What can we do about the shootings?

That’s where you’re wrong. I love politics and gun policies especially and from my research I have concluded that regulations do not help prevent gun crime. In 90% of all mass shootings, the gun was acquired illegally. By having stricter regulation, you won’t prevent a majority of mass shootings. And the 10% that acquired legally? They bought the gun long before they even considered shooting up a school or concert. That means they would have passed background checks and mental health exams. Also, it is extremely easy to pass mental heath background checks. These tests will do virtually nothing to stop mass shootings. The best way to help stop mass shootings is to do the exact opposite, arm the people. A majority of mass shootings are in gun free zones like schools. Do you know why a gun show has never been shot up? Because he would be shot before he could inflict much, if any, damage. “Common sense” gun regulations are not the way. They are fallacies made up by stupid politicians who will ban guns just for looking scary. God bless.

2 Likes

While I did not read every post in the thread here are thoughts.

Christians don’t obey God’s laws, why would we expect people to obey man’s laws.

Criminals and people with mental issues are going to do what they want regardless of what the law says. Beyond that, it is part of being man. A rock was used when Cain killed Abel, would he have used a gun if it was available, possibly. It was out of selfishness that the act occurred, just like many of the ills in society today.

Blaming the tool instead of blaming the individual is not the right answer. If we simply do what Christ told us to do and love our neighbor as ourselves we could go a long way towards solving many of the issues that trouble man today.

2 Likes

In that case make them subject to perodic review.

That’s a violation of 4th Amendment rights.

2 Likes

So let’s get rid of all legislated preventative measures.

Let’s not require that doctors or lawyers have to obtain a licence before they are allowed to practice.

Let’s not require that drivers have to pass tests before they are allowed on the roads.

Let’s not require that nightclubs have to card people before they let them in to be sure they’re not serving alcohol to minors.

Let’s not require hunters to get permits in case they hunt animals to extinction.

Let’s not grant people restraining orders to prevent future violence against them.

Let’s not put health and safety laws in place to prevent injuries and accidents.

Let’s not have building codes so our houses and bridges don’t fall down around our ears.

Yes some people disobey all of the above laws. That’s no reason not to legislate - either preventatively or after the fact - in relation to risky behaviours.

1 Like

None of what you describe is a constitutional right.

2 Likes

None of what you stated is enumerated in the Constitution, so it is pointless to bring up those things. There are lots and lots of laws regarding firearms. Look them up if you aren’t familiar with them. Owning a firearm isn’t risky. The tool will never, ever do any damage absent being messed with by a person, no different than an automobile. One difference however is that you have no right to own or operate an automobile.

Do you think Simon Peter had a license to carry his sword, or do you think that the right of self preservation is granted by God himself? I believe it is granted by God.

1 Like

The ability to operate a vehicle is not granted by the Constitution or God. Bad comparison.

As far as the reference to hunting rifles and shotguns. Read the 2nd Amendment. It says nothing about hunting since it has nothing to do with hunting. Bad argument.

I wish people would spend a little more time learning about the Constitution. Well regulated doesn’t mean putting regulations on the types of firearms which are available to citizens. It refers to the fact the members of the militia (able bodied men ages 17 to 45) should be familiar with firearms which are common for use in the defense of the nation. IE/what the military would use.

It would do no good to call up the militia and have all the guys show up with pitch forks and garden hoes. They were meant to show up with a practical firearm in working condition that could be used for battle. It needed to be in a common caliber, able to use common powder/patches.

Folks really should educate themselves about firearms and what current laws are on the books regarding them and their ownership.

2 Likes

I suppose having 50 guns is beyond nonsense. I disagree.

If you can find anything in the 2nd Amendment about hunting please reference it. I will save you some time because it isn’t there.

The 2nd Amendment is about protecting your freedom, which I assume you enjoy. So if you do enjoy your freedom, thank a current military member or a veteran for their willingness and ability to use tools which you find offensive in order to protect your freedom. If not admit the hypocrisy of your thought process.

People using guns to take innocent lives or their own is a tragedy. Most homicides by gun are actually suicides. Most are done with handguns, not what some refer to as “assault weapons” which is really a term based on ignorance. Automobiles kill more people each year than guns do by the way. Should we ban automobiles?

1 Like

Abortion is a constitutional right. Yet the states have put various restrictions on that right, such as banning late abortions, requiring transvaginal ultrasounds and the like.

Free speech is a constitutional right, yet there are age limits on buying adult magazines or seeing certain categories of movie, and certain kinds of material cannot be broadcast on public television (or at least not before a certain time of day).

You want more?

Like preventing drunk driving fatalities by taking cars away from all the sober drivers.

2 Likes

Or like preventing road accidents by making EVERYONE wait until they are x years old before they can have a drivers’ licence - because of the undeniable fact that some younger people don’t have the reflexes, common sense or maturity to handle a vehicle?

I’m all for raising the age of gun ownership.

Abortion is not a Constitutional right. The right to privacy is a Constitutional right granted in the 14th amendment under which some abortions may fall under.

Freedom of speech is granted in the 1st amendment, and yes, there are instances in which it can be limited.

There are thousands of laws regarding firearms from federal, state and local governments.

So your point is?

Apples and oranges.

Vehicles are NOT a right. Never were and never will be. They were not fundamental to estanblishing this nation or defending it. We can save many more lives by centralizing the population and banning cars.

…98…99…100…101…102…103 killed each day, 24/7/365.

Where’s the hue and cry? Where’s the anguished families with lenses stuffed in their faces? Interesting, ain’t it, that the drivers are at fault and NOT the cars. Why is it so easy for a killer to find a car? To buy a car? To steal a car? Sooooo easy.

It seems that vehicular deaths are…

…acceptable deaths.

Tick tick tick tick tick…

2 Likes

A Franciscan response:

Words of comfort

But tools like assault weapons make it easier to do horrible things. So they, too, must be blamed. They were invented for the sake of maximizing kills over a short period of time.

No, they cloak that under a right to privacy.

The restrictions there are upon the perspective audience. Restrictions have not been placed on the speaker.

Pray that Mother Church can deliver them from their sins!

1 Like
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.