These three questions tells me all I need to know. That you could pull these out of a simple observation from logic speaks volumes.
I have no problem with your feeling you should be bound by opinions expressed in 2000 by the general expression of what seems to be the majority of bishops, or those expressed by a handful of them in 2013, just as I might feel myself bound to never eat meat on Friday and to fast every Wednesday, even though not required to do either.
It would be a mercy devoutly to be wished.
This is why all these automatic weapons must be banned and the USA should enact strict gun control as they have in Germany today. As we see the example of modern Germany, violent crime is way down and much lower than in the USA, even though Germany has experience a lot of immigration since the founding of the European union. This is because the gun control laws in Germany are much stricter than in the USA.
Been discussed. Think I’ll leave it alone. No offense intended.
My apologies if you think I’m attempting to demonize you. I was simply backing up my assertion that there is more to consider in making a moral choice. Gun control laws are not the defacto moral position, there are more risks to consider than simply crime or spree shootings. And again, those areas in the US with strict gun control laws experience both high crime and spree shootings. In fact, every spree shooting but one since ~1950 has occurred in a gun-free zone where the public was prohibited from carrying/having firearms. Gun laws do not equate to greater safety.
Well, except as it turns out, they only had one semi-automatic pistol with them.
This seems to me is reason you see gun control as a moral issue: you have judged the intentions of others to be immoral. You see your opponents as unwilling to sacrifice for others, of not loving them. What you apparently cannot accept is that someone might legitimately disagree with your proposals.
You can’t judge mental illness, or evil, and when they choose to act. So it’s not a generalized judging intentions, but an awareness that, through the easy access to guns, gun violence can occur. The attempt to prevent the end results of gun violence is a moral issue, as it affects the dignity of life for innocent people who are, or potentially are, victims.
Germany though 6 million Jews was not important either. China thought 70 million Chinese not relevant, Russa thought 60 millions Russians not relevant, now you think 53 million Americans not a factor.
The bishops (Committee on Social Development and World Peace) have admitted as much:
nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/handguns.shtml
We saw 20 children lose their lives to gun violence, because of easy access to guns. There is no difference in the intrinsic acts, whether abortion, or murder. The difference appears to be our willingness to act on both.
Never have the bishops as a group said that private sales, trades or gifts between citizens should be criminalized in the absence of prior background checks. Never. That’s Obama Doctrine, not Catholic Doctrine.
Abortion? We get it. However, you have in effect argued against the defunding of Planned Parenthood, defender of infanticide when you speak about 20 children and the nation’s biggest abortion provider. This appears very hypocritical and inconsistent.
No one makes uncharitable charges, at least it has not been my intention. It seems only my view is ‘uncharitable’ even though I have explained how it’s the same as the men of the Church, quoting them directly at times.
That’s false. I have not argued against removing the funds of Planned Parenthood. I am pro-life for all, from conception until natural death. To me, there is no acceptable body count of children through any intrinsic act, including gun violence.
Do the Bishops teach us to judge the remarks of Politicians? You trodded out this comment about Romney/Ryan continually so in effect, you spoke against the Defunding of Planned Parenthood, there is no reason to doubt Planned Parenthood would have been defunded nationally as Republican Governors Perry, Walker and Christie have done. Yet, you spoke against voting for those who would have defunded planned parenthood continuously. Yet, this issue is somewhat a Democrat party issue and you expound a lot of effort to defend gun control laws.
Easy access? No. Lanza killed his own mother to get that access. He didn’t walk into a store and buy them, and if he had, there is no reason to think he would not have passed a background check, because his psych records would not have been on it.
And 1100 posts later we’ve hit the nail on the head!
I’m only going to address your first paragraph, more precisely, I’m going to quote the president of the USCCB quoting what the full body of bishops approved, as emphasized below.
The second paragraph was added, not to show whose doctrine it is, but to show the agreement between moral guidance and politicians have common ground at times. It’s not ‘doctrine’, but for me it’s the right thing to do, as taught by the men of the Church. I find much more comfort being in agreement with them, than in agreement with a one sided political view. I say one sided, because there fails to be recognition when a politician does something good. There is a degree of good in all, just as there is a degree of bad in all. To condemn every single action of a politician is, in itself, partisan.