Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Ridgerunner]

Absolutely not. If we can save only one life of an innocent child in the USA, stiffer gun control laws would be well worth it. The more children’s lives that can be saved, the better off will America be as an example of a country where it is safe for children to attend school.

And the other end of the equation is what?

It may be instructive to reflect on the fact that Obama’s gun control proposals are essentially dead in congress. Why? Probably because the Tsnarnaev brothers’ running armed through the populated neighborhoods, putting whole cities on “lockdown” made too many people reconsider just how, unarmed, they would protect their children from another Tsarnaev-type.

One crisis causes people to scramble for cures, until another crisis causes them to rethink the cures.

This is not so easy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And the other end of the equation is what?

It may be instructive to reflect on the fact that Obama’s gun control proposals are essentially dead in congress. Why? Probably because the Tsnarnaev brothers’ running armed through the populated neighborhoods, putting whole cities on “lockdown” made too many people reconsider just how, unarmed, they would protect their children from another Tsarnaev-type.

One crisis causes people to scramble for cures, until another crisis causes them to rethink the cures.

This is not so easy.

So, we speculate now? No one has made that connection, outside of these forums.

 

[Lapey]

Do any of those percentages, or numbers, justify the deaths of those children in Connecticut?

There’s no hypocrisy, except for the perceived hypocrisy some feel necessary to establish to diminish the opposing view on this issue. I am pro life for ALL from conception until natural death. I haven’t seen the pro abortion posters on these forums, and do not feel the necessity to ‘preach to the choir.’ However, :I can see a wide division on the issue of easy access of guns and the violence associated with it on these forums.

Abortions are a travesty, and the murder of innocent children from gun violence is a travesty. One having greater numbers does not create an acceptable body count on another issue. We are not a one issue Church.

Absolutely not. If we can save only one life of an innocent child in the USA, stiffer gun control laws would be well worth it. The more children’s lives that can be saved, the better off will America be as an example of a country where it is safe for children to attend school.

This was not the point which was being made. Why is it you fiercely fight to make your point through a 1300 post thread to show how we do not comply with the bishops when they have not made a statement which places moral obligation to support gun controls added to what already exists.

Please tell us exactly what you propose that would have stopped Sandyhook. Also, please explain what you keep referring to as guns being too “accessible”. How would you make them less accessible, and what specifically do you think the bishops are saying?

Before you respond, please remember to be truthful and not repeat democrat talking points about background checks, we already have that. What material changes do you propose?

PS. I will be waiting for the same passion in any debate thread where abortion is the key principle especially where it pertains to which party has abortion rights solidly protected in their platform. Now remember before you have the impulse to react to this statement, you defend the pro-life side of the argument and not the party line of the democrats.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is all fine, and we should read them. However, we should not assume any of these constitute Church doctrine. They are the opinions of individuals. Furthermore, the best practical steps are not self-evident, nor are they contained in any of the above sources. Legislation ought to be specific, practical measures demonstrably likely to lead to a societal benefit. It is entirely legitimate for a Catholic to believe, for example, that existing gun laws should be better enforced before we adopt others without thinking them through. Again, I’m put to mind of the New York legislation that effectively outlawed police pistols in the hands of the police. The emotional reaction of the moment, and poorly thought out. the NY legislature changed it later.

In recognition of the fact that people can legitimately differ, this article was written. ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/the-catholic-position-on-gun-control-should-be

This is a reasonably well-balanced article which, incidentally, cites the abovementioned statements by churchmen, but also reflects the views of others. ncregister.com/daily-news/catholics-and-the-question-of-gun-ownership/

Without attempting to exhaust Google for pasting here, it is probably best simply to encourage people to read what’s available from both sides of PARTICULAR proposals and make the decision you think is in the best interests of society.

I believe it’s dangerous grounds for the laity to start declaring what is opinion, and what is moral guidance from the bishops. It opens many doors. to possible erroneous thoughts and actions.

The bishops have their own sources and speak clearly. What would speak in your favor the loudest would be from other bishops, declaring disagreement, or vagueness, with the documents from the bishops. I haven’t been able to find one.

 

[Lapey]

Absolutely not. If we can save only one life of an innocent child in the USA, stiffer gun control laws would be well worth it. The more children’s lives that can be saved, the better off will America be as an example of a country where it is safe for children to attend school.

If you would truly give a rat’s behind about the lives of children you would be arguing in favor of protecting children and not arguing to remove guns rights from law abiding citizens. This is the hypocrisy in your arguments.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, I don’t. I don’t see the call as vague. “Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.” We have no men of the Church that state opposition, or declare that as vague. It is only declared vague by those who oppose measures to control the sale and use of firearms, or so it seems.

I think the above quote from the bishops in 2000 speaks for itself without you or me or anybody adding or subtracting from it. It says no more and no less than they intended, one would think.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This was not the point which was being made. Why is it you fiercely fight to make your point through a 1300 post thread to show how we do not comply with the bishops when they have not made a statement which places moral obligation to support gun controls added to what already exists.

Please tell us exactly what you propose that would have stopped Sandyhook. Also, please explain what you keep referring to as guns being too “accessible”. How would you make them less accessible, and what specifically do you think the bishops are saying?

Before you respond, please remember to be truthful and not repeat democrat talking points about background checks, we already have that. What material changes do you propose?

PS. I will be waiting for the same passion in any debate thread where abortion is the key principle especially where it pertains to which party has abortion rights solidly protected in their platform. Now remember before you have the impulse to react to this statement, you defend the pro-life side of the argument and not the party line of the democrats.

So, why did the bishops speak at all, if the laws are already in place? The moral obligation, for me, is the building a culture of life, as opposed to the culture of death which some men of the Church have directly attributed to the easy access of guns.

We have loopholes in private sales. Universal background checks could prevent some guns from passing into the hands of those who cannot buy them through licensed dealers now. It’s not a democrat talking point, nor a republican talking point, it’s a fact. There is a link in this thread that showed investigative reporting where names were not even exchanged during the transactions.

When you show me a thread where someone argues for the rights of abortion, I’d be glad to join. As I explained, I don’t see a need to preach to the choir. Now, can I expect the same of you on other life issues? The Church teaches a dignity of life connected to many other issues.

 

[Lapey]

No, I don’t. I don’t see the call as vague. “Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.” We have no men of the Church that state opposition, or declare that as vague. It is only declared vague by those who oppose measures to control the sale and use of firearms, or so it seems.

You also have no “men of the Church” as you call the bishops who are making doctrinal statements that oblige the faithful to action or belief. What you do have are resolutions and opinions; that is all. You do not understand the workings of the Church if you say different.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think the above quote from the bishops in 2000 speaks for itself without you or me or anybody adding or subtracting from it. It says no more and no less than they intended, one would think.

Saying it’s vague is subtracting. I’ll ask you once again, what, in your opinion, are measures to control the sale and use of firearms?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You also have no “men of the Church” as you call the bishops who are making doctrinal statements that oblige the faithful to action or belief. What you do have are resolutions and opinions; that is all. You do not understand the workings of the Church if you say different.

What did the early Church fathers teach about listening to the bishops, or where we find the bishops? Even the Bible says to obey our prelates. I understand, and don’t try to view those instructions through a political lens, or what might be acceptable to me personally.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would like to invite everyone to read these documents for themselves.

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice

USCCB Committees Call For Action In Response To Newtown Tragedy

Advocating for Gun Control (Cardinal Dolan)

Bishop Blaire Voices Disappointment At Senate Failure To Support Measures To Reduce Gun Violence

Vatican welcomes Obama gun control proposal

Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

They call for supporting measures that control the sale and use of firearms. That’s fairly straightforward, and not vague as some make it out to be. It doesn’t call for ‘interpret’ what we say, or delay action until you can come up with something. It seems to only be vague when it suits some of us.

The best we should do is invite everyone to read these documents for themselves.

 

[pnewton]

If you would truly give a rat’s behind about the lives of children you would be arguing in favor of protecting children and not arguing to remove guns rights from law abiding citizens. This is the hypocrisy in your arguments.

Now now. No need for uncharitable assumptions or false representations of another. Arguing for stricter controls, whatever that may mean is** not** the same as removing gun rights from law abiding citizens. Also, it is not hypocrisy, it is not lack of concern for for the lives of the innocent that drives one to disagree with Mr. Lapey here. No need for personal attacks.

Ridgerunner is right that we have to consider the other end of the equation. This does not mean that anyone whose math is not the same does not give a “rat’s behind”. If we were to truly understand that the evidence is all (both sides) composed of nothing but statistical analogies none of which can be verified through replication we would have to see that this “equation” must have predisposed and unprovable assumptions. I prefer international comparisons because of the long term time frames. This has has its limits as do the comparisons of shorter term changes in laws in one area. Also, I specifically and adamantly reject any factor of inconvenience to gun owners. When measuring life, this should not even be a factor to some one who is pro-life.

There is simply no reason in any case to suggest anyone does not care about children.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If you would truly give a rat’s behind about the lives of children you would be arguing in favor of protecting children and not arguing to remove guns rights from law abiding citizens. This is the hypocrisy in your arguments.

Background checks are not removing gun rights, or affecting anyone’s ability to defend. The constitution, and, more importantly, the Catechism speaks of the state’s right to regulate.

 

[Tomdstone]

If you would truly give a rat’s behind about the lives of children you would be arguing in favor of protecting children and not arguing to remove guns rights from law abiding citizens. This is the hypocrisy in your arguments.

This is an ad hominem argument, attacking the person who is making the argument, rather than addressing the issue of saving children’s lives. My argument concerns innocent schoolchildren who need a safe environment at school. America would be a much better country if it could insure that school children do not have to fear for their lives as they are attending school.

 

[Lapey]

So, why did the bishops speak at all, if the laws are already in place? The moral obligation, for me, is the building a culture of life, as opposed to the culture of death which some men of the Church have directly attributed to the easy access of guns.

We have loopholes in private sales. Universal background checks could prevent some guns from passing into the hands of those who cannot buy them through licensed dealers now. It’s not a democrat talking point, nor a republican talking point, it’s a fact. There is a link in this thread that showed investigative reporting where names were not even exchanged during the transactions.

When you show me a thread where someone argues for the rights of abortion, I’d be glad to join. As I explained, I don’t see a need to preach to the choir. Now, can I expect the same of you on other life issues? The Church teaches a dignity of life connected to many other issues.

You see moral obligation to make more laws limiting gun ownership. I see a further eroding of personal rights guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights. None of this conversation has anything whatsoever to do with protecting children from future Sandy Hook type events. If this was a true discussion of protecting kids we would take care of people with mental illnesses and arm our school personnel and properly train them.

What private sales transactions have led to any of the mass shootings? Please elaborate on the statistics that back up what you assert here. Are you saying that universal background check laws will be followed by felons who sell guns to felons? If so you are more naive than I thought.

We already have instant background checks in almost all sales; thanks to the NRA I might add.

You are indeed the recipient of my preaching and rightfully so. You consistently defend the democrat party which holds the right of a woman to choose abortion in high regard; It is part of their platform. Now you want me to jump on your bandwagon in support of gun control which will in your opinion, “save children.” I call horse hockey!

I again tell you, when you are ready to get in the fight for life, call me. Send me a note to inform me of your readiness to get involved and I will send you my personal email address and phone number. Until then do not lecture me on what pro-life truly means.

The culture of death is promulgated by the democrat party and groups of militants who support them. The NRA and legal gun owners are not the problem, it is liberalism run amuck.

 

[pnewton]

You are indeed the recipient of my preaching and rightfully so. You consistently defend the democrat party which holds the right of a woman to choose abortion in high regard;

Now this is a logical fallacy, and even a lie if unless I have missed something. Can you show me one place where this poster has defended the **Democratic Party? **I think I have followed this thread, but it is rather long. So please show me where you got this accusation.

FYI - Abortion is not the topic here, so no need to muddy the waters.

I again tell you, when you are ready to get in the fight for life, call me.

You are doing way too much assuming. No need to slander and mud-sling and just generally make up a bunch of junk about others.

 

[Lapey]

What did the early Church fathers teach about listening to the bishops, or where we find the bishops? Even the Bible says to obey our prelates. I understand, and don’t try to view those instructions through a political lens, or what might be acceptable to me personally.

You are persistant, I’ll give you that.

When a group of bishops make a statem,ent like this it is binding as a resolution pretty much. Now if my bishop would come back here and send out a pastoral letter to his diocese than it would be binding on me as his subject. As it is now it is not binding.

Please show me one bishop who has issued such a pastoral letter to his diocese; there are none.

I do obey my prelate in everything he has instructed me to live by, he has not instructed me in this matter.

 

[Lapey]

Now now. No need for uncharitable assumptions or false representations of another. Arguing for stricter controls, whatever that may mean is** not** the same as removing gun rights from law abiding citizens. Also, it is not hypocrisy, it is not lack of concern for for the lives of the innocent that drives one to disagree with Mr. Lapey here. No need for personal attacks.

Ridgerunner is right that we have to consider the other end of the equation. This does not mean that anyone whose math is not the same does not give a “rat’s behind”. If we were to truly understand that the evidence is all (both sides) composed of nothing but statistical analogies none of which can be verified through replication we would have to see that this “equation” must have predisposed and unprovable assumptions. I prefer international comparisons because of the long term time frames. This has has its limits as do the comparisons of shorter term changes in laws in one area. Also, I specifically and adamantly reject any factor of inconvenience to gun owners. When measuring life, this should not even be a factor to some one who is pro-life.

There is simply no reason in any case to suggest anyone does not care about children.

Hold on here, when I write that I do not support further restrictions on gun rites it is said that I do not care about the little ones killed in SandyHook, but when I say this then it is I “Mr. Lapey” who is personally attacking? Speaking of hypocrisy.

No one is measuring life; this is an assertion which has been placed on me and a couple of other posters when we argue against stricter gun laws. I am however measuring the effort on this thread by some who continue to repeatedly support more gun laws that will do nothing to curb the problem. This is not the fight for life. You want to fight the culture of death? Let’s together as one Church voice our opinions with one voice, one vote, against the evils of abortion. Until we come together to oppose evil, don’t come after me with this self righteous attitude that you are more caring than me where the lives of children and anyone for that matter. This is the heart of the problem. Where is the culture of death cultivated? If we can kill a child in his/her mother’s womb we can do anything.

 

[Lapey]

Background checks are not removing gun rights, or affecting anyone’s ability to defend. The constitution, and, more importantly, the Catechism speaks of the state’s right to regulate.

Background checks are already in place. This is a non issue.

 

[Tomdstone]

Background checks are already in place.

Current background checks are not effective. They need to be strengthened.