Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Brendan]

They were not telling us to support that which is complete.

They provided the Newtown massacre as a ‘rationale’. We can listen to the bishops, or the NRA. We all have free will.

I don’t think anyone is rejecting the bishop. They called for ‘reasonable’ gun restrictions, so we look at things in light of Reason.

According to your opinion. We haven’t tried a stricter registration, requiring background checks of ALL purchases, including those through private sales. We haven’t required gun security. There are more, but no gun rights advocates see any measures as useful, or so it seems.

OK, let’s look at Universal background checks.

What is the goal in that. If Newtown is the reference, did that involve any private sales?

If you look at the a recent thread, I mentioned that I purchased a kids model, single shot bolt action .22 from a co-worker. His boys have long since outgrown it and he knew I had younger kids that I might want to take shooting

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10294917&postcount=97

Was it, in any way, contrary to Reason for his to sell it to me? Especially since he and I have gone shooting together in the past.

What element of the Moral Law was broken in that transaction? If not moral wrong was done, and since the civil law should (under Catholic Moral teaching) mirror the moral law, should there have a been a civil wrong in that transaction.

 

[Brendan]

We haven’t tried a stricter registration, requiring background checks of ALL purchases, including those through private sales. We haven’t required gun security. There are more, but no gun rights advocates see any measures as useful, or so it seems.

We also haven’t tried making everyone who owns a gun wear blue underwear.

I think what the bishops are asking is that we examine potential solutions and see, by the light of Reason, what would the outcome be, and if that matches with our goal.

A requirement of blue underwear would certainly be a stricter requirement, as currently any color underwear can be worn by a shooter (technically, even no underwear at all )

But that would, in Reason, not achieve any real effect in reducing gun violence.

So yes, lets look at solutions, but, per the bishops, we need only adopt what would achieve the effect we are looking at.

 

[SamH]

We also haven’t tried making everyone who owns a gun wear blue underwear.

Everyone knows that if you want real gun control you have to mandate red underwear and it has to be boxers. Blue is too easy to circumvent and just mandating a color does not go far enough.

 

[Brendan]

Everyone knows that if you want real gun control you have to mandate red underwear and it has to be boxers. Blue is too easy to circumvent and just mandating a color does not go far enough.

And if we don’t get the NRA to stop such restrictions NOW, we’ll soon be seeing Sen Feinstein and David Gregory modeling red boxers on national TV

 

[SamH]

And if we don’t get the NRA to stop such restrictions NOW, we’ll soon be seeing Sen Feinstein and David Gregory modeling red boxers on national TV

Even if it violates Washington DC laws.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think anyone is rejecting the bishop. They called for ‘reasonable’ gun restrictions, so we look at things in light of Reason.

OK, let’s look at Universal background checks.

What is the goal in that. If Newtown is the reference, did that involve any private sales?

If you look at the a recent thread, I mentioned that I purchased a kids model, single shot bolt action .22 from a co-worker. His boys have long since outgrown it and he knew I had younger kids that I might want to take shooting

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10294917&postcount=97

Was it, in any way, contrary to Reason for his to sell it to me? Especially since he and I have gone shooting together in the past.

What element of the Moral Law was broken in that transaction? If not moral wrong was done, and since the civil law should (under Catholic Moral teaching) mirror the moral law, should there have a been a civil wrong in that transaction.

Doing nothing is not a ‘reasonable’ response to the guidance from the bishops.

If it’s law, it would be morally wrong to break the law, except in unjust laws, as in abortions, euthanasia, etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We also haven’t tried making everyone who owns a gun wear blue underwear.

I think what the bishops are asking is that we examine potential solutions and see, by the light of Reason, what would the outcome be, and if that matches with our goal.

A requirement of blue underwear would certainly be a stricter requirement, as currently any color underwear can be worn by a shooter (technically, even no underwear at all )

But that would, in Reason, not achieve any real effect in reducing gun violence.

So yes, lets look at solutions, but, per the bishops, we need only adopt what would achieve the effect we are looking at.

They specifically said, ‘…support…’ That’s a greater requirement than ‘examine.’

Blue underwear = smokescreen, in my honest opinion.

 

[10gr8kids]

This is true. However, as a philosophical point, why make them easier to use by having them around? If one wants to lose weight, does he go out and stock up his refrigerator with high-calorie snacks? Just saying.

So do you feel the same way about alcohol? My county was dry until it got voted down this fall. I never heard any Bishop speak out against it becoming wet. No Bishop told me I wasn’t pro-life if I didn’t vote against the proposal to make it legal to sell alcohol in our county.

 

[Brendan]

Doing nothing is not a ‘reasonable’ response to the guidance from the bishops.

That is true, we could always pray the Rosary that minds and hearts be made whole so that the desire to commit violence of any type be removed.

If it’s law, it would be morally wrong to break the law, except in unjust laws, as in abortions, euthanasia, etc.

And, by definition, an unjust law is one that is in conflict with the Natural Law. Since it is not against the Natural Law to defend oneself with a firearm, even an AR, the civil law should hold no penalties for those who do. For the civil law to do so would be contrary to Justice.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is true, we could always pray the Rosary that minds and hearts be made whole so that the desire to commit violence of any type be removed.

And, by definition, an unjust law is one that is in conflict with the Natural Law. Since it is not against the Natural Law to defend oneself with a firearm, even an AR, the civil law should hold no penalties for those who do. For the civil law to do so would be contrary to Justice.

The Rosary is not a part of ‘controls,’ ‘measures that make guns safer,’ ‘regulations,’ or ‘legislative efforts.’

Defending one’s self is natural law. An AR15, or any other man made item, is not.

 

[ProVobis]

So do you feel the same way about alcohol? My county was dry until it got voted down this fall. I never heard any Bishop speak out against it becoming wet. No Bishop told me I wasn’t pro-life if I didn’t vote against the proposal to make it legal to sell alcohol in our county.

Please re-read my post. I began in agreement with you and made a philosophical point, not disputing you.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

This article says a lot more than I could in a post:

larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

In short, people who are for gun control typically do not even realize the full meaning of what the government is really trying to force on us. There are already regulations in place regarding guns. The ones that have bee proposed of late are not sensible at all. It’s time to start looking elsewhere for solutions to the major problems in the US with mass killings. Removing guns will solve the problem because guns are not the problem.

 

[Brendan]

The Rosary is not a part of ‘controls,’ ‘measures that make guns safer,’ ‘regulations,’ or ‘legislative efforts.’

I believe your comment, to which I was replying was “Doing nothing is not a ‘reasonable’ response to the guidance from the bishops”. Praying the Rosary is certainly doing something, and something very powerful at that. In fact, this was SPECIFICALLY what the Bishops asked for, the change of culture. What better way that via the Intercession of our Blessed Mother

Defending one’s self is natural law. An AR15, or any other man made item, is not.

Ah, but an elderly lady who uses an AR to defend herself from an unjust attacker commits no moral violation, therefore, by definition, there should be no civil violation as well (in a just society)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe your comment, to which I was replying was “Doing nothing is not a ‘reasonable’ response to the guidance from the bishops”. Praying the Rosary is certainly doing something, and something very powerful at that. In fact, this was SPECIFICALLY what the Bishops asked for, the change of culture. What better way that via the Intercession of our Blessed Mother

It does not apply in the statement, in the link I provided. You ask ‘what better way…’ which seems to be to steer the discussion away from the reality of the statement the bishops actually made.

Ah, but an elderly lady who uses an AR to defend herself from an unjust attacker commits no moral violation, therefore, by definition, there should be no civil violation as well (in a just society)

Defense is natural, man made items are not. An elderly lady can defend in other ways. It’s no surprise to see the most ridiculous, or severe, scenario provided when they are not common instances.

What is becoming common are the mass shootings, of people of ALL ages.

 

[10gr8kids]

Please re-read my post. I began in agreement with you and made a philosophical point, not disputing you.

I’m sorry I am a little slow-witted. I re-read your post and I assume you believe we should make alcohol harder to get. Right?

 

[Brendan]

It does not apply in the statement, in the link I provided. You ask ‘what better way…’ which seems to be to steer the discussion away from the reality of the statement the bishops actually made.

The Bishops said that the Culture needs to change. Is that a change of heart or a change of material items?

[quoe]
Defense is natural, man made items are not. An elderly lady can defend in other ways. It’s no surprise to see the most ridiculous, or severe, scenario provided when they are not common instances.

So, would you then claim that the Jews involved in the 1944 Warsaw uprising erred in using military weapons, even fully automatic weapons, in defense of their lives. That they committed a moral wrong in doing so? Should they should have chosen ‘other ways’

And why is my scenario the most ridiculous one. Is it your position that such defense by elderly ladies is not necessary. Or that it does not happen. Yes the AR is a stretch, but it is not uncommon for the inner city elderly to keep handguns and shotguns. But an AR is still not contrary to the Moral Law. It’s actually easier to use for an elderly person than a shotgun, lighter with less recoil.

If you feel something I mentioned, in actuality DOES violated the Natural Moral Law, state so and why. That is how rational discussion takes place. Look at the Summa Theologica as a great example of how Catholics conduct discourse.

So I will ask again. Is the elderly lady defending herself against an unjust attacker with an AR an immoral act.

Give a Yes, and reasons why, or a No Is that too much to ask?

What is becoming common are the mass shootings, of people of ALL ages.

Not really, the number has actually fluctuated within a common range over the last 30 years, as this professor noted. The 80’s had the post office shootings, the 90’s the school yard shootings, But the number has remained relatively constant.

boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html

 

[ProVobis]

Yes the AR is a stretch, but it is not uncommon for the inner city elderly to keep handguns and shotguns. But an AR is still not contrary to the Moral Law. It’s actually easier to use for an elderly person than a shotgun, lighter with less recoil.

Here’s an honest question: Do you think those in the U.K. would see things the same way? Or any other country or place where guns are seen as intimidating or threatening, for that matter?

I for one don’t. So I wouldn’t agree with you that AK is not contrary to the (absolute) Moral Law. Threatening or frightening people is contrary to Moral Law IMO. The Connecticut killer committed his crimes the second he frightened the kids before he pulled the trigger.

 

[Brendan]

Here’s an honest question: Do you think those in the U.K. would see things the same way? Or any other country or place where guns are seen as intimidating or threatening, for that matter?

That would imply that the Natural Law is relative to time and place. If the elderly lady lived in Lincoln, UK instead of Lincoln Nebraska, would that mean that her self defense involved a moral fault?

I for one don’t. So I wouldn’t agree with you that AK is not contrary to the (absolute) Moral Law. Threatening or frightening people is contrary to Moral Law IMO.
But the elderly lady is performing neither an intimidating nor threating act, at least in an unjust way. If your statement was true, a police officer pointing his or her service arm at a criminal and threating to fire if they do not surrender would be guilty of a moral fault, in that the criminal was threatened? Or even that old lady pointing the AR at the attacker and threating to fire if he does not leave. I’m sorry, but such a philosophy is not found in Catholic Moral thought, that the mean chosen to defend must be unthreating to the attacker.

The Connecticut killer committed his crimes the second he frightened the kids before

he pulled the trigger.

In Catholic Moral Theology, the crime was committed when he formed an Intent of the Will to commit those crimes. So the crimes were already committed BEFORE he even harmed his mother and stole the guns.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Bishops said that the Culture needs to change. Is that a change of heart or a change of material items?

Why is it so difficult to see that the culture includes multiple things, INCLUDING guns, or the mentality to necessitate the need for so many guns, and all types of guns?

So, would you then claim that the Jews involved in the 1944 Warsaw uprising erred in using military weapons, even fully automatic weapons, in defense of their lives. That they committed a moral wrong in doing so? Should they should have chosen ‘other ways’

You’re not defending against the Nazis. Remember what I said about scenarios? We’re talking about mass shooters, some as young as 15 years old, being attracted to a certain type weapon and wreaking as much havoc on as many people as they can, before they take their own life.

All these gun rights advocates are ‘protecting’, yet in those gun show ‘misfires’, people ran over each other running out of the way.

And why is my scenario the most ridiculous one. Is it your position that such defense by elderly ladies is not necessary. Or that it does not happen. Yes the AR is a stretch, but it is not uncommon for the inner city elderly to keep handguns and shotguns. But an AR is still not contrary to the Moral Law. It’s actually easier to use for an elderly person than a shotgun, lighter with less recoil.

If you feel something I mentioned, in actuality DOES violated the Natural Moral Law, state so and why. That is how rational discussion takes place. Look at the Summa Theologica as a great example of how Catholics conduct discourse.

So I will ask again. Is the elderly lady defending herself against an unjust attacker with an AR an immoral act.

Give a Yes, and reasons why, or a No Is that too much to ask?

It’s not ‘real’. It’s something you’re ‘making up’.

Ms. Lanza wasn’t that ‘elderly’ and look what happened to her AR15.

Not really, the number has actually fluctuated within a common range over the last 30 years, as this professor noted. The 80’s had the post office shootings, the 90’s the school yard shootings, But the number has remained relatively constant.

boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html

http://boston.com/community/blogs/c...s Shootings 1980-2010-thumb-533x320-79419.jpg

Don’t dig so far back. You’ve gone back to the Nazis, the 80s, and 90s. Look at 2012 alone. The theater, the mall, the school, and then the first responders. All shooters used an AR15. They chose to kill and chose a tool designed to kill, not a car, not water, not an airplane, not even a bomb; the AR15, that you believe an elderly woman needs. There are other tools of self defense; one of which is to seek to limit the number of guns in this country, or the specific types that attract those with a specific psyche, that falsely feel ‘empowered’ with one in their hands, yet successful at depriving innocent people of their lives.

I’m going to leave you on that thought. I am not impressed with, or find your ‘imaginary’ scenarios thought provoking as to consider changing my view. The same goes for the many spins I’ve seen on what the bishops have said, to outright denials of what they said.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not really, the number has actually fluctuated within a common range over the last 30 years, as this professor noted. The 80’s had the post office shootings, the 90’s the school yard shootings, But the number has remained relatively constant.

boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html

http://boston.com/community/blogs/c...s Shootings 1980-2010-thumb-533x320-79419.jpg

The difference between us is that you seem to feel those ‘numbers’ are justified, so that you can keep your guns with as little controls as possible; including owning, and leaving easy access of, the ‘weapon’ of choice for most of those recent shooters, over the years, especially more recent years. For me, that is an unacceptable body count of innocent victims.