Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

[upant]

The bishops are a real authority. It is not a fallacy to treat them as such.

there isn’t consensus among the bishops; so, why would you expect the rest of the church to follow them.

 

[po18guy]

Knee-jerk “official” reactions demonstrate the need for press release control. I would think (my bad!) that the USCCB would be more preoccupied with vociferously proclaiming the Gospel and changing human hearts. Apparently, it’s OK to go to hell and lead others there - as long as you don’t use a gun to do it?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I tend to believe them over some random person on the internet.

Appeal to authority.

Besides, I don’t see why it takes special knowledge of weapons technology to comment on what good and what evil can be done with them.

First of all, saying “you don’t see why” means your following statement lacks person confidence.

Second, it’s really important to know what you are talking about. A lot of times, the USCCB sounds like it does not.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The bishops are a real authority. It is not a fallacy to treat them as such.

The fact that they are an authority is what causes the fallacy in the first place.

BTW, do you follow the bishops on so-called gay “marriage” and not equating abortion with climate change?

 

[MonteRCMS]

Why are the Catholic bishops getting involved in issues that are not issues of morality or ethics or religion?

If they concentrated on morality and ethics and religion they could convince people to alter their adverse behaviors.

 

[pnewton]

Duesenberg:

Ignoring them when they step well outside their area of expertise and authority.

Yes, that’s why most Catholics ignore them on gay marriage, premarital sex and birth control.

I like this post, though I suppose it is easily dismissed. We easily recognize that expertise is not a requirement to teach on matters of sex and marriage, accepting celibate bishops as the authority to teach about that on which they have no experience. We understand that their expertise is moral theology is sufficient. Yet when it comes to many other social issues, we reject this same premise, arguing then that their lack of expertise and experience makes them unqualified.

Why are the Catholic bishops getting involved in issues that are not issues of morality or ethics or religion?

If they concentrated on morality and ethics and religion they could convince people to alter their adverse behaviors.

I release put out was on morality. I know that many American Catholics think they would be a better bishop than any bishop. We have allowed our right to an opinion become greater than our obligation to be a disciple, as in a student.

 

[Ender]

Isn’t that a real possibility? People have been known to act on narrow selfish interests. It is not so strange that the bishops would acknowledge this possibility and exhort people not to do it.

Calling people out as being narrowly selfish is a rash and uncharitable judgment of people, not of policies. When such personal condemnations are made by the clergy it is all the worse for that.

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.

Perhaps, but that’s not what the debate is about. The bishops offered their own proposals for reducing gun violence, proposals that are neither more nor less moral than anyone else’s proposals, which is not surprising as there is no moral component in them. All of your “moral” considerations reduce to the same thing: “You people don’t care.” They are judgments of people, not of proposals.

Could you restate that argument? I don’t quite follow what you are saying here. Are you saying upholding an amendment to the Constitution has the same moral weight as saving lives lost to gun violence?

No, I’m saying that appealing to the Constitution is a tactic for opposing what are seen as unworkable, unwanted, and illegal proposals to control access to guns.

Citing air travel is not meant to extended to all situations in exactly the same way. It is just meant to show that at least in one scenario gun control does work - just for those who say gun control never works. Actually I have seen gun supporters in this very thread who have implied that it would be better if we did not have gun control on passenger airplanes either.

I think your example is counter productive as it shows the effort necessary to ensure that criminals cannot use guns. The controls involved in providing airplane security are so excessive no one could conceivably imagine extending them nationwide, yet - and this is the point the anti-gun control people make - this is the only way to ensure that criminals can’t use them. It is easy to keep the law abiding citizen from getting a firearm. It is extraordinarily difficult to prevent the lawless from acquiring them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Calling people out as being narrowly selfish is a rash and uncharitable judgment of people, not of policies.

The bishops did not call anyone out. They did not name names. They were not personal condemnations. They were not uncharitable.

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.

Perhaps, but that’s not what the debate is about. The bishops offered their own proposals for reducing gun violence, proposals that are neither more nor less moral than anyone else’s proposals…

There was very little in the way of specific proposals. I think you are grasping at straws to find things wrong with the bishops. Talk about uncharitable!

No, I’m saying that appealing to the Constitution is a tactic for opposing what are seen as unworkable, unwanted, and illegal proposals to control access to guns.

If so, then it is a dishonest tactic. For if the proposals are unworkable, they should be criticized on those grounds. The Constitution has no moral standing - any more than a poll of citizens. It is the law of the land and must be followed for as long as it is such, but it can be changed and then it would no longer have that effect.

Citing air travel is not meant to extended to all situations in exactly the same way. It is just meant to show that at least in one scenario gun control does work - just for those who say gun control never works. Actually I have seen gun supporters in this very thread who have implied that it would be better if we did not have gun control on passenger airplanes either.

I think your example is counter productive as it shows the effort necessary to ensure that criminals cannot use guns. The controls involved in providing airplane security are so excessive no one could conceivably imagine extending them nationwide, yet - and this is the point the anti-gun control people make - this is the only way to ensure that criminals can’t use them. It is easy to keep the law abiding citizen from getting a firearm. It is extraordinarily difficult to prevent the lawless from acquiring them.

I have heard that argument made. I just don’t happen to believe it.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Gun control does not work.

They eliminated guns in possession of airline pilots [airline pilots carrying handguns in their flight kits] and as a result we got the 9/11 hijackings.

If they had been carrying pistols, the airline pilots could have defended their aircraft.

But the airline pilots were totally defenseless and we ended up with the pilots getting their throats cut and their airplanes being hijacked.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gun control does not work.

They eliminated guns in possession of airline pilots [airline pilots carrying handguns in their flight kits] and as a result we got the 9/11 hijackings.

If they had been carrying pistols, the airline pilots could have defended their aircraft.

But the airline pilots were totally defenseless and we ended up with the pilots getting their throats cut and their airplanes being hijacked.

This is silly because gun control is not designed to deprive those in authority. Pilots are in authority. Pilots going without guns was a purely internal policy decision and not the result of the general push for gun control.

 

[upant]

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

no it isn’t.

i can be pro gun or anti-gun neither one makes me immoral. i can believe more guns reduce gun violence: this doesn’t make me immoral.

are you immoral for making folks defenseless and subject to being killed by criminals because you want to take away guns from those who need them most (gun free zones)? a person can’t fulfill their catholic duty of defending their family in a gun free zone.

you just don’t get it. all of the laws on the books have not worked but you want to condemn those of us that have seen through the hype to the reality and want to properly protect our families until the situation changes. as i pointed out with your airport scenario all you did was stop the law abiding. you won’t stop someone intent on killing.

the root cause is the moral issue: not the tool… the reason they want to kill is the moral issue; but, that doesn’t fit your agenda.

as a reminder:
950,000 abortions
64000 drug overdoses
40200 car deaths
13515 murders (9616 gun related)

 

[upant]

This is silly because gun control is not designed to deprive those in authority.

there are so many different gun control groups and some want to disarm cops so this isn’t necessarily true.

i can’t tell a fringe gun control group or supporter from others.

gabby gifford just came out to ban muzzle-loaders? you need to explain that one to me. would anyone bring a muzzle loader to a mass killing.

tell me again these groups don’t want the gun owners gun.

 

[upant]

It is just meant to show that at least in one scenario gun control does work - just for those who say gun control never works.

except in this case, call it what it is

a BAN! NO GUNS ALLOWED!

and that is gun controls ultimate desire.

except in 67 out of 70 test it didn’t work. all they did was disarm the law abiding citizen while the criminal is still armed.

 

[Brendan]

As an FYI, my nephew’s High School has a Shotgun Club and a Skeet team. The students do bring their guns to school for practice.

But that is a Catholic school, so public school rules don’t apply.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is just meant to show that at least in one scenario gun control does work - just for those who say gun control never works.

except in this case, call it what it is

a BAN! NO GUNS ALLOWED!

and that is gun controls ultimate desire.

except in 67 out of 70 test it didn’t work.

The measure of how well a policy worked is how many lives were saved - not how many test guns got through screening. And according to that proper measure, it does work. As for your first comment, the bishops are not so concerned about preserving an arbitrary right to have a gun as they are in preserving human life. Let’s keep our priorities straight.

LeafByNiggle:

This is silly because gun control is not designed to deprive those in authority.

there are so many different gun control groups and some want to disarm cops so this isn’t necessarily true.

Actually I have heard more calls for disarming cops from gun rights people than from gun control people. Gun control people do not call for disarming cops.

LeafByNiggle:

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

i can be pro gun or anti-gun neither one makes me immoral. i can believe more guns reduce gun violence: this doesn’t make me immoral.

Relax. No one is saying you are immoral.

are you immoral for making folks defenseless and subject to being killed by criminals because you want to take away guns from those who need them most (gun free zones)?

Bringing guns into the schoolyard may feel like a good idea, but it is a terrible idea - unless those guns are handled by trained officials.

a person can’t fulfill their catholic duty of defending their family in a gun free zone.

There is no Catholic duty to carry a gun.

 

[o_mlly]

… implies a moral judgment where in fact none exists.

Like: Sampson demonstrates need for jawbones of asses control, Judges 15:15-16 says.

 

[EricF]

I don’t think guns will ever go away in any significant numbers. At the legislative level, there is simply too much money involved. As long as passions run high and the debate continues, the money keeps flowing to Washington. We may see some small tweaks in legislation, but really, the only criteria used to make those tweaks will be keeping the passions and debate running high. Guns aren’t going away. It’s not profitable for Washington to do so.

 

[Ender]

The bishops did not call anyone out. They did not name names. They were not personal condemnations. They were not uncharitable.

Everything is true as far as it goes. What is unsaid is what is implied. When the bishops comment on something it comes with the implication that they are making moral judgments, not merely political ones. If that is so then what does that imply about people who reject the bishops’ proposals? It is seen not merely as a valid disagreement over two competing sides of a practical matter, but as a rejection of a moral obligation.

There was very little in the way of specific proposals. I think you are grasping at straws to find things wrong with the bishops. Talk about uncharitable!

My comments apply to every specific political proposal the bishops make, whether they are few or many.

If so, then it is a dishonest tactic. For if the proposals are unworkable, they should be criticized on those grounds. The Constitution has no moral standing - any more than a poll of citizens.

They are criticized on those grounds, and those criticisms have been roundly rejected by those on the gun control side. It demonstrates the inflexibility of the opposition when appeal to our most fundamental law is considered a dishonest tactic.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The bishops did not call anyone out. They did not name names. They were not personal condemnations. They were not uncharitable.

Everything is true as far as it goes. What is unsaid is what is implied. When the bishops comment on something it comes with the implication that they are making moral judgments, not merely political ones. If that is so then what does that imply about people who reject the bishops’ proposals? It is seen not merely as a valid disagreement over two competing sides of a practical matter, but as a rejection of a moral obligation.

Different people draw different implications from what is “not said.” I think it goes too far to criticize the bishops if some people feel they have been specifically “called out” by the bishops for being immoral when in fact the bishops did no such thing. The bishops speak the truth as they see it, and I applaud them for it. If some people take offense from what they say, that is their problem with their overactive imagination.

There was very little in the way of specific proposals. I think you are grasping at straws to find things wrong with the bishops. Talk about uncharitable!

My comments apply to every specific political proposal the bishops make, whether they are few or many.

OK, then I take it you are only criticizing a small part of the bishops’ statement. I can understand that.

If so, then it is a dishonest tactic. For if the proposals are unworkable, they should be criticized on those grounds. The Constitution has no moral standing - any more than a poll of citizens.

They are criticized on those grounds, and those criticisms have been roundly rejected by those on the gun control side.

But those aren’t the criticisms we are talking about here. We are talking about criticisms of the bishops’ place in making any statement at all about gun control.

It demonstrates the inflexibility of the opposition when appeal to our most fundamental law is considered a dishonest tactic.

You have made quite big deal about distinguishing between moral grounds and practical (amoral) grounds for arguments. The implication is that the bishops should only comment on moral questions. But then you support your position by reference to an amoral document. So I call that a dishonest tactic because it purports to be about morals when it is just about the current state of law. It is like arguing for pro-choice policies based on Roe-v-Wade. It lacks a moral foundation.

 

[Ender]

Different people draw different implications from what is “not said.” I think it goes too far to criticize the bishops if some people feel they have been specifically “called out” by the bishops for being immoral when in fact the bishops did no such thing.

No one has been specifically “called out”; nor did I suggest otherwise. When a bishop takes a political stand, however, when his position is rejected the typical argument is that the disagreement is with the church, not the bishop, or, as you have been doing, arguing that there is a moral component to political issues, which surely suggests that this is the bishops’ position, thus whoever opposes the bishops has chosen the immoral side. It is the implication that a bishop’s political views are somehow more moral than anyone else’s that I object to.

The bishops speak the truth as they see it, and I applaud them for it. If some people take offense from what they say, that is their problem with their overactive imagination.

I’m sure we all speak the truth as we see it, but their political views are opinions, not moral truths.

There was very little in the way of specific proposals. I think you are grasping at straws to find things wrong with the bishops. Talk about uncharitable!

My comments were directed at their specific proposals, however many or few they may be. This is also a topic I have addressed this same way for years. When the bishops eschew publicizing their political preferences I’ll not have anything to object to. I’m not holding my breath.

But those aren’t the criticisms we are talking about here. We are talking about criticisms of the bishops’ place in making any statement at all about gun control.

You raised the issue. I responded to it. I’m happy to return to criticizing the bishops’ comments.

You have made quite big deal about distinguishing between moral grounds and practical (amoral) grounds for arguments. The implication is that the bishops should only comment on moral questions. But then you support your position by reference to an amoral document.

No, you’re mixing arguments. My objection to the bishops is one thing, my defense of the arguments used by others is something else entirely.

So I call that a dishonest tactic because it purports to be about morals when it is just about the current state of law. It is like arguing for pro-choice policies based on Roe-v-Wade. It lacks a moral foundation.

Again, you have conflated two different arguments, and the responses I make to one are not applicable to the other.