Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jfz178 said:
NICS is a mess, though. The GAO has reported that BAFTE is keeping a database of NICS data, which is against the law. If people want universal background checks, they will need gun owner support or it will never pass. If they want gun owner support, we need to scrap NICS and replace it with something like the BIDS system. It does everything NICS does just as well, but protects privacy and prevents anyone from keeping illegal secret databases.
Click to expand...
Well, of course it is a mess. Government doesn’t do this kind of stuff well.
But NICS has gun owners’ support, generally. NRA supports it. What many gun owners don’t do is trust the government, and what you said about BATFE is just the tip of the iceberg- the Obama administration using SS and VA to try and undermine 2nd amendment are other examples.
I agree a blind ID system would work better.
 
I am an active member of a few gun rights organizations and I don’t know anyone in the know who supports NICS. I just read the NRA-ILA statement on NICS. They don’t say they support it. They imply they don’t oppose it as long as it doesn’t become a national gun registry. But the GAO report says it has become exactly that. Even though that is illegal, no one is being prosecuted for it. So on that basis, I don’t think you can say the NRA would support it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I did not mean the “legal” right. I meant the moral right, by virtue of their office. And no, I was not asserting Catholics must assent to their preferences, so that is a straw man argument.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t know what this means. What is a moral right?
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I did not mean the “legal” right. I meant the moral right, by virtue of their office. And no, I was not asserting Catholics must assent to their preferences, so that is a straw man argument.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t know what this means. What is a moral right?
Click to expand...
All I meant was that this is an appropriate topic on which the bishops may comment. I know you disagree with that as you have said many times before. The main point of my posting was to explain what I was not commenting on.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
All I meant was that this is an appropriate topic on which the bishops may comment.
Click to expand...
It isn’t clear how you can claim the bishops have a “moral right” to comment on a topic that has no moral aspect to it. Where is the moral choice involved in determining the best solution to gun violence? If there is a moral question involved, and if the bishops are expressing the moral view of the matter, do we not have a moral obligation to assent to their proposals? On the other hand, as even you have acknowledged, we do not have any such obligation, which can only mean that it is not a moral issue since we may validly reject their particular solutions.
 
Perhaps. I’m trying to think of a time I’ve read in 1st Freedom an overt state against NICS as a general rule
 
jfz178 said:
This is an open note to all the pro-gun people on this thread. I am not talking to the rest of you. The anti-gun posters here are TROLLS.
Click to expand...
LOL, “I’m not talking to the rest of you, because in one sentence I’m going to dismiss you as a troll.”

This forum is not a political forum. It is a social justice forum. One has to wonder why you are here if you think the idea of this discussion is to sway people to make laws concerning the ownership and use of lethal weapons as lax (or as strict) as possible.

The point of this thread is to talk about how to balance the common good of a reasonable amount of security from gun violence, particularly violence perpetrated using military-style weapons, with the common good of owning firearms for pleasure, hunting or morally-legitimate self-defense.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
All I meant was that this is an appropriate topic on which the bishops may comment.
Click to expand...
It isn’t clear how you can claim the bishops have a “moral right” to comment on a topic that has no moral aspect to it. Where is the moral choice involved in determining the best solution to gun violence?
Click to expand...
Come on! I’ve answered this many times before.
 
Not your thread, not your site. You don’t get to pull the rhetorical trick of trying to frame the discussion in your terms, so you can win an argument that you have no chance of winning based on facts. There is no way to separate the political and social justice aspects of this discussion. They are intertwined.

And yes, if as some of the anti-gun people themselves here have stated, they are keeping the argument going without presenting any concrete, workable solutions of their own and they are just trying to poke holes in other’s arguments without presenting any arguments of their own, that is a type of trolling.
 
If someone has been through a legal process that determines they are not capable of normal levels of adult responsibility and a judge has given a legal order barring them from ownership, no. But it needs to be documented and done with due process. Not arbitrarily.

The mental health scape goat is a sham anyway. The vast majority of shooters have not been done what they did because of mental illness. They did it because bad people do bad things. There’s no way to legislate that away.
 
PetraG said:
The point of this thread is to talk about how to balance the common good of a reasonable amount of security from gun violence,
Click to expand...
True. If we could just stay on that topic, and not how to limit the rights of the law abiding. 🤔
PetraG said:
particularly violence perpetrated using military-style weapons, with the common good of owning firearms for pleasure, hunting or morally-legitimate self-defense.
Click to expand...
I agree that bump stocks should not be allowed. Otherwise, military style weapons (fully automatic or selectable) are severely restricted and limited already.
 
Bump stocks are a non-issue. Banning them won’t save a single life.

Statistically, mass shootings are irrelevant. We can never stop bad people from committing acts of violence. Punishing the many for the actions of the few is ridiculous policy.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Bump stocks are a non-issue. Banning them won’t save a single life.

Statistically, mass shootings are irrelevant. We can never stop bad people from committing acts of violence. Punishing the many for the actions of the few is ridiculous policy.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more. I’m just saying I don’t care about bump stocks.
 
And I don’t either. I think they’re a gimmick. I still don’t think the government, particularly the ATF unilaterally, can ban them lawfully.
 
I agree in principle, but the devil is in the details. I doubt the USCCB even knows the details, because the people who advise them don’t know the details and they have not consulted the people who do.
  • Better background checks: Can never happen with the NICS system. It is broken and being used illegally, according to the Government Accounting Office. Replace it with the BIDS system, which background checks just as well and is less expensive, and I’m all for it.
  • Limitations to high-powered weapons: It depends on what you mean by “high-powered.” There are already a lot of laws like that.
  • More laws criminalizing gun traffic: Why “more laws” when we aren’t enforcing the ones we have? And what “more” laws? Why is “more” equal “better?” And what do they mean by “traffic?” Unlawful traffic, or lawful traffic to? Why not “more intelligent laws that we actually enforce?”
  • Improved access to mental health care: Absolutely! But we have to keep in mind that the vast majority of mental health patients are less likely to commit violent acts than the general public, but are more likely to be victims. We do have to discriminate the 2% or so with dangerous mental health issues from the rest. We also have to stringently protect the privacy of mental health patients or they will avoid seeking treatment.
  • Increased safety measures on guns: There is no reliable mechanical or electronic safety measure for guns, despite the hype. If there were, every police department in the world would be going to it, because they have huge safety problems. There are some things that can be done with technology, but any gun that will fire can be a safety hazard period. The #1 safety mechanism for a gun is the mind of the owner of that gun. We should teach gun safety in schools, along with other kinds of safety, even for people who will never own a gun. Kids and gun owners CAN be taught gun safety that works. I was taught right and have handled guns for over 50 years. No one has ever been injured by my guns or even come close.
I strongly differ from the USCCB in another of their recommendations you conveniently didn’t mention: The eventual elimination of private ownership of handguns. That is wrong, and un-Constitutional per the Heller and Mcdonald decisions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top