Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Ender]

When our prelates speak guidance and it’s received as being on thin ice, I don’t see that as their problem. This issue has been politicized, but not by them.

It is a political (viz. lay) issue, that’s the point. Besides, what would you call support for a bill that even supporters of increased restrictions saw as flawed? If the bishop doesn’t know a bad bill from a good one then he really shouldn’t offer his opinion.

I really wonder if people actually believe the semantic gymnastics they use in reference to what guns were invented, and improved, for.

The same argument is true of swords and the church never opposed their ownership by individuals. This point is irrelevant.

Yes, I own guns. I feel a responsible person can see beyond ‘self’ desires and realize not everyone is as responsible.

Most people are equally justified in owning guns as you. If it is not immoral for you to own them then it isn’t immoral for others and we certainly have no moral obligation to deny them that right.

Ender

 

[Fairwinds]

We can make decisions based on our own personal interests, or the in the interest of all people. Our intent is clear to Him, and I don’t believe He gives considerations to legalistic talking points, or ‘snap’ cliches.

Guns were invented, and designed, as ‘weaponry.’ When used, whether in offense, defense, or hunting, the objective is to deliver the kill shot as quickly as possible. Target shooting is not to simply hit a target, but hit the target ‘dead’ center.

The cliches of a ‘good Catholic’ adds nothing to your point of view, in my honest opinion, and is similar to other wording you seem to choose for unknown motivations, except to yourself.

everyone likes to inkball a target, but we’re just as happy to chip off the smallest piece of clay. your argument doesn’t even begin to make sense. when I had a car with no timing marks on the crank pulley, I had to find Top Dead Center. that didn’t mean I shot it.

but so what, there are military weapons to kill people in morally justifiable wars, hunting rifles to shoot game and target guns to punch holes in paper or break clay.

I think He appreciates it when we are able to use His intellectual gifts and make moral decisions based on facts rather than surrender our obligation to make these decisions based on a president who drags around shooting victims and proposes legislation that far overreaches what is permissible.

so how do you justify owning, as you put it, “tools of death”?

F/

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is a political (viz. lay) issue, that’s the point. Besides, what would you call support for a bill that even supporters of increased restrictions saw as flawed? If the bishop doesn’t know a bad bill from a good one then he really shouldn’t offer his opinion.
The same argument is true of swords and the church never opposed their ownership by individuals. This point is irrelevant.
Most people are equally justified in owning guns as you. If it is not immoral for you to own them then it isn’t immoral for others and we certainly have no moral obligation to deny them that right.

Ender

In my opinion, it’s politicized to maintain a personal view. The guidance of the bishops is clear, as they have articulated.

Here we go again. Let’s generalize the flaws of controls, and in the meantime private sales continue with no background checks, or tracing, necessary. We make points, even if it means we make it easier for criminals to obtain guns? That’s what that argument is to me, and many others who look at the debate objectively.

We have no moral obligation to deny a person’s right to own a gun, no matter if they are responsible or not? Their right comes before all other people’s rights? That’s what it appears you are saying.

Next, show us where that ‘right’ comes from? Does it come from Christ, or His Church, or does it come from a man made organization, of this world? As Christians we draw moral from Him, or His Church. Government does not give moral.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

everyone likes to inkball a target, but we’re just as happy to chip off the smallest piece of clay. your argument doesn’t even begin to make sense. when I had a car with no timing marks on the crank pulley, I had to find Top Dead Center. that didn’t mean I shot it.

but so what, there are military weapons to kill people in morally justifiable wars, hunting rifles to shoot game and target guns to punch holes in paper or break clay.

I think He appreciates it when we are able to use His intellectual gifts and make moral decisions based on facts rather than surrender our obligation to make these decisions based on a president who drags around shooting victims and proposes legislation that far overreaches what is permissible.

so how do you justify owning, as you put it, “tools of death”?

F/

Responsible people know how to use guns, and what they were made for. It was not to ‘chip’ a target, it was to hit ‘dead’ center if possible. The military doesn’t use them to ‘clip’ an enemy. I don’t shoot an animal to wound it. I shoot it to kill it as quickly, and humanely as possible.

We’ve gone full circle, and I have tried to avoid making it personal, by direct personal attacks, or condescension. I don’t know why that is necessary to make a point, but for me it speaks to the ‘character’ of the debate, and the motivations behind a view. There are valid points to discuss, and I’m not going to respond to ‘cliches’ or posts that appear to lack charity.

 

[ishii]

I think He appreciates it when we are able to use His intellectual gifts and make moral decisions based on facts rather than surrender our obligation to make these decisions based on a president who drags around shooting victims and proposes legislation that far overreaches what is permissible.
so how do you justify owning, as you put it, “tools of death”?

F/

Excellent point. I don’t trust Obama on this issue. I think its all about underming the 2nd amendment piecemeal under the guise of passing “sensible background checks” etc. I simply don’t trust Obama to protect and defend our constitution.

The author John Lott recounted an experience with then college professor Obama at the University of Chicago Law School in which he discussed gun rights with Obama: according to Lott, Obama told him, “I don’t think people should be able to own guns.” When Lott invited Obama to discuss gun rights over lunch: “Obama grimaced and turned away. Obama did not come across as a moderate who wanted to bring people together. (he) preferred silent, scowling disdain to collegiality.”

cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/author-quotes-then-professor-obama-saying-i-dont-believe-people-should

Yep, that’s our president folks.

Ishii

 

[styrgwillidar]

The bishop referred to stricter gun laws in relation to them supporting the culture of life. Ok, fair enough - the principle at issue is which gun-laws support a culture of life?

First problem is defining which specific ‘stricter gun laws’ are being advocated. As we saw in the last push in the US, it was a smorgasbord of laws which went well beyond what most americans supported.

However, if stricter gun laws result in higher rates of violent crime, rape, gun crime, assaults - then they do not support the culture of life. In fact, they are counter to it. The experience in Australia, Mexico, and the United Kingdom have shown that banning guns from the law-abiding results in greater rates of violence, not less. Again, from the study I referred to earlier-

"Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault – Australia’s equivalent term for rape – increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States – where no gun-ban exists – both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault – Australia’s equivalent term for rape – increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women."

… So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape."

So, I absolutely agree with the Bishop on the doctrine of a culture of life while understanding that what some may think he is advocating, since he wasn’t explicit in defining what stricter gun control laws he’s referring to, is in fact counter to that principle.

Which is where Prodigal Son’s query as to what laws I do support is certainly worth discussing. More comprehensive background checks (no registry), shall-issue CCW vice discretionary or prohibition, elimination of gun-free zones, which specific firearms should be available to the law-abiding etc.

 

[Fairwinds]

Responsible people know how to use guns, and what they were made for. It was not to ‘chip’ a target, it was to hit ‘dead’ center if possible. The military doesn’t use them to ‘clip’ an enemy. I don’t shoot an animal to wound it. I shoot it to kill it as quickly, and humanely as possible.

We’ve gone full circle, and I have tried to avoid making it personal, by direct personal attacks, or condescension. I don’t know why that is necessary to make a point, but for me it speaks to the ‘character’ of the debate, and the motivations behind a view. There are valid points to discuss, and I’m not going to respond to ‘cliches’ or posts that appear to lack charity.

I said I’d be happy with a chipped target, as it counts. anyway, it invalidates whatever argument you were trying to make.

so why do you own “tools of death”? I own guns to break targets, punch holes in paper and kill game.

as I’ve stated repeatedly, the second amendment and laws controlling guns are about where they should be, legally, and within the guidelines of Church teaching.

F/

 

[Fairwinds]

The bishop referred to stricter gun laws in relation to them supporting the culture of life. Ok, fair enough - the principle at issue is which gun-laws support a culture of life?..

and, remember, bishop or not, in the US, certain kinds of gun grabbing are off the table because the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.

 

[pnewton]

However, if stricter gun laws result in higher rates of violent crime, rape, gun crime, assaults - then they do not support the culture of life. In fact, they are counter to it.

That is a big if. The United States has twice the guns per capita than any other country, yet the only nations with higher murder rates are non-industrialized. We lead the West in both murder and gun ownership.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I said I’d be happy with a chipped target, as it counts. anyway, it invalidates whatever argument you were trying to make.

so why do you own “tools of death”? I own guns to break targets, punch holes in paper and kill game.

as I’ve stated repeatedly, the second amendment and laws controlling guns are about where they should be, legally, and within the guidelines of Church teaching.

F/

Really? How many times have I stated I own guns to hunt with and, if necessary even though I pray it never happens, to defend with. The repeated question invalidates any legitimate uses of guns. I have not argued there are no legitimate uses. I have argued that there is a responsibility that comes with ownership of guns, since all people are not equal in being responsible.

I share a view in the interest of others. Your view seems to repeat ‘my’ right, over the rights of others. I share of view in light of the Gospels. Your view seems to be in light of a ‘constitution.’ The men of the Church have not called for an end to the second amendment. That’s a clear reality you seem determined to overlook to make other points. Those men have called for support of controls, in an effort to maintain the rights of all, or the majority, without one’s rights being dominant over the rights of the other.

When those men speak guidance, it is the Church actively teaching. They give guidance to define guidelines, so that we don’t have to interpret everything for ourselves. Some will choose to use their own interpretation to maintain a personal view. We can fit our views to the teaching of the Church, or we can mistakenly attempt to fit Church teachings to our own personal views.

 

[Fairwinds]

That is a big if. The United States has twice the guns per capita than any other country, yet the only nations with higher murder rates are non-industrialized. We lead the West in both murder and gun ownership.

correlation without causation.

 

[pnewton]

Does this apply to gang members and drug dealers?

Or just to innocent householders who want to protect their families against home invasion?

If these were the only two categories of people, I would concede your point, strawman though it is. Just as many violent criminals will find guns illegally if they must, so also no one has suggested people not be allowed to keep a gun at home for personal protection.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

and, remember, bishop or not, in the US, certain kinds of gun grabbing are off the table because the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.

And the Church always teaches that constitutional rights, or man made laws, supersedes anything the Church teaches?

If constitutional, or man made, superseded Church, then all laws are just. We know that’s not true.

 

[Fairwinds]

Really? How many times have I stated I own guns to hunt with and, if necessary even though I pray it never happens, to defend with. The repeated question invalidates any legitimate uses of guns. I have not argued there are no legitimate uses. I have argued that there is a responsibility that comes with ownership of guns, since all people are not equal in being responsible.

I share a view in the interest of others. Your view seems to repeat ‘my’ right, over the rights of others. I share of view in light of the Gospels. Your view seems to be in light of a ‘constitution.’ The men of the Church have not called for an end to the second amendment. That’s a clear reality you seem determined to overlook to make other points. Those men have called for support of controls, in an effort to maintain the rights of all, or the majority, without one’s rights being dominant over the rights of the other.

When those men speak guidance, it is the Church actively teaching. They give guidance to define guidelines, so that we don’t have to interpret everything for ourselves. Some will choose to use their own interpretation to maintain a personal view. We can fit our views to the teaching of the Church, or we can mistakenly attempt to fit Church teachings to our own personal views.

until Rome says otherwise, my fully formed conscience holds that the state of the second amendment and gun control laws are moral as the Church teaches. you disagree, go make your case to Rome or the USCCB. my legal and political opinion is that the bishop, by referring to “assault weapons” and calling for a ban on ARs, has adopted the specific language and goals of gun grabbers and is joined a political cause.

so why do you own “tools of death”?

 

[Fairwinds]

And the Church always teaches that constitutional rights, or man made laws, supersedes anything the Church teaches?

If constitutional, or man made, superseded Church, then all laws are just. We know that’s not true.

Rome hasn’t invalidated the second amendment, so don’t hold your breath.

so why do you own “tools of death”?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

until Rome says otherwise, my fully formed conscience holds that the state of the second amendment and gun control laws are moral as the Church teaches. you disagree, go make your case to Rome or the USCCB. my legal and political opinion is that the bishop, by referring to “assault weapons” and calling for a ban on ARs, has adopted the specific language and goals of gun grabbers and is joined a political cause.

so why do you own “tools of death”?

One can fit their view to the teaching of the Church, and not attempt to fit the Church teaching to a personal, or secular view. Either Church guidance takes precedence, or perceived secular rights.

I’ve answered your question multiple times. Repeating the question does not invalidate the answer, but does show a deliberate obstinance.

 

[BroomWagon]

One can fit their view to the teaching of the Church, and not attempt to fit the Church teaching to a personal, or secular view. Either Church guidance takes precedence, or perceived secular rights.

I’ve answered your question multiple times. Repeating the question does not invalidate the answer, but does show a deliberate obstinance.

You are saying this? Really??

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are saying this? Really??

Yes. Do you disagree with it?

 

[BroomWagon]

Yes. Do you disagree with it?

But the Church teaches us we have a right to defend ourselves, the children of Sandy Hook were not killed by automatic weapons so this doesn’t even apply.

 

[Fairwinds]

But the Church teaches us we have a right to defend ourselves, the children of Sandy Hook were not killed by automatic weapons so this doesn’t even apply.

“tools of death” is another way of saying “assault weapons” is another kind of way of demonizing whatever one intends to ban.