Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Brendan]

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.

I never said that there was such a thing as an ‘acceptable body’ count.
You, on the other hand, made a false statement that I corrected.

Here is your statement "What is becoming common are the mass shootings, of people of ALL ages. "

But that is not factually correct.

I presume that we are to base any rational discussion on factual data, should we not.

 

[Brendan]

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?

The American culture has always been gun focused. That is why high schools had shooting clubs.

What changed was not the guns, but the culture. So we can likewise change the culture back. If the culture was changed to what the Church and God intend, then no one would care what the magazine size was in your rifle, or what it looked like. Everyone would use them for just purposes, so by definition, there would be no need for gun control at all.

THAT is the society we are to work for.

You’re not defending against the Nazis

. The great thing about Natural Moral Law and Catholic Moral Theology is that we hold that Moral Truth is unchanging. We are not Moral Relativists who hold that what is moral changes. If the defense of the Warsaw getto was moral using man made materials, then other defense is moral.

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.

And your point is what?

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

Looking for cover is a valid tactic. I taught and practiced that in the Army, and police do it as well. Look for cover, identify the threat, respond accordingly.

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

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

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,

Yes, they used a tool designed to kill prairie dogs. You have mentioned to several people that you think they accept a body count. I claim that you only care about the weapon, not the lives lost. Would it have really mattered if they used a shotgun ( and the Aurora CO shooter DID use the shotgun AND the handgun in addition to the AR).

Was that acceptable to you then, or is it just people killed by AR’s that you care about?

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.

The Warsaw uprising was not imaginary, and elderly women defending themselves with firearms is not imaginary either.

And there is no ‘spin’, that is really only coming from you. As evidence of that, I point out that you have not answered the question that I posed

So I will ask again. Is an 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?

These are the types of questions that Moral Theologians discuss. If you want to talk the Moral Theology of the Church, please answer the question.

If not, why are you here? Do you think that what the Church teaches has no Moral foundation

 

[Ender]

They provided the Newtown massacre as a ‘rationale’.

This is not a rationale for anything, it is an appeal to emotion. “Do something” is not an argument for or against anything in particular. If Newtown is the reason for calling for more gun control then explain what new proposals might have prevented this incident.

We can listen to the bishops, or the NRA. We all have free will.

This is a really offensive comment and I think the bishops are largely responsible for it inasmuch as it is the inevitable byproduct of their involvement in this issue. They have made vague, generic comments and left it up to people like yourself to fill in the details however you will - while giving the ennobling but mistaken impression that you are doing the Church’s good work in the face of implacable opposition from willfully disobedient, cafeteria-style Catholics like myself. I hold them accountable for your uncharitable comments because by making this appear to be a clash of moral values rather than practical considerations they have already divided the public into two camps - the good and the bad. You’ve just expounded on that theme.

According to your opinion.

Which is sufficient as no one is obligated to assent to the opinions of anyone else.

Ender

 

[SamH]

This is not a rationale for anything, it is an appeal to emotion. “Do something” is not an argument for or against anything in particular. If Newtown is the reason for calling for more gun control then explain what new proposals might have prevented this incident.

Good luck getting an answer to that.

The only effective proposal that has been present was by the NRA. Or they could go the cheap route and simply end the “Gun Free School Zone Act” before more children are killed by it.

 

[Ender]

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

What element of the Moral Law was broken in that transaction? If no 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.

I don’t think this argument is sufficient to make your point; sometimes things that are morally neutral for an individual may be justifiably banned by the State. Banning liquor is such an example. Prohibition was a colossal failure but we still have dry counties and there is nothing immoral about such laws, so while the purchase of alcohol for a proper use by an adult is not per se immoral it would be immoral if there was a law prohibiting it and such a law could be justifiable.

Ender

 

[meme1961]

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.

Actually, doing “nothing” is entirely appropriate if something has already been done.

There are more than 20,000 gun control laws on the books, none of which stopped Newton.

And I think you misunderstand the authority of a Bishop. He instructs on matters of morals and moral philosophy, but we have not only the right, but the obligation to exercise our conscience when it comes to matters of policy.

Your interpretation of this issue seems to land heavily on the “we must obey the POLICY prescriptions of the Bishop(s)”, but in point of fact, we must DISOBEY the policy prescriptions if they run contrary to the moral teaching.

The teaching is basic: “sanctity of life.” The policy prescriptions, as you seem to interpret them, run counter to that teaching, in that disarming people will RESULT in the loss of life. Thus in obedience to the teaching authority of the Bishops, I submit to the philosophy, but disagree with what I see as a tendentious interpretation of their rather abstract policy prescriptions.

I even obey their policy prescriptions in that I support laws that restrict the ownership of guns by the violent mentally ill, and felons, and I obey their moral teaching by advocating for “must issue” CCWP, and encouraging society to take their responsibility to protect their own lives, and the lives of those around them seriously, and to act in accordance to the seriousness of that responsibility.

Furthermore, I follow their moral teaching by encouraging society to return to a time when a child carrying a rifle into a school after a morning hunt, then storing it in his locker during class, or a man carrying a gun into a supermarket, was normal. This caused no concern, and was common behavior in urban and rural areas. Schools had rifle ranges, and engaged in competitive shooting contests with other school’s teams.

Yes, there was a time when this didn’t cause concern, because children were taught to safely use guns, to respect the sanctity of life, and to take responsibility for themselves and those around them.

Gun control is a tiny band-aid on the gaping wound that has been inflicted on our society by the destruction of our culture, our society, and our system of moral teaching and living. Gun control, or any other kind of “focus on the symptom, not the problem”, will do nothing, while only encouraging the underlying disease to progress by giving the illusion of “treatment.”

In short, I obey the Bishop’s moral teaching, but not necessarily YOUR interpretation of their policy prescriptions.

 

[meme1961]

Good luck getting an answer to that.

The only effective proposal that has been present was by the NRA. Or they could go the cheap route and simply end the “Gun Free School Zone Act” before more children are killed by it.

How about establishing the principle of legal liability for those who restrict the right to self-defense on their property?

If you post a “Gun-Free Zone” sign, or institute a policy that restrict the self-defense rights of those who enter your premises, you assume the responsibility and all reasonable legal liability for the security of those persons who legally enter your premises.

The penalties for failing to provide a reasonable level of security would be exactly the same for any other case of negligent homicide.

 

[meme1961]

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.

Nonsense. Prayer and moral teaching are the only effective controls, the only measures that “make guns safer”. But of course, the whole focus on guns is irrational.

By the law of logical exclusion, the problem is never the gun. It is always the person.

So no law aimed at guns is going to solve the true problem.

And seriously, your last statement is so clearly a false dichotomy that I wonder that you bothered to post it.

The right to self defense is not limited to the use of “non-man made” weapons only, and it takes but one question to demonstrate your mistake: So, is an AR-15 supernatural?

There are reasonable restrictions on the use of arms. These restrictions are a logical consequence of the moral teachings of the Church. To wit: a “arm” must be intrinsically capable of targeting an enemy with a clear and valid belief that the innocent will not be unduly put at risk.

In other words, “gun control” means hitting what you aim at, and only taking aim and pulling the trigger when you are morally certain that you are defending the sanctity of life.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, doing “nothing” is entirely appropriate if something has already been done.
.

So, after 9/11, we shouldn’t have increased national security laws, because we already had laws on the books?

The topic of the thread is referencing the bishops focus on responsible restrictions on gun ownership. They spoke clearly and we don’t need ‘interpretations’. We can accept what they say, or not.

 

[meme1961]

I was asked privately what “logical exclusion” means in reference to this discussion.

Consider three scenarios:

1. A man with an AR-15 shoots 10 innocent children.
2. A man with an AR-15 carries it into a store, buys a gallon of milk, then leaves.
3. A man with an AR-15 shoots a homicidal maniac dead after the maniac shoots two innocent children.

The first scenario is morally wrong, the second morally neutral, the third morally good.

Note the unchanging attribute of each scenario: the AR-15. In the principle of logical exclusion, if a factor, attribute or property is unchanging across three mutually exclusive conclusions, then it has not controlling effect on the conclusion.

In other words, the AR-15 is logically excluded from being a factor in the moral equation. IOW, the gun is irrelevant.

By the way, AR is not short for “assault rifle”. No mass murder in recent memory involved an assault rifle. AR is short for “Armalite Rifle”. And assault rifle is a selective fire rifle (in other words, it has a “machine gun” setting), usually manufactured to military specifications for use in specific combat scenarios. There’s more to it than that, but the point is that the use of “assault rifle” is both factually incorrect, and inflammatory.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nonsense. Prayer and moral teaching are the only effective controls, the only measures that “make guns safer”. But of course, the whole focus on guns is irrational.

By the law of logical exclusion, the problem is never the gun. It is always the person.

So no law aimed at guns is going to solve the true problem.

And seriously, your last statement is so clearly a false dichotomy that I wonder that you bothered to post it.

The right to self defense is not limited to the use of “non-man made” weapons only, and it takes but one question to demonstrate your mistake: So, is an AR-15 supernatural?

There are reasonable restrictions on the use of arms. These restrictions are a logical consequence of the moral teachings of the Church. To wit: a “arm” must be intrinsically capable of targeting an enemy with a clear and valid belief that the innocent will not be unduly put at risk.

In other words, “gun control” means hitting what you aim at, and only taking aim and pulling the trigger when you are morally certain that you are defending the sanctity of life.

Support legislation is more than prayer and moral teaching. The bishops were clear.

I’m out of the discussion. I’m not here to try and out cliche, condescend, or out quip someone with witticisms. That’s not constructive, and I feel it lacks the principles required of all believers.

God Bless

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Consider three scenarios:

1. A man with an AR-15 shoots 10 innocent children.
2. A man with an AR-15 carries it into a store, buys a gallon of milk, then leaves.
3. A man with an AR-15 shoots a homicidal maniac dead after the maniac shoots two innocent children.

The first scenario is morally wrong, the second morally neutral, the third morally good.

We have several instances of the first. Show sources for the actual times that weapon was used as a moral good.

 

[stevegravy]

This is not a rationale for anything, it is an appeal to emotion. “Do something” is not an argument for or against anything in particular. If Newtown is the reason for calling for more gun control then explain what new proposals might have prevented this incident.
This is a really offensive comment and I think the bishops are largely responsible for it inasmuch as it is the inevitable byproduct of their involvement in this issue. They have made vague, generic comments and left it up to people like yourself to fill in the details however you will - while giving the ennobling but mistaken impression that you are doing the Church’s good work in the face of implacable opposition from willfully disobedient, cafeteria-style Catholics like myself. I hold them accountable for your uncharitable comments because by making this appear to be a clash of moral values rather than practical considerations they have already divided the public into two camps - the good and the bad. You’ve just expounded on that theme.
Which is sufficient as no one is obligated to assent to the opinions of anyone else.

Ender

:tiphat:

 

[Brendan]

We have several instances of the first. Show sources for the actual times that weapon was used as a moral good.

khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html

wistv.com/story/19236842/gun-shop-owner-shoots-kills-man-during-attempted-robbery

13wham.com/news/local/story/Homeowners-Scare-Off-Burglars/7yaLSXAvCUGBkwgAZpGO4g.cspx

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html

wistv.com/story/19236842/gun-shop-owner-shoots-kills-man-during-attempted-robbery

13wham.com/news/local/story/Homeowners-Scare-Off-Burglars/7yaLSXAvCUGBkwgAZpGO4g.cspx

That’s it? Two ‘bad guys’ stopped, two morally goods. How many times have those ‘weapons’ been used in morally wrongs, and what is the body count currently at?

BTW, it’s acceptable to call them ‘assault rifles’ in those instances, but not when a mass shooter goes on a spree?

Edited to add: oh, you added a third while I was responding. Keep searching and maybe we can call it justified once we have as many bad guys stopped, as we do mass shootings and victims.

 

[Brendan]

That’s it? Two ‘bad guys’ stopped, two morally goods. How many times have those ‘weapons’ been used in morally wrongs, and what is the body count currently at?

BTW, it’s acceptable to call them ‘assault rifles’ in those instances, but not when a mass shooter goes on a spree?

Edited to add: oh, you added a third while I was responding. Keep searching and maybe we can call it justified once we have as many bad guys stopped, as we do mass shootings and victims.

All it takes is one.

Your question was answered and meme’s point was thus proven

And thus I don’t need to spend anymore time searching.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

All it takes is one.

Your question was answered and meme’s point was thus proven

And thus I don’t need to spend anymore time searching.

So one bad guy stopped makes 27 an acceptable body count, not counting the theater, mall, or first responders? I see how it works now, but disagree and will stand with my view.

Been around the circle enough. I believe I understand the bishops, and Vatican, clearly, and will act accordingly.

I’m done with the discussions, and picking on the ‘poor, innocent, harmless guns.’

 

[Brendan]

So one bad guy stopped makes 27 an acceptable body count, not counting the theater, mall, or first responders? I see how it works now, but disagree and will stand with my view.:

You were the one who asked for examples of when the AR was used for a moral good.

You did not ask for specific body counts in your request.

Meme’s point was proven and the only counter argument you can offer is relativism?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You were the one who asked for examples of when the AR was used for a moral good.

You did not ask for specific body counts in your request.

Meme’s point was proven and the only counter argument you can offer is relativism?

Relativism? Ad hominem much?

No, I asked for examples knowing the moral wrong of those guns outweighs the moral good being espoused in these discussion. That point is more than proven.

I’m done with the closed minded discussions, with snipes of ad hominems, that don’t add one way or the other to the discussion. The discussion deserves substance and not imagined ‘witticisms’ that only seem to seek the approval of like minds on a subject.

God Bless,

UNSUBSCRIBED

 

[Brendan]

Relativism? Ad hominem much?

No ad hominem, as it was directed at your response to the logic meme presented

No, I asked for examples knowing the moral wrong of those guns outweighs the moral good being espoused in these discussion. That point is more than proven.

As meme showed, the AR itself is not the determining factor to the morality of the situation.

In other words, the AR is morally meaningless.

I’m done with the closed minded discussions, with snipes of ad hominems, that don’t add one way or the other to the discussion.

Prodigal, what is being presented here are logical arguments formulated in the same way that Aquinas presents his arguments.

That is how Catholics discuss morality, by the intrinsic nature of objectivity, not relativism.

The AR and its possession, are morally neutral, what you are attempting to show is simply not supportable by logical argument.