the examples i show are of people choosing gun free zones because of the lack of security.
The involvement of organized crime (that I’m aware of) in the liquor business has nothing to do with government regulation. It takes the form of coercing bars and restaurants to buy their liquor from distributors controlled by or working with the mob (whatever mob controls distribution in that area). It’s simple thuggery.
I don’t know where you live or the laws but even with what you describe it could still have to do with government regulation. Liquor licenses, trade restrictions and other things can create a place for the mob. Or it could just be thuggery too.
Take a look at Mexico, a country with very restrictive gun laws. Their homicide rate is well over 3 times that of the US. Look at the various states and their respective gun laws. There is no correlation between homicide rate and how restrictive the guns laws are. Vermont, the least restrictive for pretty much the history of the US, has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country.
Culture is what needs to be addressed. Those that claim “thoughts and prayers” are useless fail to see that they may be the most important. All the laws in the world won’t help if people don’t see that every human has innate worth and dignity. I would suggest the USCCB focus on that.
Yes, but you used them to support your claim that gun free designations make the site more dangerous than if they were not so designated. Your examples only prove that point if taking away the signs brought the kind of security in your examples. Just taking away the sign does not do that.
Have they ever made a statement about axes, knives, big trucks?
i agree especially since it is ingrain to many that certain places are gun free zones. i don’t think people even notice the signs anymore.
however, the perp, which we see many plan out their event, will know.
USCCB should focus on recruiting people to become Catholic.
And to teach Catholic doctrine and dogma.
The perp will not care. He cares about police or other armed officials. Other than that, he does not care. The possibility of an armed citizen just happening to be wandering by with his gun to stop him will not be a deterrent.
Thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity. I did not mean what I said in the way you took it. What I meant was that the idea behind promoting gun free zones was not to prevent mass shootings as target of opportunities. It was to prevent gun violence in general. For example, Texas has always held that guns are not allowed in bars. This is not to keep bars from being attacked by some mass shooter, but to prevent guns being used by people impaired by alcohol.
False dichotomy. There job is also teaching practical application. That is why Jesus is the good shepherd, not the good orator. Besides, they are teaching. It is the old “let him who have ears listen,” part that is required of students and sheep alike. Yet too many Catholics would rather job shadow their bishop with critique him that humble themselves to the level of a student, much less a sheep.
I agree we should learn but what are they teaching when their teaching lacks specifics, makes factually wrong statements, and seems to ignore current laws?
This is a specific. “The USCCB continues to urge a total ban on assault weapons, which we supported when the ban passed in 1994 and when Congress failed to renew it in 2004.”
This is a teaching. “. Society must recognize that the common good requires reasonable steps to limit access to such firearms by those who would intend to use them in that way.”
The question is, what are you asking for? Specifics and teaching are two different things. Recognizing the need to sacrifice for the common good is Catholic teaching. The value of life is a Catholic teaching. The need to limit assault weapons is a specific.
Asking for a change in law is not ignoring current law.
Assault weapon is a kind of made up term that refers to cosmetics of rifles. It isn’t specific. What do they want to ban? Detachable magazines? Magazines of a certain capacity? Pistol grips?
What are ‘reasonable steps’. This is a term leftists use to be non specific and assume moral superiority. They use it to suggest their ideas are ‘reasonable’ and anyone who opposes them is ‘unreasonable’. I’d go so far to say the use of the term is uncharitable.
That is muddying the waters. I know the term is non-specific, as is “drugs”, yet we are able to make many drugs illegal. This is not that difficult. All one needs is have the ATF approve all firearms that are legal for sale. Or, make firearms illegal by model number and keep adding to the list. You can even make manufactures liable for new models made to circumvent the law in civil court when they are used illegally. There are several paths that can be taken.
Arguing the term so that nothing is be done does not promote the common good. The NRA has used this tactic too long and it is time to sidestep their distraction.
You asked for a specific. I gave one. You say it is not specific. I do not know what you want.
“Reasonable” has a real meaning. It means you can support with reason. The above example is something I do not think is reasonable, but only because I can explain why, that is provide reasons why I think the term can be used. The tactic above is akin to blasting Republicans for using a term like Obamacare because they are not specifying what Obama cares about, or how much he cares, or how he shows he cares. It is not logical.
You are right that there was a specific. They requested to renew the assault weapons ban. As stated I think that is a strange law and didn’t accomplish anything.
Why term your ideas as reasonable? Who presents or advocates for unreasonable laws? If their proposals are reasonable they should offer the reasons and explain why opposition to them is unreasonable.
you are right he will not care about someone wandering by. however if the signage indicated there was armed security in the building it would be a deterrent imho.
i was listening to a podcast a few years ago. it was a gun podcast but had a lot of police guests and they almost to a person recommended signage about security and cameras placed quite visibly on your property as a deterrent. their experience in investigating the crime was the criminals who pick a random house would normally pick a house that had no signage or visible camera.
Yes, but that is a totally different issue than the issue of gun free zones. Of course it is a deterrent to have armed security on site. But you can have armed security on site with or without the gun free zone designation. The gun free zone designation only applies to unofficial people. Bringing up the fact that shooters target places without security is a true fact but irrelevant to the issue being discussed.
so you are implying a gun free zone means nothing to someone looking for a soft target?