M
MonteRCMS
Guest
USCCB should focus on recruiting people to become Catholic.
And to teach Catholic doctrine and dogma.
And to teach Catholic doctrine and dogma.
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The perp will not care. He cares about police or other armed officials. Other than that, he does not care. The possibility of an armed citizen just happening to be wandering by with his gun to stop him will not be a deterrent.LeafByNiggle:
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.
P
pnewton
Guest
Thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity. I did not mean what I said in the way you took it. What I meant was that the idea behind promoting gun free zones was not to prevent mass shootings as target of opportunities. It was to prevent gun violence in general. For example, Texas has always held that guns are not allowed in bars. This is not to keep bars from being attacked by some mass shooter, but to prevent guns being used by people impaired by alcohol.
P
pnewton
Guest
False dichotomy. There job is also teaching practical application. That is why Jesus is the good shepherd, not the good orator. Besides, they are teaching. It is the old “let him who have ears listen,” part that is required of students and sheep alike. Yet too many Catholics would rather job shadow their bishop with critique him that humble themselves to the level of a student, much less a sheep.
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
I agree we should learn but what are they teaching when their teaching lacks specifics, makes factually wrong statements, and seems to ignore current laws?
P
pnewton
Guest
This is a specific. “The USCCB continues to urge a total ban on assault weapons, which we supported when the ban passed in 1994 and when Congress failed to renew it in 2004.”
This is a teaching. “. Society must recognize that the common good requires reasonable steps to limit access to such firearms by those who would intend to use them in that way.”
The question is, what are you asking for? Specifics and teaching are two different things. Recognizing the need to sacrifice for the common good is Catholic teaching. The value of life is a Catholic teaching. The need to limit assault weapons is a specific.
Asking for a change in law is not ignoring current law.
This is a teaching. “. Society must recognize that the common good requires reasonable steps to limit access to such firearms by those who would intend to use them in that way.”
The question is, what are you asking for? Specifics and teaching are two different things. Recognizing the need to sacrifice for the common good is Catholic teaching. The value of life is a Catholic teaching. The need to limit assault weapons is a specific.
Asking for a change in law is not ignoring current law.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Assault weapon is a kind of made up term that refers to cosmetics of rifles. It isn’t specific. What do they want to ban? Detachable magazines? Magazines of a certain capacity? Pistol grips?
What are ‘reasonable steps’. This is a term leftists use to be non specific and assume moral superiority. They use it to suggest their ideas are ‘reasonable’ and anyone who opposes them is ‘unreasonable’. I’d go so far to say the use of the term is uncharitable.
What are ‘reasonable steps’. This is a term leftists use to be non specific and assume moral superiority. They use it to suggest their ideas are ‘reasonable’ and anyone who opposes them is ‘unreasonable’. I’d go so far to say the use of the term is uncharitable.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is muddying the waters. I know the term is non-specific, as is “drugs”, yet we are able to make many drugs illegal. This is not that difficult. All one needs is have the ATF approve all firearms that are legal for sale. Or, make firearms illegal by model number and keep adding to the list. You can even make manufactures liable for new models made to circumvent the law in civil court when they are used illegally. There are several paths that can be taken.
Arguing the term so that nothing is be done does not promote the common good. The NRA has used this tactic too long and it is time to sidestep their distraction.
You asked for a specific. I gave one. You say it is not specific. I do not know what you want.
“Reasonable” has a real meaning. It means you can support with reason. The above example is something I do not think is reasonable, but only because I can explain why, that is provide reasons why I think the term can be used. The tactic above is akin to blasting Republicans for using a term like Obamacare because they are not specifying what Obama cares about, or how much he cares, or how he shows he cares. It is not logical.
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
You are right that there was a specific. They requested to renew the assault weapons ban. As stated I think that is a strange law and didn’t accomplish anything.
Why term your ideas as reasonable? Who presents or advocates for unreasonable laws? If their proposals are reasonable they should offer the reasons and explain why opposition to them is unreasonable.
Why term your ideas as reasonable? Who presents or advocates for unreasonable laws? If their proposals are reasonable they should offer the reasons and explain why opposition to them is unreasonable.
U
upant
Guest
you are right he will not care about someone wandering by. however if the signage indicated there was armed security in the building it would be a deterrent imho.upant:
The perp will not care. He cares about police or other armed officials. Other than that, he does not care. The possibility of an armed citizen just happening to be wandering by with his gun to stop him will not be a deterrent.LeafByNiggle:
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.
i was listening to a podcast a few years ago. it was a gun podcast but had a lot of police guests and they almost to a person recommended signage about security and cameras placed quite visibly on your property as a deterrent. their experience in investigating the crime was the criminals who pick a random house would normally pick a house that had no signage or visible camera.
U
upant
Guest
upant:
Thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity. I did not mean what I said in the way you took it. What I meant was that the idea behind promoting gun free zones was not to prevent mass shootings as target of opportunities. It was to prevent gun violence in general. For example, Texas has always held that guns are not allowed in bars. This is not to keep bars from being attacked by some mass shooter, but to prevent guns being used by people impaired by alcohol.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, but that is a totally different issue than the issue of gun free zones. Of course it is a deterrent to have armed security on site. But you can have armed security on site with or without the gun free zone designation. The gun free zone designation only applies to unofficial people. Bringing up the fact that shooters target places without security is a true fact but irrelevant to the issue being discussed.LeafByNiggle:
you are right he will not care about someone wandering by. however if the signage indicated there was armed security in the building it would be a deterrent imho.upant:
The perp will not care. He cares about police or other armed officials. Other than that, he does not care. The possibility of an armed citizen just happening to be wandering by with his gun to stop him will not be a deterrent.LeafByNiggle:
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.
i was listening to a podcast a few years ago. it was a gun podcast but had a lot of police guests and they almost to a person recommended signage about security and cameras placed quite visibly on your property as a deterrent. their experience in investigating the crime was the criminals who pick a random house would normally pick a house that had no signage or visible camera.
U
upant
Guest
so you are implying a gun free zone means nothing to someone looking for a soft target?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, not all by itself. What means more is the absence of apparent security.
Security with guns?upant:
No, not all by itself. What means more is the absence of apparent security.
P
pnewton
Guest
I try to give reasons for my suggestions. For example, high capacity clips are not useful for hunting. The are, however, used a lot in these mass shootings. I do not even want good people protecting me with such a weapon. Friendly fire is just as deadly as deliberate fire. If a good member of the NRA wants 100 rounds to stop an active shooter, I would rather wait for someone with greater skill.
You may not agree, but it is a suggestions with reasons.
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
No, I don’t agree. Guns aren’t just for hunting. They are also for self defense. The police don’t carry small magazines in their AR-15s. It isn’t a question of being a good shot.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes. Guns used by actual security personnel. What all the pro-gun people have been dancing around, but not quite willing to commit to is the claim that unofficial citizens with guns, freed from the restrictions of a gun-free zone, will provide this security and deterrent to mass shooters. Needless to say, I do not agree with that claim, if anyone should care to make it.LeafByNiggle:
Security with guns?upant:
No, not all by itself. What means more is the absence of apparent security.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Yeah, if some home invader invades your home, call a protester.
P
pnewton
Guest
Most police do not carry AR-15s, and militarizing the police is a separate issue. But yes, it is a question of being a good shot in an active shooter situation. Spray and pray doesn’t work too well in a crowd or in a school. Also, no police will ever carry a weapon without extensive supplemental training with that weapon. How police are armed has nothing to do with what a citizen should be able to buy.
- Status