Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[melensdad]

Bennie, I realize you were not asking for what each of us do on an individual basis, but the point is that many do walk the walk and that is what you were getting to with your broad sweeping question. The same type of question could be asked of the anti-gun crowd and probably there would be a smattering of similar answers.

However when looking at the anti-gun lobby and the issue of violence, most seem to focus on one singular thing: the gun. When looking at the pro-gun lobby and the issue of violence, the NRA, GOA and CCRKBA (the 3 organizations I am most familiar with) will focus on crime and law enforcement (or the lack of enforcement of existing laws).

One thing I have noticed with regards to the Catholic Church leaders who support gun controls is that they focus on the emotional issues and on the gun, rather than on the root issues of the underlying violence. This is particularly true of the American Bishops who have spoken against guns. The writings from the Vatican on guns seem to be more violence centered and while the Vatican would suggest support for controls on guns it seems to be more open to the need for self defense than some American Bishops.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… I have taken the time to read all the messages on this thread and if I read one suggestion of how to avoid dying at the hands of a criminal intent on taking life, I missed it…

I wonder if you missed the post regarding murder rates.

… Liberalized concealed carry laws reduce crime…

Does it reduce murder? I don’t think so.

 

[Man]

Actually it does. Because this was a favorite research paper topic for me in college I asked a Social worker that question while I was in West Virginia as a Passionist Missionary.

He said it (carry concealed) does significantly reduce violent crime (which includes murder), but has the unfortunate side effect of leading to increased murders of friends in emotional situations.

I’m sure you can still look up statistics on the internet.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Does it reduce murder? I don’t think so.

Would you care to reconcile what you would like to think with what we know happened with the overall murder rate (as opposed to simply the gun murder rate) in Australia immediately following the implementation of their very aggressive gun ban?

The gun possession advocates are here to discuss gun control in light of facts and reality, not wishful thinking. What is your purpose?

 

[Sixtus]

melensdad

Gun Control & the Catholic Church
I don’t understand why so many Catholics seem to be in favor of gun control

In my experience, this is not unique to Catholics, though I am not in the least surprised Catholics in the main take this view.

I suggest it may be based on the same premise that govern a lot of lay-Catholic thinking: lack of understanding + fear + mis-information= prejudice

As an enthusiast sportsman and Instructor myself, I see so much prejudice based on lack of understanding, mis-information & fear

It is my contention that the motor car is by far a much greater danger to society yet no-one would contemplate restricting its use or calling it a weapon

There is in my view nothing wrong with firearms. It is the intent of the individual using them. With proper regulation and controls, legal weapons are no different to any other sporting implements.

 

[Bennie_P]

I still say that the US is the most violent delveloped country these stats are homocides by all methods, not just by Guns.

Canada compared with rest of the world
Canada’s homicide rate of 1.73 victims per 100,000 was about one-third of that of the United States (5.69 per 100,000) and was slightly lower than that of England and Wales (1.93) but higher than France (1.65) ands Australia (1.63).

What is the one thing different from the US and these five other nations?

Method of killing

Canadians who were slain in 2003 were most commonly killed by firearms, “similar to previous years,” Statscan said.

The use of rifles and shotguns continued to decline, a trend that the agency has seen in the past few decades, but the number of killings with handguns shot up in 2003. They were used in two-thirds of all firearm homicides in 2003 and 59 per cent of all gang-related killings.

The other top methods of killing in 2003 were: stabbings (26 per cent), followed by beatings (22 per cent) and strangulation (12 per cent).

Canada had a 7% drop in rates according to this article. canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_Homicide_rate_lowest_29SEP04.htm

"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as self-evident."
**Arthur Schopenhauer **

 

[RobDH]

Respectfully Bennie, I’m afraid that you are ignoring the details of gun crime statistics. The vast majority of gun crimes (including homicides) take place in urban areas. The vast majority of those urban areas have extremely restrictive gun control laws. New York and Washington D.C. are excellent examples of being extremely high gun crime areas while having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US. Those laws have not decreased gun crime, which in the majority (reflected in the FBI statistics) is gang related.

The other statistic is that before 9/11 all crime, including gun crime, was falling in the US (FBI statistics reflect this). Since then, federal money to state and local law enforcement has been reduced substantially, and instead funneled to Homeland Security. The result? A dramatic increase in crime at the local level, including gun crime. The obvious solution? Increase local law enforcement, decrease gang crime, decrease gun crime.

As I, and many others, have stated before, including in the media, the solution to the gun crime problem is enforcement of current law and the elimination of plea-bargaining gun crimes, not more ineffective so called “gun control”.

 

[RobDH]

Canada had a 7% drop in rates according to this article. canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_Homicide_rate_lowest_29SEP04.htm

I would point out several things here, this article is addressing 3 decades of data in Canada, it also makes it clear that it draws NO conclusions as to what caused the decline.

During the past 3 decades in the US there has been a hugh increase in urban area population. The urban population of Canada is no where near that of the US.

In fact, the entire population of Canada (approx. 33 million) could fit in the US urban area population of the top 20 cities in the US (from 2005 estimates), which range from #1 New York (8.2 million) to #20 Charlotte, N.C. (620,000).

The top 3 cities, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, account for over 15 million and have restrictive gun laws and very high crime, and gun crime rates.

 

[Man]

I don’t know where various people stand on this, but the US is a lot different than Canada. The US is not as… homogeneous as Canada or Japan or Ireland where homicide rates are low. For instance, in urban areas we have large poor populations that are under siege by police officers carrying out their lawful duties fighting the “war on drugs” and land developers who want to forcibly “revolutionize” their way of life, in areas where no one wants to develop new business and schools are are horrible. For instance, in rural areas like I live in Illinois the graduation rates are 95% or so, but the nations average is 88%…

 

[Bennie_P]

The top 3 cities, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, account for over 15 million and have restrictive gun laws and very high crime, and gun crime rates.

Then according to you these three cities account for the reason our homocide rate is three times higher per capita then the five nations noted?
So your saying tough gun laws = violent crime is that what you are saying?

Or could it be that handgun regulation needs to more even handed across the nation, so people cannot go outside of the areas where strict hand gun laws exist and take them back to sell them on the streets in the high crime areas. such as restrictions as limiting the number of handguns that may be bought at a time? registration of handguns and the training and issuing permits of handgun owners? Including concealed weapon permits.Give up a little convenience to gain some liberty.(A well regulated militia)

Or maybe we ought just nuke’em, problem solve. that is LA, Chicago and New York.

 

[Bennie_P]

I don’t know where various people stand on this, but the US is a lot different than Canada. The US is not as… homogeneous as Canada or Japan or Ireland where homicide rates are low. For instance, in urban areas we have large poor populations that are under siege by police officers carrying out their lawful duties fighting the “war on drugs” and land developers who want to forcibly “revolutionize” their way of life, in areas where no one wants to develop new business and schools are are horrible. For instance, in rural areas like I live in Illinois the graduation rates are 95% or so, but the nations average is 88%…

what are you trying to say?

 

[Man]

I don’t like guns. I respect them. I live in a rural area that could grow deer as thick as we grow corn.

Handguns are another matter. There isn’t always one right answer to something like this, but there is often one best answer. The problem being the disarmament needs to be “general” rather than focused. This similar to your statement.

However, I don’t see that removing guns will make the US have as low of homicide rates as the countries I mentioned.

Handguns make the violence more lethal.

And the point? It won’t be possible to disarm poor inner city people without first addressing their needs. Why should they respect the law when the law doesn’t respect them?

 

[RobDH]

Then according to you this three cities acconut for the reason our homocide rate is three times higher per capita then the five nations noted?
So your saying tough gun laws = violent crime is that what you are saying?

That is NOT what I’ve stated. It is insulting to imply such. I stated that urban areas in the US have huge populations which are accompanied by high crime rates. This occurs in ANY highly compressed urban population ANYWHERE in the world. Those crime rates are due to social conditions that are the result of compression of large populations. Statistics constantly affirm this no matter what country or urban population is viewed.

Or could it be that handgun regulation needs to more even handed across the nation, so people cannot go outside of the areas where strict hand gun laws exist and take them back to sell them on the streets in the high crime areas.

I have not rejected gun regulation out-of-hand. The vast majority of sales “outside of the areas where strict hand gun laws exist” are done by those who are already prohibited from purchasing firearms and completed via “straw purchases” (where the buyer is not prohibited from a purchase, but is making it for someone who is). Such purchases are ALREADY illegal. When a legitimate firearms dealer knowingly facilitates such a sale I am all for throwing the book at them, and the perpetrators, with already existing laws and NO plea bargains.

I say again, we don’t need new gun restrictions, we need more money for law enforcement, we need to enforce the laws we already have.

such as restrictions as limiting the number of handguns that may be bought at a time? registration of handguns and the training and issuing permits of handgun owners? Including concealed weapon permits.Give up a little convenience to gain some liberty.(A well regulated militia)

Here in California I have already given up a great deal of convenience to own a gun. We have instant background checks and two week waiting periods for hand gun purchases.

We don’t need “gun registration”, we already fill out a federal form that includes name, address, social security number, as well as serial number identifying the gun purchased (this applies to ALL firearms, in ALL states, not just hand guns) which is defacto registration.

I am not permitted a concealed carry permit (this is not restricted by the state, but instead, by the majority of local urban law enforcement officials who simply refuse to issue them, because the state does not mandate their issue, as such states as Oregon do). So I don’t carry a concealed weapon, as I am a law abiding citizen, unlike the local gang members, who could care less about “gun control”, other than how many hands they use to control the gun. But I do not object to concealed weapons permits and training, which is a second level of defacto registration (because of form requirements), nor do I object to reasonable training requirements for gun ownership and hunter safety. In fact, I have required all of my family to take such training as children, as well as my wife, and my children have done the same with their children.

I have experienced the same requirements listed above in Washington, Arkansas and Kentucky with the only difference being that in AR and KY I did have a concealed carry permit, which I obtained by filing paper work that identified me by name, address, ssn and gun info (again, defacto gun registration) and passed training courses (as well as hunter safety training), all of which I was exempted from by virtue of prior military experience. Never-the-less I took and passed the training because I believe in gun safety.

Or maybe we ought just nuke’em, problem solve. that is LA, Chicago and New York.

Thank you, but I can due without the insulting sarcasm.

 

[Sixtus]

In UK former Premier Rt Hon Tony Blair banned all legally held sporting pistols.

Since then, gun crime has increased exponentially, while serious sportsmen cannot partake in the sport of their choice [paper target shooting] and we no longer have a national pistol team to compete in the Olympics.

My contention is that ‘legally held’ sporting pistols registered with the police cost anything upwards from $500. Ilegal pistols can be bought for as little as $100.

What serious killer is going to register for a firearm certificate from the Police to obtain a precision made traceable firearm to kill someone when untraceable illegal guns are more readily available for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Sixtus]

In UK the perfect solution was provided: no gun owner is allowed to hold a WHOLE gun, it had to be dismantled and the firing mechanism held in safe storage on the range. They simply took home the other bits.

STILL the UK Government rejected it and banned them

 

[FightingFat]

In UK former Premier Rt Hon Tony Blair banned all legally held sporting pistols.

Since then, gun crime has increased exponentially

Eh? Non-sequitor!!!

My contention is that ‘legally held’ sporting pistols registered with the police cost anything upwards from $500. Ilegal pistols can be bought for as little as $100.

What serious killer is going to register for a firearm certificate from the Police to obtain a precision made firearm to kill someone when illegal guns are more readily available for a fraction of the cost.

I think the point is (as is the case with all laws) we are making a societal statement that guns are unacceptable.

 

[melensdad]

I think the point is (as is the case with all laws) we are making a societal statement that guns are unacceptable.

Why?

 

[FightingFat]

You do know Gabriel Possenti isn’t the patron saint of handgunners don’t you?

 

[57classic]

I wonder if you missed the post regarding murder rates.

If it included practical suggestions for avoiding death when faced with a criminal intent on murder-yes I did miss it. What post # is it?

 

[cceerpp]

,–^----------,--------,-----,-------^–,---------------------
| ||||||||| --------' | O ±--------------------------^----------|------------------
\_,-------, _________________________| / XXXXXX /| /
/ XXXXXX / \ / / XXXXXX /\______( / XXXXXX / / XXXXXX / (________( ------’
Jesus is the author of PEACE and NOT GUNS