Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[nitesnake]

I think there is some misunderstanding about the USCCB. They exist for a reason and have a real place within the Church. Making pastoral statement is one thing they do. Catholicism is unlike Protestantism, even in America, or at least it should be.

True. I haven’t seen anyone here who would disagree with that.

As CAF is a faithful Catholic apostolate attack of this organization is not allowed, as a matter of policy. Yes, they have limits, which they are far more familiar with than we here are.

True again, and although I’m new here, I’ve seen no one “attack” the USCCB.
I think you’re confusing pastoral statements made by them, with political ones. When they choose to comment on the latter, any catholic is free to disagree with those statements.

 

[pnewton]

I think you’re confusing pastoral statements made by them, with political ones…

I am not confused in the least. I just do not agree with you. I also do not agree that this topic is outside of morality. Surely the killing of the innocents is not outside of a pastoral response.

 

[lerapt78]

I hear you loud and clear and won’t repeat that I have tried pushing suggestions of controls in place of bans.

What kinds of controls?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What kinds of controls?

10 hours left of a 24 hour shift, and we’ve run our butts off so far. You’ll have to read back through brother.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I live in a small city of 200,000-ish, we lost power for 10-14 days in July during a heat wave this year and tempers were high, but we had exactly two incidences of theft in that time (one business and one home got robbed). No looters.

We own alot of guns here, I’d say most people have one or several. We have very sensible gun laws (i.e. almost none), why wasn’t this city a bloodbath like Chicago would have been, even adjusted for population under similar circumstances (no power and brutal heat)?

Guns are a solution, not the problem. They keep the peace. Anyone proposing limits to them is an enemy of liberty and life.

Geist, on a philosophy forum I’ve disagreed with some pretty militant atheists about religion. Generally they seem to think religion is the root to all violence. I suppose in their mind only religious people would need guns anyways because belief in a God or gods makes you a homicidal maniac in their perception. Many of them seem to have most disdain for the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

What I tell them is that Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are overall safer city-states than the secular United States. I also tell them Americans would have difficulty believing a people could live in such civility.

You may be right about Chicago with respects to looting. In large part I think this has to do with the large numbers of racial minorities in that city, with the younger generations of those young having taken up the doctrines of “Thug Life” over the Gospels.

I’ve said this to racial minorities and they don’t like it. But there are clear problems of violence in our communities that go beyond reasons of “abject poverty” (e.g., starvation).

What you might consider within your doctrines, however, is what it says about Jesus Christ and pre-firearms era of humanity. The new doctrine might say, “For God so sent the Colt .45 and gave the world the Republican Party His only Beloved son.”

It’s debatable if liberty and life waited upon the creation of the rifle or gun and one of the two political parties of the United States.

I will however agree with you that a good gun is particularly useful for self defense, especially when your opponent has a knife, pipe, or gun. Or just against a much larger man or simply a more violent man.

 

[lerapt78]

10 hours left of a 24 hour shift, and we’ve run our butts off so far. You’ll have to read back through brother.

Sorry. I did read through the entire thread (days ago) but don’t remember all of the posts. Could you refer me to a specific post number(s)?

 

[nitesnake]

I am not confused in the least. I just do not agree with you.

Respectfully, it doesn’t matter if you agree or not. The fact is the Bishops have no authority to teach on the issue of gun control as a matter of doctrine, or whether I, as a catholic, have the right to own or carry a firearm. They simply do not.
Their statement(s) on the subject are just collective opinions, nothing more.

I also do not agree that this topic is outside of morality. Surely the killing of the innocents is not outside of a pastoral response.

Killing “innocents” is certainly pastoral care. Not only that, it is church doctrine which the Bishops may, and indeed must teach on, and all Catholics must follow that teaching. However, gun control does not fall under that authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sorry. I did read through the entire thread (days ago) but don’t remember all of the posts. Could you refer me to a specific post number(s)?

copied and pasted…

Tell me how controls are going to affect a law abiding citizen from being able to hunt, or protect themselves and their families?

Requiring stricter gun registrations, and documentation of private transfers, for accountability purposes.

Require secure gun storage, for when weapons are not being used, and apply stiffer penalties for proven violations.

Require mental health disclosures for everyone in a residence.

Smaller magazines.

 

[nitesnake]

Tell me how controls are going to affect a law abiding citizen from being able to hunt, or protect themselves and their families?

If I live in D.C, or NYC for example, it’s nearly impossible to obtain a ccw. That certainly “affects” my ability to protect myself.

Require secure gun storage, for when weapons are not being used, and apply stiffer penalties for proven violations.

So while I’m busy trying to open my gun safe, the criminal who has just broken into my home is busy emptying his gun into the back of my head.

Require mental health disclosures for everyone in a residence.

If I rent a room in a large house with say ten other roommates, I’m going to go prying into all their personal lives demanding they release their medical records? To me? Do you realize how absurd that is?

 

[lerapt78]

Thank you. (My replies in red)

copied and pasted…

Tell me how controls are going to affect a law abiding citizen from being able to hunt, or protect themselves and their families?

This would depend on which controls are implemented and could be contingent upon the situation in which self-defense in required. For example, a simple revolver that holds six bullets may be sufficient protection against one armed intruder. But, what about a home invasion in which multiple attackers enter a private residence illegally? A revolver in this case may not be as effective against four people (unless you are a really good shot!) as would a semi-automatic rifle. I agree with those who put forth the “slippery slope” argument. First, only a certain gun model will be banned, then another, then another, and so on and so forth.

Requiring stricter gun registrations, and documentation of private transfers, for accountability purposes.

I’m not completely opposed to this.

Require secure gun storage, for when weapons are not being used, and apply stiffer penalties for proven violations.

I think the suggestion for secure gun storage is wise, and it’s a shame that such a suggestion would have to be made in the first place. However, how could this requirement be realistically enforced? Would homeowners have to allow mandatory monthly inspections by their local law enforcement agencies??

Require mental health disclosures for everyone in a residence.

And who would pay for these mental health exams? Taxpayers? Would it not be relatively easy to fool a psychiatrist? (Just make sure you take your medications before you go in for the test, and you’ll appear to be perfectly sane, no?)

Smaller magazines.

There *is *one control method that I’m in absolute favor of (which you may have already mentioned in a previous post), and that is a 24-hour waiting period for gun purchases.

 

[lerapt78]

So while I’m busy trying to open my gun safe, the criminal who has just broken into my home is busy emptying his gun into the back of my head.

Didn’t see your thread before I posted mine. I agree, this is a good point - guns can quickly become useless should they not be readily at hand at certain times (especially at night). Though I do also agree it is wise that they be locked (in most circumstances) if there are children in the home and the adults are out. But again, how could this possibly be regulated?

 

[pnewton]

Requiring stricter gun registrations, and documentation of private transfers, for accountability purposes.

I’m not completely opposed to this.

Require secure gun storage, for when weapons are not being used, and apply stiffer penalties for proven violations.

I think the suggestion for secure gun storage is wise, and it’s a shame that such a suggestion would have to be made in the first place. However, how could this requirement be realistically enforced? Would homeowners have to allow mandatory monthly inspections by their local law enforcement agencies??

Require mental health disclosures for everyone in a residence.

And who would pay for these mental health exams? Taxpayers? Would it not be relatively easy to fool a psychiatrist? (Just make sure you take your medications before you go in for the test, and you’ll appear to be perfectly sane, no?)

One common answer, that I mentioned on another thread, is to hold the gun owner responsible for his gun. This infringes on no one’s rights, but simply mentions that when we exercise this right, we must do so responsibly. If you have ten roommates which are criminals (or crazy) and they take your legitimately purchased weapons to commit a crime, then you are held as an accomplice, unless you took reasonable precuations to secure your guns.

This is already a reality in the civil system. If the mother that let her son gain access to the guns in Conneticut had not been slain, you best believe she could have be held responsible in a wrongful death suit.

The same thing would apply to transfer of guns without a background check. Who should pay for the check? That is a matter between the two parties. We already have much of this in place. If one gets a concealed permit, he must pay for his training and pay for his permit. Having an owner foot the bill for his purchase is not a Second Amendment infringement.

 

[lerapt78]

One common answer, that I mentioned on another thread, is to hold the gun owner responsible for his gun. This infringes on no one’s rights, but simply mentions that when we exercise this right, we must do so responsibly. If you have ten roommates which are criminals (or crazy) and they take your legitimately purchased weapons to commit a crime, then you are held as an accomplice, unless you took reasonable precuations to secure your guns.

This is already a reality in the civil system. If the mother that let her son gain access to the guns in Conneticut had not been slain, you best believe she could have be held responsible in a wrongful death suit.

Agree and disagree. I agree with the assumption of responsibility, certainly - who wouldn’t? But so far as *legal *responsibility? I don’t know, it gets a bit more complicated, and I admit I haven’t given much thought to that. Possibly, but as a general rule I tend to have problems with assigning blame to people other than those who commit crimes. For instance, I would find it terribly unfair for me to be punished if I gave permission for someone to borrow my car and he then went to a bar, got drunk, and ended up killing someone in a car accident simply because my name is on the registration.

I know it’s not a perfect comparison, but it’s kind of along those lines.

The same thing would apply to transfer of guns without a background check. Who should pay for the check? That is a matter between the two parties. We already have much of this in place. If one gets a concealed permit, he must pay for his training and pay for his permit. Having an owner foot the bill for his purchase is not a Second Amendment infringement.

See, this is how the government is going to keep trying to get around constitutional protection - in the event they cannot legally remove our access to guns, they will tie up the entire process in so many rules, fees, and requirements that it will be practically impossible for Americans to excercise this right (unless they are wealthy, or have plenty of leave time from work).

Mental health exams must be conducted by trained medical professionals, and this probably will not come cheaply since A.) it is elective, and insurance companies won’t pay for them, and B) Millions of gun owners who are required to undergo this process will artificially drive up the consultant prices since there will be such an increase in demand. (no statistical evidence - just thinking as I type, here)

And again, how effective would mental screening be if it can so easily be “fudged” by the mentally ill, anyway?

 

[nitesnake]

Though I do also agree it is wise that they be locked (in most circumstances) if there are children in the home and the adults are out. But again, how could this possibly be regulated?

To a realistic person, it could not. But emotional responses to a tragedy like Newtown always bring about such ideas.

Think about it, would the U.S. gov. set up a “gun safety” department to implement this? Would they then arbitrarily start knocking on doors to see if you own a gun? And if so where is it? Would they get to search the entire house?

Then if you indeed have one and it’s not locked up, you are going to prison? Perhaps you just got home from a shooting range and haven’t yet put it away.Prison? Perhaps you have a ccw, (having one entitles you to carry a gun on you person). Prison as well? Maybe you have an old shotgun in the attic that you haven’t thought about in years, you simply forgot it was up there, prison for you too? What about a cop who hasn’t finished dressing for work and has his gun carelessly lying on the bed? Would this law apply to him as well? Or would he be exempt, and if so why? Simply because he’s a cop? etc…etc…etc…

 

[lerapt78]

To a realistic person, it could not. But emotional responses to a tragedy like Newtown always bring about such ideas.

Think about it, would the U.S. gov. set up a “gun safety” department to implement this? Would they then arbitrarily start knocking on doors to see if you own a gun? And if so where is it? Would they get to search the entire house?

It couldn’t. Governmental agencies have no right to enter a residence without a warrant.

You hit the nail on the head with your second sentence - gun control debates are emotional responses to tragedies (Well, on the part of the population, at least - I fully believe the politicians have underlying motives which have nothing to do with the welfare of the people).

The danger lies in believing the government can protect us, and willfully surrendering our control over to them because of this knee-jerk fear.

 

[nitesnake]

It couldn’t. Governmental agencies have no right to enter a residence without a warrant.

Not yet… supposedly.

 

[pnewton]

Agree and disagree. I agree with the assumption of responsibility, certainly - who wouldn’t? But so far as *legal *responsibility? I don’t know, it gets a bit more complicated, and I admit I haven’t given much thought to that. Possibly, but as a general rule I tend to have problems with assigning blame to people other than those who commit crimes. For instance, I would find it terribly unfair for me to be punished if I gave permission for someone to borrow my car and he then went to a bar, got drunk, and ended up killing someone in a car accident simply because my name is on the registration.

I know it’s not a perfect comparison, but it’s kind of along those lines.

The advantage of having background checks for private gun transfers is that it would ademnify the person who sold the gun. In other words, if a person acts with reason, there is nothing to worry about. If he acts recklessly, there is. Loaning your car is not a reckless act. Loaning your car to a child would be. Keeping your guns out with easy access is not a reckless act. Doing the same thing if you have a psychotic child or spouse, or if your child moved back end after doing time for armed robbery, is reckless.

We already have some such laws.

codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/10/46/46.13

All I would ask is that a gun owner show the same restraint around the mentally ill or violent felons. Also, that they show the same care if they decide to sell a gun that a store would have to show. This is not “gun-grabbing”. I only thing gun ownership should be handled responsibly.

 

[pnewton]

It couldn’t. Governmental agencies have no right to enter a residence without a warrant.

Just a note here. If you have a licence to trade in Class 3 firearms, automatic weapons and such, you are subject at any time to inspection by the ATF and must account for all weapons under your licence. Do I think all guns should be accounted for so stringently? Of course not. However, the mindset of the gun owner should be just as responsible. Also, I would favor having laws in place for proportional responsibility.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Agree and disagree. I agree with the assumption of responsibility, certainly - who wouldn’t? But so far as *legal *responsibility? I don’t know, it gets a bit more complicated, and I admit I haven’t given much thought to that. Possibly, but as a general rule I tend to have problems with assigning blame to people other than those who commit crimes. **For instance, I would find it terribly unfair for me to be punished if I gave permission for someone to borrow my car and he then went to a bar, got drunk, and ended up killing someone in a car accident simply because my name is on the registration. **

I know it’s not a perfect comparison, but it’s kind of along those lines.

It may not be fair but from my understanding one could be held responsible in the civil courts of law. Meaning the owner of the car would end up forking over a large sum of money before their death. Unless a stress related disease due to the lawsuit killed him or her early.

The danger lies in believing the government can protect us, and willfully surrendering our control over to them because of this knee-jerk fear.

From my observation police usually–almost always–arrive on the scene after things have already transpired. Then they’re either taking statements or taping off the area. If they’re tapping off the area that probably means it didn’t go to well for someone and that someone might be you.

That aside… I had a professor that was a political scientist. I remember her stating that as a rule of thumb it’s very difficult to take away a “right” once it becomes a right of a people. Presuming that is true it helps me better understand the emotional investment pro-gun people and pro-choice abortion people have as both call the government tyrannical if the government were to make any attempt to place greater restrictions around either.

In my 20s I used to be a bit of a fanatic in my views that guns should be legal. I remember telling someone it was my God given right to own a gun.

I don’t subscribe to that view anymore. It’s a right but maybe not a God given right. At least not as dramatic as I made it sound.

I still think the frequency of shootings has more to do with a cultural problem. Even in Black-America when most were Southerners and die-hard Protestant Church goers, many living in greater material poverty (far more so than today), you didn’t have all these homicides like you do today.

There is probably less a sense of community today in many parts of America. Adding to that mean generations and an enormous population size that may have the adverse effect of lowering the value of human life. Actually, I’m sure there are many layers to the issue. I have heard more than one person make the argument that once a population surpasses a certain mark the value of human life incrementally decreases. There are certain lines of evidence that seem to support this and other lines of evidence that don’t.

(Actually, I just heard several gun shots going off outside. A tradition in the city Midnight of every New Years)

 

[pnewton]

I still think the frequency of shootings has more to do with a cultural problem.

I have felt this way for a long time. The idea of promoting a culture of life (a term coined by Bl. John Paul) needs to be a part of any change. We live surrounded by violence throughout the media. Interestingly enough, this has lately been the one vector through which I have begun to understand the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. We cheapen life. Though abortion is the prime sin, it is not the only one. I do not know the solution, but I think there needs to be some degree of commitment to changing this culture.

Then we also have the issue of defunding mental health services. The most severely mentally ill do not vote, so politicians have no problem marginalizing them. They are an easy place to make cuts.