Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

[pnewton]

throwing stones?

No.

My last post answered a question you asked. I was naive enough to take it as a legitimate question. But my post was an answer and on topic.

I am not the topic here.

how is the hobby of a law abiding citizen endangering another persons life?

No. I am not answering questions where I think the problem is a lack of basic understanding of grammar, language or inability to think critically. This question qualifies.

 

[upant]

No. I am not answering questions where I think the problem is a lack of basic understanding of grammar, language or inability to think critically. This question qualifies.

you would be wrong.

you claim someone is allowing their hobby to be more important than the life of others. this is your opinion. how do you prove someone is allowing their hobby to be more important than the life of others? do they even consider it?

i have posted the stats for high firearm owning states with low firearm-related death per 100k rates. the law abiding citizen with a gun hobby in these states have nothing to do with the lives of others.

you believe because a nut goes off in a high firearm-related death per 100k state, the hobbyist in the low firearm-related death per 100k state is at fault of an immoral action?

please explain to me, how is the hobby of a law abiding citizen endangering another persons life?

 

[Ender]

Because there are many areas in which there is more than one moral option, even if there are also immoral options. The existence of valid diversity does not mean there are not also many things that are not allowed.

This is true, but it evades the real topic. Certainly there are many moral issues, but for each specific question there is only one moral position. The answer to a particular moral question cannot be both yes and no. You have repeatedly claimed that gun control is a moral issue, so identify any specific proposal the bishops have made that require our assent because it is a moral duty.

They have called for an extension of the ban on “assault” weapons. Is it moral to disagree with this? They have called for “limitations” on high powered weapons - is it moral to disagree with them here? They have called for “greater limitations” on weapons. Is it a moral imperative to agree with them at least on this?

If you cannot claim that we have a moral obligation to accept the bishops’ gun control proposals then there is no argument to be made that gun control is a moral issue.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

pnewton:

Because there are many areas in which there is more than one moral option, even if there are also immoral options. The existence of valid diversity does not mean there are not also many things that are not allowed.

This is true, but it evades the real topic. Certainly there are many moral issues, but for each specific question there is only one moral position.

But only God knows for sure what the right answer is. So we on earth are sometimes in a position of debating what that right answer is. Those are debates on morality. That is the case with gun control.

 

[Ender]

Both of those things are discussions having to do with morality.

Gun control is not an abstract “discussion” about the nature of morality. We’re talking about committing acts - supporting positions - that are themselves moral or immoral. To defend abortion is to take an immoral position. Is opposing the bishops on gun control also taking an immoral position?

There are lots of examples of questions of right and wrong coming down to a matter of degree. On these questions it is unavoidable that people will have different opinions… Yet they are discussions about right and wrong - about morals.

There are valid moral questions that involve matters of degree - what constitutes cooperation with evil, for example, but the question of gun control is not such an issue. It is an entirely practical debate about what constitutes the best solution to the problem.

You are trying to draw a qualitative distinction where there is only a quantitative one.

There is a qualitative distinction. Debating how best to help the poor is an entirely different discussion than debating about whether the poor should be helped. Gun control is about how to, not whether to.

Maybe not the guidelines, but the valid discussions about morality certainly are in shades of gray.

You keep replying with vague generalizations. What “discussion about morality” is involved with gun control? We have specific proposals from the bishops, and I have asked if it is immoral to oppose them one and all? I’m not discussing the general topic of morality; I’m asking about the morality of rejecting the opinions the bishops have expressed on gun control.

 

[Ender]

But only God knows for sure what the right answer is. So we on earth are sometimes in a position of debating what that right answer is. Those are debates on morality. That is the case with gun control.

What is the moral question on gun control that obliges us to accede to the bishops proposals?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Both of those things are discussions having to do with morality.

Gun control is not an abstract “discussion” about the nature of morality.

Why does it have to be abstract to be about morality? Any discussion of right and wrong is about morality, even if the object of the discussion is quite concrete.

There are lots of examples of questions of right and wrong coming down to a matter of degree. On these questions it is unavoidable that people will have different opinions… Yet they are discussions about right and wrong - about morals.

There are valid moral questions that involve matters of degree - what constitutes cooperation with evil, for example, but the question of gun control is not such an issue. It is an entirely practical debate about what constitutes the best solution to the problem.

It appears to me to be about more than “the best way to solve a problem.” It appears to be a debate about balancing two goals of allowing gun owners as much freedom as possible (all things being equal, this is a good and noble goal) and preventing gun violence (also a good and noble goal.) The discussion is not over the best way to achieve either goal, but over the just balance between these two goals. It is a matter of degrees.

 

[jfz178]

It appears to me to be about more than “the best way to solve a problem.” It appears to be a debate about balancing two goals of allowing gun owners as much freedom as possible (all things being equal, this is a good and noble goal) and preventing gun violence (also a good and noble goal.) The discussion is not over the best way to achieve either goal, but over the just balance between these two goals. It is a mattr of degrees.

I give you credit for trying to see both sides in a reasonable way. However, I think it is a false conclusion to say that those two things are in opposition and therefore need to be balanced. Pro gun people are just as much against gun violence as anyone. Research linking gun ownership and crime runs both ways and is therefore inconclusive. Current gun laws are not enforced, so we don’t even know if they could be effective. Current laws on keeping guns from the dangerously mentally ill are not enforced consistently or fairly.

Current laws targeting those perpetrating gang-related violence, the largest category of gun violence we have by far, are woefully inadequate and the ones we have are not well enforced. Criminals generally do not get guns by legal means, so new laws will have little effect on them. Any dreams of getting current guns out of private hands are a pipe dream. It is just not going to happen in the US.

Pro gun people, unfortunately, see rhetoric that should be positive, tike “balance,” “compromise” and “common sense” when applied to gun control as a threat, because that has been their experience. People who use those terms are generally follow it with a proposal for restricting gun rights that would not help the gun violence problem. Recently, some anti-gun people have even admitted that their proposals would not solve the problem. Then they add, “But we have to do something.”

The anti-gun side rarely offers true compromises, where both sides give something to get something. The proposal now in Congress for National Reciprocity/NICS Improvements is an exception. Like it or hate it, it is a true compromise. Most gun owners want national reciprocity, but hate the NICS system. However, they are willing to “balance” the two as being an overall positive. The anti-gun people feel positive about the NICS thing and dislike reciprocity. We will see if the anti-gun side can truly “balance.”

What I think is a more useful perspective, and this is always hard with political issues, is if we could find some common ground to reduce violent crime. Some things that both sides could agree on. Then some actual progress could be made.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One only has to read the pro-gun comments in this thread and count up the number of times “combating gun violence” is cited vs the number of times “rights of gun owners” is cited. It is obvious that combatting gun violence runs a distant second to the rights of gun owners.

 

[jfz178]

If you dropped the word “gun” and just went with “combating violence” you’d get a lot of people on both sides to agree. And it really is violence that’s the main problem, right? The guns are inanimate objects. They do nothing on their own. But if you just want to keep the argument going and get nowhere like you are now, carry on as before…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think you missed the meaning of my post to Ender where you first jumped in. We had been debating a very narrow point of whether this is a moral issue. I said yes and Ender said no. Ender’s argument was that both sides really want the same goal and differ only over how that one goal could best be achieved. My argument was that the two sides want fundamentally different goals, even though “reducing violence” might be a goal they share in common, it is not the only goal, and in the case of pro-gun people it is not even the most prominent goal. With regard to the big central question of should we have gin control, I was not even offering an opinion, so it is hardly fair to characterize my comments as doing anything in that debate.

 

[jfz178]

should we have gin control

Gin control? Guns are one thing. Now you’re into fightin’ words! The British wouldn’t even go for that!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s the trouble when you rely too much on autocorrect.

 

[Ender]

I will agree that with most issues much of the discussion surrounds the question of where to draw the line between this benefit and that cost, and choosing between competing goods is always going to be a prudential judgment.

That said, I don’t believe that either goal you refer to really involves a moral choice. “Reducing violence” is a moral objective, but the specific proposals chosen to achieve that goal are not. Nor is it valid to claim that one side puts a higher value on gun ownership relative to reducing violence simply because that right is used as an argument against those would limit it as a means of (hopefully) limiting gun crimes.

Since most of the arguments from those on one side of the debate favor limiting the ownership rights of those on the other side, you can hardly blame them from employing the strongest argument they have to defeat the attempt. To assume this means they are (relatively) indifferent to reducing violence is unwarranted.

And, again, there is no moral choice involved, only a difference of opinions about what works and what doesn’t.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I will agree that with most issues much of the discussion surrounds the question of where to draw the line between this benefit and that cost, and choosing between competing goods is always going to be a prudential judgment.

Prudential judgement can be over issues of morality. They are not mutually exclusive.

That said, I don’t believe that either goal you refer to really involves a moral choice. “Reducing violence” is a moral objective, but the specific proposals chosen to achieve that goal are not.

But the main point of the pro-gun position is over the right to have a gun. Just count up the number if times the 2nd amendment is cited with more reverence than the gospel. I’m not passing judgement on that goal, but it is a different goal. One cannot characterize the debate is being over different ways of achieving exactly the same goal.

Nor is it valid to claim that one side puts a higher value on gun ownership relative to reducing violence simply because that right is used as an argument against those would limit it as a means of (hopefully) limiting gun crimes.

The only crimes people talk about eliminating are the crimes against them when they have a gun.

 

[ktmeyer]

We regulate all sorts of things because people have died from them…everything from baby cribs to seatbelt to blenders. It only makes sense to regulate something that causes so very very very many deaths, especially of children.

 

[jfz178]

Guns don’t cause anything. People do. Also, there is no amendment to the Constitution that protects any rights to do with baby cribs and blenders. Furthermore, where is there a regulation that says you can’t own a baby crib or a blender, or carry it down the street for that matter? BTW, household accidents kill more kids than guns. But you don’t hear a big hue and cry about that.

But hey, regulate away. Just don’t target people who are not contributing to the problem. Target the people who are creating the problem: criminals and irresponsible gun owners. I have owned guns for 40 years. None of my guns has every hurt anyone or ever been stolen, so they have never been used in a crime. I raised two daughters and they never touched one of my guns growing up, although one of them took me out shooting a couple of years ago, which was a great bonding experience.

You don’t like guns? Don’t own one. That’s your right. Don’t interfere with my rights, because I am not part of the problem.

 

[JonNC]

One only has to read the pro-gun comments in this thread and count up the number of times “combating gun violence” is cited vs the number of times “rights of gun owners” is cited. It is obvious that combatting gun violence runs a distant second to the rights of gun owners.

The problem with the phrase “combating gun violence” is it is often used and perceived as code for controlling guns (which usually impacts the law abiding), instead of controlling crime. So the response from those not willing to give up the right is to frame the argument with that background.
I don’t think any law abiding gun owner opposes an active, aggressive effort to halt violent criminals that use guns.

 

[jfz178]

I don’t think any law abiding gun owner opposes an active, aggressive effort to halt violent criminals that use guns.

I certainly would wholeheartedly support any “active, aggressive effort to halt violent criminals who use guns.” The problem is, I have yet to see such an effort in recent times. In fact, I see the government going the other way, including not enforcing laws on the books as well as excessive plea bargaining, light sentences and even pardons for violent criminals. Also, the government has the mental health thing completely screwed up. “Combating gun violence” and “rights of gun owners” are completely compatible.

The main reason anyone has a gun for protection is to “combat gun crime” and citizens successfully do exactly that hundreds of thousands of times a year.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You don’t like guns? Don’t own one. That’s your right. Don’t interfere with my rights, because I am not part of the problem.

See that, Ender? This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. It is not simply a disagreement over the best way to reach the same goal. The side illustrated by this post is primarily concerned about not losing something they want to keep.