I do not object.LeafByNiggle:
As a parent, I want the right to my kids being able to have proper knowledge, safety, and training with firearms. (I’ll do this on my own; not implying schools should)
As long as you do not object to me teaching my children proper firearm techniques and safety procedures, then there is no objection here.
An empty AR-15 is no more than a lightweight plastic club. One should not bring that as a weapon of choice to a knife fight.
You might want to redo your imaginary math again. Only 10 deaths/machete? Unlikely.
The point remains: it is not the weapon; it is the man who murders.
It absolutely should be taken for granted that guns will be around, just as much as any other right.
If you look back to when frdavid96 first proposed mandatory target shooting for Catholic school kids, you will see my objection has not been over teaching general principles of how dangerous a gun is. That sort of safety instruction is fine. I objected to the mandatory handling and operation of a gun.LeafByNiggle:
It absolutely should be taken for granted that guns will be around, just as much as any other right.
I do not expect schools to indoctrinate regarding religion, but I do expect schools to teach that religious free exercise is an individual right, and that it should be taken for granted that religious faith is around.
Same with guns. You don’t indoctrinate that someone should have guns, only that they have a right to have guns, and safety around guns includes stop, don’t touch, run away , tell a grown up
I would have no problem with that in a Catholic school, or a private school, and I think it would be a positive thing as an elective or extra-curricular activism in public school.
I would imagine it would play out as something similar to a driver’s education class. It was a few days a week after school and sponsored by a third-party company not associated with the school. I learned a lot about safe driving and techniques. Same thing could be taught with firearm safety.
It could be, but drivers ed was part of the curriculum at the high school I went to. And we had an inter-scholastic rifle team. So it surely doesn’t have to be third party
As an extra-curricular, yes. But not a mandatory activity, as frdavid96 proposed.LeafByNiggle:
I would have no problem with that in a Catholic school, or a private school, and I think it would be a positive thing as an elective or extra-curricular activism in public school.
At a Catholic school? Up to the diocese, I would guessJonNC:
As an extra-curricular, yes. But not a mandatory activity, as frdavid96 proposed.LeafByNiggle:
I would have no problem with that in a Catholic school, or a private school, and I think it would be a positive thing as an elective or extra-curricular activism in public school.
That worked out so well with ACA. All of a sudden they’re faced with the HHS Mandate, and its ,“wait. What?”
unless eddie eagle has changed I am not aware of it teaching how to aim and fire a gun.
the church and holy see did weigh in on the topic.
you want to follow the usccb but not St JP II?
Apparently your could not find FrDavid96’s post that I referred to. Here it is, complete with the mandatory target shooting part.LeafByNiggle:
unless eddie eagle has changed I am not aware of it teaching how to aim and fire a gun.
it teaches to not touch the gun. there is a misunderstanding somewhere.
stop! don’t touch! run…
Use whatever terms you prefer: abortion - gun control, abortion policies - gun violence policies, abortion - gun violence. Given that both issues involve prudential choices in implementing policies to address the societal problems they pose, they are to that extent political and outside the purview of the church. That said, abortion, unlike gun/control/violence/policies, involves moral choices as well, and as such is a rightful and proper area for the involvement of the church, and by extension the clergy.
Abortion is a special case, and the reason ought to be obvious: it involves the destruction of a human life. If that is not sufficient reason it is hard to imagine what would qualify.
his post contains 2 programs one for grade school and one for high school.upant:
Apparently your could not find FrDavid96’s post that I referred to. Here it is, complete with the mandatory target shooting part.LeafByNiggle:
unless eddie eagle has changed I am not aware of it teaching how to aim and fire a gun.
it teaches to not touch the gun. there is a misunderstanding somewhere.
stop! don’t touch! run…
When someone holds up a liquor store and shoots the owner, he is making a moral choice. When someone aborts a child that person is making a moral choice. Both actions involve moral choices. No difference. How to best address armed robbery as a policy is a prudential choice. How to best address abortion as a policy is a prudential choice. Again, no difference.LeafByNiggle:
Use whatever terms you prefer: abortion - gun control, abortion policies - gun violence policies, abortion - gun violence. Given that both issues involve prudential choices in implementing policies to address the societal problems they pose, they are to that extent political and outside the purview of the church. That said, abortion, unlike gun/control/violence/policies, involves moral choices as well, and as such is a rightful and proper area for the involvement of the church, and by extension the clergy.
Shooting the owner of the liquor store also involves the destruction of a human life. Again, no difference.
True. Irrelevant to the topic, but still true. What is being discussing is the morality of the options selected to address a problem, not whether the problem being address is moral. That point was pretty much a given.
Untrue, and rather crucially so. We all agree that armed robbery is wrong, and the policies we propose to address the problem are all aimed at at least limiting it. No such agreement exists with respect to abortion, where one side sees it as immoral, and the other sees it as a Constitutional right. This is a moral question. If we all agreed that abortion was immoral then perhaps an argument could be made that what policies best reduce its incidence are solely prudential, but that isn’t the case.
I don’t read the news a lot but I have yet to see a politician take a stand in support of shooting liquor store owners. Again, this is in obvious contrast to their position on abortion.
OK, then don’t bring up the fact that abortion involves moral choices if you don’t want me to bring up the fact that holding up a liquor store involves moral choices.LeafByNiggle:
True. Irrelevant to the topic, but still true. What is being discussing is the morality of the options selected to address a problem, not whether the problem being address is moral.
That is only coincidentally true. Men having sex with men also is wrong and has moral choices, but we no longer have policies that forcefully limit that activity. You are playing on a feature of my example that does not hold for all examples of things that are wrong that the government may address with some sort of policy.
What if everyone agreed that abortion was wrong, but some people thought it would best be addressed by non-punitive measured? Then would my argument hold?
Do you really not understand what is being discussed here? No one argues that holdups are not immoral, but what is being debated are the proposals about how best to minimize that problem. That debate has no moral component. We’re not discussing the morality of robbery, but whether there are moral choices involved in the proposals to limit it. With abortion there are moral choices involved in comparable proposals.
I really didn’t expect to encounter resistance on this point. Yes, some (few) issues have a moral component in determining how best to address them, although most do not. Abortion does, gun laws do not.
Possibly, but since that is not the situation, abortion remains both a political and a moral issue