Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[seekerz]

Listening to the NRA statement. Now the government must place armed guards in schools while at the same time shrinking in size, decreasing spending and laying off teachers and police due to budget cuts…all while jumping off the fiscal cliff so that millionaires keep the Bush tax breaks that so far have created how many jobs?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You misunderstand the constitution. The constitution, the government does not give or grant rights. The constitution limits the ability of the government to infringe on inherent rights of the people. The federal government does not give me anything, the constitution prohibits the government from taking rights from me.

The constitution does not give your rights above other peoples rights; life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Your rights are subject to not infringing on other people’s rights.

 

[SamH]

The constitution does not give your rights above other peoples rights; life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Your rights are subject to not infringing on other people’s rights.

Agreed. So there’s not need to infringe on my right to own arms.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Agreed. So there’s not need to infringe on my right to own arms.

Yea, those people can give up their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so you don’t have to be inconvenienced with responsible gun ownership.

I think the bans need to run deeper. Thanks for convincing me of that. Certain weapons are unnecessary in private citizens hands, especially when we can’t inconvenience them by requiring strict securing.

Guys, I got your denials. Nothing will work. Bans maybe the way to go. I wouldn’t fight it at this point, seeing the view behind the gun rights advocates.

I’m not sticking around spending all day on a computer to go round and round in circles.

Merry Christmas

 

[scipio337]

It has been our government that has guaranteed all your rights through the years. Just because you don’t agree with the political views doesn’t make it out to be the socialist country so many whine about. When this president was first elected, and handed a mess, everyone said it was all over. Well, we’re still here. What’s holding us back is politics. One side refusing to work with the other. ‘A single view must be imposed!’ Come on, that’s not what America is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be about compromises, and majority. We’ve lost that over ‘sore losers’. That’s what’s killing the country. While everyone makes those ‘sly’ threats against the government, they fail to compare it to those countries that are better. There’s a reason for that you know.

Again, it’s the government that has guaranteed your rights through the years. So, it was a ‘collective defense of all’ and not a self defense of ‘me, me, me.’ The victims has inalienable rights, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your rights don’t outweigh other person’s rights.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. “Rights”, or “political compromise”?

The two are not inclusive.

Governments do not “guarantee” rights. God has done that. Government is just there to protect them:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

Of course my rights don’t outweigh others, just as your rights don’t outweigh mine. Those who deprive or try to deprive people of life are arrested. What Lanza did is illegal.

 

[thomasf]

The constitution does not give your rights above other peoples rights; life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Your rights are subject to not infringing on other people’s rights.

That’s the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

And it’s irrelevant to this discussion. My owning guns does not infringe on anyone’s life or liberty or pursuit of happiness. Criminals do that, and they are illegal.

 

[ProVobis]

Listening to the NRA statement. Now the government must place armed guards in schools while at the same time shrinking in size, decreasing spending and laying off teachers and police due to budget cuts…all while jumping off the fiscal cliff so that millionaires keep the Bush tax breaks that so far have created how many jobs?

I listened to their statement too. Their job is to sell more guns. I can’t see them proposing taxes on guns or ammunition to increase police sizes. I don’t know where the money would come from.

 

[ringil]

Hey, he did have the “brilliant” idea of having a national register of the mentally ill.

sarcasm intended.

 

[ProVobis]

Hey, he did have the “brilliant” idea of having a national register of the mentally ill.

sarcasm intended.

Indeed. First you sell 300,000,000 guns to whomever, then you propose data bases.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The problem with not restricting certain types of weapons that is that responsible gun owners (like I heard Nancy Lanza was) generally live in homes with other people. Not to mention that those who go on a shooting rampage might have had a clean criminal record and no clear history of mental illness (e.g. Adam Lanza).

I see nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to any type and amount of weapons/ammo that a person wants. It’s like this with other rights: the right to vote does not mean the right to elect anyone in the world - candidates still have to meet certain criteria; the right to liberty does not mean I am free to absolutely anywhere I please or do do absolutely anything I want…similarly, there is no Constitutional right to own an AR-15 - there is simply a constitutional right to carry a gun - not whatever gun in the world a person chooses. Considering that guns are not the only arms in existence, would the constitutional right to bear arms cover private ownership and use of rocket launchers?

What kinds of guns, then, WOULD you have allowed Adam Lanza to have access to?

 

[exnihilo]

This is interesting, if it can be credited.

I have never seen statistics on it, but by my own observation, most Catholics appear to be city dwellers. The countryside, at least by my observation of the rural areas in which I have traveled, is more protestant. And when it comes to Evangelicals (which to some includes Fundamentalists, though they are not the same thing) it would take a lot to persuade me that a very high percentage of country people are not of that persuasion.

Gun ownerhship in the country is more complicated than gun ownership in urban areas; first because law enforcement is not as near to hand in rural areas and because there are other uses for guns there as well.

Therefore, I wonder somewhat whether these differences have more to do with where a person lives than what his/her religion might be.

You could be right that is has to do with rural vs. urban as much as anything. To which I’d have to add in my observation people in the cities tend to be very detached from reality and develop ridiculous ideas as a result of that detachment. I’d add that I very much appreciate the Catholic Church on moral and theological issues but on social and political (outside of life) issues, and even the non-religious culture it feels very alien.

It has been our government that has guaranteed all your rights through the years.

No it was individuals sometimes acting at the governments direction. It is the direction of the government to now take away many of my rights. America has become not that different from other socialist/fascist countries that don’t make the same claims to protect people’s rights. The only real difference these days is we have very free political speech (only because they know we care more about entertainment and comfort than principles) and gun rights. On many other counts we have less freedom than some countries.

I see nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to any type and amount of weapons/ammo that a person wants. It’s like this with other rights: the right to vote does not mean the right to elect anyone in the world - candidates still have to meet certain criteria; the right to liberty does not mean I am free to absolutely anywhere I please or do do absolutely anything I want…similarly, there is no Constitutional right to own an AR-15 - there is simply a constitutional right to carry a gun - not whatever gun in the world a person chooses.

The very nature of the amendment is that it guarantees any and all types of weapons. If not it would have specific restrictions as to its meaning. If you want to be able to regulate what types of arms then you really need to amend the constitution. Not that the government doesn’t simply ignore it as is. The US Constitution contained no right to vote and there were plenty of voting laws which prohibited most people from voting. The funny thing is the courts declared voting a right and from that comes essentially no regulation. So the voting argument actually works against you. If the right exists then any regulation is a form of inhibiting your rights.

 

[PoorKnight]

We have some gun right activists who use an excerpt from the Catechism, and some of them using that which appears to be the strongest support for their argument…
QUOTE]

I’m reposting a response I made to the same subject a few months ago:

I would have to, lovingly and respectfully disagree.

Let me start with paragraph 2321 of CCC “The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.”

To render someone ‘unable to inflict harm’ may easily mean death for the unjust aggressor.

Anyone who is motivated can shrug off a bullet wound. The book “Lone Survivor” tells the real-life story of a squad of 4 Navy SEALs who were ambushed by over 300 Taliban. 3 out of the 4 SEALs were killed but not before each of them - including the author (the lone survivor) - received 4 or more bullet wounds. The last SEAL killed actually to a round that entered his head at one temple and exited at the other. That SEAL still fought down to his last pistol magazine. So the whole idea of “just shoot them in the leg” will not reliably render an unjust aggressor UNABLE to inflict harm.

The whole “Lone Ranger” shoot-the-gun-out-of-their-hand is next to impossible. Mythbusters had an episode trying to replicate something similar. They declared their experiment a “one-in-a-million” shot. Hands are constantly moving making a 2" x 1" target (the size of a LARGE sized pistol pointed at you) virtually impossible to reliably hit. This too certainly NOT a reliable way to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.

Other mythical “guaranteed to stop anyone but not harm anyone” methods either do not stop or do not exist. Tazer is limited to 21 feet and TWO barbs fired out at different angles must BOTH hit. At the maximum range the two barbs are at 3 FEET apart. Tazer’s long range solution is currently unreliable and has recently been removed from the market. The 40mm rubber bullets hit harder than a Mike Tyson punch. The target area is usually lower abdomen, legs or buttock area. If a person is on a pain killing drug - i.e. PCP - they won’t even know their hit.

Nets - as I’ve heard suggested on a radio show - do not prevent anyone from pulling a trigger.

Instant stick foams, sound-wave guns and Star Trek “set-to-stun” guns do not exist.

Making someone “Unable” to inflict harm means they stop their dangerous behavior. The quickest, most reliable way to stop someone (read: render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm) is to disrupt the information going from the brain to the muscles. This is most reliably done by causing the brain to shut down. This is done by two different ways: deprive it of blood, or cause enough damage to make it instantly shut down.

Target area for Law Enforcement is ONLY two areas: Central Nervous System or Central Circulatory System. This means we aim for the Head or the Heart when forced to use Deadly Force. However, shooting someone in the heart is not an instant stop either. A person can live 5 to 10 seconds after being shot in the heart. From personal experience I know I can fire off 10-15 rounds in 5 to 10 seconds meaning a potential of 10 to 15 more innocent causalities.

Double However, while shooting a unjust aggressor in the head is a much more reliable way of an instant stop, it is a harder target, but not nearly impossible as striking a gun out of someone’s hands.

Granted, if I aim for the head and I miss and hit the unjust aggressor’s arm and they stop their behavior and give up, I’m not going to “finish them off” either. That would also be gravely sinful.
Now let’s focus on the second half of paragraph 2321: “Legitimate defense is a grave duty of whoever is responsible for the lives of other or the common good.”

Are you, as parent, son, daughter, friend, neighbor, in anyway responsible for your family’s safety? Or how about the safety of your city? If you knew a murder was going to take place, are you morally bound to report it? You bet. In the same token, per CCC, if you have responsibility for the lives of others, you have the “grave duty” to provide “legitimate defense” to “render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm”.

Equally if you have knowledge of Death or Great Bodily Harm (Grievous Bodily Injury) to innocent people, that is IMMINENT and do nothing to try to prevent it is a “grave” matter per CCC and also sinful.

Almost every state has the ability for citizens to carry weapons in just defense. What would you say to someone who didn’t buckle their children in the car? A similar response is necessary to those who don’t utilize this right / duty but call for it to be eliminated to “save lives”.

 

[PoorKnight]

Continued…
Now lets look at the idea of either “just calling the police” or stepping in front of the aggressor:

I am a cop. I hate this, but I know that when seconds count, we are minutes away. For a 911 call to connect is sometimes 10-15 seconds. For you to get out the information (remember if you have a cell phone they cannot instantly know where you are) can easily be another two minutes. From there the call taker has to send the info to the dispatcher. The dispatcher has to read it, and then dispatch the proper units.

IF a police officer is outside your house / school / building, it will be 2 to 3 minutues before he / she even GETS the information. Not to mention in our patrol zones, I can be 20 minutes away, and that’s at 120mph (yes we drive that fast).

What can happen in 2 to 3 minutes (let alone 20 minutes)? Well per statistics, on an average mass violence situation, 8 to 12 more people will be hurt or killed. That’s AVERAGE. This time delay is well known and should be intuitively known. Just as you should intuitively know not to go to a bar if you’re an alcoholic.

Now knowing that information, how is that taking the most responsibility for the lives of others or the common good? If it were your own family would you just sit by, on the phone, and let some monster hurt your family, while you describe it to the call taker? No. You may type differently on these forums, but deep down you know you wouldn’t wait 3 or more minutes just on the phone…

What is one of the biggest regrets of survivors of mass casuality situations? “I felt so helpless”. Unless you’re in a state that doesn’t allow you to carry defensive weapons, you don’t have to be ‘helpless’.

Do ya one more. In my jurisdiction we’ve had School Resource Officer possitions eliminated, because the SCHOOL doesn’t want an armed officer in their school. The department was unwilling to unarm the officers - which is a GOOD thing - so the school eliminated the possition from the budget. It that being “responsible for the lives of others or the common good”? No. That is what is called “Sinfull” and the CCC calls it a ‘grave matter’.

What responsibility do YOU hold to make your school safer? Are you asking your school to provide “multi-layered, overlapping, redundant safety systems” like we have for fire safety? By the way, how many kids killed / injured in school fire in the US in 50+ years? Zero, Zilch Nada. How about kids killed and injured in the last 50+ years in School violence? HUNDREDS killed, and MILLIONS INJURED. In 1999 alone there were 35 killed and a QUARTER OF A MILLION iinjured in SCHOOL VIOLENCE. In 2004 that was 48 killed and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS INJURED. Guns are not the only thing responsible either: knives, bats, fists, etc etc.

As a cop that teaches the police response to exactly this kind of violence, the BEST thing we can do is put two rifle armed, TRAINED, guards in every school. I am very sorry, Timothy Doland and the other bishops are great when it comes to faith and morals - and I submit to their decisions if they apply - but they are NOT Subject matter experts at all when it come to school safety. I’m curious to see if the bishops will consult my co-instructors AT ALL, for solutions to the problem…

How about stepping in front of the aggressor? Well, howmany children died AFTER the principal of the Newport School did that? All you’ll do is suck up one or two bullets. “Yeah but that’s one or two less bullets that he wouldn’t been able to shoot!” And if you had a gun and spent one or two well placed bullets the aggressor would be shooting DOZENS of less bullets.

Again, if your family was being shot at and you stepped in front, ok now you’ve made the situation more complicated. Your familiy will not want to leave you, keeping them exposed to more violence, they will want to drag you to cover, taking time and strength they probably don’t have, and the aggressor will still be able to kill them, i.e. the unjust aggressor has not been rendered unable to inflict harm. You will have failed.

However, if you are armed, you can provide cover for your family while rendering an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm which is your responsibility and a grave matter.

I understand there is a time for peace and a time to go to the lions singing praises to God. But there is also a time to grab your .45 and M-4 and sing praises to God.

I believe the culture of Christianity (different from Christianity if you catch the difference) has done a great dis-service to the vocation of Warrior - the just Knight. It is this pacifistic view of Christianity, in part, that has many men leaving Christianity in droves. It is also not in the Catholic Teaching nor is it Biblical.

God Bless You, and help us all

Psalms 144:1 “Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.”

 

[PoorKnight]

I also see this everywhere.

Would someone PLEASE tell me what the LEGAL definition of “Assault Weapon” is??

Trick question. THERE IS NONE. “Assault” weapons do not exist. Please use the correct terminology or we will be ‘banning’ something that doesn’t exist.

 

[seekerz]

Indeed. First you sell 300,000,000 guns to whomever, then you propose data bases.

That’s kind of like selling bike helmets after the kids have pedaled merrily away…

 

[seekerz]

I also see this everywhere.

Would someone PLEASE tell me what the LEGAL definition of “Assault Weapon” is??

Who makes that definitions? WE THE PEOPLE, that’s who.

My contribution? Any gun which can fire hundreds of rounds faster than I could grab and don a bulletproof jacket would qualify…but seriously, if it’s more lethal than a pellet gun the question for me becomes how fast can it shoot and for how long, before having to be reloaded.

 

[seekerz]

You could be right that is has to do with rural vs. urban as much as anything. To which I’d have to add in my observation people in the cities tend to be very detached from reality and develop ridiculous ideas as a result of that detachment. I’d add that I very much appreciate the Catholic Church on moral and theological issues but on social and political (outside of life) issues, and even the non-religious culture it feels very alien.

No it was individuals sometimes acting at the governments direction. It is the direction of the government to now take away many of my rights. America has become not that different from other socialist/fascist countries that don’t make the same claims to protect people’s rights. The only real difference these days is we have very free political speech (only because they know we care more about entertainment and comfort than principles) and gun rights. On many other counts we have less freedom than some countries.

The very nature of the amendment is that it guarantees any and all types of weapons. If not it would have specific restrictions as to its meaning. If you want to be able to regulate what types of arms then you really need to amend the constitution. Not that the government doesn’t simply ignore it as is. The US Constitution contained no right to vote and there were plenty of voting laws which prohibited most people from voting. The funny thing is the courts declared voting a right and from that comes essentially no regulation. So the voting argument actually works against you. If the right exists then any regulation is a form of inhibiting your rights.

All rights - every single one of them - are regulated and circumscribed by the rights of others.

Nothing in the Constitution that I’m aware of, prohibits the government from regulating weapons, so your interpretation is just that - yours. As for me, I answer to a higher authority, with all due respect to the Constitution…

 

[exnihilo]

I believe the culture of Christianity (different from Christianity if you catch the difference) has done a great dis-service to the vocation of Warrior - the just Knight. It is this pacifistic view of Christianity, in part, that has many men leaving Christianity in droves. It is also not in the Catholic Teaching nor is it Biblical.

Being a peacemaker does not mean you must be defenseless. I agree Christian culture is very effeminate these days but so is the US. I think the effeminacy, contrary to what most people think, actually contributes to violence.

All rights - every single one of them - are regulated and circumscribed by the rights of others.

Nothing in the Constitution that I’m aware of, prohibits the government from regulating weapons, so your interpretation is just that - yours. As for me, I answer to a higher authority, with all due respect to the Constitution…

It certainly is true that a right does not extend to do harm to other people. If you want to look at that as being circumscribed by the rights of others that is OK but not really accurate. The right isn’t cut off. It simply does not include harming others.

The language says the right shall not be infringed. Infringe is a very basic legal term which means you can’t limit it. Consider this in regards to another right. You have a right to travel. Can the government say that yes you have a right to travel but only between the hours of 8am and 6pm? That would be infringement, right? Same with guns. I have no great love for the constitution as it has allowed the government we have today. But I do desire at least basic honesty in contracts. If people want to limit the possession of arms they should repeal the second amendment.

 

[po18guy]

No one said the government is always correct, just like it’s citizens, who are not always correct.

So, you oppose democracy?

I distrusted government, when I accepted a government job? Seriously?

Read up on our nation’s founders - each of them distrusted government, as they had suffered under government oppression. Why do you think we are not flying the British flag? Hello?

It is the government that gives the right to bear arms.

This is atheistic. Who taught you this? What about God?

What about those people in Connecticut? What about their rights? Gun rights first, then they can enjoy their rights?

Excuse me, but a mental health patient who developed homicidal intent, and who committed numerous felonies in the implementation of his crimes, who feloniously stole firearms even prior to carrying out his massacre had no right under any constituion, no God-given right to do any of this.

You are completely, abjectly, profoundly and demonstrably wrong if you believe any of this has to do with rights. This was a criminal act by a lone, troubled and deranged individual, pure and simple. He is what should have been controlled to prevent all of this in the first place! So, your solution is to punish the innocent?

There’s nothing wrong with controls, especially when one’s rights collide with other’s rights.

Ultimately, you cannot control, and should not try to control inanimate objects. Your Lord Jesus said that murder comes from the human heart. Jesus did not blame the sword - but those who LIVE by the sword. Hello?

Government is intended to be the servant of the people. Read the founding documents of the United States! Government was intended to be strictly limited. Sadly, it has grown out of control.

To seek a governmental solution to all of society’s problems is to abdicate one’s responsibility as a citicen and a part of that government.

As God’s influence in the public square wanres, freedom disappears - one at a time. Tragic situations, such as we are discussing, and which were made possible by a failure of government, always lead to more power by dictators and less by average citizens - and they invariably result from the decrease in God’s influence.

Please, for your own sake, read a little US history. Please.

As you are, you are asking to live in a dictatorship.

I believe that I am wasting my time.

 

[seekerz]

What kinds of guns, then, WOULD you have allowed Adam Lanza to have access to?

In hindsight none, but to my knowledge he was an adult with no criminal record or documented mental illness. I’d say, if he’d only had access to guns which needed to be reloaded after firing 10 times, there’d have been less dead kids.

Last week a man in China stabbed 23 children - not one died that I know of. You can’t predict who will snap - but you can limit how much damage they are able to do.