Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[donsnow]

This retired U.S. Army General disagrees with you. Personally, I want a Bushmaster. And I don’t think your comments on European immigrants were are entirely true. I know here in Milwaukee from reading about the Italians a lot of them came to the U.S. to work for a while and then head back home with the money. I think upwards of half of them did this if I’m remembering correctly.

Anyways, my German-American grandfather spoke with a heavy German accent. My German relatives were hear since the mid 1800’s and fought in the U.S. Civil War. I thought my grandfather was born and raised in Germany his accent was so thick. It was not until being an adult I found out he was born and raised here in America. He was raised on a Wisconsin farm where German was only spoken in the house.

So, I don;t think European immigrants wanted to abandon all and everything of their European views if by that we mean culture.

People mainly come to the U.S. for money. Like people go to Vegas. If being American was synonymous with poverty then few to no one would come here. You can find more freedom in the middle of the Amazon than you can in the U.S. But who wants to live like a half naked Indian?

washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/08/mcchrystal-backs-serious-gun-laws/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...13/01/Merlin_21117372_image_1024w-300x200.jpg

Good evening, General,

Thank you for your service to our country.

My education and experience are different from yours, but they’re what I go by. For 52 of my 69 years I have been service orientated, first four to the USMC '61 - '65 (I was a PFC instructing 0-1’s through 0-6’s one on one in an aviation training command), then night cab driver, two years participating USNR '72 - '74 then rolled out with end of war. Both times, I was state side. But, I’ve served at public level as uniformed security guard sometimes armed and mostly unarmed and the rest of the time in food service and some industry. When I was in the military, like my career USAF father before me, I served to protect the lives, property, rights and liberties of all Americans.
All my male relatives but two served in WWII.

Um, General, my ancestors are mostly Celtic: Scots, Irish, Welsh and French Gaelic. Others were Choctaw/Cherokee. Sir, my Celtic and Gaelic ancestors did come here to get away from the British Ilse and France.

Now, in my autumn years, I see an international and elitist attack on our Constitution and I see strict gun control as part of that attack. Like you, I see no need of assault rifles in other than military and law enforcement hands. Sir, we have gangs from Mexico and Central America moving in on the turf of American gangs. Law enforcement is hard pressed to protect us and our rights and liberties amidst all that. I think armed citizens are better than government protection … our southern borders as an example of government failing its duties to protect our lives, property, rights and freedoms.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who’s quoted with word to the effect that “Those who would trade a little liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.”

So, other than banning assault weapons, I disagree with you. I do not trust this administration with our rights and liberties. Part of my education has been to recognize that our Federal government can fail to protect our lives, property, rights and liberties. For years I have been in a position to question government, you haven’t had that liberty as a General Officer in the US Army. I believe that the Constitution is a package deal, not to be picked apart.
I see gun control as part of an international package deal which international deal is hostile to our American exceptionalism and Constitution. So, my view from the lower levels is much different than your view from the upper level.

Just a word from the streets, for you, here, is all I offer.

Anyway, I respect your viewpoint and am glad you served.

God loves you and yours,
Don

 

[TimeEntrance]

The general is speaking outside of his field. He’s no more an expert on gun violence in the US or gun control laws than the average joe on the internet (here assuming he doesn’t have an advanced degree in criminology or sociology or criminal law or constitutional law or etc).

He’s as much a citizen as anyone on this board. He also can’t be accused of not being a patriot.

I disagree with his view insofar as many of these weapons already exist on the streets and in homes. Which would **** me off if I’m banned from owning one but there are others with them locked up in their homes somewhere.

But he is right that there is a lot of gun violence in the United States.

As for his comments about the capabilities of the M4, I’m pretty sure some of the more knowledgeable posters in regards to firearms can link us firearms that either do the same amount of damage or more that aren’t military weapons.

I’m sure. I wouldn’t want to be shot with a .50 caliber Desert Eagle. But I think the General’s point of view was that neither I (TimeEntrance) or any civilian of the U.S. needs a M-4 for your daily self defense as you drive down the street to the local ATM. I think his point of view might be that a 9mm pistol is sufficient for that. I would agree with him.

However, I still wouldn’t mind having something like an M-4 in the off chance I need it. Maybe I **** off a bunch of Mexicans in the Sinola cartel one day after having made the mistake of moving to Texas? Maybe I **** off a bunch of marijuana smoking Jamaicans, that speak a form of English I don’t understand, that go under the name of something like “The Bath Tube Posse”? Maybe I’m just worried one day if I have to map a road trip through the hillbilly Ozarks or Appalachian Mountains?

The General has good intentions I think but his retirement income is magnificent and he doesn’t have to live in the inner-cities or around hillbillies. He’s living around Americans that play golf, where just about all of them have college degrees, and they go out for the evening to listen to the symphony.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Um, General, my ancestors are mostly Celtic: Scots, Irish, Welsh and French Gaelic. Others were Choctaw/Cherokee. Sir, my Celtic and Gaelic ancestors did come here to get away from the British Ilse and France.

I’m not the General, Don.

Sorry if I worded my post to give you that impression. I meant the General in the article.

I was a Jarhead too though. From 1989 to 1993.

 

[donsnow]

I’m not the General, Don.

Sorry if I worded my post to give you that impression. I meant the General in the article.

I was a Jarhead too though. From 1989 to 1993.

Good evening, Time Entrance,

Thanks for the correction.

Were you in Desert Storm?

God loves you and yours,
Don

 

[jc4751]

Hi, Jc4751,

I think you’re right about this …

The situation with mass murder is astoundlyly bad - thinking we can reduce or eliminate it with more regulations indicates that there are entire groups who are not paying attention to what is going on in our society.

Let’s return to the Scantity of Life as a starting place - rather then clamoring for still more laws - when the one’s we have are not enforced.

God bless

I would agree. The question of what is valued in society is not being raised much, because it’s an answer no one really wants to hear. I’ve spent quite a lot of time around gun ranges, gun clubs, gun shows, shooting recreationally, varmint hunting, etc. I don’t recall ever witnessing a single incident of violence. Random violence toward strangers isn’t part of the “gun culture” mindset. Likewise, I don’t see Adam Lanza or James Holmes as being part of the “gun culture,” only that guns were accessible tools for them at a point they wanted to commit murder. If it had not been that, it would likely have been something else. Serial killers often use knives or other non-gun items to kill. The problem is with the intent to commit murder, not the means at hand, which are largely unrelated to that impulse. Guns are used in 2/3 of the homicides in the country, but what about the other 1/3 of homicides?

Truthfully, I believe that much of the issue has to do with psychiatric medication. The list of shootings involving people on these is staggering – see wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/#gZJd7iYZHPHBAXem.01 for some examples. Unfortunately, given the amount of money that is made from these, and the willingness of many parents, educators, and doctors to support the use of these to facilitate behavior and learning in the classroom, it’s not likely that there will be a debate over this and it saddens me that the industry is basically dodging a bullet right now.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

He’s as much a citizen as anyone on this board. He also can’t be accused of not being a patriot.

I disagree with his view insofar as many of these weapons already exist on the streets and in homes. Which would **** me off if I’m banned from owning one but there are others with them locked up in their homes somewhere.

But he is right that there is a lot of gun violence in the United States.

I’m sure. I wouldn’t want to be shot with a .50 caliber Desert Eagle. But I think the General’s point of view was that neither I (TimeEntrance) or any civilian of the U.S. needs a M-4 for your daily self defense as you drive down the street to the local ATM. I think his point of view might be that a 9mm pistol is sufficient for that. I would agree with him.

However, I still wouldn’t mind having something like an M-4 in the off chance I need it. Maybe I **** off a bunch of Mexicans in the Sinola cartel one day after having made the mistake of moving to Texas? Maybe I **** off a bunch of marijuana smoking Jamaicans, that speak a form of English I don’t understand, that go under the name of something like “The Bath Tube Posse”? Maybe I’m just worried one day if I have to map a road trip through the hillbilly Ozarks or Appalachian Mountains?

The General has good intentions I think but his retirement income is magnificent and he doesn’t have to live in the inner-cities or around hillbillies. He’s living around Americans that play golf, where just about all of them have college degrees, and they go out for the evening to listen to the symphony.

-Given that an M-4 has a “burst” setting I’m pretty sure it would be illegal for a citizen to own one.

-As I indicated in my first post being a general doesn’t make his views any more valid than anyone else’s. To say that it does would be engaging in the appeal to authority fallacy. He’s no more an expert on gun control or gun violence than [insert random celebrity here].

-As for being a patriot, there are vets and service members on these threads that hold views similar to, moderately different from, and completely opposite of his. Why cite him instead of the vet or service member posters who hold views similar to his if you are trying to show that patriots can support increased gun control?

 

[TimeEntrance]

Good evening, Time Entrance,

Thanks for the correction.

Were you in Desert Storm?

God loves you and yours,
Don

Yes. Part of a Marine detachment aboard a U.S. battleship. I know what my combat action ribbon suggests but my duty and duty station was more on the periphery of that minute war.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Truthfully, I believe that much of the issue has to do with psychiatric medication.

I know Americans hate when race is brought explicitly into the equation (although many will often speak in coded language, it’s no secret what “Milwaukee” as a word or term stands for in much of Wisconsin). But I’m going to say this anyways.

My black father is a Army veteran and retired U.S. Federal agent. Due to the later part he used to investigate a lot of white-collar criminals.

One thing that has always upset him is the way–particularly the news–always seeks an explanation as to the cause of white people accused of crimes, especially violent crimes, as to what made a good person go bad.

It’s true the news does this. One will notice when the person is dark skinned (Latino or black) 9 times out of 10 it’s reported and assumed the person was bad or criminal from the get go. No inquiry into the “cause” of his criminality need take place on news or in public discussion.

I’m assuming you must be unaware of the number of people in the dark skinned inner-cities with mental health problems and even on psychiatric medication? Do you know how many homeless people talking to themselves, yelling and laughing out loud, or sometimes even acting aggressively towards passers-by on the streets and public buses of the inner-city I’ve come across? Quite a many. And 9 times out of 10 they’re black.

But you don’t see black people deemed “crazy” going into schools shooting up the entire place.

I was watching last night on Nightine some news story about Americans (apparently white) in the hundreds of thousands claiming the U.S. Federal Government and their laws have no authority over them. This young white 22 year old dude walking around his town openly with a pistol strapped to his leg. Getting into confrontations with police. Getting in trouble with the law.

Sometimes I’m amazed with what white people can get away with. If that was me I’d probably be shot multiple times with evidence planted on me or near me and labeled by the broader society as a “criminal.” No inquiry would be launched into “what made a good man go bad?”

Here’s that episode: abcnews.go.com/watch/nightline/SH5584743/VD55262751/nightline-0108-idaho-man-rejects-us-laws-in-radical-trend (video)

 

[pnewton]

IRandom violence toward strangers isn’t part of the “gun culture” mindset

I agree absolutely, at least the culture you speak of. No doubt if you explore the gun culture of intercity youth you would get a different answer, but the NRA type folk are not prone to random violence. The USCCB addressed in their document the culture of violence that most affects young people, namely the entertainment industry.

I think the only part of the gun culture that need to be considered (individually, of course) is the value of life, which still has value. I am of mixed feelings when it comes to “stand your ground” because of this. When it is used to protect one who made a questionable judgment on retreat, I am all in favor of it. When it is used to take the life of another to save “stuff”, I think it re-inforces the de-valuation of life Guns are fun and very useful, but the taking of life (even criminals) does not need to be a cause of laughter and bravado.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Showing the perils of drawing conclusions without looking at the thing. IAC, most guns are lifted from soft targets.

 

[meme1961]

Some people are quick to tell others what, and how they must believe. The same people are also quick to say, ‘we’re allowed to disagree with that.’ We should be fitting our views to the Church, and not fitting the Church to our views.

You are conflating two different things.

To be Catholic, we must believe in the Dogma and Doctrines of Holy Mother Church. I had to change some of my beliefs when I chose to be Catholic.

But in terms of secondary or tertiary issues, especially when they are nothing more than policy decisions, one can hold a belief that is different from that of the Magisterium, or one’s fellows.

The use of weasel words like “reasonable” when used in conjunction with a restriction on your God given rights doesn’t even rise to the level of a tertiary policy choice.

Also, the fact that a Bishop holds a view does not automatically make it dogmatically or doctrinally valid. In light of the fact that the op’s initial posting had two factual errors in it (“assault” weapons are already heavily regulated, and very, very few private citizens own one, for example), suggests that even the view presented isn’t particularly valid.

 

[meme1961]

A highly motivated and well trained individual won’t be stopped by any gun controls. There are plenty of pistols with 10 or more round clips, which are instantly changed out when spent. I don’t really see the point of assault weapons being widely available.

Good, then since assault weapons are not widely available, you’re fine with the way things are, right?

The purpose for changing the law back, and making assault rifles once again widely available is to enable the right that that the 2nd Amendment was created to protect. Which was to create philosophical coherence between “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

We ARE the government. That is pragmatically true in every nation, but formally so in the United States, as it is part of the fundamental philosophy on which this country was founded. It would be a very deep and fundamental change to create a class of citizen that belongs to a particular level of the aristocracy (the “government”) then give special rights to this class of people.

A “government official”, be it police officer, soldier or DoJ employee is not a member of a special class. They are simply your fellow citizens who are currently doing a particular job. Any moral right they have to carry and use a firearm is not given to them . . . it is implicit in their citizenship, and is the same right held by all citizens.

In other words, a police officer does not gain the right to carry and use a firearm when he gets hired, he has that right as a human being, and that right should be protected by himself and other citizens who believe in the principles on which the US was founded.

The UK, and colonies that still retain vestiges of their mother countries class system have a radically different fundamental philosophy. In such places, all men are NOT created equal. Some belong to a higher class, said class having rights that the lower classes do not.

 

[RobbyS]

If you are talking about the US bishops, you are probably correct. There are bishops worldwide who have pretty impressive gun collections

This is a picture of me in Tanzania, near the Rwanda border. The local bishop send these guys with me. They were my bodyguards and are Catholics who were former members of the Tanzanian army.

The guns themselves belong to the bishop, along with a number of shotguns. When I mentioned that I was a former US Army officer, they had no problems letting me look at the firearms. They are full auto AK’s, Egyptian make. The guys each had two spare mags.

Tanzania is pretty safe, but occasionally the bishop, or someone like me, needs to go near the border, where there is the potential of unrest.

Before I left on my first trip there, I met up with a guy at my gun club who has a Federal Class-III FFL to do a re familiarization with the AK. I figured that if something went wrong over there, I could probably get my hands on an AK. Little did I know that all I needed to do in an emergency was to ask Fr. Joseph to open up the gun locker for me

The bishop lives in the real world. As did Augustine. I may misremember, But perhaps the bishop of Hippo had to have men guaring him after he had roughed up a Donatist in a debate. Africans, and St. Austin was one, too, tend to take their religion very seriously.

 

[jc4751]

I know Americans hate when race is brought explicitly into the equation (although many will often speak in coded language, it’s no secret what “Milwaukee” as a word or term stands for in much of Wisconsin). But I’m going to say this anyways.

My black father is a Army veteran and retired U.S. Federal agent. Due to the later part he used to investigate a lot of white-collar criminals.

One thing that has always upset him is the way–particularly the news–always seeks an explanation as to the cause of white people accused of crimes, especially violent crimes, as to what made a good person go bad.

It’s true the news does this. One will notice when the person is dark skinned (Latino or black) 9 times out of 10 it’s reported and assumed the person was bad or criminal from the get go. No inquiry into the “cause” of his criminality need take place on news or in public discussion.

I’m assuming you must be unaware of the number of people in the dark skinned inner-cities with mental health problems and even on psychiatric medication? Do you know how many homeless people talking to themselves, yelling and laughing out loud, or sometimes even acting aggressively towards passers-by on the streets and public buses of the inner-city I’ve come across? Quite a many. And 9 times out of 10 they’re black.

But you don’t see black people deemed “crazy” going into schools shooting up the entire place.

I was watching last night on Nightine some news story about Americans (apparently white) in the hundreds of thousands claiming the U.S. Federal Government and their laws have no authority over them. This young white 22 year old dude walking around his town openly with a pistol strapped to his leg. Getting into confrontations with police. Getting in trouble with the law.

Sometimes I’m amazed with what white people can get away with. If that was me I’d probably be shot multiple times with evidence planted on me or near me and labeled by the broader society as a “criminal.” No inquiry would be launched into “what made a good man go bad?”

Here’s that episode: abcnews.go.com/watch/nightline/SH5584743/VD55262751/nightline-0108-idaho-man-rejects-us-laws-in-radical-trend (video)

I agree that blacks have had a sorry time of it in the United States and that is an interesting perspective. It doesn’t help that race becomes an area of discussion where people check their brains and resort to some weird codes and symbologies to try to dance around the issue. I work with an ethnically diverse group of people and the most effective solution to racism seems to be to just laugh at it. It’s hard to take anyone seriously when they talk of “black criminality” and I can point to a dozen examples of vile behavior from whites. Sadly, all races have far too many bad examples to point to.

One thing of interest was the notion of “the devil’s poor” – basically, the old idea that there was a permanently rotten and worthless class of people that were inherently the scum of the earth and little could be expected of them, and hanging a few now and then served a good purpose to keep the rest in line. Since the idea was in basically all-white Europe at the time, it was a class-based notion, not a racial one. I would guess that the same mindset has carried over into modern times, blacks being impoverished by slavery and then Jim Crow, etc. People cannot shake the “us vs. them” mentality.

The Colin Ferguson case is probably useful to look at, too. While an obsession with race is often cited as his motive for shooting, it seems pretty clear he was suffering from serious mental issues. (the “Beltway Sniper” case, on the other hand, was clearly domestic terrorism)

 

[jc4751]

I agree absolutely, at least the culture you speak of. No doubt if you explore the gun culture of intercity youth you would get a different answer, but the NRA type folk are not prone to random violence. The USCCB addressed in their document the culture of violence that most affects young people, namely the entertainment industry.

I think the only part of the gun culture that need to be considered (individually, of course) is the value of life, which still has value. I am of mixed feelings when it comes to “stand your ground” because of this. When it is used to protect one who made a questionable judgment on retreat, I am all in favor of it. When it is used to take the life of another to save “stuff”, I think it re-inforces the de-valuation of life Guns are fun and very useful, but the taking of life (even criminals) does not need to be a cause of laughter and bravado.

Hmm. As a person who has a CCW permit and carries fairly often, my feeling is that I don’t want to have to shoot another person. Just dealing with the criminal and civil complications are enough to deal with, much less any emotional fallout. On the other hand, I’m not willing to sacrifice my life or the lives of my family because of those issues. Some people will always cheer on death, but they will cheer on drone strikes just as readily as they do shooting a person taking someone’s TV. I’m not necessarily in favor of “stand your ground” laws for the simple reason that it encourages people to fight when they should leave.

As far as the inner city “gun culture” goes, poorer urban areas have traditionally been area of violence, regardless if guns are present or not. This has gone back to the beginnings of human history, even in ancient Rome. The drug war just adds fuel to the fire, but is only questioned at the fringes of public discourse.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jc4751,

I think a valid distinction can be made between the ‘gun culture mindset’ (unload your gun when you may lose control [crossing a fence or stream], keep it on safety, aways point it away from people and know your target and what your ammunition can do (V-P Chaney had a problem with this one!) and the ‘violence culture mindset’ (guns are only a means to the end of achieving what I want - any lethal device is acceptable). The issue is really one of we’d trust St. Francis with a nuclear weapon but would not trust

But, the bishops and Obama may have found some common ground (abortion, religous freedom, right of conscience did not get this far…) in guy control. Well, it looks like Obama plans to made his own set of ‘responsible restrictions’ via Executive Order - and as usually the Congress be damned! (recall his unilateral action to void out The Defense of Marriage Act) Here is a link: abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/sen-heidi-heitkamp-reported-obama-gun-proposals-way-in-extreme/

There may be a common element here. Our President is looking at a $16 Trillion debt and his only response is to ‘Do Somethng’ - and that means raise the debt ceiling. Our Bishops want people not to kill one another and their response is not Scantity of Life in the one meaningful avenue identifyed by the Vatican - defeat abortion - rather it is ‘Do Something’ with a vague view of ‘responsible restrictions’ (I liked that term ‘weasel words’ because it really does fit!).

Sometime after our President is sworn in, he will work on this latest distraction from the real work of actually governing. There really is more hope for our bishiops - and that is because of the Bishop of Rome as an outside authority… something Obama lacks.

God bless

I would agree. The question of what is valued in society is not being raised much, because it’s an answer no one really wants to hear. I’ve spent quite a lot of time around gun ranges, gun clubs, gun shows, shooting recreationally, varmint hunting, etc. I don’t recall ever witnessing a single incident of violence. Random violence toward strangers isn’t part of the “gun culture” mindset. Likewise, I don’t see Adam Lanza or James Holmes as being part of the “gun culture,” only that guns were accessible tools for them at a point they wanted to commit murder. If it had not been that, it would likely have been something else. Serial killers often use knives or other non-gun items to kill. The problem is with the intent to commit murder, not the means at hand, which are largely unrelated to that impulse. Guns are used in 2/3 of the homicides in the country, but what about the other 1/3 of homicides?

Truthfully, I believe that much of the issue has to do with psychiatric medication. The list of shootings involving people on these is staggering – see wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/#gZJd7iYZHPHBAXem.01 for some examples. Unfortunately, given the amount of money that is made from these, and the willingness of many parents, educators, and doctors to support the use of these to facilitate behavior and learning in the classroom, it’s not likely that there will be a debate over this and it saddens me that the industry is basically dodging a bullet right now.

 

[Padre4103]

The same document also says:

*It is not rare for pastors of the Church to find sorrow and contradiction where they had a right to look for comfort and help. Let those who have so unfortunately failed in their duty, recall to their minds again and again, that the authority of those whom “the Holy Spirit hath placed as Bishops to rule the Church of God” (Acts xx. 28) is a divine authority. Let them remember that if, as we have seen, those who resist any legitimate authority, resist God, much more impiously do they act who refuse to obey the Bishop, whom God has consecrated with a special character by the exercise of His power. “Since charity,” wrote St. Ignatius Martyr, “doth not suffer me to be silent concerning you, therefore was I forward to exhort you, that you run in harmony with the mind of God: for Jesus Christ also, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father, even as the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ. So then it becometh you to run in harmony with the mind of the bishop” (Ep. ad Ephes. iii.). These words of the illustrious Martyr are re-echoed throughout the ages by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
*

The legitimate authority of the Bishop is in matters of Faith and Morals. There is no moral issue in dispute here, therefore there is no legitimate authority.

which is perhaps why 62% of US Catholics agree with the Bishops comments.

 

[liturgyluver]

The legitimate authority of the Bishop is in matters of Faith and Morals. There is no moral issue in dispute here, therefore there is no legitimate authority.

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that 90% of those who “agree with the bishops” on gun control, just like many who “agree with the Bishops” on the death penalty, BOTH MATTERS OF PRUDENCE WHICH THE HOLY SEE SAYS WE CAN DISAGREE WITH THE BISHOPS ABOUT, do not AGREE WITH THE BISHOPS about Abortion, Homosexuality, and Contraception?

Obstinate Error,or Heresy, regarding the latter can send souls to Hell, disagreements about the former can not unless their is a loss of charity!

I think that your suspicions are wrong, but one thing I do know is that there is no need to shout or get hysterital.

 

[ajecphotos]

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

[Padre4103]

Those two points need to be discarded in these arguments, and people need to concentrate more on:

1. Discarding a statistics based approach to crime analysis when it comes to a discussion of restricting a basic right. Do people have a right, under the Constitution, to keep and bear arms? Is this right inherent and part of being a free citizen? If so, enough said, we need to understand that the misuse of a right by some doesn’t invalidate the right for everyone else. The right of free assembly has not been done away with simply because gang members choose to associate with other gang members.
2. If we consider the ratio of guns owned to the number of murders committed with guns, we rank well below other nations in terms of homicides per gun. I would guess that the number of murders would cluster around people who owned a smaller number of guns.
3. Most killings are still drug-related, and overwhelming involve handguns. To admit this would call the effectiveness of the drug war into question.
4. Last, people who intend commit murder may be hindered somewhat by an outright ban, but weapons will still be readily available on the black market for generations. Ammunition can last a good forty or fifty years, properly stored. And, there are lots of other ways to do the same thing, some potentially more destructive. If Timothy McVeigh had simply walked into the Murrah building and started shooting, perhaps only a handful of people would have died, instead of the 168 that did. Ditto for 9/11.

My compliments, a man who can actually use the rationality that makes us in the image of God! I do not understand people who blame an inanimate piece of metal for the evil in the hearts of men! The fact of the matter is that the MORAL TEACHING of the Church admits a right, and duty, to defend yourself–guns make this possible for the weak!

Its great to speak about this duty, that a Father has to his family, in ABSTRACT, but what do you tell a man whose family is endangered by armed militants? I was speaking to an African Catholic the other day who was telling me about the violence he is experiencing from the radicalized (by Arab Muslims driven from the Middle East by the US) Muslims in his county. Firearms are illegal, but the Muslims are passing them out at Mosque. Another Genocide waiting to happen, the usual result of gun control historically speaking.

I would augment point 4) by pointing out if I wanted a gun for a mass murder I would take it from a cop, unless we are proposing the disarming of the Police. Also, this whole debate is so 20th century. In the 1940s Polish resistance fighters fashioned machine guns underground with no specialized tools, today with C&C machines and computer assisted manufacturing anyone who wants an illicit gun can literally make one.

Finally, one should note that the most deadly school massacre in US history occured in Bath, MI, in 1927. The Assault Weapons of choice, a car and gasoline.