Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[styrgwillidar]

…
Actually - we already have “reasonable restrictions”.

• Well, depending on jurisdiction I would disagree. I do not believe gun-free zones are reasonable. They have been proven disastrous in practice, and I find it morally unreasonable to deny people the means to defend themselves. If Chicago has the highest gun-crime than extending their restrictions to the rest of the country is not reasonable.
• CAs restrictions on magazine capacity, detachable magazines on semi-automatic shotguns and rifles makes it extremely difficult to comply with storage laws and have a weapon available promptly. That is, I can store a detachable magazine shotgun/rifle and load it quickly at the sound of a break-in/dog barking/alarm, whereas having to feed a stripper clip/individual load a weapon is far more difficult under stress/disorientation when waking. (both are less than the ideal of storing the weapon loaded, round in chamber)

And we already have “measures that control the sale and use of firearms”

And we already have “sensible regulations on handguns”

• Depending on jurisdiction, again I would disagree. For examlpe, California’s restrictions on handguns are unreasonable. they have shown no effect on crime, only infringe on the law-abiding. The unreasonable restriction to reduced capacity magazines make it more difficult to defend in a home invasion/multiple opponent scenario.
• The CCW laws in CA are unjust. They result in people being treated unequally based on where they live. Having no state-wide standard for issue they promote corruption- the approval of CCW for the privileged/those with access while denying the means of defense to those most at risk. Women who have been violently abused whose attackers are still free/ or will be released. People living in high crime areas etc.
• Since states with shall-issue CCWs have seen the largest crime drops, it is logical that these would be the ‘reasonable restrictions’.
• Further, the law has had the unintended effect of pushing manufacturers to produce far more easily concealed handguns since they are limited to reduced capacity magazines.

“In addition to that, we need to make a serious commitment to address the pervasive role that addiction and mental illness have in crime,” she said in the wake of the horrendous events of Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children, six educators and the heavily armed gunman who attacked the school dead."

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Cor Cordis;10420457:

…
Actually - we already have “reasonable restrictions”.

• Well, depending on jurisdiction I would disagree. I do not believe gun-free zones are reasonable. They have been proven disastrous in practice, and I find it morally unreasonable to deny people the means to defend themselves. If Chicago has the highest gun-crime than extending their restrictions to the rest of the country is not reasonable.
• CAs restrictions on magazine capacity, detachable magazines on semi-automatic shotguns and rifles makes it extremely difficult to comply with storage laws and have a weapon available promptly. That is, I can store a detachable magazine shotgun/rifle and load it quickly at the sound of a break-in/dog barking/alarm, whereas having to feed a stripper clip/individual load a weapon is far more difficult under stress/disorientation when waking. (both are less than the ideal of storing the weapon loaded, round in chamber)

And we already have “measures that control the sale and use of firearms”

And we already have “sensible regulations on handguns”

• Depending on jurisdiction, again I would disagree. For examlpe, California’s restrictions on handguns are unreasonable. they have shown no effect on crime, only infringe on the law-abiding. The unreasonable restriction to reduced capacity magazines make it more difficult to defend in a home invasion/multiple opponent scenario.
• The CCW laws in CA are unjust. They result in people being treated unequally based on where they live. Having no state-wide standard for issue they promote corruption- the approval of CCW for the privileged/those with access while denying the means of defense to those most at risk. Women who have been violently abused whose attackers are still free/ or will be released. People living in high crime areas etc.
• Since states with shall-issue CCWs have seen the largest crime drops, it is logical that these would be the ‘reasonable restrictions’.
• Further, the law has had the unintended effect of pushing manufacturers to produce far more easily concealed handguns since they are limited to reduced capacity magazines.

“In addition to that, we need to make a serious commitment to address the pervasive role that addiction and mental illness have in crime,” she said in the wake of the horrendous events of Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children, six educators and the heavily armed gunman who attacked the school dead."

You make some very valid and practice points.

I am open to re-evaluating the unreasonableness of the existing “reasonable restrictions”.

Thank you.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

"Label it however you would like, but we are all responsible as a society for this situation. We all have seen the disastrous consequences of the move to de-institutionalize the mentally ill, and the arguments for the benefits won the day at that time. Motives were good, but now that we have seen it’s consequences, Who drove the situation is not as important as what we do from here.

I prefer to label it accurately.

We are responsible in an abstract way. As a society we allowed the Secular Progressives to control and define the mental health institutions and the education system.

“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.” ― G.K. Chesterton

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

With all due respect PS1 (and I sincerely mean that) do you not realize how spiritually judgmental and self-righteous those thoughts sound to the rest of us?

With the exception of course about tone. I readily admit my tone towards you was childish and hurtful. And for that I apologize. I am truly sorry.

We all are to form faith based consciences, and act on them. I am not speaking my conscience to be judgmental, or to be self-righteous. I am merely trying to explain why my view is as it is, according to the conscience I must act on.

Frustration is a temptation, that all of us have succumb to at one time or another. We have all crossed the line of charity, and should not. I apologize for my part in the ‘fray’, and hope we can have constructive discussions in the future.

God Bless,

 

[styrgwillidar]

We all are to form faith based consciences, and act on them. I am not speaking my conscience to be judgmental, or to be self-righteous. I am merely trying to explain why my view is as it is, according to the conscience I must act on.

Frustration is a temptation, that all of us have succumb to at one time or another. We have all crossed the line of charity, and should not. I apologize for my part in the ‘fray’, and hope we can have constructive discussions in the future.

God Bless,

Prodigal Son, unfortunately your position tends to get lumped in with others who are more extreme, that is we (I include myself) tend to start responding not to your statements but our perception combining your actual statement with the positions of others. I try to keep it clear in my head, but…

For example, you have not advocated the banning of hunting shotguns-- yet the law in Colorado will do just that. Either by design or due to sloppy writing from zealotry.

denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could-be-banned-under-proposed-bill/

Again, I am trying to stay focused on your actual positions and on point in each thread.

 

[ProVobis]

If Chicago has the highest gun-crime than extending their restrictions to the rest of the country is not reasonable.

FWIW and FTR, the February numbers show a signficant decrease. Time will tell if this is sustainable.

huffingtonpost.com/news/chicago-gun-violence

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son, unfortunately your position tends to get lumped in with others who are more extreme, that is we (I include myself) tend to start responding not to your statements but our perception combining your actual statement with the positions of others. I try to keep it clear in my head, but…

For example, you have not advocated the banning of hunting shotguns-- yet the law in Colorado will do just that. Either by design or due to sloppy writing from zealotry.

denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could-be-banned-under-proposed-bill/

Again, I am trying to stay focused on your actual positions and on point in each thread.

From our politicians I have come to expect political, that is to ride the fence in an effort for self preservation. Is it possible that the sloppy writing is due to such a political ploy, to show an effort, but designed not to pass, which pleases both sides and is easily forgotten at election time? This is not to say it strictly does not come from zealotry.

It could be simple sloppiest at best, that one wrote such a bill, and others voted on it, without realizing that most shotguns have a plug that can be easily removed to extend the loading capacity.

As I’ve read there is a clear majority in favor of background checks for all purchases, the effort to include hunting shotguns in a ban would find a majority in opposition. I believe those politicians figured this out. Towards the end of the article, it says they are working on an amendment.

 

[jay29]

Background checks will never pass Congress if the transaction is recorded. National registry of firearms will never pass muster and shouldn’t.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Background checks will never pass Congress if the transaction is recorded. National registry of firearms will never pass muster and shouldn’t.

Poll: 9 in 10 Americans support background checks

The Quinnipiac University poll, conducted among 1,772 registered voters from Jan. 30-Feb. 4, showed that support among those living in a gun-owning household was almost equally high: 91 percent of those voters said they support universal background checks.

The link inside the quote will take you to the actual poll page. As the articles states, ‘support among those living in a gun-owning household was almost equally high: 91 percent of those voters said they support universal background checks.’

 

[jay29]

Poll: 9 in 10 Americans support background checks

The link inside the quote will take you to the actual poll page. As the articles states, ‘support among those living in a gun-owning household was almost equally high: 91 percent of those voters said they support universal background checks.’

I believe in background checks as long as no info is recorded. Simple. No national database. We agree. Background checks and a gun registry are two different things.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe in background checks as long as no info is recorded. Simple. No national database. We agree. Background checks and a gun registry are two different things.

Isn’t there a database of guns purchased? If not, what are the serial numbers for, and why are there special rules on guns without serial numbers?

 

[shipwrkd]

Isn’t there a database of guns purchased? If not, what are the serial numbers for, and why are there special rules on guns without serial numbers?

There is, it’s just not complete…yet. Any licensed dealer must keep a registry of all transactions which must be made available to ATF and it’s been reported that they are photographing them and entering the info into a national database. These logs must be turned over to ATF if the dealer ever goes out of business for any reason so the data base has begun.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is, it’s just not complete…yet. Any licensed dealer must keep a registry of all transactions which must be made available to ATF and it’s been reported that they are photographing them and entering the info into a national database. These logs must be turned over to ATF if the dealer ever goes out of business for any reason so the data base has begun.

Thanks. That means a national registry is already in effect?

 

[jay29]

Thanks. That means a national registry is already in effect?

No. They police trace serial numbers back to the gun store. It is against the law for the ATF to photocopy gun records wholesale. They have to have a reason.

I have a problem if a foolish law is passed with wide sweeping bans, I do not want the police to know where to get them. America would be over by then anyway.

 

[shipwrkd]

Thanks. That means a national registry is already in effect?

Not legally in effect but ATF is copying many dealers 4473 forms illegally, against the Firearms Owners Protection Act. I’m not sure but about the legality but they’ve been taking the forms when a dealer goes out of business.
Any information from a background check must be destroyed within 24 hours…and I’m sure they comply

Nevertheless, the ATF Firearms Tracing System (FTS) contains hundreds of millions of firearm tracing and registration records, and consists of several databases:

1. Multiple Sale Reports. Over 460,000 (2003) Multiple Sales reports (ATF F 3310.4 - a registration record with specific firearms and owner name and address - increasing by about 140,000 per year). Reported as 4.2 million records in 2010.[8]
2. Suspect Guns. All guns suspected of being used for criminal purposes but not recovered by law enforcement. This database includes (ATF’s own examples[citation needed]), individuals purchasing large quantities of firearms, and dealers with improper record keeping. May include guns observed by law enforcement in an estate, or at a gun show, or elsewhere.[citation needed] Reported as 34,807 in 2010. [8]
3. Traced Guns. Over 4 million detail records from all traces since inception.[8]This is a registration record which includes the personal information of the first retail purchaser, along with the identity of the selling dealer.
4. Out of Business Records. Data is manually collected from paper Out-of-Business records (or (name removed by moderator)ut from computer records) and entered into the trace system by ATF. These are registration records which include name and address, make, model, serial and caliber of the firearm(s), as well as data from the 4473 form - in digital or image format. In March, 2010, ATF reported receiving several hundred million records since 1968. [9]
5. Theft Guns. Firearms reported as stolen to ATF. Contained 330,000 records in 2010.[8] Contains only thefts from licensed dealers and interstate carriers (optional).[8] Does not have an interface to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) theft data base, where the majority of stolen, lost and missing firearms are reported.[citation needed]

 

[matt1985]

I think too many people die every year of gun violence. I don’t think I would own a gun because I would have to carry it around my house with me all day in order for it to keep me safe. I wouldn’t want have to run upstairs if a burger broke in. I know people who own AR 15s, while they’re decent individuals, there is little reason for me to own one. But I will say that my uncle grew up on a farm and had guns since he was 12 and is fine.

I don’t like how I have to worry about a mass murderer every time I’m in a public place. I value freedom from fear more than the second amendment.

 

[shipwrkd]

I don’t like how I have to worry about a mass murderer every time I’m in a public place. I value freedom from fear more than the second amendment.

Which amendment do you think bought you the right to freedom in the first place? And if people stop valuing one amendment, when will value be lost on the others?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

We all are to form faith based consciences, and act on them. I am not speaking my conscience to be judgmental, or to be self-righteous. I am merely trying to explain why my view is as it is, according to the conscience I must act on.

Frustration is a temptation, that all of us have succumb to at one time or another. We have all crossed the line of charity, and should not. I apologize for my part in the ‘fray’, and hope we can have constructive discussions in the future.

God Bless,

I understand what you are saying PS1. It helps me to appreciate your point of view even though we may still disagree on some points. I do appreciate your efforts to remain faithful to the Bishops.

And thank you for your humble and gracious response. It’s a reminder to me that each and every one of us is struggling with our own personal battles in this life. I’ll try to be more charitable with all my responses in the future. Thank you again.

May the peace of Christ be with you my friend.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I think too many people die every year of gun violence. I don’t think I would own a gun because I would have to carry it around my house with me all day in order for it to keep me safe. I wouldn’t want have to run upstairs if a burger broke in. I know people who own AR 15s, while they’re decent individuals, there is little reason for me to own one. But I will say that my uncle grew up on a farm and had guns since he was 12 and is fine.

I don’t like how I have to worry about a mass murderer every time I’m in a public place. I value freedom from fear more than the second amendment.

Matt, relax.

The odds of you being involved in a public shooting spree are remote at best.

However, your odds of being seriously injured in an automobile accident are far greater. As I type this, a nasty car accident just occurred 3 miles from here at an intersection I just passed through an hour ago… So far there is 1 DOA, 7 injured (4 being Medivaced to trauma centers) and 1 DUI. Prayers for all involved.

 

[shipwrkd]

I understand what you are saying PS1. It helps me to appreciate your point of view even though we may still disagree on some points. I do appreciate your efforts to remain faithful to the Bishops.

And thank you for your humble and gracious response. It’s a reminder to me that each and every one of us is struggling with our own personal battles in this life. I’ll try to be more charitable with all my responses in the future. Thank you again.

May the peace of Christ be with you my friend.

I do enjoy watching you and PS1 volley. Perhaps it’s my bias toward less control by the government, but IMHO, the points you make are more from reason rather then emotion.