Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[ComputerGeek25]

I am assuming that the majority of people speaking against gun controls are law abiding citizens, and would follow required laws. Removing straw purchases, or private sales with no background checks, could have an impact on the ease of which a criminal has to obtain a gun.

This is a very naive worldview.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is a very naive worldview.

According to your opinion.

 

[markomalley]

We are allowed to defend. Now perhaps you’ll show me where defense is limited to guns only?

Also, how does this pertain to defense? Are there only certain guns one can use? Do background checks affect your ability to defend?

It’s not as presented, with your question. These controls do not stop one’s right, or instinct, to self defense.

Hardly guns only. One designs a defense based upon risk. Risk is determined based upon an assessment of vulnerabilities to the actions of the threat agents that are present and the probability of those threat agents acting against those vulnerabilities.

One should be able to select the appropriate remedial actions to remove those vulnerabilities and the appropriate mitigations necessary to neutralize those threats.

It might be guns. It might be bars on windows. It might be an electric fence or concertina wire. On the other hand, it might be an armored vehicle or 40mm grenades. Depends upon the threats and the risk they pose to your ability to exist and to protect your family.

For example, South Central LA during the 1992 Rodney King riots. Police protection completely broke down for a couple of days. Being extremely heavily armed might be the only way to protect oneself and one’s family.

For example, New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Same thing: police protection broke down.

In a lot of major US cities, police protection is tenuous at best. If I had to live in one of those spots (thanks be to God I don’t), I would say that a good risk assessment would call for some serious defensive means.

Likewise, I have been places in the world where partisans roam free. Even more serious protection would be needed in those areas…if I had to live there with my family.

This bill had not only amendments for background checks, but amendments to place limits on clip size and severe restrictions on types of weapons.

What does this have to do with background checks? I have a God-given right to defend myself. I have not given up that right, nor have my legislators given it up on my behalf. Therefore, it is not for government to restrict that at all.

In other countries, people may have voluntarily surrendered that right. But we have not done so here.

If you take a look at the text of S.649, you will find that it gives the Administration a huge amount of discretion as to who can and cannot be excluded through those background checks. It also links the universal electronic health record database to the background check process, but does not provide any restriction on how the data is retained in the electronic health record database.

I choose not to give any trust whatsoever to this current government. So if it is not explicitly outlawed in the law, I will assume nefarious actions…and even if it does explictly outlaw something, I will still be careful. This is not paranoia…this is based upon an analysis of what this government has done since January, 2009, when it finds a law that it doesn’t wish to follow.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hardly guns only. One designs a defense based upon risk. Risk is determined based upon an assessment of vulnerabilities to the actions of the threat agents that are present and the probability of those threat agents acting against those vulnerabilities.

One should be able to select the appropriate remedial actions to remove those vulnerabilities and the appropriate mitigations necessary to neutralize those threats.

It might be guns. It might be bars on windows. It might be an electric fence or concertina wire. On the other hand, it might be an armored vehicle or 40mm grenades. Depends upon the threats and the risk they pose to your ability to exist and to protect your family.

For example, South Central LA during the 1992 Rodney King riots. Police protection completely broke down for a couple of days. Being extremely heavily armed might be the only way to protect oneself and one’s family.

For example, New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Same thing: police protection broke down.

In a lot of major US cities, police protection is tenuous at best. If I had to live in one of those spots (thanks be to God I don’t), I would say that a good risk assessment would call for some serious defensive means.

Likewise, I have been places in the world where partisans roam free. Even more serious protection would be needed in those areas…if I had to live there with my family.

This bill had not only amendments for background checks, but amendments to place limits on clip size and severe restrictions on types of weapons.

What does this have to do with background checks? I have a God-given right to defend myself. I have not given up that right, nor have my legislators given it up on my behalf. Therefore, it is not for government to restrict that at all.

In other countries, people may have voluntarily surrendered that right. But we have not done so here.

If you take a look at the text of S.649, you will find that it gives the Administration a huge amount of discretion as to who can and cannot be excluded through those background checks. It also links the universal electronic health record database to the background check process, but does not provide any restriction on how the data is retained in the electronic health record database.

I choose not to give any trust whatsoever to this current government. So if it is not explicitly outlawed in the law, I will assume nefarious actions…and even if it does explictly outlaw something, I will still be careful. This is not paranoia…this is based upon an analysis of what this government has done since January, 2009, when it finds a law that it doesn’t wish to follow.

Here’s a quote from a researcher often quoted by gun rights advocates.

“I’m pretty confident that whatever the number is, it did go down … because overall crime went down,” said Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist whose 1990s research, widely cited by gun rights activists, concluded that Americans drew their firearms in self-defense up to 2.5 million times a year. That translates to about 3 percent of all gun owners during the course of a single year.

But the drop in crime means there are far fewer occasions now for Americans to use guns for self-protection, Kleck said, making it likely that the number of annual self-defense usages of guns “should be about half as big now as they were back then, 20 years ago.”

Then we have a choice to support background checks, as self defense. But that’s a control, and many are against even the slightest control that might inconvenience their idea of rights, even over the rights to life of all in society.

The bishops speak, and articulate application, of a culture of life. Cardinal Dolan explained as:

For me, regulating and controlling guns is part of building a Culture of Life, of doing what we can to protect and defend human life. The easy access to guns, including assault weapons, that exists in our nation has contributed towards a Culture of Death, where human life and dignity are cheapened by the threat of violence. No law, no piece of legislation, will ever be able to protect us from every act of aggression, or from the harm that can come from an individual bent on killing. But, we must do what we can to minimize the opportunities for such acts, by limiting the easy access to guns – and, I would add, by increasing funding for programs to treat those who suffer from mental illness, especially those that might lead someone to commit mass murder.

The bishop, in the original post, represents a committee of bishops. The USCCB issued a statement for the support of controls. All these men speak out and are dismissed for many reasons, to maintain a secular right, of this world. They speak to us for the eternal, in my opinion, and I apply the concerted theme to my faith formed conscience.

There still lacks a single man of the Church that speaks for gun rights as is conveyed in these threads. If the others spoke out incorrectly, where is the voice of correction?

Just as the bishop in the clip you provided stated a stronger faith in God, that faith is over anything we could do with a gun, or any misplaced faith in any politicians, or the government. Trusting, or mistrust, in the government is misplaced. Trust in the One who is over us all.

ETA: (for the poster that thinks my view is ‘naive.’) I have provided many statements from men of the Church, polls, and articles on the subject. All help me form my view. To simply state my view is naive lacks any substance to show me otherwise, just as an absence of a man of the Church speaking in favor of gun rights, with no controls, also lacks in my opinion.

 

[markomalley]

The bishops speak, and articulate application, of a culture of life. Cardinal Dolan explained as:

A couple of points: this is a blog entry from Cardinal Dolan on the website of the Archdiocese of New York (not the website of the USCCB). So he is speaking as the Ordinary of that diocese, he is not speaking as the President of the USCCB. Therefore, you will not see me criticize this statement as I have, upthread, criticized Bishop Blaire. There is no contradiction with Apostolos Suos here.

Having said that, I wish to highlight two paragraphs in this blog entry (**emphasis **and [comments]):I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm. [and that is correct, the Church does not propose technical solutions outside of the Church’s expertise. That is properly the role of lay people]. That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts. However, there can be no denying that, in the wake of Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Tucson, Columbine, and almost countless other horrific and senseless deaths by guns, that **something **must be done. [Again, note that in this statement, he is not saying what “something” is. He is saying that a generic “something” is needed]

For me [so he is clearly identifying this as his personal opinion, not a Magisterial statement…even within his ability to interpret the Magisterium within his particular church], regulating and controlling guns is part of building a *Culture of Life, *of doing what we can to protect and defend human life. The easy access to guns, including assault weapons, that exists in our nation has contributed towards a *Culture of Death, *where human life and dignity are cheapened by the threat of violence. No law, no piece of legislation, will ever be able to protect us from every act of aggression, or from the harm that can come from an individual bent on killing. **[true] ** But, we must do what we can to minimize the opportunities for such acts, by limiting the easy access to guns – and, I would add, by increasing funding for programs to treat those who suffer from mental illness, especially those that might lead someone to commit mass murder.
Notes:

1. I cannot ever imagine a bishop coming out and saying that gun trafficking is a good and desirable thing. In their function as being the shepherds, it would honestly not be consistent with that position.
2. You will note that Cardinal Dolan did not abuse his USCCB position. He spoke as a bishop. As I said above, it’s totally different than if he made the same statement on the USCCB letterhead.
3. He cited a Magisterial document and clearly did not try to stretch it to fit a situation where it didn’t apply (he cited CCC 2315 - 2317 and then said that it applied to *international trafficking *of arms).
4. He clearly identified what was his opinion.
5. He accurately identified that the Church does not offer technical solutions. She offers principles. As Pope John Paul II said:43. The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another. For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an *indispensable and ideal orientation, *a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.
   Or as Pope Paul VI said:The Church, which has long experience in human affairs and has no desire to be involved in the political activities of any nation, "seeks but one goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth; to save, not to judge; to serve, not to be served.’’

Founded to build the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than to acquire temporal power, the Church openly avows that the two powers—Church and State—are distinct from one another; that each is supreme in its own sphere of competency. But since the Church does dwell among men, she has the duty “of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.” Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees these aspirations not satisfied, she wishes to help them attain their full realization. So she offers man her distinctive contribution: a global perspective on man and human realities.
Remember St Gabriel Possenti:On a summer day a little over a hundred years ago, a slim figure in a black cassock stood facing a gang of mercenaries in a small town in Piedmont, Italy. He had just disarmed one of the soldiers who was attacking a young girl, had faced the rest of the band fearlessly, then drove them all out of the village at the point of a gun.

 

[ProVobis]

I have a God-given right to defend myself. I have not given up that right, nor have my legislators given it up on my behalf. Therefore, it is not for government to restrict that at all.

In other countries, people may have voluntarily surrendered that right. But we have not done so here.

Actually we have. In airports, on airplanes, and in some other public places. And it’s not like would-be killers are never found in public places.

 

[Fairwinds]

Where does the layperson receive authority to decide what is moral guidance and what is not, from our bishops? The bishops guidance is very much in line with the culture of life.

We cannot say that we cannot legislate morality with one issue and not another issue.

I’m not sure who this “we” is, but …

I make moral decisions all the time without consulting the CCC or the bishops. As an active and catechized Catholic, adult, and head of my household, I can put Catholic morality into effect without the need to continually ask advice on every issue. On abortion, I bow the the Magisterium in all ways. if and when the Magisterium weighs in on specific gun legislation, I shall abide. Until then, the bishop’s voice is one among many.

on gun control, I am all for building the culture of life and agree with the bishops. But I do not agree that the current administration’s gun grabbing scheme; my position is that current gun legislation is constitutionally valid within limits and moral.

F.

 

[Ender]

Life is more important than time, convenience or even politics. If one is to approve of any item that takes life, then it need be balanced by an issue as great as that of life.

Cars take lives. Bathtubs take lives. Ladders take lives. What moral question should we ask ourselves to determine the degree of government control appropriate to govern the use of these items? The fact that a decision can lead to deadly consequences doesn’t at all mean that the decision involves a moral choice. Decisions don’t become moral choices merely because they will lead to serious consequences.

Arguments from self-defence and defense of others are valid. Arguments from convenience, politics, money, fun, are not.

Are the latter arguments merely invalid or are they immoral?

The argument of the sex abuse crisis is simply uncalled for. No Catholic should be guilty of that, nor should any reasoning person fail to see such an obvious ad hominem attack. There is no evidence that Bishop Blaire has ever been guilty of sort of sex scandal.

You should read more carefully. I was not suggesting that anyone involved in any way in this discussion was involved with the sex abuse scandal. I was pointing out that the mere fact that a bishop says something is no guarantee that his comment has merit.

What moral decision do we face with regard to this issue? What position is it sinful to hold? If our choices are not sinful then there is no moral issue involved.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe I shouldn’t say the following, particularly since a lot is not known about some of the events.

Right now in Watertown and Boston and perhaps other places, huge populated areas are under “lockdown” because an extremely dangerous killer/terrorist is on the loose somewhere in the neighborhoods, evading law enforcement.

And so, people are in their homes, awaiting perhaps for their back doors or basement windows to be crashed in by a terrorist, or for an “all clear” that allows them to go about their lives again.

Of those who are behind their closed and locked doors and windows, with their children also locked in, one wonders how many are considering whether perhaps having an AR-15 with a large magazine or some other effective weapon available to them right now is not such a bad idea? Perhaps few. Perhaps many. And there will be people all across this nation who might be able to put themselves into the place of those people under lockdown in Boston, Watertown, etc, and might be thinking the same thing.

Obama put his program forward, but didn’t even get all of the Dems to go along with him. And now Boston and millions of other people are now being required to consider how they might protect themselves in their homes against formidable opponents. Personally, I think “gun control” is quite dead for now.

 

[Ender]

A poorly written bill can be corrected though. There is a truism that overreation makes for bad law. I do not think anyone except a few on the far left would object to taking the time to make the law written properly.

Wait - was this bill, about which there is so much agreement that it was poorly written, one the bishop supported?

Ender

 

[LilyM]

Maybe I shouldn’t say the following, particularly since a lot is not known about some of the events.

Right now in Watertown and Boston and perhaps other places, huge populated areas are under “lockdown” because an extremely dangerous killer/terrorist is on the loose somewhere in the neighborhoods, evading law enforcement.

And so, people are in their homes, awaiting perhaps for their front doors to crash in, or for an “all clear” that allows them to go about their lives again.

Of those who are behind their closed and locked doors and windows, with their children also locked in, one wonders how many are considering whether perhaps having an AR-15 with a large magazine or some other effective weapon available to them right now is not such a bad idea? Perhaps few. Perhaps many. And there will be people all across this nation who might be able to put themselves into the place of those people under lockdown in Boston, Watertown, etc, and might be thinking the same thing.

Obama put his program forward, but didn’t even get all of the Dems to go along with him. And now Boston and millions of other people are now being required to consider how they might protect themselves in their homes against formidable opponents. Personally, I think “gun control” is quite dead for now.

And how many have their weapons already locked and loaded in fear and are potentially ready to shoot most anyone - however innocent - who dares commit the heinous crime of coming anywhere near them?

 

[Ender]

Perhaps you can give me some Magisterial documentation that tells us that it is immoral to have the ability to defend ourselves.

I’m sure this is a more accurate description of the church’s position on the matter: I answer that I deny the consequent, for if there is no law commanding or prohibiting something for everybody, many actions which are evil in one man will not be evil in others. For example, if there be no law prohibiting the carrying of weapons, the carrying of weapons will be evil for him who is easily provoked to anger, and who has enemies whom he desires to kill; but it will not be evil for a peaceable man, who only desires to defend himself; yet, if the law forbids it, then it is evil for all, for the law should not consider what is good or evil for this one or that one, but what will profit or harm the State. (St. Bellarmine, De Laicis ch 11)
Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

And how many have their weapons already locked and loaded in fear and are potentially ready to shoot most anyone - however innocent - who dares commit the heinous crime of coming anywhere near them?

No one can know, of course.

But then, we’ll see if that happens, which I think is extremely doubtful.

My only prediction was, and is, that the rush to do anything to limit ordinary citizens’ access to arms will lose a great deal of popularity very soon, if it isn’t happening already.

 

[Ender]

There still lacks a single man of the Church that speaks for gun rights as is conveyed in these threads. If the others spoke out incorrectly, where is the voice of correction?

Given that no bishop can speak for another, Bishop Blair’s comments are relevant only within his own diocese as well those dioceses where the controlling bishop has explicitly endorsed them. I’m not aware of other bishops stepping up to endorse those comments and without that his opinion is pretty much a dead letter. (I would say that’s true even within his own diocese since his political opinions are not significant even there, but that’s not the point I’m making here.) I would say that the other bishops have behaved rather well in this instance in altogether ignoring this comment.

Ender

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Maybe I shouldn’t say the following, particularly since a lot is not known about some of the events.

Right now in Watertown and Boston and perhaps other places, huge populated areas are under “lockdown” because an extremely dangerous killer/terrorist is on the loose somewhere in the neighborhoods, evading law enforcement.

And so, people are in their homes, awaiting perhaps for their back doors or basement windows to be crashed in by a terrorist, or for an “all clear” that allows them to go about their lives again.

Of those who are behind their closed and locked doors and windows, with their children also locked in, one wonders how many are considering whether perhaps having an AR-15 with a large magazine or some other effective weapon available to them right now is not such a bad idea? Perhaps few. Perhaps many. And there will be people all across this nation who might be able to put themselves into the place of those people under lockdown in Boston, Watertown, etc, and might be thinking the same thing.

Obama put his program forward, but didn’t even get all of the Dems to go along with him. And now Boston and millions of other people are now being required to consider how they might protect themselves in their homes against formidable opponents. Personally, I think “gun control” is quite dead for now.

The thought had crossed my mind and the minds of others. Two things being argued in Congress - gun control and immagration - are very much at the heart of the matter.

 

[Sarcelle]

We are allowed to defend. Now perhaps you’ll show me where defense is limited to guns only?

Also, how does this pertain to defense? Are there only certain guns one can use? Do background checks affect your ability to defend?

It’s not as presented, with your question. These controls do not stop one’s right, or instinct, to self defense.

These controls may not stop one’s right or instinct to self defense. That’s true, but neither do they stop people who shouldn’t own guns from acquiring guns in the first place. In other words these gun control laws are ineffective.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The thought had crossed my mind and the minds of others. Two things being argued in Congress - gun control and immagration - are very much at the heart of the matter.

I agree. My understanding is that the “Gang of Eight” proposal contains 844 pages and contains “The Secretary shall determine” over a thousand times. Sounds to me like it’s not a law but, like Obamacare, a license for the executive branch to do whatever it wants to do; an abdication of Congressional responsibility. I am sick of that.

 

[ProVobis]

These controls may not stop one’s right or instinct to self defense. That’s true, but neither do they stop people who shouldn’t own guns from acquiring guns in the first place. In other words these gun control laws are ineffective.

Any law is ineffective if it is not enforced and/or there are no penalties. But unless there is a law, no enforcement will be attempted either.

At airports there sure are many points of enforcement.

 

[Cider]

I am assuming that the majority of people speaking against gun controls are law abiding citizens, and would follow required laws. Removing straw purchases, or private sales with no background checks, could have an impact on the ease of which a criminal has to obtain a gun.

Straw purchases are already illegal as is knowingly selling a gun to someone that can’t pass a background check.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A couple of points: this is a blog entry from Cardinal Dolan on the website of the Archdiocese of New York (not the website of the USCCB). So he is speaking as the Ordinary of that diocese, he is not speaking as the President of the USCCB. Therefore, you will not see me criticize this statement as I have, upthread, criticized Bishop Blaire. There is no contradiction with Apostolos Suos here.

So, there are no men of the Church that speak in favor of gun rights today? That’s really telling, for me.

While you take time to parse the Cardinal’s words, you overlook the USCCB response to the Newtown massacre. Now, we have the head of a bishop committee speaking, and I believe it’s safe to assume, for the committee. There is not silence when it comes to controls, but we have no bishops speaking for gun rights, as they are conveyed on these forums.

I had to remove some of your post to make room for a response.