Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Ender]

Any person honest with themselves will admit that their lone opinion formulated through the news is not the same as thoughtful research by a cross-discipline, bi-partisan group of experts.

I can agree with this … what I disagree with is that the bishops should be included in anyone’s list of experts because the expertise called for involves no moral calculations.

If they had said nothing, they would have been criticized for not caring. The Catholic Church and Her leaders have always had, and will always have, those who criticize what is taught on both the left and the right, because the Church does not follow political lines.

Nothing said in this thread has been in response to their comments on the tragedy or their surely heartfelt expressions of compassion and concern. Where they went wrong was in suggesting that the solution to the problem involved moral choices and that the more restrictive the solution, the more moral the choice. That is simply false and it was inappropriate to suggest otherwise.

Ender

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Graubo3

I guess I missed the boat on this one. From your description, the last one to get the letterhead, leads! Now, I do not know where you work … but, if you were to take company letterhead, make your own statement as an employee of that company and then issue it to news outlets - and you were not authorized to do so, I would guess you would quickly lose your job. But, I guess I am out to lunch on this one …

God bless

tqualey,
They join Cardinal Dolan in “expressing solidarity” about the tragedy. There aren’t any signatories from ‘all’ the bishops to express collegiality, in fact there is none. It is no different than if I supply the media a press release on my companies letterhead stating xyz. Not all of my co-workers would agree with me.
Calling a spade a spade, this is a common propaganda practice from the extremist left of the Social Justice wing of the USCCB. The MSM and the Libs get all lathered up about this sort of stuff because they find joy in discord (especially in the Church) and people like me that understand I don’t have to listen to your bishop and likewise and I can remain in good standing with the Church. Peace.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Maybe it would be a good idea to calm down, regain focus and stay on topic. I think this would be both charitable (it is possible to teach by example) and appreciated by others.

God bless

No. I do not agree with you one bit of your assessment of me and my opinions. I have never denied the right to bear arms in the general populace, but only deem it dangerous in some situations. You are coming close to accusing me of lying and I find your attitude offensive and uncharitable. Dialogue can* never* exist if we accuse another of being disingenuine. You do not trust the bishops in this matter. You do not trust me. I see the common denominator appears to be you and your “judgment”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Liturgyluver,

The bishops do go back a long way on gun control (1975) - and maybe their efforts have had some effect given a bit of a drop in murder from then to now. Here is an interesting link on crime statistics in the US. Just looking at two dates (1975 and 2011) disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

1975 = total crime (11,292,400), all violent crime (1,039,710), murder (20,510)
2011= total crime (10,266,737), all violent crime (1,203,564), murder (14,612)

As you can see, this is somewhat of a mixed bag, all crime is down, murder is down, but, all violent crime is up. and, of course, missing form these statistics are the number of abortions that have take palce - but, this is the ‘lawful’ taking of the life of an innocent.

Did you know that 2 years before their position on gun control -we had the infamous Roe v Wade decision. I can understand that in 1973, no one would have imagined that 50,000,000 unborn babies would be butchered alive in their mother’s womb. But, my guess is that as the years pass by - and the mass murder of the unborn continued to grow and the Vatican was addressing th scantity of life - the bishops might have made a difference here, too - had they retained their focus and stood up against those who actively promote the destruction of innocent life.

My guess would be it is never too late to change from going off on a tangent to actually addressing the heart of the matter: the disregard for the sanctity of human life. I would encourage the bishops (not to do nothing as has been suggested…) to offer their condolences, pray for both the victims and survivors and encourage all to reflect on the Scantity of Human Life in keeping with Vatican teaching as the most important aspect of Social Justice.

God bless.

The statement was issued from the US Bishops and refers to their earlier pronouncements on gun control:

*The bishops’ stance on gun control has remained in place since 1975 when they called for a national firearms policy. Their concern then was over the proliferation of “Saturday night specials,” cheaply made and inexpensive weapons that debuted four decades ago and quickly became the weapon of choice for street criminals.

Their distress over gun violence surfaced again in 1994 in a pastoral message titled “Confronting a Culture of Violence: A Catholic Framework for Action.” While they did not call for specific controls on firearms at the time, the bishops cited the proliferation of guns among young people and the rising number of shooting deaths and injuries among children and teenagers as priorities for the country to address.

The bishops since then widened their focus to encompass assault weapons. Prior to the past two presidential elections, the bishops in their quadrennial statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” supported “reasonable restrictions on access to assault weapons and handguns.”*

Of course, you are free to ignore what your Bishops’ stance is.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ender,

Excellent post!

I can agree with this … what I disagree with is that the bishops should be included in anyone’s list of experts because the expertise called for involves no moral calculations.
Nothing said in this thread has been in response to their comments on the tragedy or their surely heartfelt expressions of compassion and concern. Where they went wrong was in suggesting that the solution to the problem involved moral choices and that the more restrictive the solution, the more moral the choice. That is simply false and it was inappropriate to suggest otherwise.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Pnewton,

Maybe it would be a good idea to calm down, regain focus and stay on topic.

Your assessment is not much better. I am, in fact calm. You are quite free to report anything you deem in need of reporting. I do this sometimes, but for little things I rather address it myself.

But I agree that** I** am not the topic here. Neither you, I or nitesnake need to make it so.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Bravo!

Now, how about a comment on the the laws that were already existing on the books when these dreadful murders took place - and how new laws/restrictions/regulations would have somehow have made a difference?

God bless

Your assessment is not much better. I am, in fact calm. You are quite free to report anything you deem in need of reporting. I do this sometimes, but for little things I rather address it myself.

But I agree that** I** am not the topic here. Neither you, I or nitesnake need to make it so.

 

[jc4751]

They didn’t make cheap guns before 1975? How could they ignor such a huge market?

If I remember correctly, once “Saturday Night Specials” were banned, criminals started using a better grade of pistol. Oops.

Most of the people who support bans (what a “responsible restriction” is, once you parse it), can’t fathom that some people Simply. Will. Never. Follow. The. Law. I don’t understand the thought process, but there it is.

BTW, your information on safes was interesting. I’ve always heard that the better approach is to hide guns in tandem with physical security. I guess if nothing else, the safe defeats a liability tort.

 

[jc4751]

Hi, Pnewton,

Bravo!

Now, how about a comment on the the laws that were already existing on the books when these dreadful murders took place - and how new laws/restrictions/regulations would have somehow have made a difference?

God bless

There is a fat slice of intellectual dishonesty from the pro-gun side about the AWB as it existed in CT and other states – there’s nothing to stop someone from driving across the border to a neighboring state and hitting a “private sale” at a gun show. This ranks up there with saying that a semi-auto rifle is not an “assault rifle.” True, I suppose, but the volume of fire from a semi-auto rifle is still pretty considerable.

Those two points need to be discarded in these arguments, and people need to concentrate more on:

1. Discarding a statistics based approach to crime analysis when it comes to a discussion of restricting a basic right. Do people have a right, under the Constitution, to keep and bear arms? Is this right inherent and part of being a free citizen? If so, enough said, we need to understand that the misuse of a right by some doesn’t invalidate the right for everyone else. The right of free assembly has not been done away with simply because gang members choose to associate with other gang members.
2. If we consider the ratio of guns owned to the number of murders committed with guns, we rank well below other nations in terms of homicides per gun. I would guess that the number of murders would cluster around people who owned a smaller number of guns.
3. Most killings are still drug-related, and overwhelming involve handguns. To admit this would call the effectiveness of the drug war into question.
4. Last, people who intend commit murder may be hindered somewhat by an outright ban, but weapons will still be readily available on the black market for generations. Ammunition can last a good forty or fifty years, properly stored. And, there are lots of other ways to do the same thing, some potentially more destructive. If Timothy McVeigh had simply walked into the Murrah building and started shooting, perhaps only a handful of people would have died, instead of the 168 that did. Ditto for 9/11.

 

[Geist]

There is a fat slice of intellectual dishonesty from the pro-gun side about the AWB as it existed in CT and other states – there’s nothing to stop someone from driving across the border to a neighboring state and hitting a “private sale” at a gun show.

See, there’s a law for that too. The gun control act of 1968 forbids private sales between citizens who reside in different states. The “gun show loophole” is a myth.

 

[pnewton]

See, there’s a law for that too. The gun control act of 1968 forbids private sales between citizens who reside in different states. The “gun show loophole” is a myth.

Does that apply to intrastate sales too, or is that still possible to do without any sort of background check?

 

[jc4751]

See, there’s a law for that too. The gun control act of 1968 forbids private sales between citizens who reside in different states. The “gun show loophole” is a myth.

I believe all 50 states also ban murder, yet it happens. I was trying to address the reality of the situation, rather than the letter of the law (which will be ignored by those intent on evil, anyway).

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This ranks up there with saying that a semi-auto rifle is not an “assault rifle.” True, I suppose, but the volume of fire from a semi-auto rifle is still pretty considerable.

-volume of fire on a semi-automatic weapon is dictated by how fast the shooter pulls the trigger. Sustained fire on a semi-automatic is dictated by the magazine size and how quickly the shooter can do a combat reload.

-if “assault” rifle is defined by being a semi-automatic rifle, than we’ve been using “assault” rifles since the late 1800s. Most of which have looked similar to this- cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2011/09/30/202861_01_awesome_remington_30_06_model__640.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winchester_Self_Loading_Mod_05.JPG

“Come on men, time to go take that hill with our epic assault rifles.”

 

[TimeEntrance]

The Mayor of Milwaukee is Catholic and I’m pretty sure the Police Chief is too. I realize they have a job to do and I can totally understand incidents like Sandy Hook will cause citizens and leaders to look for ways to curtail gun violence.

But why do I get the feeling that with this meeting I’m going to end up getting screwed while whatever new laws created or hurdles to jump through aren’t going to do a thing to stop people from “good neighborhoods” mowing people down? :ehh:

jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/police-chiefs-mayors-to-talk-over-gunviolence-remedies-np8a347-186093281.html

In a gathering planned long before mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., Oak Creek, Brookfield and Newtown, Ct., Mayor Tom Barrett and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak on Thursday will host a summit in Minneapolis to talk about ways to combat gun violence and crime.

The summit will bring together the mayors and police chiefs of cities large and small in Wisconsin and Minnesota, as well as federal law enforcement officials from both states.

 

[jc4751]

-volume of fire on a semi-automatic weapon is dictated by how fast the shooter pulls the trigger. Sustained fire on a semi-automatic is dictated by the magazine size and how quickly the shooter can do a combat reload.

-if “assault” rifle is defined by being a semi-automatic rifle, than we’ve been using “assault” rifles since the late 1800s. Most of which have looked similar to this- cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2011/09/30/202861_01_awesome_remington_30_06_model__640.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winchester_Self_Loading_Mod_05.JPG

“Come on men, time to go take that hill with our epic assault rifles.”

It’s actually been common practice in recent years for some armies to either stop training their soldiers on full-auto fire, or to restrict the practice to emergency use only, due to the lack of accuracy and waste of ammunition. It was not unknown for soldiers in the Yugoslavian civil war, by contrast to torture-test various kinds of AKs to see which ones would hold their accuracy longest magazine after magazine of full-auto fire. I’d guess none of them ever intended to compete at Camp Perry.

 

[donsnow]

Good evening, all,

I have just returned from posting on Gabrielle Giffords’ Facebook page about Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Now, I need to find the web page for the American Catholic Bishops. Because, I wish that our Bishops and my fellow Catholics would go by what our Catechism of the Catholic Church says about self defense. If I recall correctly, it does not exclude gun ownership.

I sincerely wish that American Catholics and Bishops would remember that a lot of our ancestors immigrated here to get away from British and European views and laws. And, leave those politics and views out of a Catholic discussion on gun ownership.

Our Bishops should not bring politics onto us Catholics, but instead bring the CCC into politics.

Responsible gun ownership needs no further restrictions. The American governments at all levels need to be restricted.

God loves all of you and yours, lurkers, too,
Don

 

[TimeEntrance]

Good evening, all,

I have just returned from posting on Gabrielle Giffords’ Facebook page about Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Now, I need to find the web page for the American Catholic Bishops. Because, I wish that our Bishops and my fellow Catholics would go by what our Catechism of the Catholic Church says about self defense. If I recall correctly, it does not exclude gun ownership.

I sincerely wish that American Catholics and Bishops would remember that a lot of our ancestors immigrated here to get away from British and European views and laws. And, leave those politics and views out of a Catholic discussion on gun ownership.

Our Bishops should not bring politics onto us Catholics, but instead bring the CCC into politics.

Responsible gun ownership needs no further restrictions. The American governments at all levels need to be restricted.

God loves all of you and yours, lurkers, too,
Don

This retired U.S. Army General disagrees with you. Personally, I want a Bushmaster. And I don’t think your comments on European immigrants were are entirely true. I know here in Milwaukee from reading about the Italians a lot of them came to the U.S. to work for a while and then head back home with the money. I think upwards of half of them did this if I’m remembering correctly.

Anyways, my German-American grandfather spoke with a heavy German accent. My German relatives were hear since the mid 1800’s and fought in the U.S. Civil War. I thought my grandfather was born and raised in Germany his accent was so thick. It was not until being an adult I found out he was born and raised here in America. He was raised on a Wisconsin farm where German was only spoken in the house.

So, I don;t think European immigrants wanted to abandon all and everything of their European views if by that we mean culture.

People mainly come to the U.S. for money. Like people go to Vegas. If being American was synonymous with poverty then few to no one would come here. You can find more freedom in the middle of the Amazon than you can in the U.S. But who wants to live like a half naked Indian?

washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/08/mcchrystal-backs-serious-gun-laws/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...13/01/Merlin_21117372_image_1024w-300x200.jpg

Retired Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said Tuesday he supports “serious action” to curb the nation’s gun violence, including an assault weapons ban.

“I think serious action is necessary,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough….The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. And I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty culture, and so I think we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”

McChrystal said some assault weapons currently legal for civilian use should be limited to only the military.

“I spent a career carrying, typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal said. “And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. And that’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

“I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets…"

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This retired U.S. Army General disagrees with you. Personally, I want a Bushmaster. And I don’t think your comments on European immigrants were are entirely true. I know here in Milwaukee from reading about the Italians a lot of them came to the U.S. to work for a while and then head back home with the money. I think upwards of half of them did this if I’m remembering correctly.

Anyways, my German-American grandfather spoke with a heavy German accent. My German relatives were hear since the mid 1800’s and fought in the U.S. Civil War. I thought my grandfather was born and raised in Germany his accent was so thick. It was not until being an adult I found out he was born and raised here in America. He was raised on a Wisconsin farm where German was only spoken in the house.

So, I don;t think European immigrants wanted to abandon all and everything of their European views if by that we mean culture.

People mainly come to the U.S. for money. Like people go to Vegas. If being American was synonymous with poverty then few to no one would come here. You can find more freedom in the middle of the Amazon than you can in the U.S. But who wants to live like a half naked Indian?

washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/08/mcchrystal-backs-serious-gun-laws/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...13/01/Merlin_21117372_image_1024w-300x200.jpg

The general is speaking outside of his field. He’s no more an expert on gun violence in the US or gun control laws than the average joe on the internet (here assuming he doesn’t have an advanced degree in criminology or sociology or criminal law or constitutional law or etc).

As for his comments about the capabilities of the M4, I’m pretty sure some of the more knowledgeable posters in regards to firearms can link us firearms that either do the same amount of damage or more that aren’t military weapons.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jc4751,

I think you’re right about this …

The situation with mass murder is astoundlyly bad - thinking we can reduce or eliminate it with more regulations indicates that there are entire groups who are not paying attention to what is going on in our society.

Let’s return to the Scantity of Life as a starting place - rather then clamoring for still more laws - when the one’s we have are not enforced.

God bless

I believe all 50 states also ban murder, yet it happens. I was trying to address the reality of the situation, rather than the letter of the law (which will be ignored by those intent on evil, anyway).

 

[InigoMontoya]

As for his comments about the capabilities of the M4, I’m pretty sure some of the more knowledgeable posters in regards to firearms can link us firearms that either do the same amount of damage or more that aren’t military weapons.

I’d rather be hit with a round .223/5.56 round, minus a few a certain grain size, any day of the week versus most hunting rifles!