Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Tigg]

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.’

I believe his comments are made that whether intended or not, support the stance of a particular political party. So if one is ardently pro-life, a supporter of the Constitution, and has common sense, yet disagrees with tighter gun laws, on what basis is that opinion to be dismissed?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your claim was that there was a consensus within the church, not that there was a consensus within a committee somewhere within the bowels of the USCCB.
This is just vague enough to sound reasonable but the question is not “living in a secular world” but rather the much more specific “what gun control laws should we have?” And that question is no part of their competence nor should we look to them for solutions. This is a lay problem and it is not only our right but our responsibility to address it.

Ender

I said there was a consensus of the out spoken men of the Church, and those committees some represent. This bishop is an example.

“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.

What is missing is any bishop stating gun rights as some on these forums has expressed them.

We have a responsibility to act on problems, and our clergy have a responsibility to offer guidance on how to act on those problems. They teach us abortions are wrong, and that no Catholic may participate. The problem lays in the hands of the secular world, yet we move to save as many lives as possible. The same can be applicable to the lives lost to gun violence in this country. The evils are the same, and participation in the evils is the same. This is not to say there aren’t stark differences between the two issues, only that how we interact with the secular has an impact.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe his comments are made that whether intended or not, support the stance of a particular political party. So if one is ardently pro-life, a supporter of the Constitution, and has common sense, yet disagrees with tighter gun laws, on what basis is that opinion to be dismissed?

His comments on other issues places him adversely with the very same political party.

I can only address your question from my own view, based on my faith formed conscience and how it pertains to my race. Scriptures, and the Church, are above the constitution, which is secular, or of this world. With that stated, the state has a right to regulate gun laws. That’s what is being discussed, not the disarmament.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Really. [sarcasm]

Are background checks required of cocaine sellers, and buyers?

Do criminals observe the law?

[Answer: no]

Cocaine is absolutely against the law, but nothing stops them from smuggling the stuff in by the ton. And selling it.

[It "**could

" have an impact.]

[Probably not.]

But some people think so little of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, that they are willing to let politicians play dictator … the wording of the Second Amendment is very clear … “shall not be infringed”.

What part of “shall not be infringed” is ambivalent?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Really (no sarcasm).

Believe it or not, some criminals obtain guns through private sales, and I assume the majority of those sellers don’t realize they are selling to a criminal. If all were required to place a buyer in a background check position before completing a sale, some of those sales could be circumvented.

Regulations are not an infringement, and the state has a right to regulate. If it didn’t, we’d have an equal amount of any type armament available to the military and law enforcement in civilian hands.

 

[markomalley]

So the bullet enters and flips and moves around, possibly striking several organs?

The military has continued using this gun since bringing it into use, some 40+ years ago. Tell the denial of lethality to the victims on the other end.

First, almost any round will enter and flip and move around, damaging various organs. But when you shoot somebody, you don’t typically want to mangle his innards, you want to drop him. Right now.

The 5.56mm weapons have two advantages: they are lighter weight , so you can carry more rounds as a combat load, they also have a higher rate of fire. Meaning that you can get more rounds downrange quicker. But that doesn’t apply to civilian weapons, as full auto is not legal.

As far as the military using the M-16 for 40 years, you are correct. But the real shooters (spec ops) tend to prefer other weapons: the HK 417, the Sig, and the MP5 (a 9mm piece)

 

[SamH]

First, almost any round will enter and flip and move around, damaging various organs. But when you shoot somebody, you don’t typically want to mangle his innards, you want to drop him. Right now.

The 5.56mm weapons have two advantages: they are lighter weight , so you can carry more rounds as a combat load, they also have a higher rate of fire. Meaning that you can get more rounds downrange quicker. But that doesn’t apply to civilian weapons, as full auto is not legal.

As far as the military using the M-16 for 40 years, you are correct. But the real shooters (spec ops) tend to prefer other weapons: the HK 417, the Sig, and the MP5 (a 9mm piece)

When the 5.56 was fist adopted by the military the twist rate in the barrels was low - 1:14 or one compelte revolution of the slug in 14" of travel down the barrel. This made the bullet slightly unstable in flight, at long range the bullet would yaw a become extremely inaccurate. Because of this the bullet would tumble when it hit flesh, or a leaf or when it slowed below 1000 feet per second. This tumbling when it hit flesh it why it caused injuries associated with larger bulllets. Basically the army traded off long range accuracy to make the weapon more deadly up close. Those traits have sense been changed.

Today most AR15s (M4s and M16s) have a 1:9 or even a 1:7 rifling that makes the bullet much more stable and accurate while in flight, but the wound they cause is much smaller. Even after striking an object the bullet remains stable with even less tumbling than one would expect from so small a slug hitting a target. Read what US troops thought of the M4s and M16s when fighting Somalies. They resulted in “though and through” wounds that caused little damage to the flesh around the bullet hole - certainly not the massive wounds the earlier rifles caused. It would take several rounds to stop a person.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

First, almost any round will enter and flip and move around, damaging various organs. But when you shoot somebody, you don’t typically want to mangle his innards, you want to drop him. Right now.

The 5.56mm weapons have two advantages: they are lighter weight , so you can carry more rounds as a combat load, they also have a higher rate of fire. Meaning that you can get more rounds downrange quicker. But that doesn’t apply to civilian weapons, as full auto is not legal.

As far as the military using the M-16 for 40 years, you are correct. But the real shooters (spec ops) tend to prefer other weapons: the HK 417, the Sig, and the MP5 (a 9mm piece)

The more organs you take out, the higher the chance of a shot being lethal. Even though I was an ‘expert’ with the M16, I was a grunt and that’s what was issued.

My understanding of the full auto, in the military, is that it’s not recommended. I believe they use the ‘3 round burst’ method for effectiveness. I’m not really sure. It was many years ago that I was trained, and I remember seeing barrels that actually drooped from the heat of too much full auto.

 

[markomalley]

When the 5.56 was fist adopted by the military the twist rate in the barrels was low - 1:14 or one compelte revolution of the slug in 14" of travel down the barrel. This made the bullet slightly unstable in flight, at long range the bullet would yaw a become extremely inaccurate. Because of this the bullet would tumble when it hit flesh, or a leaf or when it slowed below 1000 feet per second. This tumbling when it hit flesh it why it caused injuries associated with larger bulllets. Basically the army traded off long range accuracy to make the weapon more deadly up close. Those traits have sense been changed.

Today most AR15s (M4s and M16s) have a 1:9 or even a 1:7 rifling that makes the bullet much more stable and accurate while in flight, but the wound they cause is much smaller. Even after striking an object the bullet remains stable with even less tumbling than one would expect from so small a slug hitting a target. Read what US troops thought of the M4s and M16s when fighting Somalies. They resulted in “though and through” wounds that caused little damage to the flesh around the bullet hole - certainly not the massive wounds the earlier rifles caused. It would take several rounds to stop a person.

They also went from M193 rounds to M855 rounds. The extra powder increased the muzzle velocity that further exacerbates what you’re saying.

 

[WildeKurt]

Originally Posted by matt1985
Having shot an ar 15 at a gun range I would say I agree. An AR 15 is very dangerous. One can have a possibility of surviving a gunshot from a smaller weapon, but ar 15 and ar 15 variants carry too much fire power. I went to a range with my friend’s friend and had a good time. I just think that given how many actual lives are at stake because of the availability of these types of weapons, they should be banned and taken away.

Let assault weapons be rented at gun ranges and be returned if people need to shoot for fun. There is no need for an assault weapon or variant at home. Perhaps guns need to be rented out to hunters and shooters at ranges rather than kept at home. I think this is a compromise people can live with.

There’s so much wrong here. I’m sure the poster is well intentioned (like many who favor gun control) but the 1st paragraph is inacurate technically and the 2nd misses the point of the 2nd Amendment entirely.

 

[Ender]

I said there was a consensus of the out spoken men of the Church, and those committees some represent.

If this is the standard then if only one person speaks out it would be valid to say not only that there is a consensus but the position is positively unanimous. That’s a very low standard.

What is missing is any bishop stating gun rights as some on these forums has expressed them.

There is no logical conclusion one can draw from what people have not said.

We have a responsibility to act on problems, and our clergy have a responsibility to offer guidance on how to act on those problems.

The clergy has a responsibility to provide moral guidance but there are no moral decisions to be made on this topic, only practical and constitutional ones.

They teach us abortions are wrong, and that no Catholic may participate. The problem lays in the hands of the secular world, yet we move to save as many lives as possible. The same can be applicable to the lives lost to gun violence in this country. The evils are the same, and participation in the evils is the same.

This utterly misses the point of the debate. No one is arguing in favor of gun violence, which is in stark contrast to those who argue in favor of abortion. Nor is the private ownership of guns a moral question - the church clearly is not opposed to it. Re abortion, one side supports it and the other opposes it. Are you suggesting the same is true of gun violence? I was unaware that anyone has come out in favor of it.

This is not to say there aren’t stark differences between the two issues, only that how we interact with the secular has an impact.

What moral question is involved in determining which gun control laws will be beneficial?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no logical conclusion one can draw from what people have not said.

I tend to disagree. If one bishop truly did speak incorrectly, another bishop would speak the difference to affirm correct.

The clergy has a responsibility to provide moral guidance but there are no moral decisions to be made on this topic, only practical and constitutional ones.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. The clergy speak guidance on many issues, some protected by the very constitution, or those things enacted through the constitution.

This utterly misses the point of the debate. No one is arguing in favor of gun violence, which is in stark contrast to those who argue in favor of abortion. Nor is the private ownership of guns a moral question - the church clearly is not opposed to it. Re abortion, one side supports it and the other opposes it. Are you suggesting the same is true of gun violence? I was unaware that anyone has come out in favor of it.
What moral question is involved in determining which gun control laws will be beneficial?

Ender

Gun violence includes guns. It is how we influence politicians that laws are legislated. There are some who believe the number of guns gives easier access for those with a propensity to commit gun violence.

The most atrocious crimes, from gun violence, is intrinsically evil, just as abortion is. The Church is against gun violent crimes, just as it is against abortion. Please note that this bishop references specifically ‘gun violence.’ Just as a Catholic does not, or should not, participate in an abortion, a Catholic should not participate in gun violence crimes. Also, as we work to reverse abortion, we should also work to reverse gun violence crimes.

During the past election, many used the phrase ‘lesser of two evils.’ Through our political process, influenced by the people, we should be working for the lesser of evils committed from gun violence.

 

[scipio337]

This utterly misses the point of the debate. No one is arguing in favor of gun violence, which is in stark contrast to those who argue in favor of abortion. Nor is the private ownership of guns a moral question - the church clearly is not opposed to it. Re abortion, one side supports it and the other opposes it. Are you suggesting the same is true of gun violence? I was unaware that anyone has come out in favor of it.
What moral question is involved in determining which gun control laws will be beneficial?

Ender

I hope I read that wrong, too. Gun ownership = gun crime? Talk about your apples to rutabaga comparisons.

 

[pete_29]

So, if we have tighter gun laws there will be less abortions, right?

 

[Ridgerunner]

A .223 is a varmint round and many people refer to the AR15 a poodle shooter. Most states have laws making it illegal to use .223 for hunting deer because of the lack of stopping power. They just don’t feel that 50-65 grain bullet is big enough to drop a 100 pound deer.

As for the number of lives at stake - CAFE rules kill more people in a year than AR15s ever have in the US.

nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html

Perhaps you are focused on the wrong killer.

The .223 slug is not much bigger than that of a .22, really small as rifle slugs go. It does have more power behind it, and therefore greater impact and accuracy at a longer range.

 

[SamH]

The .223 slug is not much bigger than that of a .22, really small as rifle slugs go. It does have more power behind it, and therefore greater impact and accuracy at a longer range.

Than a .22LR or or .22WMR. There is no comparison to something like a .308 or 30-06.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Than a .22LR or or .22WMR. There is no comparison to something like a .308 or 30-06.

True. The whole thing with the gun banners, though, is that the AR15 looks military, whereas your average 30.06 doesn’t. That’s it. Appearance.

Of course, there are a lot of 98 Mausers converted to 30.06. They look “military”, but it’s “old military”, not “new military”. They’re not semi-automatic, of course, but they can be fired pretty rapidly. Lots of M1 Garands floating around too, and they really are semi-automatic. They look “newer old military” than a Mauser, and are a lot more deadly than an AR15. Heavier, though.

I guess the banners’ objections, when you really pare it down, is that there’s no wood on an AR 15, and it has a handle to carry it with. Now, if you got your AR customized so there was wood on it, and you cut off the handle (making it more dangerous to carry, of course, but looking more like something your grandfather brought home from WWII) would it still be banned?

 

[ProVobis]

The problem with the round is a matter of physics: you cannot have that much force with a bullet that is as light as that.

Force is proportional to mass times velocity squared. So it depends more on the speed. You can drive a toothpick through someone given enough speed. Just sayin.

 

[SamH]

Force is proportional to mass times velocity squared. So it depends more on the speed. You can drive a toothpick through someone given enough speed. Just sayin.

And how much damage will the toothpick cause?

 

[markomalley]

Force is proportional to mass times velocity squared. So it depends more on the speed. You can drive a toothpick through someone given enough speed. Just sayin.

Thank you for the physics lesson.

But if we are going to really be technical, we should consider kinetic energy.

a 4g mass traveling at 905 m/s has 1.8 MJ

a 9g mass traveling at 830 m/s has 3.1 MJ

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you for the physics lesson.

But if we are going to really be technical, we should consider kinetic energy.

a 4g mass traveling at 905 m/s has 1.8 MJ

a 9g mass traveling at 830 m/s has 3.1 MJ

Point taken. But I live by Fermi Lab (Cyclotron) so I might throw all those classic formulas out the window. All for a good cause though.