Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[scipio337]

Were those guns secure? If not, would a strict securing law have had any effect? There’s no insight for those who say nothing will work, or we have enough controls. We’re not going to figure out what would work if we do nothing.

CT already had secure gun storage laws.

8.2-23 Criminally Negligent Storage of a Firearm – § 53a-217a

Revised to December 1, 2007

The defendant is charged [in count __] with criminally negligent storage of a firearm. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm when (he/she) improperly stores a firearm1 and a minor obtains the firearm and causes the injury or death of (himself/herself) or any other person…

jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/Part8/8.2-23.htm

And an assault weapons ban:

Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. (a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d…

cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202c.htm

Oddly enough, shooting your sleeping mother in the head 4 times was also against the law in CT.

Again, I say, unless you plan on forced confiscation of these weapons (which I believe is President Obama and many others’ intent), such weapons will only penalize those that are law abiding.

 

[ProVobis]

exactly. in case someone REALLY would like to stop the mass shootings and not to use it as a pretext to faze out 2nd Amendment

It seems airports have already done just that.

 

[Ender]

Were those guns secure? If not, would a strict securing law have had any effect? There’s no insight for those who say nothing will work, or we have enough controls. We’re not going to figure out what would work if we do nothing.

Do you think Cardinal Dolan knows the answers to those questions? That’s the point here: if a person is not familiar with all of the laws we now have how can he possibly suggest that more laws are the solution? Nor has anyone suggested that we do nothing at all, but passing laws to see what will work looks very much like the argument Pelosi gave for passing Obamacare: “We have to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it.” This government already gave us one pig in a poke and I’m not interested in getting another.

Ender

 

[Least]

But controls won’t work without knowing what type controls, and the end result is very reliable evidence?

Mass shooters are picking up AR15s and killing a lot of people. That’s very evident.

And nowhere is it more evident than in countries where governments are using them against their own people, after attempting to limit their possession of firearms.

Anyone suggesting the limitation of the possession of firearms is stacking the deck in their favor in a civil war against their fellow citizens. You can say that’s not what it really is, but that’s what you’d say if you were trying to hide the fact so save it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you think Cardinal Dolan knows the answers to those questions? That’s the point here: if a person is not familiar with all of the laws we now have how can he possibly suggest that more laws are the solution? Nor has anyone suggested that we do nothing at all, but passing laws to see what will work looks very much like the argument Pelosi gave for passing Obamacare: “We have to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it.” This government already gave us one pig in a poke and I’m not interested in getting another.

Ender

The Cardinal’s statement are based on the use of the AR15, which resulted in the deaths of innocent people, and desired attempts to prevent similar future uses. That’s the reality. The most suggested controls are reasonable, in my opinion, and it appears in the opinion of Cardinal Dolan. The majority are not asking for an eradication of all guns. They are seeking better control of all guns, which is reasonable in the face of mass shootings.

Traffic laws change often, according to traffic, road conditions, development, etc. Other laws change accordingly. We’ve seen an increase of mass shootings recently. It’s time to try something else. Doing nothing is not acceptable.

I’m slowing down on this, and other similar threads. We’ve repeated ourselves ad nauseam, and neither side is going to change their view.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And nowhere is it more evident than in countries where governments are using them against their own people, after attempting to limit their possession of firearms.

Anyone suggesting the limitation of the possession of firearms is stacking the deck in their favor in a civil war against their fellow citizens. You can say that’s not what it really is, but that’s what you’d say if you were trying to hide the fact so save it.

I don’t see, or plan for, a civil war in the US. I don’t believe our Church teaches, or would support, such an action in a country like the US. I also believe the government’s weapons are much more effective than anything in an individual’s personal arsenal.

 

[SamH]

And nowhere is it more evident than in countries where governments are using them against their own people, after attempting to limit their possession of firearms.

Anyone suggesting the limitation of the possession of firearms is stacking the deck in their favor in a civil war against their fellow citizens. You can say that’s not what it really is, but that’s what you’d say if you were trying to hide the fact so save it.

Actually that would be case with AKs, most oppresive governments don’t bother with the over priced, over hyped under performing AR.

 

[scipio337]

…I’m slowing down on this, and other similar threads. We’ve repeated ourselves ad nauseam, and neither side is going to change their view.

Correct, and these proposals will not pass Congress.

 

[Ender]

The Cardinal’s statement are based on the use of the AR15, which resulted in the deaths of innocent people, and desired attempts to prevent similar future uses. That’s the reality.

Name a single proposal that if implemented would have affected the Newtown massacre in any way.

The most suggested controls are reasonable, in my opinion, and it appears in the opinion of Cardinal Dolan.

None of the suggestions would have made any difference in Newtown.

Traffic laws change often, according to traffic, road conditions, development, etc. Other laws change accordingly. We’ve seen an increase of mass shootings recently. It’s time to try something else. Doing nothing is not acceptable.

“Try something else” is not exactly what I expect the clergy to be suggesting if for no other reason that it tends to confirm the unchallenged assumption that more laws will resolve the issue. In fact if we really want to address the problem perhaps we should look a little more deeply at it. This article in Crisis Magazine is one such suggestion.

crisismagazine.com/2013/barriers-to-teaching-boys-how-to-become-men

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Name a single proposal that if implemented would have affected the Newtown massacre in any way.
None of the suggestions would have made any difference in Newtown.
“Try something else” is not exactly what I expect the clergy to be suggesting if for no other reason that it tends to confirm the unchallenged assumption that more laws will resolve the issue. In fact if we really want to address the problem perhaps we should look a little more deeply at it. This article in Crisis Magazine is one such suggestion.

crisismagazine.com/2013/barriers-to-teaching-boys-how-to-become-men

Ender

Because they wouldn’t have made a difference for past events, some very well could prevent some future events.

What would the outcome have been had mental disclosures been lawful, and required for everyone in the house, with access? If the AR15 had been banned, what would the outcome have been? If storage security measures had been stricter, would Lanza have had access to the guns?

For future events, requiring background checks/registrations on all sales, including private sales could have an impact. 40% of criminals gain possession through private sales, and family members.

Try something else, for the sake of your fellow man. That’s the message from the Cardinal.

 

[scipio337]

Name a single proposal that if implemented would have affected the Newtown massacre in any way.
None of the suggestions would have made any difference in Newtown.
“Try something else” is not exactly what I expect the clergy to be suggesting if for no other reason that it tends to confirm the unchallenged assumption that more laws will resolve the issue. In fact if we really want to address the problem perhaps we should look a little more deeply at it. This article in Crisis Magazine is one such suggestion.

crisismagazine.com/2013/barriers-to-teaching-boys-how-to-become-men

Ender

See “desired attempts to prevent”. The actual result is immaterial. You know, as long as those intentions are good, what could go wrong?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

See “desired attempts to prevent”. The actual result is immaterial. You know, as long as those intentions are good, what could go wrong?

Strange argument, in my opinion. Why would actual results be immaterial? That’s the same as people saying those for gun rights don’t care about people getting shot, which I have tried to correct, when I noticed it being said.

 

[SamH]

See “desired attempts to prevent”. The actual result is immaterial. You know, as long as those intentions are good, what could go wrong?

Kind of like a road I’ve heard about.

 

[scipio337]

…What would the outcome have been had mental disclosures been lawful, and required for everyone in the house, with access?

Those are already required for the purchaser. You want a mental test for everyone in the household? How many thought criminals will we catch?

Some animals are more equal than others.
Prodigal Son1:

If the AR15 had been banned, what would the outcome have been?

Perhaps you missed this the four other times I’ve posted it in this thread, but AR15s WERE ALREADY BANNED IN CONNETICUT. They had an “assault weapons ban” on the books.

Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. (a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d…

cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202c.htm

Or are you advocating the ban, AND CONFISCATION of those weapons? Please note again, they were ALREADY banned in CT. The Lanza AR was grandfathered.
Prodigal Son1:

If storage security measures had been stricter, would Lanza have had access to the guns?

Again, security laws were ALREADY in place in CT:

.2-23 Criminally Negligent Storage of a Firearm – § 53a-217a

Revised to December 1, 2007

The defendant is charged [in count __] with criminally negligent storage of a firearm. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm when (he/she) improperly stores a firearm1 and a minor obtains the firearm and causes the injury or death of (himself/herself) or any other person.

jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/Part8/8.2-23.htm

The only thing CT lacked was a “high capacity magazine ban”. These laws were already on the books, and had no effect on this crime.

 

[SamH]

The only thing CT lacked was a “high capacity magazine ban”. These laws were already on the books, and had no effect on this crime.

The “high capacity” magazines actually saved lives at Columbine, Aurora, and Clackamas when they failed and caused the rifle to jam. As of yet the firearm(s) used in CT has yet to be officially determined.

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting in the US since 1950 in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Those are already required for the purchaser. You want a mental test for everyone in the household? How many thought criminals will we catch

I didn’t say mental test, I said mental disclosures, being legal and considered in a background check. Right now, privacy laws prevent such disclosures. Yes, if a person has access it must be disclosed. The same should apply to a household with a convicted felon living in the residence.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Like the ‘thought criminal’, I don’t know what you’re saying about animals.

Perhaps you missed this the four other times I’ve posted it in this thread, but AR15s WERE ALREADY BANNED IN CONNETICUT. They had an “assault weapons ban” on the books.

Or are you advocating the ban, AND CONFISCATION of those weapons? Please note again, they were ALREADY banned in CT. The Lanza AR was grandfathered.

I would not be opposed to ALL assault weapons being illegal, in light of what happened there.

Again, security laws were in place in CT:

Then the law needs to be modified, wouldn’t you agree?

The only thing CT lacked was a “high capacity magazine ban”. These laws were already on the books, and had no effect on this crime.

As I said, modifications are needed, wouldn’t you agree that modifications might do more than doing nothing?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The “high capacity” magazines actually saved lives at Columbine, Aurora, and Clackamas when they failed and caused the rifle to jam. As of yet the firearm(s) used in CT has yet to be officially determined.

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting in the US since 1950 in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

The coroner, and state police, have stated that the majority of wounds were typical of a high powered rifle, and not a handgun.

 

[scipio337]

I would not be opposed to ALL assault weapons being illegal, in light of what happened there.

They ALREADY were. Why do you continue to ignore this? Do you support confiscation of these weapons, because, as I mentioned…

Conneticut ALREADY had an “assault weapons ban”, the Lanza rifle was grandfathered in.
Prodigal Son1:

Then the law needs to be modified, wouldn’t you agree?

Why? They’re already in place. Would Nancy Lanza charged with a felony, posthumously?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

They ALREADY were. Why do you continue to ignore this? Do you support confiscation of these weapons, because, as I mentioned…

Conneticut ALREADY had an “assault weapons ban”, the Lanza rifle was grandfathered in.

Why? They’re already in place. Would Nancy Lanza charged with a felony, posthumously?

I got it the first time. If ‘grandfathered’ weapons are a problem, then a resolution must be sought.

Why? Because if the laws had been stricter, maybe the mother would have had the weapons secured.

People are saying, ‘there are enough laws and laws don’t work.’ Doing nothing won’t work either. I’d much rather err on the side of potential innocent victims. You’re showing ‘gaps’ in the system, I’m recommending closing those gaps.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The “high capacity” magazines actually saved lives at Columbine, Aurora, and Clackamas when they failed and caused the rifle to jam. As of yet the firearm(s) used in CT has yet to be officially determined.

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting in the US since 1950 in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

Dec. 27, 2012, the RedState posted:

Setting the Record Straight: Adam Lanza Did use the Bushmaster AR-15

The fact is, Adam Lanza used a handgun to take his own life, but he relied on the Bushmaster AR-15 to kill most of the victims. He did use that gun. You don’t have to believe me. Believe Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance:

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.