Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Great response. I am absolutely for gun rights under the second amendment. Anything I say, anything I post on CAF, any beliefs I may hold, I will always defer to the CCC. The only possible exception I would make would be if our government began breaking its own laws to oppress the citizenry, in a militaristic style, in a , warlike atmosphere. A good example of this was the illegal takeover by the Soviets of the eastern bloc nations.

So while I favor some forms of gun control, I am against outright bans and unrealistic regulations.
 
I said:
A gun free zone has nothing to do with being a good or bad target of a mass shooting. Bars are gun free because alcohol impairment makes having a fire arm more dangerous. Schools are gun free because teenagers do not need guns, and school administrators need to have control of security. Business are gun-free because owners have the right to make that determination based on their private property rights.
Click to expand...
You replied.
JHC said:
There was gun control in place. IT FAILED.
Click to expand...
…which has nothing to do with what I said. Reading is fundamental. Even in all capitals, a straw man is a straw man.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
The statement cited does not mention reducing gun ownership as a primary goal. There is mention of “gun control” which can mean many things besides gun ownership. For example, it could include regulations about gun safes in homes, or restrictions on certain types of guns. It is a straw man argument to say that pnewton is saying the bishops were just advocating as a primary goal the reduction in ownership of guns.
Click to expand...
The irony of your response ought to be apparent when you first claim that reducing gun ownership is not a primary goal and then go on to suggest that “restrictions on certain types of guns” would be a legitimate objective. The point you didn’t address, however, was the one I raised: that the USCCB has simply assumed that “gun control” (whatever they mean by that highly ambiguous statement) is the proper approach to reducing gun violence. They may in fact be right (I don’t totally reject that possibility), but there is no moral question facing those who address this issue with an eye to reducing gun violence. Hence, the inappropriateness of the bishop’s involvement.
 
We already have policies. Now we need to enforce them uniformly.

I don’t think the problem is the policies or the laws. Let’s go to other arenas for a comparison.

We have immigration laws. Are they being enforced? If so, how did we get so many illegal immigrants in the country?

We have speeding laws. I see a 70mph speed limit. How fast is the traffic traveling? About 85-90.

Is it possible that we simply don’t have enough people to enforce the laws on the books? If so, why pile on more laws that can’t be enforced?

Here’s another thought. People like their guns in America. If you prohibit them from owning guns, do you think they will honor the prohibition? Or will you simply make an otherwise honest man into a criminal?

Let’s see what happened in the era of Prohibition of alcohol? Instead of reducing crime, crime sky rocketed.

We see the same phenomenon in the Prohibition of drugs. Lots of otherwise law abiding citizens in jail for simple possession of small amounts of drugs. Crime out of control for illegal transport of drugs. Much of the gun violence is connected to this problem.

Buuuut, we’re going to enact more drug prohibition, not less. And if we prohibit guns, we’ll take the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizen but the criminals will not give theirs up.
 
De_Maria said:
We already have policies. Now we need to enforce them uniformly.

I don’t think the problem is the policies or the laws. Let’s go to other arenas for a comparison.

We have immigration laws. Are they being enforced? If so, how did we get so many illegal immigrants in the country?

We have speeding laws. I see a 70mph speed limit. How fast is the traffic traveling? About 85-90.

Is it possible that we simply don’t have enough people to enforce the laws on the books? If so, why pile on more laws that can’t be enforced?

Here’s another thought. People like their guns in America. If you prohibit them from owning guns, do you think they will honor the prohibition? Or will you simply make an otherwise honest man into a criminal?

Let’s see what happened in the era of Prohibition of alcohol? Instead of reducing crime, crime sky rocketed.

We see the same phenomenon in the Prohibition of drugs. Lots of otherwise law abiding citizens in jail for simple possession of small amounts of drugs. Crime out of control for illegal transport of drugs. Much of the gun violence is connected to this problem.

Buuuut, we’re going to enact more drug prohibition, not less. And if we prohibit guns, we’ll take the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizen but the criminals will not give theirs up.
Click to expand...
Speaking of prohibition - it’s not like crime stopped when booze became legal again. The crims were, as they always have been, into many illegal activities - drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, extortion etc. One string of the bow broke, and was easily replaced.
 
Booze crime stopped. Since it was no longer against the law to sell booze openly, mob bosses didn’t have any incentive to compete with legitimate businesses.

We can compare the two situations. Do we want to go back to the prohibition era type crime? Or with reference to booze, is it better now?

We need to consider removing the probibitions on drugs and see if that doesnt affect the murder rate positively.
 
De_Maria said:
Booze crime stopped. Since it was no longer against the law to sell booze openly, mob bosses didn’t have any incentive to compete with legitimate businesses.
Click to expand...
Kind of tangential, but legalization does not necessarily remove the criminal element from a business sector. Having been a bartender in the past (in more than one state), I can tell you that the mob is most definitely still involved in liquor sales.
 
Inisfallen said:
Kind of tangential, but legalization does not necessarily remove the criminal element from a business sector. Having been a bartender in the past (in more than one state), I can tell you that the mob is most definitely still involved in liquor sales.
Click to expand...
But…is it the same level as it was during the prohibition era?
 
No. But the point is, prohibition didn’t entirely remove organized crime from the liquor business. It’s still pervasive, at least in the areas where I worked in bars. It won’t entirely remove it from the drug business, either.
 
pnewton said:
A gun free zone has nothing to do with being a good or bad target of a mass shooting.
Click to expand...
i don’t buy this.

if everything else is equal a killer looking for a big score will go to where there will be the least amount of opposition. he may go to a place where it will take the cops time to get there. he may go to a place where he will be least likely to be stopped by the intended victims and this is where he will choose a gun free zone over a place that have guards or that people may shoot back

some examples

it has been reported that the charleston church killer changed his plans to shoot up the college to the church because of security.

the dark knight killer was going to shoot up an airport but changed to the movie theater because of substantial security at the airport.

elliot rodgers changed his plans after he saw that there were way too many cops at one location.

dylan klebold, (columbine) was said to have followed concealed carry legislation that would have provided an obstacle to what he planned

they all ended up at gun free zones
 
Last edited:
upant said:
40.png
pnewton:
A gun free zone has nothing to do with being a good or bad target of a mass shooting.
Click to expand...
i don’t buy this.

if everything else is equal a killer looking for a big score will go to where there will be the least amount of opposition. he may go to a place where it will take the cops time to get there. he may go to a place where he will be least likely to be stopped by the intended victims and this is where he will choose a gun free zone over a place that have guards or that people may shoot back

some examples

it has been reported that the charleston church killer changed his plans to shoot up the college to the church because of security.

the dark knight killer was going to shoot up an airport but changed to the movie theater because of substantial security at the airport.

elliot rodgers changed his plans after he saw that there were way too many cops at one location.

dylan klebold, (columbine) was said to have followed concealed carry legislation that would have provided an obstacle to what he planned

they all ended up at gun free zones
Click to expand...
All the examples you give are where official security discouraged the shooter. Just taking away gun free zone signs does not produce the same effect as hiring armed guards. Just a remote chance that some private citizen with a gun might happen by as I begin my attack is not going to give me second thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Inisfallen said:
Kind of tangential, but legalization does not necessarily remove the criminal element from a business sector. Having been a bartender in the past (in more than one state), I can tell you that the mob is most definitely still involved in liquor sales.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about alcohol but I don’t doubt it. I do know they are or were involved in cigarettes. One cause of organized crime is taxes and other government regulation. The more government you have the more room you make for criminal enterprises.
 
exnihilo said:
I don’t know about alcohol but I don’t doubt it. I do know they are or were involved in cigarettes. One cause of organized crime is taxes and other government regulation. The more government you have the more room you make for criminal enterprises.
Click to expand...
The involvement of organized crime (that I’m aware of) in the liquor business has nothing to do with government regulation. It takes the form of coercing bars and restaurants to buy their liquor from distributors controlled by or working with the mob (whatever mob controls distribution in that area). It’s simple thuggery.
 
Inisfallen said:
The involvement of organized crime (that I’m aware of) in the liquor business has nothing to do with government regulation. It takes the form of coercing bars and restaurants to buy their liquor from distributors controlled by or working with the mob (whatever mob controls distribution in that area). It’s simple thuggery.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you live or the laws but even with what you describe it could still have to do with government regulation. Liquor licenses, trade restrictions and other things can create a place for the mob. Or it could just be thuggery too.
 
Take a look at Mexico, a country with very restrictive gun laws. Their homicide rate is well over 3 times that of the US. Look at the various states and their respective gun laws. There is no correlation between homicide rate and how restrictive the guns laws are. Vermont, the least restrictive for pretty much the history of the US, has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country.
Culture is what needs to be addressed. Those that claim “thoughts and prayers” are useless fail to see that they may be the most important. All the laws in the world won’t help if people don’t see that every human has innate worth and dignity. I would suggest the USCCB focus on that.
 
upant said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
are where official security discouraged the shooter.
Click to expand...
the examples i show are of people choosing gun free zones because of the lack of security.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you used them to support your claim that gun free designations make the site more dangerous than if they were not so designated. Your examples only prove that point if taking away the signs brought the kind of security in your examples. Just taking away the sign does not do that.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Just taking away the sign does not do that
Click to expand...
i agree especially since it is ingrain to many that certain places are gun free zones. i don’t think people even notice the signs anymore.

however, the perp, which we see many plan out their event, will know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top