Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says


I think you are confusing high powered rifles with the rules concerning automatic weapons.

I don’t know that there is a specific definiton of “high powered rifle”; but it might be considered anything beyond a .22, and given some of the rounds available for them (such as CCI Stingers And Velociters), they might also qualify. Any adequate caliber of rifle for deer hunting is “high powered”.


The USCCB appears to have done no homework before they decided to enter into the political discussion.

There are an estimated 110 million rifles and 86 million shotguns privately owned in the US. And because there is that nasty little law which says that one cannot be held criminal ofr what was previously permitted conduct (woning a high powered rifle) and because the 2nd Amendment is not going to go away, taking them from us is not foing to work.

Perhaps they have some law in mind which would not be an ex post facto law, and would not interfere with the right to purchase a high powered rifle of a law abiding citizen, but instead of actually proposing something, they do the liberal “guns need to be regulated” addition to what would otherwise be an eminently sensible comment: to wit, that the gun laws we have on the books need to be followed.

The first issue they bring up is the liberal rant which uses emotional language to create fear. It is the :assault weapons ban" language.

For starters, none of the weapons which were banned were assault weapons. I was in Vietnam and I carried an M-16. That was one of the assault weapons we had - and all the others, with the exception of the grenade launcher were capable of full automatic. The AR-16 is not manufactured as capable of full automatic. it is a semi automatic dressed up with a hand guard and a pistol grip. The same exact rifle - semi automatic, .215 cartridge as the Remington Ranch Rifle comes with a wood stock and looks like other rifles, and would not come under the ban. Why? Because liberals are not as scared of it. furthermore, according the FBI Statistics, in the vast majority of crimes committed with a weapon, rifles of any sort are not featured. They use hand guns - pistols and revolvers, and occasionally shotguns.

Out of the over 600 murders in Chicago this year, according to police reports, possibly 33 were by rifle, as the Hispanic gangs have been seeking to increase their fire power. However, short of gang warfare, rifles are not used in most robberies and burglaries - they are too cumbersome, unwieldly, and are not concealable…

There are a multitude of laws on the books criminalizing gun trafficking. Chicago is a prime example of a city that will not cooperate in federal prosecutions of the existing laws.

The same can be said for background checks; the law i s on the books, but if a federal agency does not report what is needed, a background check will not be effective. The shooter in Texas applied for a concealed permit; Texas had sufficient information to deny him but the federal check failed. We don’t need more laws there; we need to work on the ones we have.



(cont.) “Weapons capable of mass murder”. One ony has to read of the mass shootings we have had to know that a pistol, which is semi automatic, has been prominent among some if not all of the shooters. And pistols are the primary firearm used by citizens who apply for a concealed carry permit. Because a handful of mass shooters had one or more with them, we are now to disarm over 100 million citizens?

It was the liberals who several years ago got a study of how often a weapon was used to stop a crime. They didn’t like the results; the study showed an estimated 2 million times a year.

I don’t cling to my guns (nor do I cling to my Bible, in spite of the snide comments of the last administration); I use them. I hunt, so I use a semi automatic .22 when I go hunting sage rats and jack rabbits (both of which inflict significant cop damage in Easter Oregon). I have a shotgun for bird hunting; a .204 for coyote hunting;a .270 for deer and Barbary sheep; and a 30.06 for elk. Having not used the last one for about 40 years, I am going to go to the gun range and make holes in paper to see if it shoots where I am aiming. If not, then I will want to purchase one of those “high powered rifles” for my next elk hunt, next October.

If gun control is a moral issue, then I am curious as to why, after one of the mass shootings during the last administration, when the Republicans porpoised 5 different bills, all of which had the backing of the NRA, the lead Democrats publicly said they were going to se the bills did not see daylight, and specifically said they would use that against the Republicans in the last election.

Gun control is about morality?

Ony if pigs fly.


Guns are restricted on planes; which is why mine is checked into baggage before the flight. And air marshals and police escorting prisoners may be armed. and there is a field in Pennsylvania, 2 towers, and the Pentagon which might possibly have had different results had there been an armed passenger. On the other hand, one of the difficulties is that the area is so intensely crowded, that should it be necessary to shoot a criminal (i.e. a hijacker), it is entirely possible there might be others killed by stray shots or through and through shots.

If one wants to look at the effectiveness of gun control, one need look no farther than Chicago, with some of the tightest gun laws in the nation; and as of last week,m over 600 murders this year.


No, I’m not confusing it. I just know how those who wish to severely restrict or eliminate gun rights like to conflate things.


I would probably agree with that. Perhaps the bishops should stay out of politics, you know stick to the Church stuff like what kind of incense to use at Mass. Because the US abortion rate is at its lowest rate since the Supreme Court Rulling in 1974 and they still talk about making a woman’s right to control her own body illegal. And since that Supreme Court ruling is not going away–just like the 2nd amendment is not going away (unless religious conservatives continue to elect more people like Trump and Moore who sexually assault women) you 2nd amendment supporters should get use to it. Please do not say Rowe V. Wade has got to go as you hold a death grip on the 2nd amendment, it shows the hypocrisy of your argument. I support the 2nd amendment. I also support the right to an abortion. I’m not going to take away your guns. It’s okay to loosen that grip.


Which one sounds more appropriate: The bishops of the Church telling you what you should do or you telling them what they should do?


Abortion is not the right to control one’s own body. Abortion is the “right” to terminate the life of another human being.
The right of a woman to control her own body happens prior to conception.
Thank God the number of deaths due to abortion continues to decline.

Actually it doesn’t. So, let’s agree. If I use my gun to take a life without cause, I should lose my rights. If a doctor takes a life by committing an abortion, he/she should lose their rights.


Don’t forget Conyers and Franken.

Oh, and Bill Clinton.


I will acknowledge this much: the moral argument involved in the overwhelming number of political issues is nothing more than “I judge you to be immoral.”

And there it is: "I’m trying to solve the problem; you’re just interested in yourself."

My point is moral, your’s is just selfish.” The two concerns are quite different but are not separable. One approach at reducing gun violence (by either confiscating existing arms or by making their acquisition virtually impossible) is rejected as impractical. The approach taken to resist it is reliance on Constitutional protection.

Does it seem all that realistic to take a very unique and special case and suggest it can be extended universally? Don’t forget that along with banning guns, which requires passing through security lines, body scanners, baggage scanners, and intrusive searches, we also give up knives, scissors, and even bottles of water. I really don’t think most of us want to live in a society where such security measures are ubiquitous. Now, does my rejection of your position mean I’m not interested in reducing gun violence, or just that I dismiss your approach as unworkable?


Ignoring them when they step well outside their area of expertise and authority.


False choice question implying appeal to authority.


Thank you for your wonderful, informative and accurate postings…

I think the left is dying to ban ALL firearms. I don’t think they have more fear for those with “tactical” polymer furniture. I just think these firearms have “features” (which in no way increase the firepower of the arms) which allow the politicos to selectively ban.

Back when the “Brady Campaign” was known as “Handgun Control, Inc.”, it got its face torn-off in the political arena by BOTH sides of the aisle. Citizens want their handguns. It learned fast and turned its focus to semiautomatic sporting rifles.


Amen again.


Good luck with that . . .



Simply operate the NICS as designed – including uploading all important information to it ASAP.


Life begins at birth. Abortion is a medical procedure.


Life begins at conception.


Those guys are altar servers compared to Trump and Moore.


Yes, that’s why most Catholics ignore them on gay marriage, premarital sex and birth control.


which catholic sect believes this?

so we are to believe them on guns but not abortion

ok! i got ya

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit