Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

[FrDavid96]

My review of the snazzy new Eddie Eagle gun safety program? It hasn’t changed in its message, and I’m sure it hasn’t changed in its ineffectiveness. Some things never change—like the lethality of guns in the hands of curious and impulsive children.

I could say the same thing about the Brady Campaign, which let’s not forget originally called itself “Handgun Control Inc.”

They can try re-branding themselves all they want, but in the end they are what they have always been, advocates of tyranny and opponents of civil rights.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Do you support the Bishops of the USCCB in what they posted. This is a very Critical Question.

 

[upant]

upant - Hmmn, I suspect that it is probable that ‘we’ are a bit more fastidious in recording every little incident reported.

one report put the number at 3500 per 100k. your politicians don’t want good record keeping

 

[phoage]

First off, full disclosure. I am a military vertren and a firearms owner. I am also very conservative in my interpretation of the US Constitution. I am also conservative in my Catholic beliefs.

Having said that, I am open to debate/discussion about controling/reducing firearms violence but I insist on having terms defined.

As I understand it, the USCCB supports renewal of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons. My problem with this is the definition of “assult weapon”. I got this from Wikipedia…“Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.”

Now I carry a Colt 1911A1 knockoff, a colt .45 for those not used to military weapons nomenclature. This is a pistol that I am licensed to carry concealed by my state. It is fairly large as pistols go and I am not a big man (5’9", 165 lbs) yet I can conceal it. Even so, this pistol fits the general definition of “assult weapon”. It is semi-automatic (fires one round with every trigger pull). It has a detachable magazine. (Magazines for .45s can hold between 7 and 50 rounds.) Finally, being a pistol, it has a pistol grip.

Now everyone knows what an assult weapon is but when you try to pin it down precisely, (as you must in the law) the definiition becomes so vauge as to be rediculous or so prcise that minor changes to a wapon move it out of the catagory. The term was originally coined in the military after WWII to deferntiate between full size battle rifles (M-1 Garande, '98 Mauser, Lee-Enfield, etc) and newer, lighter rifles like the German SG44, and Soviet AK47 (both of wich are capable of full automatic fire; ie pull the triggar and fire continues until it is relased or the magazine is empty).

On to background checks. We have those in place and they work when the data is entered into the data base. The Sutherland Springs shooter wuold not have een able to legally buy a firearm if the Air Force and civil authoriaties had done their job.

The USCCB want limitations on high powered weapons. Again we run into a definition problem. My .45 pistol has a maximum (not effective) range of over a mile and is deadly, if it hits a person for much of that distance. A .22 LR (target rifle) has a maximum range of over 1.5 miles. The average deer rifle uses the same ammunition as a combat rifle. What is high power?

As for more firearms laws, according to Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy at the Brookings Institution (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/01/four-gun-claims-that-are-just-plain-wrong)There are over 300 Federal and state laws concerning firearms. These are laws and do not include regulations. If what is aleady on the books is properly enforced, I believe that we do not need more.

I had to cut the part on safeties for length of reply.

Now they come to a part that I do not have any problem with; improved access to mental health care. That is not unreasonable.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

I guess “doing their homework” means agreeing with you. It’s a bummer when the Catholic bishops don’t agree with you. Where else in Catholic Social Teaching does the USCCB need to do their homework? Immigration? Feeding the poor? Clothing the naked? Sheltering the homeless? Seems like the Devil for Conservative Catholics may be in the details.

I do believe that was a slam dunk.

 

[Inisfallen]

That would spell the end of Catholic grade schools, since most parents would pull their kids out of that train wreck.

That is for sure.

It would be over my (metaphorically) dead body that the NRA would get a pulpit from which to preach in my children’s school. I would be especially infuriated if that pulpit came with the imprimatur of the Catholic church.

 

[JonNC]

Here is a suggestion for the USCCB, one that they can easily implement:

Partner with the NRA to make the “Eddie the Eagle” safety program MANDATORY in every Catholic grade school nationwide from K through 4th grade.

Likewise require “Eddie the Eagle” for every youth religious education program at every parish.

Partner with the NRA to make MANDATORY a high-school level program to be implemented in every Catholic high school nationwide where students learn firearm safety and require that such a program include practical experience with firearms (ie target shooting). Such a program would be mandatory for graduation.

Require every Catholic parish and school to submit annual reports to the diocese certifying that their school is complying with this nationwide policy.

I, for one, would strongly support any such efforts by the USCCB.

Had this been the case when my kids were in school, they would have been in Catholic school ( since the new format doesn’t show religious affiliation,I am Anglican).
Placing gun usage and safety within the Christian education context is exactly where it belongs.

Excellent idea, Father.

 

[FrDavid96]

Do you support the Bishops of the USCCB in what they posted. This is a very Critical Question.

Some parts yes, some parts no. For me, the no parts far outweigh the yes ones.

Overall, I think what they have to say on this issue is more reflective of the fact that most of them tend toward the left, politically speaking.

They fall into the same old trap of calling for “more laws.” Instead of calling for existing laws to be enforced.

They also make the same mistake typical of people who have no idea what it is like to actually own a firearm. They talk of banning certain “kinds” of firearms (the so called assault weapons) but don’t realize that this is just a political label, and something of no real substance. Most so called assault weapons fall into that category for purely cosmetic reasons, and nothing more. More naive talk about so called “high capacity” bans—which was tried and proven useless. The only effect the ban on so called high capacity magazines really had was that when the ban ended, the market became absolutely flooded with them and people who didn’t want them before are now buying them by the caseload (and I’ve actually seen that literally) They talk about putting limits on handgun sales, again, as if this were some kind of real solution instead of just a “let’s feel good we’ve passed a law” pretense.

When they talk theology and when they talk morality I agree with them. When they just spew forth liberal anti-gun talking points, I disagree with them. Unfortunately, their communication does both.

 

[Augustinian]

Actually, America’s homicide rate is on a downward spiral, near a 50 year low.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Are you brave enough to discuss this with your Bishop? And would you actually attempt to discuss it with you Bishop? And voice the same misgivings that you have voiced here?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m sorry you enjoy twisting words in order to make your point. I go on pro-life marches myself and have repeatedly noted throughout this thread the importance of the Bishops’ statements on abortion and also the differences between them speaking on that and speaking on other matters. In fact, one of my stated concerns repeated several times on the thread is that their speaking out on matters where it isn’t strongly connected to a Church teaching and furthermore they simply don’t have much to add (most people don’t disagree with either the need to discuss or with the very general points they raised) waters down their strong statements on areas like abortion.

Pax Christi

 

[Inisfallen]

That’s a typical liberal response.

Let’s ignore any talk of real solutions and mindlessly insist on gun control for gun control’s sake.

I doubt if you even know what the “Eddie the Eagle” program is.

I would be very, very much opposed to this. And before you dismiss me by saying “that’s a typical liberal response,” understand that it’s not the idea of gun safety being taught in schools (at appropriate ages, in appropriate parts of the country) that bothers me, it’s the idea of the NRA getting a foothold in schools, especially with what would appear to be the endorsement of the Catholic Church, or at least the USCCB.

The NRA is the same organization that puts out videos like this. I don’t want them anywhere near my children. Not ever.

The NRA is not just an organization that promotes gun safety, or even gun rights. It promotes an irresponsible and hate-filled ideology.

 

[FrDavid96]

Are you brave enough to discuss this with your Bishop? And would you actually attempt to discuss it with you Bishop? And voice the same misgivings that you have voiced here?

I actually have done so. I’ve done the discussing part. It hasn’t changed his mind. I can assure you, he won’t change his mind.

This brings up a good point. Priests actually talk among ourselves. Priests and bishops actually have conversations. Some people don’t want to imagine this. We clergy can actually disagree with each other and have polite conversations about our differences.

When I sit down at the same table as the bishop at a retreat or a diocesan function, we might talk about anything ranging from baseball to the presidential election to what type of foods we like. Bishops don’t use occasions like that make excuses to issue canonical censures or transfer that priest to upper Siberia.

I don’t fear that my bishop knows my position on the Second Amendment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

FrDavid96:

LeafByNiggle:

FrDavid96:

Here is a suggestion for the USCCB, one that they can easily implement:

Partner with the NRA to make the “Eddie the Eagle” safety program MANDATORY in every Catholic grade school nationwide from K through 4th grade.

That would spell the end of Catholic grade schools, since most parents would pull their kids out of that train wreck.

That’s a typical liberal response.

Let’s ignore any talk of real solutions and mindlessly insist on gun control for gun control’s sake.

I doubt if you even know what the “Eddie the Eagle” program is.

Please let’s discuss the issues and not each other.

Well, that’s exactly what FrDavid96 was trying to do until your snarky “train wreck” comment. And I too doubt if you know what the “Eddie the Eagle” program is.

My train wreck comment was my opinion of the proposal of forcing gun indoctrination on all Catholic school kids, which might make them better shots and not shoot someone accidentally and do nothing to stop gun violence. But speculation about my knowledge of Eddie the Eagle is about me personally. I am not the subject. One can criticize what I say, but when one turns to speculation about me and what I know, that is discussing each other and not the issue of the thread, which moderators used to say all the time back when we had moderators.

 

[pnewton]

Now everyone knows what an assult weapon is but when you try to pin it down precisely, (as you must in the law) the definiition becomes so vauge as to be rediculous or so prcise that minor changes to a wapon move it out of the catagory.

It can be done. One way would he to ban certain models, and then have a way that definition can be added to as minor changes are made to get ahead of the law. Manufactures would quickly lose interest in producing weapons that might end up illegal to sell before they can be sold. Another would be to approve all manufactures and models that are legal to sell, making all new weapons illegal until they are approved.

 

[pnewton]

It would be over my (metaphorically) dead body that the NRA would get a pulpit from which to preach in my children’s school.

I do not see that as every being an issue. Schools are under the over sight of the bishops. Some of the laity and even some priests may not like most of what the bishops have on this issue, but most Catholics respect the office of bishop.

Again I will ask, is there any evidence that Eddie Eagle is effective?

 

[fullmetalcatholic]

The USCCB has no teaching authority. This was spelled out clearly in 1917 when the USCCB started out as the National Catholic War Council. At the time the Pope basically said you guys can get together for tea and crumpets but you have no legitimate doctrinal authority as a conference. Catholics should be very careful regarding the wolves in shepherds clothing.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

That’s a typical liberal response.

Let’s ignore any talk of real solutions and mindlessly insist on gun control for gun control’s sake.

I doubt if you even know what the “Eddie the Eagle” program is.

I would be very, very much opposed to this. And before you dismiss me by saying “that’s a typical liberal response,” understand that it’s not the idea of gun safety being taught in schools (at appropriate ages, in appropriate parts of the country) that bothers me, it’s the idea of the NRA getting a foothold in schools, especially with what would appear to be the endorsement of the Catholic Church, or at least the USCCB.

The NRA is the same organization that puts out videos like this. I don’t want them anywhere near my children. Not ever.

The NRA is not just an organization that promotes gun safety, or even gun rights. It promotes an irresponsible and hate-filled ideology.

If I had a teenager who was learning to drive, I would not hire a driving teacher who grew up in a big city and always took the bus, but never drove a car. I would hire someone with experience driving a car.

If I want to know how to grill the perfect steak, I wouldn’t contact the vegetarian association. I would contact the local bar-b-cue club.

If I want to learn how to ride a surfboard, I would not go to Arizona and hire someone who’s never seen the ocean. I would go to the coast and hire someone who has experience surfing.

If I wanted to learn a foreign language, I would hire someone who speaks that language, not someone who says “I’ve never heard of it.”

If I want a ham sandwich, I don’t go the the Kosher deli.

When I want someone to teach firearm safety, the very first place to go is the NRA.

Anyone who thinks the NRA is not the very best instructor with regard to firearms safety simply has no idea what he’s talking about; and I certainly would not turn to that person for advice.

 

[FrDavid96]

I can tell you from personal experience that the most responsible and most trustworthy gun owners are those who have gone through NRA-run and NRA-approved firearms safety training. And those who have learned a healthy and responsible respect-for and use-of firearms (which almost always includes the above training) are the most responsible adult owners and users.

I can tell you from personal experience that the most irresponsible and most untrustworthy gun owners (or just users) are those who have not experienced NRA-approved firearms safety training. Likewise, the most incompetent ones are those who lack any responsible experience with firearms.

 

[pnewton]

The USCCB has no teaching authority. This was spelled out clearly in 1917 when the USCCB started out as the National Catholic War Council. At the time the Pope basically said you guys can get together for tea and crumpets but you have no legitimate doctrinal authority as a conference. Catholics should be very careful regarding the wolves in shepherds clothing.

Well, I did not say all Catholics respected the teaching authority of the bishops.

I find far more wolf-y people here than any cathedral. From the Code of Canon Law.

Bishops, who by divine institution succeed to the place of the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, are constituted pastors in the Church, so that they are teachers of doctrine, (bolded for the seeing impaired) priests of sacred worship, and ministers of governance.

A conference of bishops, a permanent institution, is a group of bishops of some nation or certain territory who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions for the Christian faithful of their territory in order to promote the greater good which the Church offers to humanity, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place, according to the norm of law.