Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[Cor_Cordis]

There are what, 300,000,000 guns in the US? The only one you can defend with is the AR15?

On the contrary I’m defending it because that’s the one you are vilifying.

The AR15 is INVOLVED IN LESS THAN 2% OF ALL “ASSAULT WEAPONS CRIMES” - SO WHY ARE YOU PICKING ON IT?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Really?

Like the legislation that legalized abortion?

None of the legislation you are advocating would have prevented those mass shootings.

Yes, on this topic. They are two separate issues, and I am addressing the gun controls, which is the topic of this thread, or more precisely, the Cardinal’s call for controls.

What if grandfathered guns had been a part of the ban in Connecticut? Would Lanza’s mother have owned one? There’s no way to know if legislation would have prevented for certain.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

On the contrary I’m defending it because that’s the one you are vilifying.

The AR15 is INVOLVED IN LESS THAN 2% OF ALL “ASSAULT WEAPONS CRIMES” - SO WHY ARE YOU PICKING ON IT?

Because it seems to attract the psyches of those with a propensity to commit mass murder, and has proven deadly.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH This link will take you to:

2263 and 2264 speaks to individuals, and their families.

2265 speaks to, ‘those who legitimately hold authority.’ We see that again in 2266, ‘Legitimate public authority.’

Read the entire chapter.

Again:

Show me where the Catechism defined:

“necessary violence”

“repels force with moderation”

[2266 “The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67”]

Define this in secular legislative terms:

“curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.”

“Legitimate public authority”

Oh and, further gun legislation can actually violate several interpretations of this by making law abiding citizens LESS safe.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Could Lanza not have accomplished the same evil results with other weapons? Yes.

But if the school were secure and the teachers were armed - the loss of life would have been far less.

Do you think if the people involved in those other mass shootings were carrying concealed weapons the results would have been far less tragic? You betcha.

Could he have killed as many with a bolt action single shot? Probably not. Could he have killed as many with a 5 shot limit on load capacities? Maybe not.

Is it possible part of his problems were exacerbated when he held a military replica? Possibly.

I’m not against school security, by resource officers, but teachers shouldn’t have guns within a child’s reach, in my opinion.

Where were those concealed weapon deterrents with any of the mass shootings over the past 20 years?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Again:

Show me where the Catechism defined:

“necessary violence”

“repels force with moderation”

[2266 “The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67”]

Define this in secular legislative terms:

“curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.”

“Legitimate public authority”

Oh and, further gun legislation can actually violate several interpretations of this by making law abiding citizens LESS safe.

What is your point? I’m not playing ‘semantics’ with the Catechism.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

What if grandfathered guns had been a part of the ban in Connecticut? Would Lanza’s mother have owned one? There’s no way to know if legislation would have prevented for certain.

Could Lanza have wreaked the same destruction with a number of other weapons?

Yes.

After all, how hard would it be for an evil individual to shoot (or even stab to death) a mass of little defenseless children? God forbid.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to secure schools and arm teachers?

 

[Northumbrian]

But if the school were secure and the teachers were armed - the loss of life would have been far less.

Unless an assailant is aware that the techers are armed. Then that assailant will first neutralise a teacher who would be distracted and his or her weapon would be certainlly out of reach and/or on saftey. Then the assailant has an extra weapon and so on.

I am a teacher and I can guarantee you that when you are monitoring two dozen kids or more, your mind us not on potential gunmen and your guard is most certainly down (in strategic terms).

 

[jay29]

Could he have killed as many with a bolt action single shot? Probably not. Could he have killed as many with a 5 shot limit on load capacities? Maybe not.

Is it possible part of his problems were exacerbated when he held a military replica? Possibly.

I’m not against school security, by resource officers, but teachers shouldn’t have guns within a child’s reach, in my opinion.

Where were those concealed weapon deterrents with any of the mass shootings over the past 20 years?

I have never heard you once say you wanted to limit guns from criminals. You just want to limit those available to law abiding citizens.

You need to change people’s hearts or the game is lost.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Because it seems to attract the psyches of those with a propensity to commit mass murder, and has proven deadly.

Really?

What about the psychopath in China who stabbed 22 children with a knife?

And what happens when the psychopaths use hand guns with 7 round clips or they keep reloading their shot guns?

Then what?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Unless an assailant is aware that the techers are armed. Then that assailant will first neutralise a teacher who would be distracted and his or her weapon would be certainlly out of reach and/or on saftey. Then the assailant has an extra weapon and so on.

I am a teacher and I can guarantee you that when you are monitoring two dozen kids or more, your mind us not on potential gunmen and your guard is most certainly down (in strategic terms).

You assume the first teacher would be neutralized. And you also assume that in doing so the assailant wouldn’t alert other armed teachers and security personnel. All highly improbable with the proper training.

Your reasoning is flawed on several levels as a practical matter.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Could Lanza have wreaked the same destruction with a number of other weapons?

Yes.

After all, how hard would it be for an evil individual to shoot (or even stab to death) a mass of little defenseless children? God forbid.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to secure schools and arm teachers?

If limitations had been in place, beyond the reach of being grandfathered, Lanza may not have been able to inflict as much death, assuming his mother would have adhered to the laws.

The teachers acted valiantly, and could have run children away from a man with a knife, who certainly cannot inflict as much damage as he could with an AR15, with several 30 round magazines, as Lanza used.

I don’t think putting guns within a child’s reach is wise, especially within the reach of a group of children. I would agree with resource officers, but even then some schools are acres and acres large, and resource officers cannot be everywhere at once. Resource officers can also be shot.

For me, calling for more guns is what the Cardinal addresses as the cheapening of life that contributes to the culture of death. We must learn to think differently, again this is my opinion and agreement with the Cardinal.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

What is your point? I’m not playing ‘semantics’ with the Catechism.

“Semantics”?

I suggest you look up the meaning to that word.

It doesn’t mean what you think it does.

I’m asking for “specifics”. Especially in terms of practical legislation.

The Catechism references you cite are vague in these specified details.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

They don’t. Tom Cruise is Catholic. Hitler was Catholic. Luther was Catholic. We can’t judge people’s hearts.

Of course, that is why the Church is in the mess it is in. But it feels good to e-hug everyone.

Tom Cruise may have been raised and educated a Catholic, but he is an apostate. He has abandoned the true faith for the false prophet of Scientology. He is a big shot in their religious structure.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You assume the first teacher would be neutralized. And you also assume that in doing so the assailant wouldn’t alert other armed teachers and security personnel. All highly improbable with the proper training.

Your reasoning is flawed on several levels as a practical matter.

Aren’t you ‘assuming’ the government is going to confiscate all guns?

We train teachers to be teachers. I am a paramedic and our training for self preservation is to remain far removed from a dangerous situation until law enforcement can make the scene safe. If we are not safe, we cannot help anyone. We cannot shoot and make an attempt to save lives at the same time.

My reasoning is flawed ‘in your opinion.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have never heard you once say you wanted to limit guns from criminals. You just want to limit those available to law abiding citizens.

You need to change people’s hearts or the game is lost.

The objective of controls is to limit guns from criminals. You are wrong that I want to limit the law abiding; however, as a Christian, I think it minor sacrifices to try and save lives. No one is calling for a total eradication of guns.

We aren’t going to change hearts by telling them to change or we’ll shoot you.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

If limitations had been in place, beyond the reach of being grandfathered, Lanza may not have been able to inflict as much death, assuming his mother would have adhered to the laws.

Nonsense.

Several semiautomatic hand guns and a shot gun would have easily done the job with the same horrendous results. We are talking about small children. Their ability to defend themselves is minimal - as nauseating as it is to contemplate.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Really?

What about the psychopath in China who stabbed 22 children with a knife?

And what happens when the psychopaths use hand guns with 7 round clips or they keep reloading their shot guns?

Then what?

You use an isolated incident in China, now address the times of mass shootings in the US over the last 20 years.

What happens when terrorist get nukes? Hypothetical situations can be imagined with any end. Truth is, 30 round magazines, or 100 round drums, have no place in civilian hands. We’ve seen the reality of those. Every second could be another life saved.

I don’t see any controls taking away my ability to hunt, and have a home defense in the worst case scenario. They would be no more than minor inconveniences.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I don’t think putting guns within a child’s reach is wise, especially within the reach of a group of children.

Armed teachers could keep their weapons in a biometric finger print safe.

The children would be in no danger whatsoever.

 

[shipwrkd]

Where were those concealed weapon deterrents with any of the mass shootings over the past 20 years?

One was as the shopping mall and only two lives were lost.

I am a teacher and I can guarantee you that when you are monitoring two dozen kids or more, your mind us not on potential gunmen and your guard is most certainly down (in strategic terms)

If the building were properly secured you would have all the time in the world to focus on a shooter.
BTW, my previous question was never answered. How many planes have been hijacked since
the installation of secure cockpit doors…I’m still waiting on that one.