusion: There was no conclusive evidence that the laws reduced gun violence

articles.cnn.com/2011-01-18/opinion/levy.anti.gun.control_1_gun-control-gun-regulations-gun-related-crimes?_s=PM:OPINION

1994 to 2004 assault weapons ban also banned more than 10 rounds of ammunition and a study was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice and done by the University of PA. Study authors said:

We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim

At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders

failed to produce any evidence that the ban reduced the number of victims per gun homicide incident

the average number of gunshot wounds per victim [about two wounds per victim] did not decrease

2004 study by Koper:

Similarly, the most common AWs prohibited by the 1994 federal ban accounted for between 1% and 6% of guns used in crime according to most of several national and local data sources examined for this and our prior study" and "the overwhelming weight of evidence from gun recovery and survey studies indicates that AWs are used in a small percentage of gun crimes overall.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports in 2011 said 8584 gun homicides occurred and 323 were done by rifles of which semi automatic rifles aka assault weapons are part of, and 6220 were handguns

Another analysis of the 1994 assault weapon ban:

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading

Even if you ban high capacity magazines, it takes seconds to switch magazines. Columbine shooter and the Virginia Tech shooter each carried additional magazines

 

[po18guy]

Bishop Robert Morlino differs substantially. He sees the passage of laws as ineffectual, as those who detest life live outside of the moral law. His Gaudete Sunday homily (just after the Sandy Hook tragedy) takes a completely different view. It is certainly worth a listen.

 

[Francoist]

Bishop Robert Morlino differs substantially. He sees the passage of laws as ineffectual, as those who detest life live outside of the moral law. His Gaudete Sunday homily (just after the Sandy Hook tragedy) takes a completely different view. It is certainly worth a listen.

He is a very sensible bishop.

To restrict gun ownership is to place more power in the hands of criminals. It violates the right of a man to defend himself and his family, and it violates the principle of subsidiarity. It is incompatible with the Catholic faith.

The attempt to link gun control with pro-life is morally evil. Gun-grabbers are the most anti-life segment of the American political scene, and gun owners are among the most pro-life.

 

[styrgwillidar]

A bishop’s statement in support of no more gun controls would lend credence to that argument. But, I can’t find any.

We don’t have men of the Church give guidance on living in a secular world and excuse ourselves by pointing fingers at other problems in the world as justification.

No, but we are expected to use our brains and look at the actual effect of actions. Actual results.

Gun control simply disarms victims and makes them more vulnerable to acts of evil. Until the Bishop(s) reconcile the actual effects of their proposal with their position they lack credibility. Particularly given the catechism regarding self-defense and the defense of others.

 

[ActingCatholic]

He is a very sensible bishop.

To restrict gun ownership is to place more power in the hands of criminals. It violates the right of a man to defend himself and his family, and it violates the principle of subsidiarity. It is incompatible with the Catholic faith.

The attempt to link gun control with pro-life is morally evil. Gun-grabbers are the most anti-life segment of the American political scene, and gun owners are among the most pro-life.

This is a very sweeping statement, and I don’t think it is true. Surely there are some people who should not own guns.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

How does the bishop propose people defend themselves against home invaders?

I recall attending a huge pro-life Mass at St. Agnes Church in New York City … in Manhattan. The celebrant was Cardinal O’Connor. There were 30 priests distributing Holy Communion.

There were large numbers of pro-abortion protesters outside.

AND there were plain clothes police circulating and they were armed with conceal carry pistols. [It was pretty obvious.]

 

[J_Peterson]

How does the bishop propose people defend themselves against home invaders?

They can defend themselves against home invaders with a gun. As long as they pass a background check and it’s not a type of gun that is banned.

 

[styrgwillidar]

youtube.com/watch?v=FdAs1qBOO1s

Here is the actual effect of gun control-- the law abiding individual is reduced to a stick to defend themselves. That’s it. That is what gun control achieves. A limitation on the person who isn’t the problem— Forcing them to be more vulnerable to evil.

Sorry, that ain’t supporting a culture of life.

The criminal is always looking for an edge, if it isn’t a gun it’s a knife, or superiority in numbers, whatever. The UK has seen firearm violence increase-- they are an island nation and the criminals still get firearms.

And the same folks who will render others vulnerable by taking away guns, will, as in England move onto knives when, inevitably, crime does not drop, when violence does not drop. But then, reducing crime and violence has never been the objective of gun control measures.

 

[ActingCatholic]

It’s ignorant to make blanket statements about “gun control” as if that only referred to one thing which has the same intent and effect in all cases. There are many different types of gun control measures, with various consequences. If you expect to have an actual discussion, be more specific.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

They can defend themselves against home invaders with a gun. As long as they pass a background check and it’s not a type of gun that is banned.

Except in real life, in places where they have background checks, it takes almost forever.

The bureaucratic mindset is not moved toward speed.

Numerous cases of women who had been threatened … they had already taken out restraining orders … and were unable to get a gun permit in a reasonable length of time … they were killed.

The bureaucratic mindset is geared toward enforcement against the people who are the most law-abiding. Basically innocent victims.

Just take a look at what happened on September 11, 2001 … the airline pilots were not permitted to be armed … and as a result they were helpless victims against hijackers with short bladed boxcutters.

Sorry, but background checks work against victims … not for victims.

Bad people will always be able to get guns. Why? Because they are law-breakers and do whatever they want.

 

[ActingCatholic]

Bad people will always be able to get guns. Why? Because they are law-breakers and do whatever they want.

This seems illogical. Just because a person is able to break the law doesn’t mean they can do whatever they want. If this were true, it would mean that anyone who breaks the speeding limit has unlimited access to guns.

 

[po18guy]

He is a very sensible bishop.

To restrict gun ownership is to place more power in the hands of criminals. It violates the right of a man to defend himself and his family, and it violates the principle of subsidiarity. It is incompatible with the Catholic faith.

The attempt to link gun control with pro-life is morally evil. Gun-grabbers are the most anti-life segment of the American political scene, and gun owners are among the most pro-life.

I think we err when we seek a physical solution to a spiritual problem. Tragedies are, by definition the exception and not the norm. How do we control exceptions?

When we seek legislative “solutions” are we not stating that freedom is simply too risky? Where does this naturally lead us?

 

[SamH]

This seems illogical. Just because a person is able to break the law doesn’t mean they can do whatever they want. If this were true, it would mean that anyone who breaks the speeding limit has unlimited access to guns.

No but if a person that commits gun crimes is going to break the law why should anyone believe that one more law will be the one they’ll obey?

Is it reasonable to assume that the thief that breaks into my home and steals my handgun will show up at a FFL dealer so he can fill out a 4473 and conduct a “legal” transfer on the handgun he has just stolen?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I could easily see a churchman wanting there to be no guns anywhere on earth. No tanks, no war planes, no bombs, no starving people.

But there really is an underlying assumption that there are no uses for guns other than to kill people, which is not true. People who live in the countryside really are confronted with things for which one really needs a gun. And talking about what the deal is in England is not helpful in that regard, because the fauna are different.

I absolutely guarantee that if any churchman saw a child devoured by a feral hog (which feral hogs will do) or a hunter chased up a tree by feral dogs, he would not be so quick to limit either the number of cartidges a person might have in a magazine or the style of the gun the protective person had.

This entire “debate” about “assault weapons” is misplaced. What they’re really talking about are ordinary semi-automatics that resemble military rifles physically. Why do they resemble military rifles? Well, because after all sorts of testing it was determined that the configuration serves useful purposes. An AR-15, for instance, is lighter than an ordinary “semi-automatic” deer rifle. It’s easier to carry because it has a handle whereas older configurations don’t, and (of no small importance) it is automatically pointed to the ground when you carry it, which other rifles are not. The “military look” rifles are just a better design, nothing more.

As far as background checks are concerned, I have no trouble with that as long as my son can inherit my rifle without somehow having to deal with that, or I can give a rifle to my grandchild without having him go through a background check.

The creepy thing about background checks, though, is not the check, but the record. It is impossible for me to believe this administration doesn’t want to get all guns out of the hands of the populace, and there’s good reason to believe it. And the truly stupid thing about all of its current effort is that the more it tries to ban this or that, the more people (including people like me) become convinced that’s the true objective of every proposal they have.

Why was the government interested in having the identities of the “conceal and carry” permit holders in Missouri? Those people all went through thorough vetting by the state. Why did the government want to know?

The current government is disturbing in all its acts, and this just adds to it.