Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Ender]

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.

And this is the point … we would all like to find a reasonable way to limit events such as happened at Newtown but no one knows exactly what to do. Including the bishops. It should be abundantly clear that this is an entirely practical problem, as all of the suggestions demonstrate, and this is why the involvement of the bishops with their vague recommendations was so unfortunate. It was a mistake to suggest that disagreements over different approaches to the problem represent moral shortcomings and it was especially regrettable to suggest that Church doctrine supports a ban on the private ownership of guns. Their involvement has not helped.

Ender

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ProdigalSon1,

This really just looks like another chorus of, “Do something!”

Now, we know that the Newton school had just installed a security system - and it was working when the secretary recognized the son of a teacher approaching (we guess in a non-threatening way) and opened the door.

There are real instances where security guards do stop people (sometimes permanently) before continuing on with a crime spree. And, Geist is correct - guns do save lives - but, these instances do not make the news nearly as much as the ones where innocent lives are taken (but, this could be an accurate reflection in that not enough of the honest citizens are armed and therefore not able to stop cirme as it happens! )

But, let’s plot out just what these ‘…reasonable restrictions…’ may entail. We know that many school already have metal detectors (and, some students have managed to by-pass these safety precuations to get past the screening system) So, whatever metal detector and physical security device (like at Newton) is obviously not enough - so, do we double the efforts? incrase the personnel who monitor the equipment? only allow people who belong there to come in? (don’t forget many of these school shooters have/had legitimate access to the school) Seriously, trying to stop murderers from killing innocent children and adults is a truly great idea - but, there simply no additonal restrictions that can be placed that offer any chance of doing something. Admittedly, this is frustrating - but, we need to realize that all the easy solutions are gone (or, if you like, the low hanging fruit has already been picked).

Ender has expressed a solid idea - it is unfortunate that the USCCB intervened in the way that they did. Consoling the sorrowful, praying for the deceased, burying the dead are all virtuous acts and ones the USBBC can honestly recommend, promote and do. Blowing smoke about ‘…reasonable restrictions…’ is simply a pipe dream.

I am not knocking down every idea - there have been some truly excellent ideas not only promoted - but, actually enacted into legislation so that they are the Law of the Land. My guess is that we have no idea which of these ‘excellent ideas’ really work or only look good on paper. Enforcement is key to the reduction and hopefully the elimination of mass murder in a public area. If we have a good law but not enforcing it - then we really need to seriously look at this lack of enforcement as a real part of the problem.

God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SamH,

Please do not do any moonlighting … or post this how-to on YouTube!

But, you are quite right - the safe (especially this kind, evidently…) will not stop the determined evil individual. It will slow down/stop the rightful owner who loses his key or forgets the combination…

God bless

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.

 

[SamH]

Hi, SamH,

Please do not do any moonlighting … or post this how-to on YouTube!

But, you are quite right - the safe (especially this kind, evidently…) will not stop the determined evil individual. It will slow down/stop the rightful owner who loses his key or forgets the combination…

God bless

It’s not just the Liberty Safe; few of the safes in the $500 to $3000 range are especially hard to break into. The even cheaper “Stack On” brand only requires a good screwdriver.

Utube has videos showing how hard it is to pry open a safe’s door but fail to account for the fact that the walls and back of the safe are simply heavy gauge sheet metal.

It’s like mounting “The Club” on your steering wheel. While “The Club” is a pretty stout piece of metal that is difficult to remove only takes about 15-20 seconds to cut through the rim of steering wheel and remove “the Club” to drive off.

 

[InigoMontoya]

Safes protect from kids, curious visitors, and smash and grab criminals.

Bolting a safe down in a closet, and having walls around it to restrict prying or cutting will generally make most $1-3k safes fairly protective against most criminals.

All safes can be broken into with time, especially if they’re not worried about preserving the contents inside. The goal is just that it’s too difficult for the average criminal and too risky/time consuming for the more knowledgable ones.

 

[SamH]

Safes protect from kids, curious visitors, and smash and grab criminals.

Bolting a safe down in a closet, and having walls around it to restrict prying or cutting will generally make most $1-3k safes fairly protective against most criminals.

All safes can be broken into with time, especially if they’re not worried about preserving the contents inside. The goal is just that it’s too difficult for the average criminal and too risky/time consuming for the more knowledgable ones.

You can cut the entire front off a safe in about 1 to 5 minutes without drilling a hole. The average criminal is well aware of this - they watch UTube too. A circular saw with a carbide blade (might even be provided by the home owner) can cut through the 12 gauge steel in seconds. Only the stoners and the truly stupid criminals are kept out.

The average gun safe (if they reveal the information) is only rated at 5 to 8 minutes resistance against “average” tools. With the advent of good battery powered tools you can make short work of one if you don’t care what you do to the house. Usually they only advertise the fire rating.

 

[Graubo3]

uscatholic.org/news/201212/bishops-remain-focused-responsible-restrictions-gun-ownership-26690

“The bishops continue to support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and continue to call for sensible regulations on handguns,” Kathy Saile, the bishops’ director of domestic social development, told Catholic News Service.

Here is the Call to Action from 3 bishops: usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm

So sorry, but Bishops Blaire, Wester, and Rhoades do not constitute the whole of the entire USCCB and they are not a bishop in my diocese, thankfully. They are as free as I am to offer an opinion on this tragedy but maybe they should look at themselves and their ACORN affiliates as a blame as well.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Graubo3,

Thank you for the link.

I am sure I missed something here … but, while these 3 bishops are named, along with Cardnal Dolan - I did not get the impression that this was the work of 3 or 4 men, but rather the position of the USCCB. I get this because the document went out on their letter head and appears to have been approved for media distribution. With “…390 bishops and 59 archbishops…” in the US, it would not make any sense that a few could make a statement for the organization. Now, why do you think that this document is limited to the men whose names are identified?

The items that the USCCB is promoting are these:

1.Support measures that control the sale and use of firearms
There are alreasy measures in place both on the State and Feeral level. What specific measures are being identified?

2.Support measures that make guns safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner)
There are alreasy such safety measures in place both on the State and Feeral level. Additionally this tragic event was not caused by an unsupervixed child playing with a loaded firearm. What specific measures are being identified?

3.Call for sensible regulations of handguns
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that either there are no regulations for handguns or what we have is not sensible. What specific measures are being identified?

4.Support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons including assault weapons
There are alreasy measures in place both on the State and Feeral level tht do this. This really is not a regulatory problem - but one of supportinve the scantify of life - a phrase conspicuous by its absence in the list of items.

5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime. While I am not aware of any of the shooters in 2012 having an ‘addiction’ probem (controlled substances, alcohol, etc? or something else?) The Aurora theater shooter had been receiving psychiatric help and the Newton shooter had been getting professional help for the Aspberger’s condition. There is not really a lot of information about the actual mental status of the 2012 shooters (two of them today were declared mentally unfit to stand trial) but, this does not mean that prior to their murderous activities, they had not been getting mental health help.

I honestly do not see where the USCCB wants to go with this that they and other groups have not tried before.

God bless

Here is the Call to Action from 3 bishops: usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm

So sorry, but Bishops Blaire, Wester, and Rhoades do not constitute the whole of the entire USCCB and they are not a bishop in my diocese, thankfully. They are as free as I am to offer an opinion on this tragedy but maybe they should look at themselves and their ACORN affiliates as a blame as well.

 

[liturgyluver]

Here is the Call to Action from 3 bishops: usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm

So sorry, but Bishops Blaire, Wester, and Rhoades do not constitute the whole of the entire USCCB and they are not a bishop in my diocese, thankfully. They are as free as I am to offer an opinion on this tragedy but maybe they should look at themselves and their ACORN affiliates as a blame as well.

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.

 

[SamH]

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.

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

 

[Graubo3]

Hi, Graubo3,

Thank you for the link.

I am sure I missed something here … but, while these 3 bishops are named, along with Cardnal Dolan - I did not get the impression that this was the work of 3 or 4 men, but rather the position of the USCCB. I get this because the document went out on their letter head and appears to have been approved for media distribution. With “…390 bishops and 59 archbishops…” in the US, it would not make any sense that a few could make a statement for the organization. Now, why do you think that this document is limited to the men whose names are identified?
…
God bless

“As Catholic Bishops, we join together with the President of our Conference, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who on the day of the horrible tragedy expressed his profound solidarity with and prayers for the families, friends, neighbors, and communities whose hearts have been rent by the loss of a child or loved one,” said Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, and Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend.

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.

 

[SamH]

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.

Doesn’t the dramatic drop in crime mean this issue has been addressed?

leftcall.com/u-s-crime-rates-1960-2010-the-facts-might-surprise-you/

 

[Graubo3]

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.

Where is all of this referenced in the Call to Action letter?

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Gun safe in case there is a mental case in the house who can have access to it. Should have one anyway, because people Do decide to drop in while you are not at home and take your guns. MY BNL has one that weights 500# of more.

 

[pnewton]

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.

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”.

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Pnewton,

There is a school of thought that encourges, “Do something!” as a response to an event that is actually or even potentially

And this is the point … we would all like to find a reasonable way to limit events such as happened at Newtown but no one knows exactly what to do. Including the bishops.

I do not believe that there is nothing we can do to improve safety. However, I said on another thread (arming teachers) that I was okay if at the end of the day we look at everything and any action we take has more negative consequences than positive. I do not believe it, but I would accept it as possible. 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.

 

[pnewton]

My wife wouldn’t be here today if we kept a gun in a safe.

Was your wife likely to flip out and go shoot a bunch of people? No one is suggesting this solution for everyone, just those with certain risk factors in the house.

 

[pnewton]

Their involvement has not helped.

Ender

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.

 

[SamH]

Gun safe in case there is a mental case in the house who can have access to it. Should have one anyway, because people Do decide to drop in while you are not at home and take your guns. MY BNL has one that weights 500# of more.

As discussed on another thread all a gun safe does it keep children out and keeps a mostly honest man honest. It would take about 10 minutes or less to open up and clean out the type of safe your BIL owns. Safes are usually fire and flood rated - seldom do you see the “Resistance” rating. Most gun safes are rated in the 10-15 minute range with suitable tools. A Sawzall with a good blade with cut one open in no time at all. The sides and back are usually only 12 gauge (some 10 gauge) mild steel. A circular saw with a carborundum blade is even faster.

A “decent” safe that would defeat (for a while) common tools that can be bought (or stolen) at any ACE hardware store will start at $5000 and weigh at least a ton.

 

[Ender]

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

Well of course we are. We are all free to disagree with anyone’s opinions including those of our bishops inasmuch as we are talking about political opinions here, not doctrines.

tqualey:

I am sure I missed something here … but, while these 3 bishops are named, along with Cardinal Dolan - I did not get the impression that this was the work of 3 or 4 men, but rather the position of the USCCB. I get this because the document went out on their letter head and appears to have been approved for media distribution. With “…390 bishops and 59 archbishops…” in the US, it would not make any sense that a few could make a statement for the organization. Now, why do you think that this document is limited to the men whose names are identified?

Although I have not seen the specific document I would be quite surprised if it was anything other than the work of a committee, or of a member of a committee, and went out under the signature of the three bishops. As for it being the position of the USCCB, that concept is quite misleading. There is no document, even one approved by the majority of bishops, that emanates from the USCCB that has any authority other than what is given it by one’s own bishop. It may not make sense to believe a handful of men could make a statement for an organization representing hundreds but that is precisely the way bureaucracies work - and this one is no exception.

Ender