Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
t 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.
And the side illustrated by your post is about infringing on the Constitutional rights, and demonizing, innocent people in ways that will not do a thing to reach the goal, but will give you a warm and fuzzy that you have found scapegoats to blame and are marginalizing them.

And yes, my Constitutional rights, and my guns, are things I want to keep. Nothing wrong with that. That is not keeping anyone from reaching the goal of solving violent crime. I am not the enemy here! I don’t commit violent crimes! Nothing I do enables others to commit violent crimes. Why not focus on the criminals?
 
Last edited:
And the reason is, despite the fact that this has been pointed out numerous times, “gun control”–restricting the rights of the law-abiding citizens–has nothing whatsoever to do with resolving the issue of criminal violence.

Criminals do not give a flying fig newton about what the law states.

The reason those who post about not wanting restrictions on a Constitutional right recognize one thing that “gun control” advocates seem to fail to grasp–criminals are not known for their law-abiding tendencies. Passing laws against murder hasn’t stopped murders. Passing laws against rape hasn’t stopped rapes. Passing laws against burglary hasn’t stopped burglaries. Etc.

So why should anyone be in support of legislation proposals that aren’t even targeting the actual problem?
 
Prudential judgement can be over issues of morality. They are not mutually exclusive.
You are mixing concepts. Yes, there can certainly be debates about whether a certain act is moral, that’s what that very long thread on the trolley problem was all about, but a debate about what is right or wrong is fundamentally different than a debate about what is the best solution to a practical problem.

We have a problem with gun violence. What is the best solution to that problem? Is it more restrictions on gun ownership? That is pretty much a yes or no question, but the thing is, while one answer will be more accurate than the other, that answer will not be more moral than the other. There is no moral choice distinction between the two options, and while I may choose one or the other for immoral reasons, my reason for choosing does not affect the morality of the option chosen.

More stringent and less stringent laws relating to gun ownership are morally equivalent positions.
 
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.
And where is the moral issue involved here? Yes, he objects to the (implied) proposal to restrict his rights to gun ownership; that is, he rejects that proposal. Does the fact that he addresses one issue but not the other really mean he is indifferent to gun violence? It doesn’t appear so inasmuch as he later said: “I certainly would wholeheartedly support any 'active, aggressive effort to halt violent criminals who use guns.’” He just doesn’t support the approach that (as he sees it) affects the law abiding rather than the lawless. That is a practical conclusion; it is not a choice between moral and immoral options.
 
Here’s the thing: There are things most of us could agree on that would absolutely reduce violent crime, including violent crime committed with guns. There are also things we can do to reduce gun accidents that would be acceptable to most people concerned. If we all worked together on these things, our combined power would get action, action that would actually make a difference. It would save lives. It would make us be, and feel, safer.

Arguing about this will be completely ineffective, I assure you. So the questions are:
  • Do you really want to solve the problem, or do you just have a bias against the other side you want to vent?
  • Do you dislike the other side so much that you just want to hurt them regardless of its effect on the problem?
  • Do you want to solve the problem or just keep the pot stirred up?
We really could work together on this and make a difference. But both sides would need to get and keep more open minds and look for better than the tired old solutions. Right now, I don’t see any of that even being talked about seriously, much less actually being worked on. That’s sad.
 
Last edited:
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.
The discussion about how to solve the problem must have the baseline that no rights are infringed. Even the suspect has due process rights, presumption of innocence rights, the right an attorney, trial by jury.
And these rights are just about the accused!!
Why, under the process of trying to end violent crime, would we compromise the rights of individuals not even accused of a crime?
It is immoral, in my view, to confiscate the rights of the accused, even more so the rights of those not accused.
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I think the courts have interpreted the constitution wrongly in this instance.
On which right? Which right do you think the Court should unilaterally change ? I mentioned a few.
Well, for example, the court made a mistake when they ruled that a women has a right to have an abortion. If they can be wrong about this right they can be wrong about others, like the individual right to bear arms. That does not mean they were wrong about every right. Most of their decisions they decided correctly - in my opinion.

As for the “unilaterally” modifier, every decision the court makes is unilateral. They are not supposed to make bilateral deals.
 
Last edited:
Well, for example, the court made a mistake when they ruled that a women has a right to have an abortion.
Oh, I don’t disagree that they can be wrong. That has happened often regarding the commerce and general welfare clauses, along with the one you mentioned.
If they can be wrong about this right they can be wrong about others, like the individual right to bear arms.
So, of all the rights I mentioned, you think they were wrong regarding the one that has to do with people who haven’t been accused of a crime ? In order to fix the violent crime problem, limit the rights of the law abiding?
This is why those who defend the right to keep and bear arms respond the way they do. They see the attack on them, quite rightly, instead of on the violent criminals
 
Last edited:
So, of all the rights I mentioned, you think they were wrong regarding the one that has to do with people who haven’t been accused of a crime ?
In order to fix the violent crime problem, limit the rights of the law abiding?
Yes. Limit this right for everyone - not just the law-abiding. The fact that some people, including criminals, might bypass the limit - illegally - does not mean the law has granted them any special dispensation. The idea is that by limiting this right for everyone, it will have some effect on the criminals too. You may disagree with the practicalities of that assumption, but it is a reasonable one.

If you can think a practical and effective way to limit this right for criminals without limiting it for the law-abiding, please say what that mechanism is.
 
Last edited:
If you can think a practical and effective way to limit this right for criminals without limiting it for the law-abiding, please say what that mechanism is.
That question is a non sequitur. By definition, there is no right to firearms for criminals and no limitation of rights applies to criminals because they don’t obey the law. Limitation of gun rights only applies to the law abiding.

The real question about rights limitations is: Do gun rights for the law abiding help criminals get guns? The answer is mostly no. Research has shown that less than three percent of guns used in crime where obtained legally. You can argue that is still too much and have point. What is debatable is does three percent rise to the level of needing to restrict Constitutional rights, legitimate needs and voter preferences? Also, we can reduce a lot of that three percent using laws that are already on the books. Recent efforts have cut this avenue way down and we could do more. I am all for that.

The main ways violent criminals obtain guns are: black market, particularly through gangs, straw purchases and theft. Theft is really the only angle where law abiding citizens come into play. Interestingly, a lot of the theft is from law enforcement and the military, which would not be subject to additional regulations. Theft from citizens is difficult to mitigate for multiple reasons, but there are things we can do, which I would be all for. Some of these things would also help prevent gun accidents. BTW, that puts me at odds with some pro-gun people.

But to directly answer your question: The way you keep guns from potential violent criminals is to keep potential violent criminals incarcerated. They generally can’t get guns in prison. Repeat offenders, especially those in gangs, are by far the most dangerous. Yet they are routinely let off, given light sentences, paroled and even pardoned for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting society. Just based on the math alone, every year you keep a violent gang member off the street will reduce gun crime.

As for mass shooters, that has to do with mental health. Most mental health patients are actually less likely to commit violent crimes than the general public, but they are more likely to be victims. But there is a small percentage, maybe two percent, who have mental health conditions that can cause violent behavior. Again, the way to keep guns from them is to have them resident in custodial institutions. It is better for them and safer for society.

So that is the mechanism.
 
Last edited:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
If you can think a practical and effective way to limit this right for criminals without limiting it for the law-abiding, please say what that mechanism is.
That question is a non sequitur. By definition, there is no right to firearms for criminals and no limitation of rights applies to criminals because they don’t obey the law.
The law applies to them whether they chose to obey it or not.
Limitation of gun rights only applies to the law abiding.
It applies to all.
The real question about rights limitations is: Do gun rights for the law abiding help criminals get guns? The answer is mostly no. Research has shown that less than three percent of guns used in crime where obtained legally.
By “legally,” I assume you mean that the criminal himself legally acquired the guns. But I think we should also count the guns obtained illegally by theft or illegal sale from someone who did acquire the guns legally. If that person did not have the guns in the first place, the criminal would not have had that particular gun. He would have to go elsewhere. Perhaps he could get a gun elsewhere, but at least we made his job harder.
What is debatable is does three percent rise to the level of needing to restrict Constitutional rights,
As I said, the restrictions on guns have the potential to affect much more than 3% of the guns used in crimes. So I disagree with your premise.
The main ways violent criminals obtain guns are: black market, particularly through gangs, straw purchases and theft. Theft is really the only angle where law abiding citizens come into play.
I disagree. Straw purchases also can come through law abiding citizens. And the guns provided by gangs came from somewhere too. Let’s face it. Almost every gun in the US started its existence as a legally owned firearm. Restricting legally owned firearms has the potential to affect gun use all the way down the food chain.
But to directly answer your question: The way you keep guns from potential violent criminals is to keep potential violent criminals incarcerated.
Very expensive, and ineffective against first-time felons.
 
Please mention the rights of the víctims who are no longer with us today…
Absolutely, and those are rights denied not by the law abiding, not by their exercising of their rights, but by those who actually disregard rights and consider laws irrelevant
 
Yes. Limit this right for everyone - not just the law-abiding. The fact that some people, including criminals, might bypass the limit - illegally - does not mean the law has granted them any special dispensation.
And this is why those of us who defend rights do so. Here you say that everyone’s rights should be limited (read, government power increased) even though criminals will bypass laws.
The idea is that by limiting this right for everyone, it will have some effect on the criminals too. You may disagree with the practicalities of that assumption, but it is a reasonable one.
Couldn’t this principle be applied to cruel and unusual punishment? Wouldn’t that have an effect on criminals, too? Or maybe just suspend jury trials?
I mean, doesn’t proposing a limitation on one right open the door on others. Doesn’t it?
 
So sorry if you have already said this, but I have not read every single one of the 630+ posts on this thread. You seem to be very intent on lashing out at gun owners and gun rights and critiquing everything the pro-gun side says.

So what are your exact prescriptions for solving the problem of gun violence and what is your workable method for getting those prescriptions enacted and effective? You have challenged us, now I am challenging you.
 
So sorry if you have already said this, but I have not read every single one of the 630+ posts on this thread. You seem to be very intent on lashing out at gun owners and gun rights and critiquing everything the pro-gun side says.

So what are your exact prescriptions for solving the problem of gun violence and what is your workable method for getting those prescriptions enacted and effective? You have challenged us, now I am challenging you.
I have only challenged you (figuratively) to support the claims you have made. But I think I have been quite careful not to make the claims you suppose in your challenge. In fact I do not have a prescription to solve these big problems. Never said I did. I have not even claimed that gun control is such a solution. On occasion I have even expressed doubt that certain gun control proposals are or could be effective or practical. In supporting the bishops’ statement on this issue, I have only written in support of their right to make such a statement - not to agree with any specific gun control proposal. So I cannot rise to the challenge to support a position that I have never taken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top