What can we do about the shootings?

Conversion of minds and hearts. No gun ever picked itself up and shot itself.

This book from my dear friend Father Vincent Miceli, requiescat in pace, might have some of the answers:


Yes, but if they plan on responding to any criminal activity where a use of weapons are involved, I think they need training on how to use their own weapon in the most effective and safe manner. I don’t think this should be optional and should also include refresher courses once a year. Nothing overly excessive…a subjective statement…but I think it makes sense and benefits the carrier as well as those around him/her. Someone that carries a concealed weapon with no training in use could be as dangerous as an active shooter! YMMV


The problem I have with more comprehensive fire arms laws is two fold.

First, we already have numerous laws on the books. Both the Dayton shooter and the El Paso shooter violated several laws not counting murder and assault.

Second is that criminals just do not obey laws, which is why they are called criminals.

More laws just make it harder for me to defend myself and my family.

Yes I carry and yes I have training.



Yeah, I’ve been going unarmed for the past several years, but I’m back to carrying just about full time.



How do you respond to the basic fact that those countries with more stringent gun control laws have fewer mass shootings?


As a classical liberal, I agree that more gun control is not the answer here. In fact what we should be doing is strengthening gun rights, which is the right to bear arms, which is an extension of the right to self defense, which is another way to express the right to life, and I support the right to life, because I am a classical liberal. And a Catholic.


This is only rational. :+1:

For one thing it’s not true. You’re probably thinking of other constitutional democratic republics like Western Europe, Japan, etc. But there was never this level of mass shooting in those countries to begin with, before they enacted draconian gun bans, so it cannot be shown to be causal, but merely coincidental, that they ban assault rifles, and have fewer mass murderers living among them.

Those other countries you’re thinking of just have fewer mass murderers among them. Other countries, many with even more wicked gun control than in Western Europe, have more. It’s not guns, and it’s not gun control either, that makes a mass murderer, suicidal (which most are) or otherwise.

And the US is the only nation among all liberal constitutional democratic republics to explicitly and expressly affirm the inalienable right to bear arms also, so to really be more like them, and to obey instead of ignore our supreme law the Bill of Rights, we should gather our political will and amend the Constitution, to repeal the Second Amendment.

I do not support that, as a classical liberal.


Sorry, you lost me. Are you for all the “vitriol and invective”? I would prefer a cool, rational conversation about the subject.

1 Like

Is that per capita less?
Which countries?
How do they compare on other forms of homicide?
Unfortunately, I do not trust the government (local, state or, especially federal) to protect me and mine. When I am disarmed, I have become a subject, not a citizen.

If my fire arms become illegal, the government will have found a way to turn me into a criminal.



Immediate derail attempt. Stick to question: “How do you explain that is countries with strict, even Draconian gun controls have fewer mass shootings?”

Yet, we work for laws that address other moral ills. For example, if abortion became illegal then only criminals would provide abortion. This does not stop us from working toward an end to abortion.


Gun control doesn’t have to mean banning guns. I live in Canada. We have guns here. Lots of them. It’s cold and there’s a lot of wildlife. I can go get a gun if I want one. But we also have gun control, which means that I have to pass the appropriate background checks and provide assurances that I know how to safely operate that gun before I can buy it.

In the US, it’s easier to get a gun than to get a driver’s license. You literally have more control over driving a car than owning a weapon.

The response to one of the most significant mass shootings in UK history - Dunblane, in 1996 - in which 16 children were killed - was to tighten gun control laws. Since then there has been ONE mass shooting in the UK.

The response to the most significant mass shooting in Australia - Port Arthur, also in 1996 - in which 35 people were killed, was to tighten gun control laws. Since 1996, there have been no mass shootings.

Since last Sunday, in the US, there have been THREE mass shootings.

Maybe it’s time to rethink what you’ve always done. It doesn’t seem to be working.


The President has called both shooters crazy.
But is a racist crazy?
I believe it is possible for a person to be a racist, but sane at the same time.

Much of the discussion has to go with the kind of guns out there.
Mass shooting are mainly possible because of semi-automatic and automatic weaponry.
Assault rifles are made with the express intent of shooting as many people as possible during a limited about of time.
A bolt action rifle takes longer to shoot.
What true hunter would hunt with an assault type weapon?


Not even close to how many we have in the US though. We lead the world in civilian owned guns per capita by an enormous margin.

And the US has had “weapons grade” gun control since 1934, when all selective fire weapons were made “NFA Title II weapons,” which means they are all Heavily regulated by the federal government.

Added to that, are the innumerable gun control laws that further restrict gun rights here; federal, state, and local /municipal.

In many states, yes, and in many states, no. It depends on the state.

And the Bill of Rights enumerates nothing resembling a right to keep and drive cars.

So it doesn’t work then.

There hasn’t been another Port Arthur magnitude mass shooting, true, but there have been at least two or three mass shootings since then; and one of them occurred in June 2019.

There is an upward trajectory to the frequency of mass shootings occurring also. It’s not stable; it is rising with time.


Here is an exercise in thought:

What would the world be like today, if every country on the face of the earth had the protections of the Second Amendment, since the time that the United States itself was founded, and if per capita ownership of guns were spread throughout the whole world in the same proportion as in the United States throughout that time, up to the present?

Many hypothetical scenarios come to mind, including resistance movements in World War II and various enslavements throughout the past three centuries.


Respectfully @HomeschoolDad, have you lost your mind? Even the thought experiment lacks rational perspective.

I don’t know the answer to gun violence, but I’m confident it isn’t having 7,700,000,000 guns on the planet


I would guess that most people would imagine ‘blood in the streets,’ but to those of us who’ve examined global data on the matter, the statistical fact is that there is no correlation between civilian owned guns per capita, and murder rates. In fact some of the most murderous countries on earth (whose murder rates exceed the murder rate in the US by a factor of Five or even more) have the strictest gun control on earth too.

Not to put too fine a point on it, nor to sound like an extremist (which I am not, being a classical liberal), but there isn’t one cluster of victims of these kinds of atrocities, that weren’t outgunned.

You sound like a classical liberal too.


Most of these mass murderers are mentally Ill in some way. There’s a correlation between around 1980 when the mental hospitals were shut down and an increase in mass shootings. I’m not saying there’s a definite causation or that there aren’t other causes, but this is something to consider.

Internet radicalization plays a role in some of the shootings but in others it’s more complicated. The last I heard the Dayton shooter’s motives were unknown, unlike the El Paso or Christ Church shooters who were clearly radicalized. Mental instability or illness combined with a sense of hopelessness combined with the radicalization of a little learning is indeed a dangerous thing.


In the case of El Paso and Dayton, the shooters were 21+ with no known criminal or mental health records. I’m not sure how gun policy could be change in a way that was consistent with the 2nd amendment and would have been able to stop these guys.

Something effective can be done here, but not just with funding. The laws need to be adjusted regarding consent for treatment. As it stands, someone with mental health challenges has to do something seriously criminal (like mow down innocent people with assault-style rifles) before they are forced into treatment.

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