Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

So those laws are equally immoral? One of those laws protects a fundamental right (self defense), while the other denies a basic right (life), it isn’t a correct comparison. You just equated gun ownership to “madman picking up a gun and killing an innocent person”.

“Correct”??

You continue to make some analogy that gun ownership, or opposition to gun laws is immoral.

Which Bishop has claimed this?

Murder is murder. They are both intrinsically evil. ;

You are wrong. I have not said, or made an analogy, that gun ownership is immoral. I have explained my view, based on my faith formed conscience. I have explained my view of what the bishops state, used scriptures, and writings from the early Church fathers, to show I am doing my best to view this, and all issues, through the spiritual eye.

As for gun controls, FOR ME, I see culpability if I didn’t support them. The bishop’s letter stated it was a failure of moral leadership.

I have had to re-explain many things I said, that was twisted to be something else, more than once. I have waded through ‘bill of rights,’ ‘taking our guns away,’ ‘want to arm criminals,’ ‘take away our defense,’ ‘the government might take over,’ ‘liberal, liberal, liberal,’ ‘abortion is evil,’ ‘what goes on in that country,’ ‘it’s only an opinion, we don’t have to listen,’ ‘gun controls are not a moral issue,’ etc. etc. etc. posts, looking for anything that could be spiritually applicable. The only spiritually applicable statements I found, were from the bishops, and the scriptures.

This is a moral issue for ME. How many argue, we have to choose the lesser of two evils, or we have to lessen abortion every bit we can, and then say that people having access to guns and turning them on innocent people is not a moral issue, or there is no comparison?

I have to run my own race. Who should I listen to for moral guidance? I’ll side with the bishops.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you sure you aren’t the one arguing from a point of partisanship? You haven’t begun to establish how these laws would reduce gun crime. Period.

Quite sure.

What do you not understand about private sales with not even names being exchanged, only guns for cash? Any criminal can walk into most any gun show, or respond to a private ad, and produce cash and walk away with a gun. It’s a point people simply won’t accept. We’ve seen some, criminals will get it the cheapest way they can. There are successful criminals in this country. With much more cash than I make in a year. Purchasing, even an overpriced, gun is only the cost of doing business.’

That’s been established ad nauseam, but it something that seems people refuse to honestly address.

Is there anything that stop gun crime violence 100%? No, we haven’t stopped any crime, of any sort, but we don’t stop trying to protect society.

 

[SamH]

Obviously.

Are you sure you aren’t the one arguing from a point of partisanship? You haven’t begun to establish how these laws would reduce gun crime. Period.

Its like a gift - its the thought that counts.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have to run my own race. Who should I listen to for moral guidance? I’ll side with the bishops.

Sure. Run your own race. And you’re free to side with the personal opinions of .08% of the bishops in the U.S. in arriving at your conclusions. Nothing prevents you from doing it, any more than taking a vow to never eat meat is prevented. Some do the latter as a spiritual discipline, and there’s nothing wrong with doing it as long as they don’t represent that somehow it’s immoral to eat meat.

But it’s wrong to tell others that .08% of the bishops in the U.S. constitute the opinions of any more than .08% of the bishops or that they somehow speak for “the Church”, when they don’t. Quite possibly there is a vegan bishop somewhere who doesn’t eat meat as a spiritual discipline. Likely there is. But it would be wrong to say “the bishops” or the Church prohibit our eating meat. And if no other bishop directly says the vegan bishop is wrong, that certainly should not be represented as demonstrating that all bishops support veganism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quite sure.

What do you not understand about private sales with not even names being exchanged, only guns for cash? Any criminal can walk into most any gun show, or respond to a private ad, and produce cash and walk away with a gun. It’s a point people simply won’t accept. We’ve seen some, criminals will get it the cheapest way they can. There are successful criminals in this country. With much more cash than I make in a year. Purchasing, even an overpriced, gun is only the cost of doing business.’

That’s been established ad nauseam, but it something that seems people refuse to honestly address.

Is there anything that stop gun crime violence 100%? No, we haven’t stopped any crime, of any sort, but we don’t stop trying to protect society.

I wonder what percent of guns used by criminals were bought privately at gun sales? I would think if it was significant we would be hearing the numbers. But we don’t. Perhaps surprisingly, up to a point virtually any gun can be traced online. Certainly, after repeated sales privately, a gun will drop off the screen. But what percentage of private gun sales are of guns that have been repeatedly sold? Unless it’s higher than one would normally suspect, it wouldn’t be difficult for law enforcement to learn the source of the gun a criminal used. Grinding off the serial number, I understand, is not really successful nowadays, though it once was.

Surely Obama would have trotted those figures out in promoting his gun proposals if they favored his position. But if he did, I certainly never heard it.

So one wonders. Is the unregistered private sale of guns really a serious threat to the citizenry, or does it simply represent an ideologically-based effort to know who has a gun and who hasn’t?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I wonder what percent of guns used by criminals were bought privately at gun sales? I would think if it was significant we would be hearing the numbers. But we don’t. Perhaps surprisingly, up to a point virtually any gun can be traced online. Certainly, after repeated sales privately, a gun will drop off the screen. But what percentage of private gun sales are of guns that have been repeatedly sold? Unless it’s higher than one would normally suspect, it wouldn’t be difficult for law enforcement to learn the source of the gun a criminal used. Grinding off the serial number, I understand, is not really successful nowadays, though it once was.

Surely Obama would have trotted those figures out in promoting his gun proposals if they favored his position. But if he did, I certainly never heard it.

So one wonders. Is the unregistered private sale of guns really a serious threat to the citizenry, or does it simply represent an ideologically-based effort to know who has a gun and who hasn’t?

So, if the impact is small, we shouldn’t bother?

Why don’t we have more research on these numbers? Oh yea, the NRA lobbies to end those type researches.

I’ll stick with the guidance of the bishop.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, if the impact is small, we shouldn’t bother?

Why don’t we have more research on these numbers? Oh yea, the NRA lobbies to end those type researches.

I’ll stick with the guidance of the bishop.

I suspect Obama has more than ample resources to learn whatever he wants to learn about private gun sales. One call to George Soros or three Hollywood liberals and it’s funded. Nothing the NRA could do to prevent that.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Quite sure.

… Any criminal can walk into most any gun show, or respond to a private ad, and produce cash and walk away with a gun. It’s a point people simply won’t accept. We’ve seen some, criminals will get it the cheapest way they can. …

… No, we haven’t stopped any crime, of any sort, but we don’t stop trying to protect society.

Well, in California every transfer has to be handled by an FFL, which means every transfer will include a background check. I don’t have a problem with it, adds a little bit to the cost due to the transfer fee but ensures a background check is accomplished. Now, the inconvenience of the 15 day waiting period on top of getting the gun to the FFL and if necessary, shipped to the buyer (i.e. either they or the seller or both traveled to the gun show) is a bit more hassle. But then, I think that’s why gun show sales were dropping and shows getting smaller until a couple of years ago.

Yes, some will circumvent the laws but…

Again, disarming the victims doesn’t protect society.

It’s like a mechanic telling you they’ll fix your bad brakes by removing the tires and wheels.

 

[BroomWagon]

I apologize ProdigalSon1 if I offended you, I thought sins were being listed.

 

[Geist]

I’ve bought and sold a few guns in private face to face sales, it’s a good way to buy or sell at prices without overhead being involved, and an intra-state sale is literally out of the feds domain.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve bought and sold a few guns in private face to face sales, it’s a good way to buy or sell at prices without overhead being involved, and an intra-state sale is literally out of the feds domain.

Are you against universal background checks?

 

[scipio337]

As for gun controls, FOR ME, I see culpability if I didn’t support them. The bishop’s letter stated it was a failure of moral leadership…

I have to run my own race. Who should I listen to for moral guidance? I’ll side with the bishops.

Well, at least we’re admitting this. Has a Bishop claimed culpability if you don’t support more gun restrictions (the failed bill the Senate shelved aside)?

 

[scipio337]

Well, in California every transfer has to be handled by an FFL, which means every transfer will include a background check.

And what are the gun crime rates in the Republic of California?

When I lived in the Glorious People’s Republic of Illinois, you need a FOID card (Firearms Owners Identification Card, which required an extensive background check by the IL State Police ) to buy a gun, buy ammunition anywhere, or even HANDLE an unloaded gun at a gun show.

isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

And handguns were effectively banned in Cook county for decades. What has been the net result on crime???

Most people, even the eeevil NRA aren’t against background checks or gun laws. What they are against are superfluous ones that won’t lower crime rates.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…And what are the gun crime rates in the Republic of California?
…
… What has been the net result on crime??? …

Most people, even the eeevil NRA aren’t against background checks or gun laws. What they are against are superfluous ones that won’t lower crime rates.

Agreed. Crime rates are problematic though, so many factors to consider. We passed the ‘three strikes’ law a while back which really caused a drop in crime. Odd concept, lock up the repeat offenders and there is less crime. The repeat offenders are responsible for a huge proportion of crime.

Additionally, the demographics in LA have been shifting, some interesting articles on it and how it’s affected crime rates.

However, due to overcrowding in the prisons resulting in judges ordering mass release of prisoners as well as a change to the three strikes law, crime rates are starting to climb again, very quickly in the last few months. All independent of the gun laws.

Like you, I don’t have problem with background checks if that’s what they truly are, vice an excuse to do additional things- like gun registries. Or used as tools to simply make these more onerous for the law abiding-- like the Illinois laws. Especially since those do not affect the crime rate, aren’t intended to affect the crime rate, only to make things more difficult for the gun owner out of the politicians own fear/disdain of firearms.

Waiting periods are an interesting concept, but they are based on a gut feel-- hey, if the purchaser has to wait a little bit it will stop crimes of passion. I don’t necessarily agree, I don’t really see any empirical data to support it-- but on the other hand, is it really a big deal to me to wait 3 days or 5 days or 15 days? But why should there be any inconvenince (cost) if there is no actual benefit? Or worse, if there is actually additional cost. I am being threatened/stalked by someone and I can’t get a weapon to defend myself in a timely manner.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

I’m still not sure what is worse -the gay threads or the gun control threads.

I’m bored…

Definitely the gay threads are way more tedious. IMHO

 

[Geist]

Are you against universal background checks?

Of course. Its a meaningless concept and unenforceable by the feds. States themselves can enact such laws as they see fit. My old state banned private sales, my new one does not. The new state has much less gun violence. Imagine that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course. Its a meaningless concept and unenforceable by the feds. States themselves can enact such laws as they see fit. My old state banned private sales, my new one does not. The new state has much less gun violence. Imagine that.

It sounds like money becomes an important issue in the equation?

 

[jsk]

I beg to differ with the Bishop.

The problem being addressed is not gun violence; the problem being addressed is violence.

One of the argument I’ve heard for restricting firearms is to reduce suicide. The United States ranks 34th in suicide rates; some of the countries above the United States include countries like Japan, Russia, China, which pretty much forbid private ownership of firearms.

The cause of suicide is people deciding to kill themselves; it have nothing to do with the ability to own guns. The violence problem is due to people deciding to become violent against others.

In my lifetime, more and more restrictions have been placed on gun ownership. At the same time, I have seen an increase in violence.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course. Its a meaningless concept and unenforceable by the feds. States themselves can enact such laws as they see fit. My old state banned private sales, my new one does not. The new state has much less gun violence. Imagine that.

Giving part of your argument thought, I thought of property. The Feds have a successful regulation, through state enforcement. You can buy or sell, in this state, without the IRS knowing. Background checks could be meaningful, and enforceable. But it would take participation of ‘law abiding’ citizens.

Which two states are you comparing?

 

[pnewton]

Are you against universal background checks?

Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans do not want criminals to be able to freely by firearms. Something like 90% believe that one should undergo a background check to buy a gun.