Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not necessarily.

From whom do they buy them? People who will require background checks or from people who will not?

What percentage of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family or the street?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street.

I would think that more people would require background checks if there was an accountability, penalty of law, factored in. Right now, I don’t know of any requirements for background checks between family and friends?

 

[mtbender]

I read that 40% of criminals obtain guns through private sales. If background checks/registrations were required of all sales, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that number to go down?

I’d be curious as to how the other 60% of criminals were getting there’s… without knowing the answer I would presume the 40% would join the other 60%…

 

[meltzerboy]

If a Melee ensued in the garden that evening history would have undoubtably recorded the actuality of it in a completely different light, as the history of the conquered is often quickly overwritten by the glorious account of the conquerors. BUT, If a Melee ensued in the garden, JESUS would not fulfill the Old Testament. JESUS stayed Peter only so far that JESUS could accomplish that fulfillment. If any portion of that related event was ‘evil’ it would have only been that satan had subverted JESUS’ efforts to fullfil the WORD OF GOD. JESUS effectively ‘reset the shot-clock’ and restarted the event on HIS terms, by halting Peter’s progress, and restoring the ear to the head of the slave. JESUS fully took command of the situation and HIS own destiny.

“Sword” vs. “butcher knife” - you are reaching. Peter was personally ARMED. JESUS had instructed his Apostles to be-so, so whatever Peter had on him that evening, he was “packing” in a manner the he believed satisfied his LORD. Further, Peter was able to STRIKE THE MAN’S HEAD AND CLEAVE HIS EAR FROM IT. Sounds like a stand-off weapon to me (a/k/a “sword”).

Also, JESUS never told Peter that he was wrong, or that he did wrong, JESUS did not write the sin on the ground, or instruct satan to “get behind ME.”

The bible is also often improperly quoted 'if your neighbor strikes you, turn the other cheek," The bible actually cites “strikes your right cheek.” Since it was a monetarily punishable crime to touch/strike someone with their left hand, a person would be striking with their right-hand. Therefore if your neighbor strikes your right cheek with their right hand THEY WILL BE BACK-HANDING YOU. You are instructed to stand-up for yourself. Turn your other cheek and say “let’s go.”

I once heard that interpretation of the verse about turning the other cheek by a Protestant theologian. Very interesting perspective. Is this the standard interpretation according to Catholic scholars?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I read that 40% of criminals obtain guns through private sales. If background checks/registrations were required of all sales, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that number to go down?

40% statistic about guns being obtained without a background check is as old as… 1994?

The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

A “Fact” About Gun Sales That Does Not Hold Up

 

[Least]

I once heard that interpretation of the verse about turning the other cheek by a Protestant theologian. Very interesting perspective. Is this the standard interpretation according to Catholic scholars?

• Meltzerboy

I can’t pretend to be a scholar of any ilk, I too heard it from a Protestant, and it’s logic seems to hold water to me. Please GOD let me not cause even a ripple in the flock nor be another’s Balaam.

In any case, the Apostles, while being beaten and stoned everywhere they went, they had to fight back a little or it would be recorded that _______ went out into the desert, and he was never heard from again. FULLY afforded the GRACE OF GOD, each would still need to uphold their own dignity, or they would appear themselves to be GOD in the way GOD would be compelled to protect them.

Nowhere in the bible does it say “bend over and take-it.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

40% statistic about guns being obtained without a background check is as old as… 1994?

The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

A “Fact” About Gun Sales That Does Not Hold Up

Even if the number were ‘rounded’ up, it would seem reasonable that requiring background checks of all purchases would lower the number. I wouldn’t have an expectation of a complete stop, but lessening seems a reasonable objective.

Someone ask, or suggested, that the 40% would move into the 60% column, of which the link says that ‘40%’ purchase through illegal sources. That would require some unique ‘networking’, to say the least. It also seems it would aid enforcement, if that number of criminals were seeking those ‘illegal sources.’

 

[Ridgerunner]

What percentage of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family or the street?

I would think that more people would require background checks if there was an accountability, penalty of law, factored in. Right now, I don’t know of any requirements for background checks between family and friends?

The article you cited says this:

“According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street.”

I’m not sure how many criminals’ “friends” or family are also of a criminal sort, but one would think it not insignificant. And another 40% obtain them from street sources, also illegal. So, one would doubt that 80% of criminals’ firearms are likely to be interdicted by tougher laws on illegal sales, since, according to the article, the penalty is already 10 years and a quarter million dollar fine. Does anyone really think raising it to 20 years and a half million dollar fine, for instance, would change anything?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If a Melee ensued in the garden that evening history would have undoubtably recorded the actuality of it in a completely different light, as the history of the conquered is often quickly overwritten by the glorious account of the conquerors. BUT, If a Melee ensued in the garden, JESUS would not fulfill the Old Testament. JESUS stayed Peter only so far that JESUS could accomplish that fulfillment. If any portion of that related event was ‘evil’ it would have only been that satan had subverted JESUS’ efforts to fullfil the WORD OF GOD. JESUS effectively ‘reset the shot-clock’ and restarted the event on HIS terms, by halting Peter’s progress, and restoring the ear to the head of the slave. JESUS fully took command of the situation and HIS own destiny.

“Sword” vs. “butcher knife” - you are reaching. Peter was personally ARMED. JESUS had instructed his Apostles to be-so, so whatever Peter had on him that evening, he was “packing” in a manner the he believed satisfied his LORD. Further, Peter was able to STRIKE THE MAN’S HEAD AND CLEAVE HIS EAR FROM IT. Sounds like a stand-off weapon to me (a/k/a “sword”).

Also, JESUS never told Peter that he was wrong, or that he did wrong, JESUS did not write the sin on the ground, or instruct satan to “get behind ME.”

The bible is also often improperly quoted 'if your neighbor strikes you, turn the other cheek," The bible actually cites “strikes your right cheek.” Since it was a monetarily punishable crime to touch/strike someone with their left hand, a person would be striking with their right-hand. Therefore if your neighbor strikes your right cheek with their right hand THEY WILL BE BACK-HANDING YOU. You are instructed to stand-up for yourself. Turn your other cheek and say “let’s go.”

I am not reaching, but sharing the ‘reach’ of St. Chrysostom. Cornelius Lapide, and St. Chrysostom are acceptable sources for aiding Catholic interpretation. It is reasonable to think that the ‘sword’ was a knife used for the Paschal lamb, especially in light of them just coming from the Paschal meal with the Lord.

Jesus did tell Peter that he who took up the sword would perish by the sword. Jesus also healed the servant struck by Peter, thereby reversing the action.

There are a lot more commentary, from some of the Church fathers, but it would fill this thread and much more a single post. I would not be arguing my understanding with the greatest majority of them.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The article you cited says this:

“According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street.”

I’m not sure how many criminals’ “friends” or family are also of a criminal sort, but one would think it not insignificant. And another 40% obtain them from street sources, also illegal. So, one would doubt that 80% of criminals’ firearms are likely to be interdicted by tougher laws on illegal sales, since, according to the article, the penalty is already 10 years and a quarter million dollar fine. Does anyone really think raising it to 20 years and a half million dollar fine, for instance, would change anything?

I think the change would be including accountability on those who transfer ownership of guns without background checks/registrations, if they become required of all sales to include ‘private sales’. The article lacks a lot, I’ll agree. I’d like to know how many ‘criminals’ were ‘criminal’ before obtaining the gun?

 

[scipio337]

The article you cited says this:

“According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street.”

I’m not sure how many criminals’ “friends” or family are also of a criminal sort, but one would think it not insignificant. And another 40% obtain them from street sources, also illegal. So, one would doubt that 80% of criminals’ firearms are likely to be interdicted by tougher laws on illegal sales, since, according to the article, the penalty is already 10 years and a quarter million dollar fine. Does anyone really think raising it to 20 years and a half million dollar fine, for instance, would change anything?

In other words, 80% of gun crimes are committed with a weapon obtained through a “straw buyer” (who does go through a background check, est 40%), and another est 40% are with weapons obtained on the black market (with no background check).

How will demanding background checks for all transactions (including my gradfather passing his WWI rifle to me) stop this. Will straw purchasers suddenly require a background check for the felons they are purchasing for?

I’m not sure I’m following this logic.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I wonder if in 1000 years or so, scholars will debate whether the inclusion of a person’s right to use a weapon against someone in the Gospels is original or not.

This business of every conservative value being part of the church is a little dangerous. If you are pro-life, be pro-life.

I am very pro-life. But since you are making up the definition as you see fit, let’s re-write your post correctly.
*
I wonder if in 1000 years or so, scholars will debate whether the denial of a person’s right to use a weapon against someone in order to preserve life in the Gospels is original or not.

This business of every liberal value being part of the church is a little dangerous. If you are pro-life, be pro-life*

How’s that work?

 

[Actaeon]

In other words, 80% of gun crimes are committed with a weapon obtained through a “straw buyer” (who does go through a background check, est 40%), and another est 40% are with weapons obtained on the black market (with no background check).

How will demanding background checks for all transactions (including my gradfather passing his WWI rifle to me) stop this. Will straw purchasers suddenly require a background check for the felons they are purchasing for?

I’m not sure I’m following this logic.

I think there’s already a system in place for this: when you purchase a firearm online, the seller is required to send the firearm to a Class C federally licensed firearms dealer. That dealer then files a transfer, including a background check.

The way you handle eliminating private sale of guns to criminals is to require firearms transfer through a dealer, and then that firearm is registered with that dealer as having been transferred to the new person. If a crime is committed with a gun, and the person did NOT go through a dealer to formally transfer the weapon, then they should face penalties (accessory to murder charges and additional charges for illegal sale of a weapon). Because this is a service already offered by dealers, there’s no structural reason why it couldn’t be implemented across the board.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Why is this turning into an all or nothing? Cardinal Dolan is not saying guns should be banned. He is saying that reasonalble gun control is in accordance with Church teaching. I’m not sure why anyone would argue against that.

Which is as pointless as telling Americans that the Church endorses responsible immigration policies.

Well, no duh.

It’s when we are all done agreeing and we move to discuss the details of what responsible immigration policies are or what reasonable gun control is that we lose each other.

How can anyone disagree with a Bishop that is is being intentionally broad, vague, and non-specific?

 

[scipio337]

I think there’s already a system in place for this: when you purchase a firearm online, the seller is required to send the firearm to a Class C federally licensed firearms dealer. That dealer then files a transfer, including a background check.

The way you handle eliminating private sale of guns to criminals is to require firearms transfer through a dealer, and then that firearm is registered with that dealer as having been transferred to the new person. If a crime is committed with a gun, and the person did NOT go through a dealer to formally transfer the weapon, then they should face penalties (accessory to murder charges and additional charges for illegal sale of a weapon). Because this is a service already offered by dealers, there’s no structural reason why it couldn’t be implemented across the board.

So we’re moving the goal posts from “background checks” to “registration”? And what is to keep black market sales or straw buyer purchases? It’s already a felony (in most states) to do so.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In other words, 80% of gun crimes are committed with a weapon obtained through a “straw buyer” (who does go through a background check, est 40%), and another est 40% are with weapons obtained on the black market (with no background check).

How will demanding background checks for all transactions (including my gradfather passing his WWI rifle to me) stop this. Will straw purchasers suddenly require a background check for the felons they are purchasing for?

I’m not sure I’m following this logic.

Your grandfather or his estate would be obliged to do a background check on you and report the sale or gift. Criminals, of course, wouldn’t do that because they’re already criminals or intend to be. So the pain in the rear if you do, and the criminalization if you don’t, make you and your grandfather “collateral damage” of a “social engineering drone strike” that missed its target.

Sorry about that, old buddy.

 

[SamH]

How will demanding background checks for all transactions (including my gradfather passing his WWI rifle to me) stop this. Will straw purchasers suddenly require a background check for the felons they are purchasing for?

I’m not sure I’m following this logic.

That’s not surprising - the trail of “logic” is faint to non existant in this situation.

 

[MattinTex]

Since Cardinal Dolan incorporated this:

I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm. That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts.

It is very difficult for me to believe he is saying anything other than “do something.” Which is not terribly helpful to either side.

Frankly, I fail to see how his comments move the issue forward either for Obama’s and Feinstein’s specific proposals or in favor of NRA’s suggestion that mental health should be more carefully considered, funded, and treated.

 

[J_Peterson]

The bible is also often improperly quoted 'if your neighbor strikes you, turn the other cheek," The bible actually cites “strikes your right cheek.” Since it was a monetarily punishable crime to touch/strike someone with their left hand, a person would be striking with their right-hand. Therefore if your neighbor strikes your right cheek with their right hand THEY WILL BE BACK-HANDING YOU. You are instructed to stand-up for yourself. Turn your other cheek and say “let’s go.”

I’m reading Pope Benedict’s book on Jesus and he failed to mention this interpretation. I wonder why?

What did St. Peter do when faced with an unjust government? He didn’t take up arms and fight, he requested to be crucified upside down.

 

[ringil]

Nothin’ to see here folks- just Prudential Judgment- move along please.

 

[scipio337]

Nothin’ to see here folks- just Prudential Judgment- move along please.

1. The lay faithful should act according to the dictates of prudence, the virtue that makes it possible to discern the true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means for achieving it. Thanks to this virtue, moral principles are applied correctly to particular cases. We can identify three distinct moments as prudence is exercised to clarify and evaluate situations, to inspire decisions and to prompt action. The first moment is seen in the reflection and consultation by which the question is studied and the necessary opinions sought. The second moment is that of evaluation, as the reality is analyzed and judged in the light of God’s plan. The third moment, that of decision, is based on the preceding steps and makes it possible to choose between the different actions that may be taken.

I think the term you may be looking for is “false analogy”.