Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

No one would accept for a minute that bishops ought to be prescribing medicines even though we all recognize and accept that we have a responsibility to heal the sick, but if prescribing medicine - which is necessary to heal the sick, which is a matter of human welfare, and which is certainly a matter of faith and morals - does not involve bishops writing prescriptions, then what argument is there for them offering their prescriptions for solutions to other problems? We look to people with the proper expertise to provide solutions to social problems and gun control is no more within a bishop’s sphere of knowledge than is medicine.
This is all wrong. It is one thing to condemn inhumane treatment of animals but quite another to craft laws to deal with such instances and this is the distinction people who support the involvement of bishops in political matters fail to understand. That it is easy to see when someone is sick gives us no insight into how to cure the illness and though it is a bishop’s role to point out various societal illnesses and call for them to be addressed it is not his role to prescribe the solutions.

Ender

The bishops speak on healthcare for all, in general terms; the same as they speak on gun controls in general terms. Just as we look to people with the proper expertise, Cardinal Dolan referred the actual actions be taken by those who legislate, and interpret laws.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think you would try to argue that those mass shooters would not have done what they did at all, but for AR-15s. Your argument, as expressed before, is that some fewer would have been killed had the shooters been obliged to use other weapons.

But there’s no certainty of that, since one would have to know the resources and imagination of a shooter (or bomber, perhaps, like McVeigh who killed more than all the recent shooters combined) to know anything like that.

They may have done what they did, using other guns; however, would they have been as effective if they had used a ‘bolt action rifle?’ Seems their desire to maximize damage draws them to those guns that make it easier for them to obtain their objective. Of course it’s speculation, but sometimes there is an appearance of more than just coincidence.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

the last hundred high power matches I’ve been to had thousands of AR type rifles on the scene of the non-crime, hundreds of thousands of shots fired by men, women and children, and not a single fatality.

and just what are the type weapons? semiautomatics? the difference between an AR and many hunting rifles is cosmetic only (unless bayonet lugs makes rifles more dangerous).

F/

As I said, ‘there were definitions prior to the ban, and more definitions offered in the proposed ban.’ I think it fails to try and outsmart the argument using semantics. Another point, if they are genuine questions, what would make those asking anymore ‘expert’ on the subject than the bishops who have been accused of being ‘inexperienced?’

 

[Fairwinds]

They may have done what they did, using other guns; however, would they have been as effective if they had used a ‘bolt action rifle?’ Seems their desire to maximize damage draws them to those guns that make it easier for them to obtain their objective. Of course it’s speculation, but sometimes there is an appearance of more than just coincidence.

yes, they could have been more destructive with a bolt action rifle.

what do you want to ban? all firearms?

F/

 

[Ridgerunner]

They may have done what they did, using other guns; however, would they have been as effective if they had used a ‘bolt action rifle?’ Seems their desire to maximize damage draws them to those guns that make it easier for them to obtain their objective. Of course it’s speculation, but sometimes there is an appearance of more than just coincidence.

You’re stacking the deck here in using a bolt action as an example. Why not a muzzle-loader or bow and arrow?

The reality is that there are a lot of semi-automatics, from most pistols to (anymore) most rifles. Your argument has been in the past that being forced to use other semi-automatics instead of AR-15s would somehow save at least some lives.

However, that is a speculation based on the assumption that mass shooters would be unable to figure out how to kill just as many people with other kinds of semi-automatic weapons.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

yes, they could have been more destructive with a bolt action rifle.

what do you want to ban? all firearms?

F/

We know that’s not true. The time to expend as much ammo as Adam Lanza, or the shooter in the theater, would have been impacted through a bolt action rifle, especially when it came time to reload. Children could have been moved out of harm’s way, and adults in the theater could have had an opportunity to overcome the shooter.

Why do you find it necessary to repeat that type questions? I own guns, and hunt with them. Even though I pray I never have to use them as such, I do consider them as a last resort protection. I don’t believe you can find anywhere that I have promoted a complete ban on all firearms.

 

[SamH]

the last hundred high power matches I’ve been to had thousands of AR type rifles on the scene of the non-crime, hundreds of thousands of shots fired by men, women and children, and not a single fatality.

and just what are the type weapons? semiautomatics? the difference between an AR and many hunting rifles is cosmetic only (unless bayonet lugs makes rifles more dangerous).

F/

I remember Diane Fienstien giveing an interview to 60 Minutes on how dangerous a sniper rifle could be. It could shoot down 747s and kill from a long way away. Looks like were are down to .22 single shots - as long as the stock isn’t black.

 

[SamH]

You’re stacking the deck here in using a bolt action as an example. Why not a muzzle-loader or bow and arrow?

The reality is that there are a lot of semi-automatics, from most pistols to (anymore) most rifles. Your argument has been in the past that being forced to use other semi-automatics instead of AR-15s would somehow save at least some lives.

However, that is a speculation based on the assumption that mass shooters would be unable to figure out how to kill just as many people with other kinds of semi-automatic weapons.

Given the inherent weakness of the .223 round wouldn’t another weapon actually cost more lives?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re stacking the deck here in using a bolt action as an example. Why not a muzzle-loader or bow and arrow?

The reality is that there are a lot of semi-automatics, from most pistols to (anymore) most rifles. Your argument has been in the past that being forced to use other semi-automatics instead of AR-15s would somehow save at least some lives.

However, that is a speculation based on the assumption that mass shooters would be unable to figure out how to kill just as many people with other kinds of semi-automatic weapons.

The more time to reload, the more a chance for people to have survived. What would the outcomes have been in the theater attack, or the attack at Sandy Hook, had the shooter used a ‘muzzle-loader or bow and arrow?’ The victims would have had more chance to survive as we downgrade the weaponry, to say a pencil.

We haven’t seen the number of attacks with ‘other semi-automatics instead of AR-15s.’ We also haven’t seen a percentage of attacks using bolt actions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The more time to reload, the more a chance for people to have survived. What would the outcomes have been in the theater attack, or the attack at Sandy Hook, had the shooter used a ‘muzzle-loader or bow and arrow?’ The victims would have had more chance to survive as we downgrade the weaponry, to say a pencil.

We haven’t seen the number of attacks with ‘other semi-automatics instead of AR-15s.’ We also haven’t seen a percentage of attacks using bolt actions.

If all guns were outlawed, then possibly nutcases like Lanza would have some difficulty obtaining them from criminals who would have easy access…or would he? I have no doubt Lanza could have scored cocaine without difficulty, so why not a gun?

In truth, the present movement to outlaw guns is aimed at disarming the law-abiding. No other conclusion is possible considering the ease with which people obtain other contraband in this country. That being the case, one has to wonder why it is important for the left to disarm the populace.

 

[TEPO]

The more time to reload, the more a chance for people to have survived. What would the outcomes have been in the theater attack, or the attack at Sandy Hook, had the shooter used a ‘muzzle-loader or bow and arrow?’ The victims would have had more chance to survive as we downgrade the weaponry, to say a pencil.

We haven’t seen the number of attacks with ‘other semi-automatics instead of AR-15s.’ We also haven’t seen a percentage of attacks using bolt actions.

Without access to guns, there could become an increased demand for information on building home-made explosive devices.

Do you see that as an alternative possibility, or is that illogical?

If it became a reality, the only solution then would be to police the passing-on of information and supplies… There would become an underground movement to profit from this much simpler solution I think.

 

[SamH]

If all guns were outlawed, then possibly nutcases like Lanza would have some difficulty obtaining them from criminals who would have easy access…or would he? I have no doubt Lanza could have scored cocaine without difficulty, so why not a gun?

In truth, the present movement to outlaw guns is aimed at disarming the law-abiding. No other conclusion is possible considering the ease with which people obtain other contraband in this country. That being the case, one has to wonder why it is important for the left to disarm the populace.

Neither of the two Boston Marathon bombers could own a firearm or an explosive device. We see how well the law stopped that. Apparently only the law abiding citizens are following the law.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If all guns were outlawed, then possibly nutcases like Lanza would have some difficulty obtaining them from criminals who would have easy access…or would he? I have no doubt Lanza could have scored cocaine without difficulty, so why not a gun?

In truth, the present movement to outlaw guns is aimed at disarming the law-abiding. No other conclusion is possible considering the ease with which people obtain other contraband in this country. That being the case, one has to wonder why it is important for the left to disarm the populace.

With the exception of a very small minority, it’s not a call for ‘all guns outlawed,’ or ‘disarming the law-abiding.’ Why does it continued to be portrayed as ‘all or nothing?’

 

[Ridgerunner]

We know that’s not true. The time to expend as much ammo as Adam Lanza, or the shooter in the theater, would have been impacted through a bolt action rifle, especially when it came time to reload. Children could have been moved out of harm’s way, and adults in the theater could have had an opportunity to overcome the shooter.

It might be noted in passing that the standard Wehrmacht rifle in WWII was a bolt action Mauser. Did the average German soldier kill fewer enemies with it than did the average G.I. who had a semi-automatic M1 Garand? I don’t think anybody knows.

Besides, of course, there are lots of semi-automatics that no present gun control proposals would ban.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Without access to guns, there could become an increased demand for information on building home-made explosive devices.

Do you see that as an alternative possibility, or is that illogical?

If it became a reality, the only solution then would be to police the passing-on of information and supplies… There would become an underground movement to profit from this much simpler solution I think.

Over 200 million guns in this country provide the access being discussed. Are you suggesting we add to that number as an alternative to home-made explosive devices? How would guns have stopped what happened in Boston?

 

[Ridgerunner]

With the exception of a very small minority, it’s not a call for ‘all guns outlawed,’ or ‘disarming the law-abiding.’ Why does it continued to be portrayed as ‘all or nothing?’

Your suggestion, at least, was banning everything but bolt action single-shots, was it not?

And since nobody really argues that criminals would be disarmed by any new gun control proposals, who other than the law-abiding would be affected by them?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It might be noted in passing that the standard Wehrmacht rifle in WWII was a bolt action Mauser. Did the average German soldier kill fewer enemies with it than did the average G.I. who had a semi-automatic M1 Garand? I don’t think anybody knows.

Besides, of course, there are lots of semi-automatics that no present gun control proposals would ban.

Armies and civilians are entirely different scenarios. Apply the bolt action to the number of people shot in the theater. Would it have been as effective? Seriously.

There are a great deal number of semi-automatics in this country, but these shooters seem drawn to specific types. Is that just coincidence?

 

[TEPO]

Lets face the facts here. Guns ARE explosive devices, and throughout human history, from the moment they were created, explosives have been used in a variety of forms.

…just because “assault rifles” have been a popular choice recently does not mean that they cannot be replaced by some other device possibly capable of causing even more damage -such as a pressure cooker filled with nails or ball bearings.

 

[SamH]

It might be noted in passing that the standard Wehrmacht rifle in WWII was a bolt action Mauser. Did the average German soldier kill fewer enemies with it than did the average G.I. who had a semi-automatic M1 Garand? I don’t think anybody knows.

Besides, of course, there are lots of semi-automatics that no present gun control proposals would ban.

Actually its a given that the Germans killed more - especially when the Eastern Front is part of the math. The Soviets had many more front line soldiers armed with assault rifles (note these are real assault rifles not fictional assault weapons) than any other major fighting force in WW2 and the Germans killed many times more with their 40 year old bolt actions.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your suggestion, at least, was banning everything but bolt action single-shots, was it not?

And since nobody really argues that criminals would be disarmed by any new gun control proposals, who other than the law-abiding would be affected by them?

Come on Ridgerunner. You know that was not ‘my suggestion.’

It all comes back to how does universal background checks, at the very least, affect the law abiding citizen’s ability to defend? We see many on these threads, for whatever reason, refuse even that idea.