Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The USCCB just demonstrated that they are completely lost on this issue.

If the USCCB didnt try meddling in politics and stuck to more religious issues and stopped dividing Catholics, the world would be a better place.
 
A gun is a tool, not a living thing. If a loony went into a public building armed with a chainsaw, I bet all we would have is crickets. A chainsaw is a tool, a gun is a tool, a hammer is a tool, an axe is a tool. All these, when used properly by lawful and good people only lead to benefits. Why punish the good for misuse of tools by the bad?
 
I agree to an extent with both of the posters before me… However, an improvement of the national background check system and other reforms do not ‘punish the few’. I am pro gun as well but the Texas shooter should not have been able to have a gun.
 
“USCCB has suggested policies for better background checks, limitations to high-powered weapons, more laws criminalizing gun traffic, improved access to mental health care, and increased safety measures on guns.”

You guys oppose this??
 
While I’m not what you would consider a gun control advocate, at least not by the common US liberal definition of the term, I don’t see anything in this statement which is inherently anti-gun or even unreasonable. Any policies enacted would, however, have to be designed with the understanding that the only people who obey gun laws are those who intend no harm in the first place. Criminals don’t actually care what is written in a law book, and therefore any laws which take away the ability of law abiding citizens to own and carry reasonable types of firearms will only result in more innocent victims.

I must add, however, that the piece mentioning increased safety measures on guns is a little concerning. If that means safety levers on firearms to prevent accidental discharge then I would be cautious. Most modern handguns have built in safeties to prevent discharge of any type except when the trigger is actively depressed, and therefore such extraneous measures will only result in someone’s inability to fire a weapon when it matters (the act of remembering to disengage a safety when faced with a deadly threat takes conscious attention which is nearly impossible even for those who are highly trained and is, again, completely unnecessary. The stories of handguns that fire when dropped or thrown are mostly fiction, at least on anything manufactured in the last few decades. Saturday night specials are always the exception, but only a criminal would use one, so again any laws would make nobdifference.
 
Last edited:
However, mental health and background check expansions in order to prevent illegal ‘legal’ purchases (if you get my drift) are still realistic and nessecary.
 
First of all, I have to say this entire thread was probably started on an appeal to authority fallacy. @TK421

Second, they sound open to the conversation, but I think they’re moving too far in the wrong direction.

Third, they are comparing different situations. In Vegas, the hotel was a gun free zone. Had the security guard been armed, that would have been over sooner. In Texas, a guy with a gun stopped the shooter or he could have nailed very person in that church before the cops arrives.
 
However, a beefed national background system could have prevented both. People on both sides of the aisle have brought up measuring purchases as a possible indicator of crime, and if the background check system had been fully functioning, Texas would have never happened.
 
Is this the same USCCB that threw Father Weinandy under the bus? The same USCCB who says about Catholic Relief Services…nothing to see here? I trust them on gun control about as much as I trust HRC on pro-life issues!
 
“Encouraging debate” on an issue is a safe response. I guess they had to say something because shootings were occurring in a church. However, I can’t say I lay awake nights waiting to hear what the USCCB will say on an issue that is pretty far removed from religion.
 
Shakuhachi said:
“USCCB has suggested policies for better background checks, limitations to high-powered weapons, more laws criminalizing gun traffic, improved access to mental health care, and increased safety measures on guns.”

You guys oppose this??
Click to expand...
I certainly don’t. Then again, background checks are only as good as the information put into it. The Texas shooter was prohibited by law, on more than 1 count, from buying arms, but the government bureaucrats failed to share the documentation with the NICS.
High powered weapons are already severely restricted in legislation from 1934 and I believe 1986.
The fact is all of this has been done, but I not opposed to legislation that targets criminals, not the law abiding
 
Last edited:
It is the people who have made of guns a polítical discussion.
Why are you blaming it on the Bishops?
They are proposing solutions and encouraging debate as to reduce chances of deaths and the chances insane persons get to the guns.
That you may like or not the proposals doesn t mean that Bishops have to be away from the hurting of their people and locked up in a Sacristy.
It is your USCCB after all…
 
Last edited:
I didn’t vote for anyone on the USCCB so none of em are mine, Politicians made it a political discussion that Bishops decided to play in. When American voters want an opinion from the USCCB the American voters will let the USCCB know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top