Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Brendan]

Hmmm. I have never heard guns from the pulpit. ".

My pastor keeps a revolver by his nightstand.

 

[jc4751]

Hmmm. I have never heard guns from the pulpit. I hear about abortion a lot, though I do not know if the word itself is used often. Usually it is phrased in terms of conception and the value of the life of the unborn. I agree with the above poster. The whole “NO” thing is uncalled for. We has a strict rule here about setting one form of the Mass over another, or another rite. In light of that, there simply is no point in using that term. You could have just said “Mass”.

Our priest was part of the liberal post-Vatican II crowd. He hasn’t really brought up the topic of gun ownership, but has preached on the shootings, and the evil, and the proper Christian response, which have been some good and powerful sermons.

 

[fbl9]

Our priest was part of the liberal post-Vatican II crowd. He hasn’t really brought up the topic of gun ownership, but has preached on the shootings, and the evil, and the proper Christian response, which have been some good and powerful sermons.

There was this one sermon i heard started with let’s get rid of all the guns, soon we were left with a dismemebered human, yet we can still hurt with our tongue, even still with our hearts.

 

[ProVobis]

Our priest was part of the liberal post-Vatican II crowd.

I’m a regular Latin Mass attendee but I find this kind of classification a little bit unfair. Attending Mass is an obedience to God and Church issue. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative IMO. I can show you plenty of today’s “conservatives” who don’t want to return to pre-Vatican disciplines, Latin, or liturgy. We should be discussing the merits of the bishops’ statements, not their political or ideological positions or whether those who attend Mass agree with Vatican II.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Access to tools to actually commit the crimes has been shown to be unaffected by attempts at regulation. In all the recent cases, the criminal had already been prohibited from possessing the firearm by law. Thus attempts even as strict as CT’s laws are not effective.

Primarily because these regulations have a big fat loophole for unlicensed sellers, are largely not enforced, and no one but the shooter is held responsible under the law. The ATF found that 30% of guns involved in a crime were purchased at gun shows from unlicensed sellers. Not counting private sales outside that venue. The City of New York found that 74% of licensed sellers in the three States in which it investigated were willing to sell guns to persons who openly stated they could not legally purchase one.

I think you’d find these regulations to be far more effective if both licensed and unlicensed sellers were required to perform background checks and sellers are held criminally liable.

 

[Iheartcoffee]

We all need to keep in mind that the gun is a tool that can be used for good or evil. It can be used to hunt for dinner to feed your family. It can be used to protect your country or your family from harm. It can be used safely in a completely legitimate sporting activity where the only thing damaged is a target or a clay. It can also be used to commit horrible crimes. It’s up to you.

The same can be said for knives - but no one is trying to limit my kitchen implements. On the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, a crazed man in China attacked a bunch of children with a knife. People are stabbed, poisoned, beaten, etc. every day, but we aren’t going after the weapons in those crimes as vigorously. They are just as evil because a person is being maimed or killed, yet the implement is somehow more socially acceptable.

We have lethal weapons around us all the time. They can be used for good or evil. Our lives are always about choosing the good over the evil. If a person is already planning to kill someone and break a really big law (murder), they aren’t going to be afraid of breaking some gun regulations in the process.

 

[Brendan]

Primarily because these regulations have a big fat loophole for unlicensed sellers, are largely not enforced, and no one but the shooter is held responsible under the law.

The ATF found that 30% of guns involved in a crime were purchased at gun shows from unlicensed sellers

.

I think you are mistaken on that statistic. That was the percentage of guns that were obtained via straw purchases ( where a ‘clean’ person makes the purchase with the associated background check, then turns the gun over to a person who is prohibited from owning firearms. This was the case in the Webster, NY shooting.

The guns purchased via private sale at a gun show and subsequently used in a crime by the purchaser who was otherwise prohibited from purchasing a gun amount to less than 1% of gun crime according to a 1997 Department of Justice study.

I think you’d find these regulations to be far more effective if both licensed and unlicensed sellers were required to perform background checks and sellers are held criminally liable.

Doubtful, as it still would not prevent straw purchases, which is the most common ‘legal’ method for criminals to obtain arms. The most common of all was from burglary, the second most common was via a private transaction with another criminal ( which, I presume you will agree, is unlikely to involve a Federal background check ).

What you will see is straw purchases by someone who legally can purchase and pass a background check, who then transfers the gun to someone else and subsequently reports the firearm as being stolen.

Do you hold the seller legally responsible, even after then did the background check, or how do you prosecute the straw purchaser without any direct evidence?

At least in the case of the Webster, NY shooter, he left a note describing the straw purchase done in conjunction with a neighbor. But you can’t really count on that type of evidence, can you?

And, you will also note that the firearms used in the CT and NY shooting were legally purchased with a background check, (not via a ‘gun show’) so clearly background check regulations were not preventive in nature either.

 

[SamH]

Primarily because these regulations have a big fat loophole for unlicensed sellers, are largely not enforced, and no one but the shooter is held responsible under the law. The ATF found that 30% of guns involved in a crime were purchased at gun shows from unlicensed sellers. Not counting private sales outside that venue. The City of New York found that 74% of licensed sellers in the three States in which it investigated were willing to sell guns to persons who openly stated they could not legally purchase one.

Except the facts are:

According to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows

As for the Justice Dept not enforcing the law - that’s one of the beefs the NRA has against the proposals for “new” regulations. Why pass more laws when they won’t enforce the ones already on the books?

The National Rifle Association does not plan to support any new gun control measures in the wake of the shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn., the head of the organization said Sunday, **arguing that the government should vigorously enforce laws already on the books **and reiterating the group’s push for more armed guards in schools as part of the solution.

Read more: washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/23/nra-chief-enforce-the-existing-gun-laws/#ixzz2Hp4WUi5f
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[Iheartcoffee]

Let us not forget that in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, the shooter not only stole the guns, but he killed the legal owner with them (his own mother). Considering the fact that there was talk of committing him, I don’t think she was just leaving these things around the house. No amount of gun laws would have prevented him from getting access to guns if he is willing to steal them and kill his own mother to have them.

He did NOT obtain these guns legally. In fact, I heard he was denied when he tried to buy one on his own. Gun control laws weren’t going to stand in his way and they wouldn’t have prevented this horrible tragedy.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Except the facts are: According to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

Only 8 cities were evaluated and the study excluded guns purchased at gun shows for the purpose of trafficking which is, itself, a crime.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Except the facts are:

According to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

How does anyone gain fact statistics on something unrecorded?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let us not forget that in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, the shooter not only stole the guns, but he killed the legal owner with them (his own mother). Considering the fact that there was talk of committing him, I don’t think she was just leaving these things around the house. No amount of gun laws would have prevented him from getting access to guns if he is willing to steal them and kill his own mother to have them.

He did NOT obtain these guns legally. In fact, I heard he was denied when he tried to buy one on his own. Gun control laws weren’t going to stand in his way and they wouldn’t have prevented this horrible tragedy.

Think, but we do not know for sure. I’ve tried to look that information up and no one has offered a factual account of whether those guns were locked, or laying around the house. I’ve seen both accounts stated, but not verified. Had there been securing controls, with legal accountability attributed to an owner, would the mother have left them laying around, or locked up?

He was denied because of his age.

We have many laws that don’t stand in the way of criminals, but we don’t abolish them and leave it up to society to enforce their own versions of right or wrong for the sake of society.

 

[Brendan]

Only 8 cities were evaluated and the study excluded guns purchased at gun shows for the purpose of trafficking which is, itself, a crime.

Not to be flippant, but all I can say there is 'Well DUH, of course they did"

Look at what they are trying to find out. They are trying to find out about how often a person who is legally unable to purchase a gun did so as a part of an transaction that did not involve a background check.

That is opposed to purchases that involved a person who IS legally able to purchase a gun.

Let’s start here.

You proposed universal background checks for all gun purchases, private or through gun dealers, correct?

What do you hope to gain from that.

Do you believe that would stop straw purchases ( gun trafficking)

or do you believe that it will stop those who are legally unable to purchase a firearm from doing so.

And how would you look at the data to see the prevalence of each case?

 

[Brendan]

How does anyone gain fact statistics on something unrecorded?

What they did was has psychologists interview those convicted of gun related crimes to find where they obtained their firearms.

Here is the study.

Table 8 shows where the inmates obtained their firearms.

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

About 40% got theirs from the street or from an illegal source (burglarly etc…)

33% got them from friend or acquaintance

1.9% got them from a gun show or flea market

 

[jay29]

I hear it frequently at Mass.

I think “NO Mass” is kinda insulting actually.

My apologies for using “NO Mass” I should have used ORDINARY Form. The only time i have heard of saints, dogmas, sins, and anti abortion topics is from traditional friars at the Extra Ordinary form. I am not putting one Mass above the other. The Ordinary Form Mass done right like it should be done, as called by Vatican II, is a very beautiful thing with the priest and people facing the same direction.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What they did was has psychologists interview those convicted of gun related crimes to find where they obtained their firearms.

Here is the study.

Table 8 shows where the inmates obtained their firearms.

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

About 40% got theirs from the street or from an illegal source (burglarly etc…)

33% got them from friend or acquaintance

1.9% got them from a gun show or flea market

So we’re depending on the group that ignores current gun controls?

 

[Brendan]

So we’re depending on the group that ignores current gun controls?

You asked, I answered.

This study was actually commission by the Congressional Research Service, which exists to provide factual information to Federal Government, kind of like what the Congressional Budget Office does for finance.

 

[Brendan]

Only 8 cities were evaluated and the study excluded guns purchased at gun shows for the purpose of trafficking which is, itself, a crime.

If you look at the actually study ( see my link above), you will see that it is inmates from 8 STATE systems and 12 Federal penitentiaries.

 

[Brendan]

So we’re depending on the group that ignores current gun controls?

I also found this kind of ironic. Dependence on groups that ignore gun laws is the whole basis of any gun restriction.

If you ban Ar-15’s for example, you are depending\hoping that everyone will obey that restriction.

If you confiscate them, you are depending\hoping that everyone will turn theirs in, and that those who have unregistered AR’s won’t hide them away and sell them on the black-market for a tidy profit.

That is a lot of dependency and hope.

 

[triumphguy]

My apologies for using “NO Mass” I should have used ORDINARY Form. The only time i have heard of saints, dogmas, sins, and anti abortion topics is from traditional friars at the Extra Ordinary form. I am not putting one Mass above the other. The Ordinary Form Mass done right like it should be done, as called by Vatican II, is a very beautiful thing with the priest and people facing the same direction.

Accepted:thumbsup: