DEAR AMERICA: Here's Why Everyone Thinks You Have A Problem With Guns

[Prodigal_Son1]

But we already have gun controls. Thousands of them. Why do we need more and more unenforceable laws?

Do we have loopholes so that cash and guns can exchange hands without a background check?

 

[Lochias]

Ah, I see. Only 9000 died from firearms. Is that supposed to be an acceptable body count? Those 9000 lives are worth any inconveniences to gun owners? Does that 9000 include suicides, accidental shootings, etc.? According to the article in the OP, we are projected to have more gun related deaths than from automobiles accidents this year. Should we just wait it out and see how that goes, then act?

Taking away guns from everyone but law enforcement and the cops is an invasion of free will and choice. As long as one life has been and can be saved in self-defense with a gun, it is not morally permissible to enforce the choice on others who do not share your view.

EDIT: Moreover, criminals will always find ways of obtaining guns, no matter what the government says. All a ban on guns would do is enable criminals (including those who are corrupt in the government) to enforce their will more easily on others,

 

[lcburgundy]

I didn’t say all guns take life. I said, ‘guns are designed to take life.’ There’s a difference, and I won’t argue semantics.

I hunt. To do that, I take life, and I do it intentionally. Those same guns are considered to be home protection, even though I pray I never have to use them for that purpose.

So are your guns designed and intended to take human life or not?

Ah, I see. Only 9000 died from firearms. Is that supposed to be an acceptable body count? Those 9000 lives are worth any inconveniences to gun owners? Does that 9000 include suicides, accidental shootings, etc.? According to the article in the OP, we are projected to have more gun related deaths than from automobiles accidents this year. Should we just wait it out and see how that goes, then act?

Is there an acceptable body count for car accidents or car homicides? Where is the moral guidance from the USCCB on the implications on the purchase of a car?

This is not a case of a bishop claiming a private revelation. It’s 3 chairmen of bishop committees, and the president of the bishops conference, speaking for the total body. What you will not find is a single bishop that opposes gun controls.

Yeah, the thing is, we already have all kinds of gun control. Trying to make a moral claim that some vague degree of gun control is dubious. The list you keep reposting is vague politician-speak, prepared by the USCCB or not. #1-#4 already exist, and #5 isn’t really even about gun control.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Taking away guns from everyone but law enforcement and the cops is an invasion of free will and choice. As long as one life has been and can be saved in self-defense with a gun, it is not morally permissible to enforce the choice on others who do not share your view.

EDIT: Moreover, criminals will always find ways of obtaining guns, no matter what the government says. All a ban on guns would do is enable criminals (including those who are corrupt in the government) to enforce their will more easily on others,

Lochias, please show me where I have advocated ‘taking away guns from everyone…?’

How would universal background checks, even for private sales, affect one’s ability to defend? How would removing one style weapon from the mix affect one’s ability to defend?

 

[Lochias]

Lochias, please show me where I have advocated ‘taking away guns from everyone…?’

That’s what it would lead to.

How would universal background checks, even for private sales, affect one’s ability to defend? How would removing one style weapon from the mix affect one’s ability to defend?

I’d likely be ok with universal background checks, depending on the parameters involved.

But please, please don’t trot out the old and tired argument about so-called “assault” weapons. It’d be like screaming and hollering about people owning Chargers and Ferrari’s.

Not only that, but with a good system of background checks, what would it matter?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So are your guns designed and intended to take human life or not?

Is there an acceptable body count for car accidents or car homicides? Where is the moral guidance from the USCCB on the implications on the purchase of a car?

Yeah, the thing is, we already have all kinds of gun control. Trying to make a moral claim that some vague degree of gun control is dubious. The list you keep reposting is vague politician-speak, prepared by the USCCB or not. #1-#4 already exist, and #5 isn’t really even about gun control.

I’ve stated I will not enter into a game of semantics to make a point. This is my last attempt to explain this. Guns were invented to kill.

Again, cars are designed for travel. While one can die from an accidental shooting, what is the number of intentional car related deaths? Compare that number to the number of intentional deaths from guns. Add up all deaths from either and do a comparison again. The bishops are concerned with all life, but most especially those who lose a dignity of life through an evil intent.

The bishops are not speaking politically. The speak spiritually, and some people prefer to view the message through a political lens. You cannot see a spiritual message through a political lens. Visit the USCCB website and read as much as you can. You’ll find enough to place any political party at odds with them.

1 through 4 exist; however, two people can exchange guns for cash without even a name exchange required. So let’s continue to allow private sales, that don’t require background checks, and call it doing everything we can to stop criminals from getting guns? No, we need law abiding citizens to accept a minor inconvenience of seeing a background check was performed prior to completing a transaction, in my honest opinion.

Number 5 is an answer to claims of ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Do we have loopholes so that cash and guns can exchange hands without a background check?

Making a new law will do NOTHING to stop that from happening in the criminal element! Why the huge blind spot about this? Only law-abiding citizens obey the law! Criminals ignore it! Background check, BAH! They don’t care about no stinkin’ background check! They DO NOT CARE!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s what it would lead to.

How would universal background checks, even for private sales, affect one’s ability to defend? How would removing one style weapon from the mix affect one’s ability to defend?

We have no proof that ‘it would lead to that…’ Our country has checks in place to prevent that, in my opinion.

What is the ‘coincidence’ behind mass shooters and ‘assault weapons?’

I could agree with a good system of background checks, and possibly requirements of safe storage, which should be in everyone’s interest. Before it gets asked, of course it can be removed from safe storage when you are home, or have the gun with you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Making a new law will do NOTHING to stop that from happening in the criminal element! Why the huge blind spot about this? Only law-abiding citizens obey the law! Criminals ignore it! Background check, BAH! They don’t care about no stinkin’ background check! They DO NOT CARE!

I don’t know why you have a huge blind spot about this? (just kidding and trying to lighten up the tone here.)

I am a law abiding citizen, and have faith in others that make the same claim. Right now, I can walk out in my front yard, pass a gun to a buyer, and take their cash. What would I learn from that person? What would I know about them?

Universal background checks would at the very least have law abiding citizens seeing a background check performed prior to completing a transaction. It doesn’t stop the leak, but it slows it down. Aren’t a people of life supposed to save as many lives as possible? Yes. While criminals don’t care, hopefully real law abiding people do. Enough to go through a minor inconvenience for the common good of society.

Below is a link to a 6 minute video. It pertains specifically to what we are discussing right now.

Martin Savidge shows how easy it is to buy guns at gunshows – no questions asked!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

So, with no sources to refute the numbers of compiled information, because you disagree it’s not factual? Does this mean that absolutely every graph was wrong?

Speaking of sources, I’m still waiting for you to provide some for your claim that a certain “psyche” is attracted to military looking firearms; as well as a counter point to my proving that handguns, not “assault rifles,” are the weapon of choice of mass shooters (and no, your previous claim that it was too hard to do research and find good sources doesn’t work).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Speaking of sources, I’m still waiting for you to provide some for your claim that a certain “psyche” is attracted to military looking firearms; as well as a counter point to my proving that handguns, not “assault rifles,” are the weapon of choice of mass shooters (and no, your previous claim that it was too hard to do research and find good sources doesn’t work).

All I could offer is the most recent shootings, where each mass murderer picked up an AR15 as opposed to other weapons available to them.

Also, the article in the OP offers some statistics, referencing mass shootings, from Mayors against illegal guns:

http://static2.businessinsider.com/...t-became-clear-it-wouldnt-pass-the-senate.jpg

It seems to be recognized by more than just myself, to include the bishops as they specifically mention ‘assault weapons.’

 

[lcburgundy]

I’ve stated I will not enter into a game of semantics to make a point. This is my last attempt to explain this. Guns were invented to kill.

You think that the difference between something being acquired for the purpose to kill a human and for the purpose to kill something else is a game of semantics? Seeing as further discussion will yield no fruit here, I will pray for you, sir.

You may also wish to read this enlightening analysis of motor vehicle and gun-related injuries, but I’m sure it won’t change any viewpoint anyway.

The bishops are not speaking politically. The speak spiritually, and some people prefer to view the message through a political lens. You cannot see a spiritual message through a political lens. Visit the USCCB website and read as much as you can. You’ll find enough to place any political party at odds with them.

Even if they intend to speak spiritually, they are using vague political terms, and they should do better or stop trying to talk about topics they have only minimal understanding of and are thus forced to merely repeat other political groups’ tired talking points. I refuse to read flabby political rhetoric and assign it spiritual meaning; that is merely demeaning to spirituality, as if spirituality is the bucket you assign poor rhetoric to because it cannot stand on its own.

1 through 4 exist; however, two people can exchange guns for cash without even a name exchange required. So let’s continue to allow private sales, that don’t require background checks, and call it doing everything we can to stop criminals from getting guns? No, we need law abiding citizens to accept a minor inconvenience of seeing a background check was performed prior to completing a transaction, in my honest opinion.

Number 5 is an answer to claims of ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’

Yeah, and people will still exchange guns for cash without even a name exchange with any law, because any such law is about impossible to enforce. What you just said happens in Michigan NOW and we DO HAVE mandatory background checks and even registration NOW. MAYBE it can be used to enhance punishment after the fact, but you cannot compel registration of an already illegal transaction. What part of this do you not understand?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

All I could offer is the most recent shootings, where each mass murderer picked up an AR15 as opposed to other weapons available to them.

Also, the article in the OP offers some statistics, referencing mass shootings, from Mayors against illegal guns:

http://static2.businessinsider.com/...t-became-clear-it-wouldnt-pass-the-senate.jpg

It seems to be recognized by more than just myself, to include the bishops as they specifically mention ‘assault weapons.’

1. Thank you for the graph, now as to your claim concerning a certain “psyche” your supporting evidence can be found where?
2. You do understand that “assault weapons” =/= “assault rifles”? “Assault weapons” includes “assault” style handguns. A graph which separates “assault rifles” from other “assault weapons” can be found where?
   2a. And the definition of “assault rifle” used in the graph you provide in response to #2 isn’t based on just how the firearm looks? We wouldn’t want another instance of someone posting a picture of a non-“assault rifle” looking automatic firearm and an “assault rifle” looking semi-automatic firearm asking you to tell us which is the more dangerous, and illegal to own without a lot of federal paperwork, of the two (a question you never answered).
3. Last I checked, Bishops aren’t subject matter experts on criminology, firearms, or secular legal theory and practice. Review argument from authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You think that the difference between something being acquired for the purpose to kill a human and for the purpose to kill something else is a game of semantics? Seeing as further discussion will yield no fruit here, I will pray for you, sir.

You may also wish to read this enlightening analysis of motor vehicle and gun-related injuries, but I’m sure it won’t change any viewpoint anyway.

Even if they intend to speak spiritually, they are using vague political terms, and they should do better or stop trying to talk about topics they have only minimal understanding of and are thus forced to merely repeat other political groups’ tired talking points. I refuse to read flabby political rhetoric and assign it spiritual meaning; that is merely demeaning to spirituality, as if spirituality is the bucket you assign poor rhetoric to because it cannot stand on its own.

Yeah, and people will still exchange guns for cash without even a name exchange with any law, because any such law is about impossible to enforce. What you just said happens in Michigan NOW and we DO HAVE mandatory background checks and even registration NOW. MAYBE it can be used to enhance punishment after the fact, but you cannot compel registration of an already illegal transaction. What part of this do you not understand?

Guns were invented to take life. I don’t know how to make that any clearer for you. The guns I own are designed to take life. I use them to take the life of what I hunt, for food, and pray they never have to serve the purpose of taking a human life. The game of semantics seems only to demonize me for expressing a different opinion than yours. While I gladly take the offer of prayers from all that will, I hope your offer was not more of an attempt to cast me in an ‘evil’ light.

While you persist on making a comparison to deaths in cars, to guns, I suggest you write the bishops and express your concern. I have explained the differences, from my point of view. Our economies have become based on vehicles. Without them, many would lose their dignity of life; employment, access to healthcare, access to food, access to education, etc. etc. Vehicles were not designed to take lives. Guns were. Mass murderers more often choose guns to commit mass murder, not vehicles. The majority of lives lost in motor vehicles are from accidents. The majority of lives lost to gun crimes are intentional. Does one mortally sin from a death related to a motor vehicle accident? Does one mortally sin from an intentional gun crime death?

You are correct, I will not be swayed by the enlightening analysis offered by thetruthaboutguns.com. The points are not comparable, in my honest opinion.

The guidance from the bishops is spiritual for living in a secular world. The application of ‘political’ comes from those who find problems with what they say. You really should consider being more respectful of our clergy. Right, or wrong, they dedicate their entire lives to God, and His Church.

What I say is not meant to stand on it’s own, but an explanation of my view/opinion, derived from my faith formed conscience. I have qualified that all must act according to their faith formed conscience, and that we should continue seeking the greater truth because our conscience can be in err.

Any law is ‘impossible to enforce,’ yet we don’t stop trying to protect society. Did you know that 9 out 10 people support universal background checks? That comes from homes with guns. The number is only slightly higher from homes without guns. It’s a common sense approach, that keeps the 2nd amendment concerns in tact, in my opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. Thank you for the graph, now as to your claim concerning a certain “psyche” your supporting evidence can be found where?
2. You do understand that “assault weapons” =/= “assault rifles”? “Assault weapons” includes “assault” style handguns. A graph which separates “assault rifles” from other “assault weapons” can be found where?
   2a. And the definition of “assault rifle” used in the graph you provide in response to #2 isn’t based on just how the firearm looks? We wouldn’t want another instance of someone posting a picture of a non-“assault rifle” looking automatic firearm and an “assault rifle” looking semi-automatic firearm asking you to tell us which is the more dangerous, and illegal to own without a lot of federal paperwork, of the two (a question you never answered).
3. Last I checked, Bishops aren’t subject matter experts on criminology, firearms, or secular legal theory and practice. Review argument from authority.

I apologize, but I said that was all I had to offer. I have explained my personal experience of witnessing others handle those type weapons, and how their demeanor changes, but you don’t accept that and I understand.

I’m not entering into the semantics of what is a proper assault weapon and what is not. The definitions, for the previous ban, are available online, as are the definitions of the proposed ban, that has already failed. I told you I have experience with the M16, and the AR15. In my opinion, based on my personal experiences, the only real difference is that one is fully automatic and the other is semi-automatic. With that said, it has been brought to my attention that new training guidelines teach the ‘3 round burst’ method over the full automatic fire option. It’s understandable. I remember seeing M16s where the barrel drooped, from overuse of the full automatic feature.

The bishop’s response was to the loss of life of innocent victims. They don’t have to be experts to recognize a tragedy of major proportion. They refer the actions to:

In their memory and for the sake of our nation, we reiterate our call made in 2000, in our statement, Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, for all Americans, especially legislators, to:

1.Support measures that control the sale and use of firearms

2.Support measures that make guns safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner)

3.Call for sensible regulations of handguns

4.Support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons including assault weapons

5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime.

As we long for the arrival of the Prince of Peace in this Advent and Christmas season, we call on all people of goodwill to help bring about a culture of life and peace.

They offer moral guidance and leave exact solutions to those who legislate, and interpret, and ask support from all Americans.

The Prince of Peace they reference is the only authority for us. That is something the bishops are experts on, and I personally accept their guidance.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar/05/problem-background-checks/

problem-background-checks

excerpt from comment:

**Remember the universal law in deploying the use of deadly force; "There must be an imminent and immediate threat to life and or grave bodily harm to another. That’s a dreadfully vague definition. The legal specifics of Nevada law apparently don’t help the homeowner much more. My suggestive letter to the editor had only been intended to help protect the homeowner. It was certainly not drafted for the welfare of the intruder or criminal.

When it comes to background checks in relation to weapons and permits, I grudgingly give my approval to them. I’ve found, just like you said in your letter, Toni, “Criminals do it cheap and easy. Good citizens jump through many hoops.” I just don’t know any other answers.**

Read more: lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar/05/problem-background-checks/#ixzz2RK6rIG26

What other Constitutional Right is treated the way the Right to own firearms is? Can you imagine the furor if anyone had to go through the steps needed to buy a gun in order to vote? Leftists object to a no-brainer such as having to identify oneself with a photo ID when appearing to vote. How about requiring a spelling test for those who want to contribute to the LV Sun’s forum or other Freedom of Speech activities? Makes about as much sense as the steps Toni had to go through in order to exercise a Constitutional Right. The Constitution clearly states that gun ownership is a Right - not a “priviledge.” The restrictions on owning a weapon for self-defense or sport are blatantly unconstitutional on their face but too many are willing to give up their rights inch by inch and the left is eager to oblige them.

Read more: lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar/05/problem-background-checks/#ixzz2RK7LhNwE