Nora, I kind of agree with you, but not entirely. I think that doing away with "No-Fault" divorce — at least when there are children involved — would go a long way to turning us in a better direction. It wouldn't be a panacea, but it would at least push people to treat marriage less frivolously and keep intact more moderately-functioning families. Even if they are far from ideal, they are usually better than what happens for so often in broken families. (For instance, as I remember the numbers, most sexual abuse of children occurs in households with a male unrelated to the children; which isn't to say that all unrelated males are a problem, but as class it is the biggest source of many problems.)
Speaking from a non American perspective, is this not the most perfect time to push the prolife agenda with a Supreme Court heavily weighed with prolife judges? How mighty would the prolife position be with SCOTUS bringing about restrictions on abortion and guns as the twin causes for life in the USA!
Sadly, and yes it sounds like a pat answer, it's not as simple as that (though it should be). Here I'm presuming you're talking about a large confiscation of weapons similar to what Australia did.
Allowing individual states to restrict and ban abortion by overturning the ruling that the so-called "right to privacy" embedded in our Constitution means that a woman's convenience trumps her child's right to live is much simpler than removing or significantly restricting a right that is explicitly included in that Constitution. To put it another way, we cannot pass a law similar to Australia's to allow a mass confiscation of a class of weapons without vitiating the foundation of the rule of law in this nation, the Constitution itself. There are ways to amend the Constitution, but those are high bars to meet and would require a change of hearts and minds in our people exceeding that which finally has in sight the goal of reversing the "right" to abortion.
I do agree with Phil H above, that at root the problem is a spiritual one, and our present culture feeds that problem with a shovel. Removing the tool which, in this and too many other cases, allowed innocents to suffer and die might save innocents in future. But it doesn't address the long-festering sickness of soul that causes the desire or broken reaction to use that tool.
Thank you for your clear concern for our people, it is touching and very much appreciated.
I realise that an Australian style gun confiscation solution is completely impossible for the US but I believe that clever big thinking prolife lawyers and advocates could quite easily set the 2nd Amendment to a more prolife application. The wording that strikes me as especially relevant to the 2nd Amendment is 'a well regulated' militia. A lot of the usual loopholes that make these awful massacres possible in the first place could surely be addressed with this point?
"The wording that strikes me as especially relevant to the 2nd Amendment is 'a well regulated' militia."
That's something that people who are new to evaluating the 2nd Amendment often think, but it completely misses the legal and historical context of that phrase. There's nothing in it that suggests that the government has the power to limit gun ownership or use to a government-controlled paramilitary organization.
I recommend UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh's "The Commonplace Second Amendment" for a clear understanding of why. Volokh's paper was submitted as an amicus brief in the Heller decision some years ago to address this very point.
I come from the perspective of a public school employee, so I can tell you what I see on a daily basic. About half our students have divorced parents, single moms or dads, are being raised by another relative, or are in foster care. Many are treated as disposable and certainly act out because of this. We have multiple students each year that raise red flags. Our district has added more mental health workers to try to address these issues, but it is impossible to compensate for a lack of family structure.
If we want to fix this problem, we MUST work to restore the family unit and preach the Gospel of Love loudly and persistently. If you understand that there is a God and that He loves you enough to send his son to die for you, then you can appreciate your value as a person. Those who value their own lives, do not seek to take the lives of others!
Killing children in the womb is legal. Killing children with guns is illegal.
Anti-abortion laws would outlaw the killing of children. The tools used by abortionists are neutral and have legitimate purposes, so they are not targeted by anti-abortion laws.
Killing children with guns is already illegal, so gun laws don't do that. Gun laws target the tools used by murderers, even though they are neutral and have legitimate purposes.
A gun law restricting the purchase of an AR-15 or a handgun is like an "anti-abortion" law restricting the purchase of suction or saline: It doesn't address the problem. It inhibits the legitimate use of these medical tools, and it won't even prevent abortions.
That's why restricting the purchase of suction or saline doesn't make one "pro-life", and it's analogous to why restricting the purchase of certain weapons doesn't make one "pro-life".
(That's from a legal standpoint. The biggest problem is America's spiritual decline. We didn't have this problem before approximately the 1990s.)
Also, "common sense" gun laws generally sound good but won't solve the problems to which they're supposedly a reaction. If anyone wants to know why, I'll be happy to expound in general or regarding specifics; at a minimum, consider that the NY SAFE law didn't reduce the lethality of the weapon used in Buffalo at all AND ensured that the shooter knew that his target was full of unarmed victims.
"Do something!" is not a strategy. We need to focus our energy on what truly matters, not on an emotional need to do something -- anything! -- in the hope that we'll get lucky and it will fix the problem.
Adkins, above, said a number of incorrect things, but he was correct when he said that we could “focus as a start on comprehensive school safety legislation that provides funding for, among other things, school security personnel, building security enhancements, and mental health initiatives for students”. These things will have a much stronger effect than any of the "common sense" gun laws that get proposed when these shootings happen.
Nora, I kind of agree with you, but not entirely. I think that doing away with "No-Fault" divorce — at least when there are children involved — would go a long way to turning us in a better direction. It wouldn't be a panacea, but it would at least push people to treat marriage less frivolously and keep intact more moderately-functioning families. Even if they are far from ideal, they are usually better than what happens for so often in broken families. (For instance, as I remember the numbers, most sexual abuse of children occurs in households with a male unrelated to the children; which isn't to say that all unrelated males are a problem, but as class it is the biggest source of many problems.)
Speaking from a non American perspective, is this not the most perfect time to push the prolife agenda with a Supreme Court heavily weighed with prolife judges? How mighty would the prolife position be with SCOTUS bringing about restrictions on abortion and guns as the twin causes for life in the USA!
Sadly, and yes it sounds like a pat answer, it's not as simple as that (though it should be). Here I'm presuming you're talking about a large confiscation of weapons similar to what Australia did.
Allowing individual states to restrict and ban abortion by overturning the ruling that the so-called "right to privacy" embedded in our Constitution means that a woman's convenience trumps her child's right to live is much simpler than removing or significantly restricting a right that is explicitly included in that Constitution. To put it another way, we cannot pass a law similar to Australia's to allow a mass confiscation of a class of weapons without vitiating the foundation of the rule of law in this nation, the Constitution itself. There are ways to amend the Constitution, but those are high bars to meet and would require a change of hearts and minds in our people exceeding that which finally has in sight the goal of reversing the "right" to abortion.
I do agree with Phil H above, that at root the problem is a spiritual one, and our present culture feeds that problem with a shovel. Removing the tool which, in this and too many other cases, allowed innocents to suffer and die might save innocents in future. But it doesn't address the long-festering sickness of soul that causes the desire or broken reaction to use that tool.
Thank you for your clear concern for our people, it is touching and very much appreciated.
I realise that an Australian style gun confiscation solution is completely impossible for the US but I believe that clever big thinking prolife lawyers and advocates could quite easily set the 2nd Amendment to a more prolife application. The wording that strikes me as especially relevant to the 2nd Amendment is 'a well regulated' militia. A lot of the usual loopholes that make these awful massacres possible in the first place could surely be addressed with this point?
"The wording that strikes me as especially relevant to the 2nd Amendment is 'a well regulated' militia."
That's something that people who are new to evaluating the 2nd Amendment often think, but it completely misses the legal and historical context of that phrase. There's nothing in it that suggests that the government has the power to limit gun ownership or use to a government-controlled paramilitary organization.
I recommend UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh's "The Commonplace Second Amendment" for a clear understanding of why. Volokh's paper was submitted as an amicus brief in the Heller decision some years ago to address this very point.
https://foac-pac.org/uploads/Volokh-Commonplace%202nd%20Amend.pdf
These mass shootings indicate a deep spiritual problem, first and foremost. Prayer, and fasting, is much more important than any one policy response.
I come from the perspective of a public school employee, so I can tell you what I see on a daily basic. About half our students have divorced parents, single moms or dads, are being raised by another relative, or are in foster care. Many are treated as disposable and certainly act out because of this. We have multiple students each year that raise red flags. Our district has added more mental health workers to try to address these issues, but it is impossible to compensate for a lack of family structure.
If we want to fix this problem, we MUST work to restore the family unit and preach the Gospel of Love loudly and persistently. If you understand that there is a God and that He loves you enough to send his son to die for you, then you can appreciate your value as a person. Those who value their own lives, do not seek to take the lives of others!
God bless you for your work! Thank you for being a light for these children.
The solution to shootings is not to disarm the victims.
Abortion laws and gun laws are not equivalent.
Killing children in the womb is legal. Killing children with guns is illegal.
Anti-abortion laws would outlaw the killing of children. The tools used by abortionists are neutral and have legitimate purposes, so they are not targeted by anti-abortion laws.
Killing children with guns is already illegal, so gun laws don't do that. Gun laws target the tools used by murderers, even though they are neutral and have legitimate purposes.
A gun law restricting the purchase of an AR-15 or a handgun is like an "anti-abortion" law restricting the purchase of suction or saline: It doesn't address the problem. It inhibits the legitimate use of these medical tools, and it won't even prevent abortions.
That's why restricting the purchase of suction or saline doesn't make one "pro-life", and it's analogous to why restricting the purchase of certain weapons doesn't make one "pro-life".
(That's from a legal standpoint. The biggest problem is America's spiritual decline. We didn't have this problem before approximately the 1990s.)
Also, "common sense" gun laws generally sound good but won't solve the problems to which they're supposedly a reaction. If anyone wants to know why, I'll be happy to expound in general or regarding specifics; at a minimum, consider that the NY SAFE law didn't reduce the lethality of the weapon used in Buffalo at all AND ensured that the shooter knew that his target was full of unarmed victims.
"Do something!" is not a strategy. We need to focus our energy on what truly matters, not on an emotional need to do something -- anything! -- in the hope that we'll get lucky and it will fix the problem.
Adkins, above, said a number of incorrect things, but he was correct when he said that we could “focus as a start on comprehensive school safety legislation that provides funding for, among other things, school security personnel, building security enhancements, and mental health initiatives for students”. These things will have a much stronger effect than any of the "common sense" gun laws that get proposed when these shootings happen.
Security checkpoints in all schools
Or at least lock the doors when the children are inside.
Three years later, and nothing but “thoughts and prayers” for the families of the murder victims. The USCCB is voiceless.