Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[pnewton]

Just curious - how would any of those measures helped at Sandy Hook or the Aurora Colorado shootings?

I believe the Sandy Hook shooter broke 41 laws, do you honestly think he cared if he broke 42 or 55 laws?

I can think of three ways that something mentioned might have addressed the current incident.

The first is the culture of violence. We need to constantlyu educate parents and other responsible adults that desensitizing children to violence is a dangerous thing.

The second is that we need to renew our commitmentment to helping the mentally ill. In my own state the budget for mental health services has been constantly reduced for decades, using catch and release law enforcement in place of actual services for a decade. Only in the last year or two are they trying now to combine the two, except they still cut funding this year so this too will fail.

The third thing has to do with sensible restrictions. While it is true that any criminal that is going to kill someone will easily disregard one more law, it is not true of that criminal’s parents, who in the case of these kids that do this stuff are often the gun owners. There is no excuse for a parent of a seriously disturbed kid to keep firearms, unless they are totally secure. This was a recipe for disaster we have seen repeated. The son may not hesitate to violate the law, so we we need to hold the parent to the law. If one is to be a gun owner, then they must be a responsible gun owner, literally. They need to bear the responsibility for what their gun is used for.

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Pnewton,

Ah, there you go again … with your name calling… I presented no ‘strawman’ argument. One of the really nice items of the CAF posts is that they are all in print - and stays that way.

Because they are in print, it can be seen that twice you have accused me of name-calling. Both times, I called no one any name, but only name the argument. A strawman is arguing something that does not exist. I clearly showed that you misquoted me and argued against the misquote, not what I really said. That is the very definition of strawman.

 

[SamH]

The third thing has to do with sensible restrictions. While it is true that any criminal that is going to kill someone will easily disregard one more law, it is not true of that criminal’s parents, who in the case of these kids that do this stuff are often the gun owners. There is no excuse for a parent of a seriously disturbed kid to keep firearms, unless they are totally secure. This was a recipe for disaster we have seen repeated. The son may not hesitate to violate the law, so we we need to hold the parent to the law. If one is to be a gun owner, then they must be a responsible gun owner, literally. They need to bear the responsibility for what their gun is used for.

What “sensible restriction” would have prevented Sandy Hook?

 

[pnewton]

SamH brought up an interesting and right-on-point observation about the Sandy Hook vilating numerous laws (though I have not seen anything about a precise number like 41 … SamH - do you have a reference on that? ) Maybe I missed your answer to the question (unless, of course that too was a strawman). So let me try my hand…

It is not a strawman. I answered Sam, but I failed to note that his actual point is excellent and needs to be kept in mind during the next few months. New laws that must be weighed by a standard of effectiveness. I personally think any new law that would prevent a terrorist attack of any sort is possible (with one exception I made earlier on private gun transfers). Limiting magazine sizes, assault rifles, gun-free zones are not going to work against these type of attacks.

So on this, I will agree with Sam and you. Laws that only will be kept by the law-abiding will to little.

 

[SamH]

So on this, I will agree with Sam and you. Laws that only will be kept by the law-abiding will to little.

That has been my point from the beginning. No new gun law currently being proposed would have prevented or even limited the number of killings at Sandy Hook had they been in effect when it happened.

 

[pnewton]

What “sensible restriction” would have prevented Sandy Hook?

How about having parents of bipolar or psychotic kids either not eligible to own guns while their kids live at home, or have them required to be secured in a way the crazy son can not get to them?

No, we can not do psych evals on everyone in a house, but it can be part of the form one signs that there is no one living in the house that meets the criteria of not being able to own a gun. At least this would serve as a reminder to these parents that they can not trust their children with behavioral problems to behave.

But hey. I don’t know. That is the whole point. It is time to think and not jump to solutions. I don’t buy that posters here have thought all this through so well that they now know sooooo much that they can claim there is absolutely nothing to be done.

Sensible restrictions? Let me ask you that. Let me ask everyone that. Throw out the stuff that fails to be sensible and see if there is anyway to get parents to act responsibly when their offspring are dangerous.

 

[pnewton]

That has been my point from the beginning. No new gun law currently being proposed would have prevented or even limited the number of killings at Sandy Hook had they been in effect when it happened.

If you talk about the stuff mentioned in Congress, I would agree with you. I refuse to believe that there is no point in continuing to explore the issue.

I think the on correctable danger that still needs to be addressed is with the mentally ill. We are so afraid of offending them we do not take enough action to keep them from killing others.

 

[nitesnake]

I was making a joke. You have failed to note that I am from a different country, and I was giving my perspective that it is easy to talk about banning public ownership of guns, but the reality is that many people already own guns, and in such a situation, taking away guns might not itself solve gun crime. If anything, it was an argument in your favour.

I apologize. I see what you meant now.

Yet you used this to make two separate attacks - on me and my bishop.

That was certainly not my intention.

I’m glad to hear that God gave you the gift to judge my obedience as worthless, and to dismiss my bishop’s pastoral authority as “personal opinion”.

Again, that was not my intention.

I’ll accept your criticism of me, but I’ll not have you insulting my ordinary and diminishing his authority just because he does not conform to your world view and personal ideology.

I’m not sure I was insulting or criticizing anyone. I was simply pointing out that the issue of gun-control specifically as it applies to church doctrine, does not exist. I respect your bishop every bit as much as you do.

 

[RobbyS]

How about having parents of bipolar or psychotic kids either not eligible to own guns while their kids live at home, or have them required to be secured in a way the crazy son can not get to them?

No, we can not do psych evals on everyone in a house, but it can be part of the form one signs that there is no one living in the house that meets the criteria of not being able to own a gun. At least this would serve as a reminder to these parents that they can not trust their children with behavioral problems to behave.

But hey. I don’t know. That is the whole point. It is time to think and not jump to solutions. I don’t buy that posters here have thought all this through so well that they now know sooooo much that they can claim there is absolutely nothing to be done.

Sensible restrictions? Let me ask you that. Let me ask everyone that. Throw out the stuff that fails to be sensible and see if there is anyway to get parents to act responsibly when their offspring are dangerous.

A gun safe would be a sensible restriction. So would storing them out of the house at a gun range, where they woulkd be kept under lock and key if a family member had any possible access.

 

[nitesnake]

A gun safe would be a sensible restriction.

I don’t agree. A gun safe just keeps one from quickly accessing their firearm exactly when they might need it the most. Besides, it would be impossible to enforce such a restriction.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t agree. A gun safe just keeps one from quickly accessing their firearm exactly when they might need it the most. Besides, it would be impossible to enforce such a restriction.

Yes, it is impossible to enforce, except in retrospective. Remember this only came up for families that have seriously disturbed children under their roof, not your average guy needing self-defense.

In any case, I think this argument which is totally valid for a handgun, or a shotgun under the bed, falls flat for multiple semi-automatic rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Those zombies give you plenty of warning with all that groaning and crying for brains.

 

[HansTrappist]

Excellent opinion piece titled, “Americans never give up your guns” by Stanislav Mishin (english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/), summarizes how gun control helped give us Communism in Russia. Excellent read.

 

[nitesnake]

Yes, it is impossible to enforce, except in retrospective. Remember this only came up for families that have seriously disturbed children under their roof, not your average guy needing self-defense.

C’mon, quit trying to backtrack on your position. It didn’t come up just for families, and you know it.

What if I rent a room in a house with people I hardly know? Do we hire a magical police force that can tell who is mentally unstable and who is not? Or do we now start prying arbitrarily into someone’s medical records, just because that “someone” happens to live with or near someone who wants to own a gun?

You keep claiming that you have no problem with personal firearms ownership, but it’s obvious that you do. Why won’t you just admit it?

 

[pnewton]

C’mon, quit trying to backtrack on your position. It didn’t come up just for families, and you know it.

You keep claiming that you have no problem with personal firearms ownership, but it’s obvious that you do. Why won’t you just admit it?

I think you have me confused with someone else. FYI - I have always owned at least one firearm and qualify with it every year. I currently shoot a Sand W .38 and Beretta 9mm. When I had a son living with me who was suffering depression, I kept SW that I had under a trigger lock even though I knew it would slow down having it available.

However, I do not carry, even though I can. Like most real people, I do not fit in one category when it comes to opinions, which is why I do not think stereotyping political positions is useful.

 

[nitesnake]

I think you have me confused with someone else. FYI - I have always owned at least one firearm and qualify with it every year. I currently shoot a Sand W .38 and Beretta 9mm. When I had a son living with me who was suffering depression, I kept SW that I had under a trigger lock even though I knew it would slow down having it available.

However, I do not carry, even though I can. Like most real people, I do not fit in one category when it comes to opinions, which is why I do not think stereotyping political positions is useful.

And all of that means what? It’s a right that you seem to think should apply to you, but not to others. According to most of your previous posts, that seems obvious.

And I’m not confusing you with anyone, I think you know that.

 

[Brendan]

A gun safe would be a sensible restriction. So would storing them out of the house at a gun range, where they woulkd be kept under lock and key if a family member had any possible access.

According to AP, the guns actually were stored in a locked gun case\cabinet, which was required under CT law.

freep.com/article/20121222/NEWS07/121222016/New-details-Newtown-shooter-emerge-week-after-school-massacre

A gun safe is effective at slowing down an intruder getting access to your firearms (nothing is ever certain if they have physical access to the locked storage)

A good one will also help protect the guns in case of a fire.

But for an adult who lives at the location, who might have the opportunity to secretly observe the combination, or has time to find where the key is stored, it has little benefit.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

There is a school of thought that encourges, “Do something!” as a response to an event that is actually or even potentially dangerous. Candidly, this is fine as far as it goes - unfortunately, it usually does not go far enough because it equates any action with being the most appropriate action. This exists because, “Do nothing!” is seen as so much ‘doable’ then 'Do the right thing!" As I see it, this is where the problem lies in addressing, ‘…families that have seriously disturbed children…’ Just who do we think this ‘reasonable restriction’ is going to address?

We really do not know a lot about Adam Lanza (the Newton shooter). He was 20, came from a divorced family, described as a loner, played violent video games for hours on end, intellectually gifted but may have had Aspberger’s Syndrome and had a mother who liked firearms. We also know some things that he wasn’t: a ward of the court, declared incompetent or in some way judged to be a danger to himself or others. Then he began killing people.

Now, just keep that in mind. In today’s news we have two unrealted cases of mass murderers - who were not minors: Jared Loughner (Tucson shopping center shooter in January declared mentally unfit to stand trial) and One L. Goh,( former nursig student who killed 7 people at his school) is also mentally unfit to stand trial. I could go on - but, the bottom line is that ‘…distrubed children…’ as a group of potential mass murderers is just not realistic when one just looks at the facts of the historical cases (especially of school shooters) we have before us. And, yes, there were the two shooters at Columbine High School in 1999. While both Harris and Kelbold were 18 - neither would probably have been judge by a court to be ‘…distrubed children…’ (naturally, this does not mean they did nnot have issues - but, simply that they would not have met the criteria being discussed.

While an effort, I do not think trying to focus on ‘disturbed children…’ or their gun owning parents will accomplish anything.

Enforcing the laws on the books is something to see if it works or does not work.

God bless

How about having parents of bipolar or psychotic kids either not eligible to own guns while their kids live at home, or have them required to be secured in a way the crazy son can not get to them?

No, we can not do psych evals on everyone in a house, but it can be part of the form one signs that there is no one living in the house that meets the criteria of not being able to own a gun. At least this would serve as a reminder to these parents that they can not trust their children with behavioral problems to behave.

But hey. I don’t know. That is the whole point. It is time to think and not jump to solutions. I don’t buy that posters here have thought all this through so well that they now know sooooo much that they can claim there is absolutely nothing to be done.

Sensible restrictions? Let me ask you that. Let me ask everyone that. Throw out the stuff that fails to be sensible and see if there is anyway to get parents to act responsibly when their offspring are dangerous.

 

[SamH]

According to AP, the guns actually were stored in a locked gun case\cabinet, which was required under CT law.

freep.com/article/20121222/NEWS07/121222016/New-details-Newtown-shooter-emerge-week-after-school-massacre

A gun safe is effective at slowing down an intruder getting access to your firearms (nothing is ever certain if they have physical access to the locked storage)

A good one will also help protect the guns in case of a fire.

But for an adult who lives at the location, who might have the opportunity to secretly observe the combination, or has time to find where the key is stored, it has little benefit.

It would take me about 15 minutes tops to break into and empty any decent fireproof Liberty Safe. 10 minutes if I spent a few dollars and bought nice Lenox sawzall blades. Drill 2 holes in the side and cut a new opening. If the owner hasn’t bolted it to the floor you wheel in a dolly and load the safe into the back of your pickup. A gun safe is like a padlock - it keeps out kids and keeps mostly honest men honest.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It would take me about 15 minutes tops to break into and empty any decent fireproof Liberty Safe. 10 minutes if I spent a few dollars and bought nice Lenox sawzall blades. Drill 2 holes in the side and cut a new opening. If the owner hasn’t bolted it to the floor you wheel in a dolly and load the safe into the back of your pickup. A gun safe is like a padlock - it keeps out kids and keeps mostly honest men honest.

People really need to get updated news, as more details have been made available. Remember you saying the school shooter didn’t use the AR15, but later news sources confirmed the coroner’s report, that the Bushmaster was indeed the weapon used for the majority of the shots fired?

I can’t find it now, but Ms. Lanza’s guns were not locked in a safe, and if they were she didn’t take proper precautions. As has been repeated, over and over, no measure is 100%, not even increasing the number of armed people, but each measure together will amount to some lives saved. That’s the point right? That’s why the Bishops spoke up.

 

[Geist]

My wife wouldn’t be here today if we kept a gun in a safe. When a registered sex offender three times a womans size crashes through the front door he doesn’t let her fiddle with a safe before doing God knows what.

Guns save lives.