Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Prodigal_Son1]

And the laws ‘against’ suicide are, in actuallity, the regulation of the after effects of suicide. For example, if a life insurance policy is required to pay out in the event of a suicide, or if Social Security survivor benefits can be drawn.

In addition, it also governs attempts at suicide ( which is actually how most state laws are written, the act is the attempt at ending one’s life, not in the accomplishment of the act itself.

Those laws would enable the courts to require psycological testing, for example, or even to the extent of placing the person under institutional control. If there was no civil infraction attached to the attempt at suicide, the courts would have no jurisdiction on behalf of the public.

All laws are in affect and enforceable on attempt, whether successful or not. The consequences vary, depending on the law.

 

[exnihilo]

Specify the times, and conditions, the state claims a suicide estate.

Suicides having their property taken: felo de se.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Suicides having their property taken: felo de se.

The best I could see, from your source, was documented case in 1854, and that was in New Zealand. I also saw references to the United Kingdom, but saw none for the USA. Since we’re discussing laws, and affects, in the USA, can you provide sources for this law and enforcement in America?

 

[Brendan]

All laws are in affect and enforceable on attempt, whether successful or not. The consequences vary, depending on the law.

Correct, and what is legally prohibited, and thus the legal attempt to regulate is the ATTEMPT of suicde.

And the circumstances ( ie the legal penalites) vary upon sucessful and unsucessful attempts.

Any legal ramification take effect only when the proscribed action is attempted. And thus the attempts to reduce the number of suicides takes it form in the seeking of medical help and\or institutionalization, of those who make unsucessful attempts. The law itself cannot regulate sucessful attempts, and really makes no attempt to do so, as the Justice that can be done under civil law has no bearing upon the dead. Any Justice required will be spirtually rendered by God.

 

[Brendan]

The best I could see, from your source, was documented case in 1854, and that was in New Zealand. I also saw references to the United Kingdom, but saw none for the USA. Since we’re discussing laws, and affects, in the USA, can you provide sources for this law and enforcement in America?

In the US, a determination of suicide can result in forfeture of any life insurance benefits. It depends on if you define such payments as ‘property’.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Correct, and what is legally prohibited, and thus the legal attempt to regulate is the ATTEMPT of suicde.

And the circumstances ( ie the legal penalites) vary upon sucessful and unsucessful attempts.

Any legal ramification take effect only when the proscribed action is attempted. And thus the attempts to reduce the number of suicides takes it form in the seeking of medical help and\or institutionalization, of those who make unsucessful attempts. The law itself cannot regulate sucessful attempts, and really makes no attempt to do so, as the Justice that can be done under civil law has no bearing upon the dead. Any Justice required will be spirtually rendered by God.

What bearing would this have, in reference to gun controls, on law abiding citizens?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In the US, a determination of suicide can result in forfeture of any life insurance benefits. It depends on if you define such payments as ‘property’.

Most insurance companies issue the conditions of a life policy in advance. Some actually pay in the instances of suicide.

One of the controls being suggested, gun securing requirements, could result in accountability, or lack of. Again, how would this affect law abiding citizens, other than an inconvenience to maintain a strict security over their firearms, which seem to be a common sense thing when considering gun safety?

 

[Brendan]

Most insurance companies issue the conditions of a life policy in advance. Some actually pay in the instances of suicide.

Back to the original point, do you feel that the illegality of attempts at suicide is an attempt to reduce the number of suicide via deterrence ( it’s illegal so don’t do it) or an attempt to reduce via justice done post act?

One of the controls being suggested, gun securing requirements, could result in accountability, or lack of. Again, how would this affect law abiding citizens, other than an inconvenience to maintain a strict security over their firearms, which seem to be a common sense thing when considering gun safety?

I don’t know if you saw my recent post in the "Lieberman’ thread, but it looks like Nancy Lanza kept her guns in a secure case in her basement, generally at least.

Here is a link to the AP article.
freep.com/article/20121222/NEWS07/121222016/New-details-Newtown-shooter-emerge-week-after-school-massacre

The basement of the Lanza home had a computer, flat-screen TV, couches and an elaborate setup for video games. Nancy Lanza kept her guns in what appeared to be a secure case in another part of the basement

The article did not say how Adam got in, if Nancy accidently left it unlocked the day prior, or if he gained access via another means ( finding the key, pry bar etc…)

But it looks like she did provide for secure storage of her firearms.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Back to the original point, do you feel that the illegality of attempts at suicide is an attempt to reduce the number of suicide via deterrence ( it’s illegal so don’t do it) or an attempt to reduce via justice done post act?

I don’t know if you saw my recent post in the "Lieberman’ thread, but it looks like Nancy Lanza kept her guns in a secure case in her basement, generally at least.

Here is a link to the AP article.
freep.com/article/20121222/NEWS07/121222016/New-details-Newtown-shooter-emerge-week-after-school-massacre

The article did not say how Adam got in, if Nancy accidently left it unlocked the day prior, or if he gained access via another means ( finding the key, pry bar etc…)

But it looks like she did provide for secure storage of her firearms.

Laws are set for deterrence, and do not inconvenience the law abiding.

I’ve unsubscribed to most of these threads. I see the same people arguing points, and moving on to argue the same points on other threads, even if the arguments were proven weak, or without substance. The whole thing lacks being a constructive discussion so far. If points are raised, in opposition, those points are argued against with condescension and other lacks of charity. It seems some perceive seeking a solution to be an attack on their right, and that’s not the goal, as I see it anyway. We should be trying to prevent the same thing from happening again, or at least lessening it.

Consider the ‘culture of death’ arguments. Isn’t preparing to be armed to take a life as a response also of death, thereby making it a part of that culture.

Generally is the key word. No one has stated if she indeed kept the guns locked in this instance. As been brought out, if one is home, you wouldn’t think the safe needs be locked. Securing laws would have been negated if the safe was indeed locked and Adam circumvented the locks through break in, stealing the key, etc.

We don’t stop an attempt because it was negated. That brings us back to laws against murder, robbery, drugs, rape, etc. All laws have been negated, we don’t just drop them because we can all be armed to defend against those actions.

People have a right to be armed, but that comes with responsibility. Responsibility can be in the form of controls, to assist in other ways. Defense is not just having a gun and being ready to kill, but can be actions in advance to avoid situations. What I have seen is people not willing to inconvenience themselves, disregarding other people’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I know, it’s been pointed out, that’s the declaration of Independence and not the constitution. Without that declaration being effective, we’d have no constitution.

 

[Brendan]

People have a right to be armed, but that comes with responsibility. Responsibility can be in the form of controls, to assist in other ways. Defense is not just having a gun and being ready to kill, but can be actions in advance to avoid situations. What I have seen is people not willing to inconvenience themselves, disregarding other people’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I know, it’s been pointed out, that’s the declaration of Independence and not the constitution. Without that declaration being effective, we’d have no constitution.

I also agree with both the Declaration and the Constitution. Because of that agreement, I must oppose any attempt to deny life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, laws that would deprive those who have, and those who in the future will, use firearms in their self defense as a deprivation of both life and liberty.

The points of responsibilty you mention are valid, but subjective. Those are the points on which we will debate, what controls, what arms, what training, what storage.

I wish to see controls that do not happer the use of arms for self defense (life) , hunting all types of legal game (liberty), and recognized sporting purposes ( pursuit of happiness). Controls that do that will violate the Declaration and Constitution that you also value.

Generally is the key word. No one has stated if she indeed kept the guns locked in this instance. As been brought out, if one is home, you wouldn’t think the safe needs be locked. Securing laws would have been negated if the safe was indeed locked and Adam circumvented the locks through break in, stealing the key, etc.

And I use ‘generally’ because it IS an unknown at this point. But out of Christian charity (and in recognition of secular legal presumtions towards innocence) I will now presume they were correctly secured in absence of any contrary evidence.

I agree that proper storage appropriate to one’s circumstance is logical and prudent. But in the view towards Liberty, those circumstance differ from person to person, situation to situation. A house with kids at home in the suburbs have different storage requirements from an eldery couple in an urban environment, which would, in turn, be different from a farmer in the country. The law, if just, should account for personal assement of risk. The thing is, the NRA is supportive of those type of laws, as long as they are flexible enough to account for varied circumstances

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I also agree with both the Declaration and the Constitution. Because of that agreement, I must oppose any attempt to deny life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, laws that would deprive those who have, and those who in the future will, use firearms in their self defense as a deprivation of both life and liberty.

The points of responsibilty you mention are valid, but subjective. Those are the points on which we will debate, what controls, what arms, what training, what storage.

I wish to see controls that do not happer the use of arms for self defense (life) , hunting all types of legal game (liberty), and recognized sporting purposes ( pursuit of happiness). Controls that do that will violate the Declaration and Constitution that you also value.

And I use ‘generally’ because it IS an unknown at this point. But out of Christian charity (and in recognition of secular legal presumtions towards innocence) I will now presume they were correctly secured in absence of any contrary evidence.

I agree that proper storage appropriate to one’s circumstance is logical and prudent. But in the view towards Liberty, those circumstance differ from person to person, situation to situation. A house with kids at home in the suburbs have different storage requirements from an eldery couple in an urban environment, which would, in turn, be different from a farmer in the country. The law, if just, should account for personal assement of risk. The thing is, the NRA is supportive of those type of laws, as long as they are flexible enough to account for varied circumstances

It’s easy to determine if guns were stored properly, according to regulations that might be imposed. Storing is a part of gun safety, and responsibility.

In this particular case, we can’t assume one way or the other. Eventually, all details will probably be released. Assuming one way, or the other, at this point is premature and would lack Christian charity to try and present a biased view just for the sake of argument.

While there is a large focus on the most recent attack, we have several attacks that has influenced a call that something be done. It’s sad that there are enough to start building statistics to make determinations, and recognitions of things that need be done.

These are discussions and not court hearings. Presumptions of innocence, or guilt, has no impact. Would Christian charity, or presumptions of guilt, prevent us from speaking as if Adam actually committed the shootings?

 

[Schism_hater]

I have a question…and maybe it should be it’s own thread…I dunno…But I read these things periodically about “gun control laws” and they all seem to focus predominantly on restricting sales of certain types of weapons and little else.
The problem with this is that it runs afoul of the constitution which clearly grants the right to keep and bear arms.

Why not - instead of constantly trying restrict the sale of weapons, simply require that those who purchase them demonstrate proficiency, safety, lack of criminal record etc.
Such would be entirely within the bounds of the second amendment guarantees since the right to keep and bear arms is tied to the need for a “Well regulated militia”.

Peace
James

You seem not to be aware that in the Newtown atrocity the guns were purchased by a “law abiding citizen”. There was no problem with her training. The problem was that they were accessible to her psycho son. As long as weapons are sitting around, bad people will get ahold of them, no matter who purchased them.

 

[Brendan]

It’s easy to determine if guns were stored properly, according to regulations that might be imposed. Storing is a part of gun safety, and responsibility.

I agree, but my point was that there are no ‘one size fits all’ in terms of storage. Storage for a family with kids might necessitate a gun locker, while proper storage for an elderly couple might be in the night stand drawer. It all comes down to what would be most beneficial for the overall safety of the owner, would you not agree?

.

While there is a large focus on the most recent attack, we have several attacks that has influenced a call that something be done. It’s sad that there are enough to start building statistics to make determinations, and recognitions of things that need be done.

Yes, but things can be called for that would have no overall effect on preventing what happened in CT. A law could be passed requiring all gun owners to wear blue underwear. That is ‘doing something’ but it’s meaningless. A lot of what I have been hearing being bantered about , such as restrictions on magizine size, fall into that category. It’s “doing something” but really meaningless in effect.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree, but my point was that there are no ‘one size fits all’ in terms of storage. Storage for a family with kids might necessitate a gun locker, while proper storage for an elderly couple might be in the night stand drawer. It all comes down to what would be most beneficial for the overall safety of the owner, would you not agree?

No, I do not agree. Night stands, under the mattress, and top shelf in closets, are regular storage locations. Say the elderly couple’s house was broken into while they were away, guns found. or grandchildren playing, guns found. The objective is to keep guns out of the wrong hands. The inconvenience of locking a gun up each day is a small price to pay for owning a gun, much cheaper than knowing your gun caused a death because you refused to lock it up.

.

Yes, but things can be called for that would have no overall effect on preventing what happened in CT. A law could be passed requiring all gun owners to wear blue underwear. That is ‘doing something’ but it’s meaningless. A lot of what I have been hearing being bantered about , such as restrictions on magizine size, fall into that category. It’s “doing something” but really meaningless in effect.

Again, I disagree, with the serious suggestion that actually applies to the discussion. Magazine size can mean seconds in changing (I know how quickly they can be changed), seconds is all that might be possibly needed to stop a situation. It’s as realistic as it is to think that because a gun is on a 10 acre property in the hands of a guard, or teacher, it’s going to lessen the damages a gunman could do.

Why is a 30 magazine clip needed? Hunting? Target practice? What are the practical purposes of the large magazines in the hands of the public?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Again, I disagree, with the serious suggestion that actually applies to the discussion. Magazine size can mean seconds in changing (I know how quickly they can be changed), seconds is all that might be possibly needed to stop a situation. It’s as realistic as it is to think that because a gun is on a 10 acre property in the hands of a guard, or teacher, it’s going to lessen the damages a gunman could do.

Why is a 30 magazine clip needed? Hunting? Target practice? What are the practical purposes of the large magazines in the hands of the public?

A smaller mag isn’t going to do anything to lessen the amount of damage an unopposed gunman can do. And no, comparing the effect a smaller mag will have to the effect an armed guard will have is not realistic. In fact, the only real effect your push for a smaller mag will have is if the gunman is faced with armed onsite opposition; and I’m pretty sure you are aware of this given your inclusion of “seconds is all that might be possibly needed to stop a situation.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A smaller mag isn’t going to do anything to lessen the amount of damage an unopposed gunman can do. And no, comparing the effect a smaller mag will have to the effect an armed guard will have is not realistic. In fact, the only real effect your push for a smaller mag will have is if the gunman is faced with armed onsite opposition; and I’m pretty sure you are aware of this given your inclusion of “seconds is all that might be possibly needed to stop a situation.”

This gunman took his own life, so being shot was not a deterrent. Had an armed guard been on campus, he would have had to been in the direct vicinity, and then he run the same risk of being shot. Yes, he might have gotten off the lethal shot first, but how many would have died at that point? Seconds are ticking by, and in the time a guard might have to respond, and the time it takes to change magazines, maybe a few more would have been spared. I assume neither of us are seeing any as an acceptable body count.

Also, please respond to my question. What practical purposes are there for an average citizen to own a 30 round clip?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This gunman took his own life, so being shot was not a deterrent. Had an armed guard been on campus, he would have had to been in the direct vicinity, and then he run the same risk of being shot. Yes, he might have gotten off the lethal shot first, but how many would have died at that point? Seconds are ticking by, and in the time a guard might have to respond, and the time it takes to change magazines, maybe a few more would have been spared. I assume neither of us are seeing any as an acceptable body count.

Also, please respond to my question. What practical purposes are there for an average citizen to own a 30 round clip?

• If you bother to read my prior posts and do some critical thinking you’d realize that my opinion on the capacity of a removable magazine doesn’t matter because the time it takes to change out mags is so small as to not matter, especially when the gunman is unopposed. Can I think of a valid reason for a civilian to have a 30 round mag? Nope. Can I think of a valid reason for 30 round mags to be outlawed? Nope. Would your argument make more sense if you were arguing for the restriction of firearms that have removable magazines and speed loaders for revolvers? Yep. Why? Because reloading an internal magazine by hand takes longer than switching out a 5 round removable mag.

-Being shot at is a deterrent whether the guy getting shot at wants to die or not. It’s a deterrent because it forces the gunman to respond to the shooter, that or get hit.

-I’m done responding to your posts. You’re trying to create some sort of imaginary world where the only correct answer is your answer. Thanks, but if I wanted to deal with people creating flimsy rationales in order to maintain their rather narrow viewpoint I’d visit the Ancient Aliens message board at the History Channel website.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

• If you bother to read my prior posts and do some critical thinking you’d realize that my opinion on the capacity of a removable magazine doesn’t matter because the time it takes to change out mags is so small as to not matter, especially when the gunman is unopposed. Can I think of a valid reason for a civilian to have a 30 round mag? Nope. Can I think of a valid reason for 30 round mags to be outlawed? Nope. Would your argument make more sense if you were arguing for the restriction of firearms that have removable magazines and speed loaders for revolvers? Yep. Why? Because reloading an internal magazine by hand takes longer than switching out a 5 round removable mag.

-Being shot at is a deterrent whether the guy getting shot at wants to die or not. It’s a deterrent because it forces the gunman to respond to the shooter, that or get hit.

-I’m done responding to your posts. You’re trying to create some sort of imaginary world where the only correct answer is your answer. Thanks, but if I wanted to deal with people creating flimsy rationales in order to maintain their rather narrow viewpoint I’d visit the Ancient Aliens message board at the History Channel website.

Actually, I’ve been trying to find a fair solution, but admittedly I was under an illusion, or so it seems, that law abiding citizens wouldn’t mind some inconveniences if it meant they could keep their guns and provide a little more safety for the public.

Christ gave us His teachings and I hardly see them as flimsy rationales. That’s what I strive, and try, to live towards and for. Planning how to kill someone is not along those lines that I can see.

 

[TEPO]

I’m glad that the Bishops support “responsible restrictions” on fire arms, since that’s exactly what we have in place right now.

 

[nitesnake]

Actually, I’ve been trying to find a fair solution, but admittedly I was under an illusion, or so it seems, that law abiding citizens wouldn’t mind some inconveniences if it meant they could keep their guns and provide a little more safety for the public.

“Inconveniences” that will do nothing to keep anyone safer.

Christ gave us His teachings and I hardly see them as flimsy rationales.

They aren’t “flimsy rationales,” you are right. But none of His teachings include laying down like sheep while we watch children being murdered.