LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As I have said before, issues with moral content and issues involving prudential judgement are not mutually exclusive.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
This is true, a truth contained in my comment that some issues are both political and moral. The question here, however, is the appropriateness of comments from the bishops on those issues have only political content. Gun control, for example.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Some of us reject the notion that gun regulation has only political content.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Then I guess we (including the bishops) disagree with you that gun control has no moral content.LeafByNiggle:
This is true, a truth contained in my comment that some issues are both political and moral. The question here, however, is the appropriateness of comments from the bishops on those issues have only political content. Gun control, for example.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is your opinion, not theirs, not mine. That is why we read phrases like, “when used with an evil purpose,” and “Society must recognize that the common good…”
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, clearly. The question is though, what moral question is involved in determining what the best course of action should be to control gun violence? That is a practical concern, not a moral one.
E
Ender
Guest
I keep asking someone, anyone, to identify what that moral content would be. This is in fact one of my chief objections to the bishops’ involvement in political issues: it implies a moral judgment where in fact none exists.
E
Ender
Guest
OK, so this is the third person in a row to imply there is moral content in the issue of gun control, and the third person to fail to identify what that would be. The question is not whether guns are “used with an evil purpose” - of course they can be - the question is what to do about it. Nor are generic appeals to the “common good” meaningful when the debate is precisely how best to achieve it.
These objections simply confirm my assertion: no one has identified a single moral choice involved in determining the best gun control policy which is a strong indication that one (moral choice) does not exist.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
When only lip service is given to “achieving it” (a reduction in gun violence) that is a moral issue. Of course no one can judge another’s intentions with certainty. But it is possible for someone to argue against gun control because they are primarily interested in preserving gun rights rather than solving the problem you claim everyone is trying to solve. In fact, if you read the responses in this forum, you see that most of the comments against gun control are of that sort. Pointing out that trying to reduce gun violence is a higher moral priority than maintaining the right to own a gun under a wide range of circumstances is a valid moral point to be made.pnewton:
OK, so this is the third person in a row to imply there is moral content in the issue of gun control, and the third person to fail to identify what that would be. The question is not whether guns are “used with an evil purpose” - of course they can be - the question is what to do about it. Nor are generic appeals to the “common good” meaningful when the debate is precisely how best to achieve it.
To prove that gun control can work I only have to look at passenger air travel. Guns are strictly prohibited and there are virtually zero murders or suicides on airplanes.
Last edited:
D
Duesenberg
Guest
The bishops are showing some woeful ignorance when it comes to firearms. Their support of a ban on “high capacity” magazines of 10 rounds or more is particularly stultified. Maybe they need to focus on their flocks, rather than a what amounts to partisan politics.
O
otjm
Guest
I think you are confusing high powered rifles with the rules concerning automatic weapons.
I don’t know that there is a specific definiton of “high powered rifle”; but it might be considered anything beyond a .22, and given some of the rounds available for them (such as CCI Stingers And Velociters), they might also qualify. Any adequate caliber of rifle for deer hunting is “high powered”.
I don’t know that there is a specific definiton of “high powered rifle”; but it might be considered anything beyond a .22, and given some of the rounds available for them (such as CCI Stingers And Velociters), they might also qualify. Any adequate caliber of rifle for deer hunting is “high powered”.
O
otjm
Guest
The USCCB appears to have done no homework before they decided to enter into the political discussion.
There are an estimated 110 million rifles and 86 million shotguns privately owned in the US. And because there is that nasty little law which says that one cannot be held criminal ofr what was previously permitted conduct (woning a high powered rifle) and because the 2nd Amendment is not going to go away, taking them from us is not foing to work.
Perhaps they have some law in mind which would not be an ex post facto law, and would not interfere with the right to purchase a high powered rifle of a law abiding citizen, but instead of actually proposing something, they do the liberal “guns need to be regulated” addition to what would otherwise be an eminently sensible comment: to wit, that the gun laws we have on the books need to be followed.
The first issue they bring up is the liberal rant which uses emotional language to create fear. It is the :assault weapons ban" language.
For starters, none of the weapons which were banned were assault weapons. I was in Vietnam and I carried an M-16. That was one of the assault weapons we had - and all the others, with the exception of the grenade launcher were capable of full automatic. The AR-16 is not manufactured as capable of full automatic. it is a semi automatic dressed up with a hand guard and a pistol grip. The same exact rifle - semi automatic, .215 cartridge as the Remington Ranch Rifle comes with a wood stock and looks like other rifles, and would not come under the ban. Why? Because liberals are not as scared of it. furthermore, according the FBI Statistics, in the vast majority of crimes committed with a weapon, rifles of any sort are not featured. They use hand guns - pistols and revolvers, and occasionally shotguns.
Out of the over 600 murders in Chicago this year, according to police reports, possibly 33 were by rifle, as the Hispanic gangs have been seeking to increase their fire power. However, short of gang warfare, rifles are not used in most robberies and burglaries - they are too cumbersome, unwieldly, and are not concealable…
There are a multitude of laws on the books criminalizing gun trafficking. Chicago is a prime example of a city that will not cooperate in federal prosecutions of the existing laws.
The same can be said for background checks; the law i s on the books, but if a federal agency does not report what is needed, a background check will not be effective. The shooter in Texas applied for a concealed permit; Texas had sufficient information to deny him but the federal check failed. We don’t need more laws there; we need to work on the ones we have.
Cont.
There are an estimated 110 million rifles and 86 million shotguns privately owned in the US. And because there is that nasty little law which says that one cannot be held criminal ofr what was previously permitted conduct (woning a high powered rifle) and because the 2nd Amendment is not going to go away, taking them from us is not foing to work.
Perhaps they have some law in mind which would not be an ex post facto law, and would not interfere with the right to purchase a high powered rifle of a law abiding citizen, but instead of actually proposing something, they do the liberal “guns need to be regulated” addition to what would otherwise be an eminently sensible comment: to wit, that the gun laws we have on the books need to be followed.
The first issue they bring up is the liberal rant which uses emotional language to create fear. It is the :assault weapons ban" language.
For starters, none of the weapons which were banned were assault weapons. I was in Vietnam and I carried an M-16. That was one of the assault weapons we had - and all the others, with the exception of the grenade launcher were capable of full automatic. The AR-16 is not manufactured as capable of full automatic. it is a semi automatic dressed up with a hand guard and a pistol grip. The same exact rifle - semi automatic, .215 cartridge as the Remington Ranch Rifle comes with a wood stock and looks like other rifles, and would not come under the ban. Why? Because liberals are not as scared of it. furthermore, according the FBI Statistics, in the vast majority of crimes committed with a weapon, rifles of any sort are not featured. They use hand guns - pistols and revolvers, and occasionally shotguns.
Out of the over 600 murders in Chicago this year, according to police reports, possibly 33 were by rifle, as the Hispanic gangs have been seeking to increase their fire power. However, short of gang warfare, rifles are not used in most robberies and burglaries - they are too cumbersome, unwieldly, and are not concealable…
There are a multitude of laws on the books criminalizing gun trafficking. Chicago is a prime example of a city that will not cooperate in federal prosecutions of the existing laws.
The same can be said for background checks; the law i s on the books, but if a federal agency does not report what is needed, a background check will not be effective. The shooter in Texas applied for a concealed permit; Texas had sufficient information to deny him but the federal check failed. We don’t need more laws there; we need to work on the ones we have.
Cont.
O
otjm
Guest
(cont.) “Weapons capable of mass murder”. One ony has to read of the mass shootings we have had to know that a pistol, which is semi automatic, has been prominent among some if not all of the shooters. And pistols are the primary firearm used by citizens who apply for a concealed carry permit. Because a handful of mass shooters had one or more with them, we are now to disarm over 100 million citizens?
It was the liberals who several years ago got a study of how often a weapon was used to stop a crime. They didn’t like the results; the study showed an estimated 2 million times a year.
I don’t cling to my guns (nor do I cling to my Bible, in spite of the snide comments of the last administration); I use them. I hunt, so I use a semi automatic .22 when I go hunting sage rats and jack rabbits (both of which inflict significant cop damage in Easter Oregon). I have a shotgun for bird hunting; a .204 for coyote hunting;a .270 for deer and Barbary sheep; and a 30.06 for elk. Having not used the last one for about 40 years, I am going to go to the gun range and make holes in paper to see if it shoots where I am aiming. If not, then I will want to purchase one of those “high powered rifles” for my next elk hunt, next October.
If gun control is a moral issue, then I am curious as to why, after one of the mass shootings during the last administration, when the Republicans porpoised 5 different bills, all of which had the backing of the NRA, the lead Democrats publicly said they were going to se the bills did not see daylight, and specifically said they would use that against the Republicans in the last election.
Gun control is about morality?
Ony if pigs fly.
It was the liberals who several years ago got a study of how often a weapon was used to stop a crime. They didn’t like the results; the study showed an estimated 2 million times a year.
I don’t cling to my guns (nor do I cling to my Bible, in spite of the snide comments of the last administration); I use them. I hunt, so I use a semi automatic .22 when I go hunting sage rats and jack rabbits (both of which inflict significant cop damage in Easter Oregon). I have a shotgun for bird hunting; a .204 for coyote hunting;a .270 for deer and Barbary sheep; and a 30.06 for elk. Having not used the last one for about 40 years, I am going to go to the gun range and make holes in paper to see if it shoots where I am aiming. If not, then I will want to purchase one of those “high powered rifles” for my next elk hunt, next October.
If gun control is a moral issue, then I am curious as to why, after one of the mass shootings during the last administration, when the Republicans porpoised 5 different bills, all of which had the backing of the NRA, the lead Democrats publicly said they were going to se the bills did not see daylight, and specifically said they would use that against the Republicans in the last election.
Gun control is about morality?
Ony if pigs fly.
O
otjm
Guest
Guns are restricted on planes; which is why mine is checked into baggage before the flight. And air marshals and police escorting prisoners may be armed. and there is a field in Pennsylvania, 2 towers, and the Pentagon which might possibly have had different results had there been an armed passenger. On the other hand, one of the difficulties is that the area is so intensely crowded, that should it be necessary to shoot a criminal (i.e. a hijacker), it is entirely possible there might be others killed by stray shots or through and through shots.
If one wants to look at the effectiveness of gun control, one need look no farther than Chicago, with some of the tightest gun laws in the nation; and as of last week,m over 600 murders this year.
If one wants to look at the effectiveness of gun control, one need look no farther than Chicago, with some of the tightest gun laws in the nation; and as of last week,m over 600 murders this year.
No, I’m not confusing it. I just know how those who wish to severely restrict or eliminate gun rights like to conflate things.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Which one sounds more appropriate: The bishops of the Church telling you what you should do or you telling them what they should do?
Last edited:
Abortion is not the right to control one’s own body. Abortion is the “right” to terminate the life of another human being.
The right of a woman to control her own body happens prior to conception.
Thank God the number of deaths due to abortion continues to decline.
Actually it doesn’t. So, let’s agree. If I use my gun to take a life without cause, I should lose my rights. If a doctor takes a life by committing an abortion, he/she should lose their rights.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I will acknowledge this much: the moral argument involved in the overwhelming number of political issues is nothing more than “I judge you to be immoral.”
And there it is: "I’m trying to solve the problem; you’re just interested in yourself."
“My point is moral, your’s is just selfish.” The two concerns are quite different but are not separable. One approach at reducing gun violence (by either confiscating existing arms or by making their acquisition virtually impossible) is rejected as impractical. The approach taken to resist it is reliance on Constitutional protection.
Does it seem all that realistic to take a very unique and special case and suggest it can be extended universally? Don’t forget that along with banning guns, which requires passing through security lines, body scanners, baggage scanners, and intrusive searches, we also give up knives, scissors, and even bottles of water. I really don’t think most of us want to live in a society where such security measures are ubiquitous. Now, does my rejection of your position mean I’m not interested in reducing gun violence, or just that I dismiss your approach as unworkable?
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Ignoring them when they step well outside their area of expertise and authority.
- Status