Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
What is the moral choice we face in addressing the concept of just war? It is whether it is just to go to war in a specific instance.
Click to expand...
The only moral question involved with going to war is deciding whether or not to apply the criteria for a just war. Concluding that they have been satisfied is not a moral choice; it is an entirely prudential one
Click to expand...
…both prudential and moral. Moral because it involves right and wrong. It is wrong to go to war without justification.
With regard to gun control, the choice we face is what does justice require when faced with the suffering that is caused by the use of guns?
Click to expand...
This is another judgment call.
[/quote]
Yes. A judgment call about morality.
A moral choice would be between choosing justice or rejecting it, but that’s not the question we face. The issue is to discern what works within the general guidelines defining moral and legal behavior. Again, there is no moral conundrum here.
Click to expand...
The balancing of the private property rights of gun owners and the safety concerns of the society is a moral conundrum.
 
Ender said:
(Recall that at one point in the history of the Church, the leaders debated how they should care for the Greek-speaking widows and orphans, and so appointed seven men [Acts 6: 1-6] to do that. Was this not deciding on a balance of competing interests? Or where the apostles way out of line in your opinion by even opining on this question?)
Click to expand...
Do not equate the recognition that one has a moral obligation to help others with the choices involved in figuring out how best to provide such assistance. Once the decision is made to help there is no moral character to the other choices.
Click to expand...
Yet the apostles went further than deciding that the widows and orphans should be helped. They devised a specific plan of action in appointing the seven men to provide that help. I don’t know whether we need to call that decision a moral decision, but it certainly was an appropriate decision for them to make, don’t you agree? You didn’t answer that one either.
You didn’t respond to this before so I’ll ask it again: What sin do I commit by believing the bishops’ proposal does more harm than good? If I commit no sin no matter which side I support how can this possibly be a moral issue?
Click to expand...
You commit no sin in believing that a specific proposal by the bishops does more harm than good. But let’s go back to Acts 6. What sin would someone commit who believed that the apostle’s decision to appoint seven men was the wrong way to provide for the widows and orphans? If you say there is no sin, then how can this possibly be an appropriate subject on which the apostles should decide?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
With regard to run control, the choice we face is what does justice require when faced with the suffering that is caused by the use of guns?
Click to expand...
Going back to the statement, we have the problem of weapons that are of far greater fire power than needed for self-defense being too accessible. We already have limited fully automatic weapons for this reason. A collector can own them if he is willing to carry the license and follow reasonable restrictions, so we have the precedent for such actions. I know a lot of people, and I mean a lot, that own AR’s. Not one of them got it for self-defense. That is what handguns are for. They got them because they are fun.

There is literally no reason that everyone, perhaps anyone, needs an assault rifle for self-defense. I used that term deliberately. I am not going to abandon an useful word for the sake of rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
I specifically purchased my AR 15s for hunting and self defense.

I then went through the hoops to get a short barreled one and a suppressor for increased maneuverability in close quarters and to make it less hearing damaging should I ever have to discharge the weapon in my house.

Semi auto shotguns which operate the same as ar 15’s are some of the most popular hunting arms in the country, particularly for wing shooting.

On top of that, more people are murdered with hammers every year than all long guns combined. So the idea that legislating ar’s further will save lives is false.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
With regard to run control, the choice we face is what does justice require when faced with the suffering that is caused by the use of guns?
Click to expand...
Going back to the statement, we have the problem of weapons that are of far greater fire power than needed for self-defense being too accessible. We already have limited fully automatic weapons for this reason. A collector can own them if he is willing to carry the license and follow reasonable restrictions, so we have the precedent for such actions. I know a lot of people, and I mean a lot, that own AR’s. Not one of them got it for self-defense. That is what handguns are for. They got them because they are fun.
Click to expand...
Self defense is only part of the existence of the inherent right. And an AR-15 is typically no more powerful than a hunting rifle.


But none of that matters. The decision of which firearm a person decides to own for self defense, for hunting, for sport shooting is theirs.
They are fun! They are legal for the law abiding, and that shouldn’t change.
 
JonNC said:
Self defense is only part of the existence of the inherent right. And an AR-15 is typically no more powerful than a hunting rifle.
Click to expand...
I remember when duck hunting there was a rule about a shotgun not being able to hold more than three rounds at a time. There surely is no harm in making hunting sporting. Most hunting rifles I have seen likewise could not hold more than five rounds, making it considerably less powerful than something like an AR-15. These things are all just details. They are scarcely insurmountable for a country that went to the moon.
 
5.56x45 ammunition is no more or less powerful in a 5 round magazine or a 60.
 
Read the article.
Some AR-15 fire 22 caliber. Power is not simply a matter of rounds.
 
Last edited:
I know that. However the number of rounds fired is a limitation I believe needs to be in place. It will not affect hunting.
 
Well, I wholeheartedly disagree. The second amendment is not about hunting. Or even self defense. It’s a last resort check on government abuse of power.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Well, I wholeheartedly disagree. The second amendment is not about hunting. Or even self defense. It’s a last resort check on government abuse of power.
Click to expand...
You are disagreeing with the wrong thing. I was talking about hunting, not debating the meaning of the Constitution. Personally, I am not a big fan of treason and insurrection. I do not believe in encouraging that particular dialogue.
 
Hunting laws do generally limit the number of rounds you can have while actively engaged in hunting, depending on the animal being hunted. I’m not sure what your point is then?
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Hunting laws do generally limit the number of rounds you can have while actively engaged in hunting, depending on the animal being hunted. I’m not sure what your point is then?
Click to expand...
Using hunting as a reason for keeping certain weapons readily available can be easily addressed. It is more excuse than argument. You did say you used one in hunting.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Agreed. But when I brought up the real reason for them you dismissed it as treason (even though in the proper circumstances it wouldn’t be)
 
pnewton said:
I know that. However the number of rounds fired is a limitation I believe needs to be in place. It will not affect hunting.
Click to expand...
If my wife is at home without me, I want her to have as many rounds as she needs- for a Break in by multiple intruders, etc.
But self defense is not the issue, and neither is hunting. In fact, for the vast number of murders involving firearms, AR-15s are not the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top