Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

[LilyM]

Ender:

LeafByNiggle:

You continue to compare abortion to gun control when the real comparison is between policies toward abortion and policies toward gun violence. Or between abortion itself and gun violence itself.

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.

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.

As for ruling out certain positions, that is not clear either. There are other things that are evil but still legal, and the Church does not insist they be made illegal. So you are trying to make a special case out of abortion without an adequate reason.

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.

Shooting the owner of the liquor store also involves the destruction of a human life. Again, no difference.

Oh, so if I prudentially think the best way to “address abortion” is, like with tobacco, to have it be legal but limited availability and very expensive, then that’s fine and dandy with you and the USCCB? Of course not.

Not all ends are morally equivalent. And not all means, even to morally neutral or laudable ends, are morally equivalent to each other either.

I think the USCCB has every right to weigh in and say “we think xyz way of attempting to address gun crime/abortion/name your issue is more in line with Catholic morality than any other”

 

[godisgood77]

This is a pro-life issue… not politics

 

[godisgood77]

Thank you US Bishops!

 

[JonNC]

This is a pro-life issue… not politics

Indeed, and it is a fact that far more lives are saved by defensive gun uses than lives taken by guns.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Ender:

LeafByNiggle:

You continue to compare abortion to gun control when the real comparison is between policies toward abortion and policies toward gun violence. Or between abortion itself and gun violence itself.

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.

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.

As for ruling out certain positions, that is not clear either. There are other things that are evil but still legal, and the Church does not insist they be made illegal. So you are trying to make a special case out of abortion without an adequate reason.

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.

Shooting the owner of the liquor store also involves the destruction of a human life. Again, no difference.

Oh, so if I prudentially think the best way to “address abortion” is, like with tobacco, to have it be legal but limited availability and very expensive, then that’s fine and dandy with you and the USCCB? Of course not.

Not all ends are morally equivalent. And not all means, even to morally neutral or laudable ends, are morally equivalent to each other either.

I think the USCCB has every right to weigh in and say “we think xyz way of attempting to address gun crime/abortion/name your issue is more in line with Catholic morality than any other”

Thank you. That was the reason I brought this up - to illuminate was you just said.

 

[Inisfallen]

Indeed, and it is a fact that far more lives are saved by defensive gun uses than lives taken by guns.

Really? I’m not accusing you of making this up. I’m just surprised.

In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides, but an Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.

Source

So there were more than 11,000 lives saved last year in the US by defensive gun use? Or more than 38,000, if we include suicides?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

godisgood77:

This is a pro-life issue… not politics

Indeed, and it is a fact that far more lives are saved by defensive gun uses than lives taken by guns.

Do you have a source for that “fact?”

 

[godisgood77]

Indeed, and it is a fact that far more lives are saved by defensive gun uses than lives taken by guns.

I’d like to see a source of that. And that one does not pass the sniff test

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Indeed, and it is a fact that far more lives are saved by defensive gun uses than lives taken by guns.

Really? I’m not accusing you of making this up. I’m just surprised.

In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides, but an Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.

Source

So there were more than 11,000 lives saved last year in the US by defensive gun use? Or more than 38,000, if we include suicides?

Suicides are not criminal gun usage.

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Inisfallen:

JonNC:

Indeed, and it is a fact that far more lives are saved by defensive gun uses than lives taken by guns.

Really? I’m not accusing you of making this up. I’m just surprised.

In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides, but an Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.

Source

So there were more than 11,000 lives saved last year in the US by defensive gun use? Or more than 38,000, if we include suicides?

Suicides are not criminal gun usage.

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

The error here is in equating “uses” with “lives taken.” Not every use of a gun is a life taken or a life saved. Also the number of lives saved is just a guess by the gun owners who responded to the surveys. When asked to recount incidents where their gun saved a life, they think of some incident where they brandished their gun and the hooligans ran away. It is easy to imagine how things might have gone if they had not had a gun. But it is still just their imaginings. Perhaps their assessment was colored by irrational fear. I can well believe that gun owners would be biased (unconsciously perhaps) to inflate the importance of their gun in a recalled event. Therefore such a survey is an unreliable indicator of the number of lives saved. On the other hand, the number of lives lost is a little more objective. The body is dead and there is a bullet hole. No room for subjective interpretation there.

Also suicdes should be counted since they are just as dead.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Inisfallen:

JonNC:

Indeed, and it is a fact that far more lives are saved by defensive gun uses than lives taken by guns.

Really? I’m not accusing you of making this up. I’m just surprised.

In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides, but an Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.

Source

So there were more than 11,000 lives saved last year in the US by defensive gun use? Or more than 38,000, if we include suicides?

Suicides are not criminal gun usage.

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

The error here is in equating “uses” with “lives taken.” Not every use of a gun is a life taken or a life saved. Also the number of lives saved is just a guess by the gun owners who responded to the surveys. When asked to recount incidents where their gun saved a life, they think of some incident where they brandished their gun and the hooligans ran away. It is easy to imagine how things might have gone if they had not had a gun. But it is still just their imaginings. Perhaps their assessment was colored by irrational fear. I can well believe that gun owners would be biased (unconsciously perhaps) to inflate the importance of their gun in a recalled event. Therefore such a survey is an unreliable indicator of the number of lives saved. On the other hand, the number of lives lost is a little more objective. The body is dead and there is a bullet hole. Mano room for subjective interpretation there.

Yes, it is hard to prove that a life wasn’t taken. that is a what if. But the fact that there are so many DGU’s, it is telling. And those don’t even count the, “I have a gun”, and the criminal runs.

 

[Inisfallen]

Interesting.

Here’s your quote, but with more context:

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

From the study, located here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, it is hard to prove that a life wasn’t taken. that is a what if. But the fact that there are so many DGU’s, it is telling. And those don’t even count the, “I have a gun”, and the criminal runs.

Saying that “it is telling” without saying what it tells just invites the reader to engage in irrational speculation. Not very scientific. The ratio between DGUs and lives saved is still a complete unknown, so it is not clear that DGUs tell us anything at all relevant to the claim being debated.

 

[superblue]

pro-life issue ? since when is abortion or pro life choices related to gun control and politics ? There is nothing to thank the USCCB for when it comes to them medeling in US politics and American rights.

 

[Theo520]

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.

A beefed up background check, or just one that was used as designed would have prevented the TX incident, since the AF neglected to make the requisite updates.

It would not have prevented the Vegas shooting since he did pass the checks.

Perhaps you are suggesting full on gun registration so we can track how many guns someone owns? I don’t think this will fly and it is largely useless since 1-3 guns with extra magazines is all you need to recreate the LV shooting. If you track purchases, the criminal will simply plan further ahead and spread out his purchases.

 

[Lemuel]

It’s not about guns. It’s all about control. And like sheep, we follow.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Who do you follow?

 

[Lemuel]

When it comes to government, nobody.

 

[Brendan]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Being around guns should not be taken for granted as something that is just going to happen. As a parent I want the right keep my kids from having anything to do with guns.

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

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.

I received my first firearms instruction at a Catholic seminary, given by a Benedictine monk

The summer camp I went to was held on the grounds of a nearby Seminary. The seminarians and the clerical professors were the camp staff over the summer. Not only did they have stables and a lake on the campus, they also had a rifle range. And that was were I was taught to shoot

Attendance at the camp was not mandatory, however.

 

[Ender]

Oh, so if I prudentially think the best way to “address abortion” is, like with tobacco, to have it be legal but limited availability and very expensive, then that’s fine and dandy with you and the USCCB? Of course not.

If a conclusion seems silly on its face it’s probably worth giving serious consideration that it’s not what was meant, but I’m not sure if your comment was meant for me or for LBN. I would hope not me since no such conclusion is reasonable based on anything I’ve said.

I think the USCCB has every right to weigh in and say “we think xyz way of attempting to address gun crime/abortion/name your issue is more in line with Catholic morality than any other”

I haven’t discussed the issue in terms of rights but in terms of appropriateness. The bishops, as do all citizens, have a legal right to express their opinions on anything at all, but that doesn’t make it advisable for them to do so. The problem comes when they offer their personal views on a political issue largely because the mere fact that they have spoken on an issues comes with the presumption that theirs is a moral judgment when that is only rarely the case, and is certainly not the case in regard to gun control.