Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

[tweedlealice]

Well BOOM, BOOM
Well, the rich own their own airplanes and boats. I think I saw someone w his submarine. Old Tamkers have rebuilt their tank for nostalgia. So, I’m TV, it has been shown some wealthy person has that stuff.
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice

 

[carguy]

Yes, but I come from a family of cops and hunters. It is just a tool like anything else.

 

[Vonsalza]

Apart from being stolen, and a crappy homemade one, I haven’t seen a suppressor used in criminal activities out here in the nearly decade I’ve been here.

Sure. They require lots of hassle to get and can be pretty pricey.

Apropos - you don’t see a lot of crime involving silencers for roughly the same reason you don’t see a lot of crime involving automatics.

And good thing. With a sufficient number of baffles and use with sub-sonic rounds, they’re pretty quiet. And there just aren’t a lot of real, legitimate reasons why you’d need your shots to be more silent instead of just putting on a headset/earplugs/whatever

 

[Escabrosa]

Legitimate reasons? And we’re back to having to justify something that shouldn’t even be an issue. Even very gun-restrictive countries in Europe don’t have an issue with suppressors. I think some people just watch too many Bond movies.

 

[Maximilian75]

You’ll definitltley hear that prize 15 point buck walking in the forest with those on

 

[Vonsalza]

Again, I believe the 1930s federal language against them stems from St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. As such, your claim that silencer bans are baseless seems to stem from a lack of information.

The fact that they haven’t been popular in crime for the last umpteen years is absolutely due, in part, to the fact they been so hard to get for so long.
In that way, their lack of observation in crime is similar to that of fully automatic weapons.

They’re just hard to get so thugs don’t use em.

 

[Vonsalza]

You’ll definitltley hear that prize 15 point buck walking in the forest with those on

I wouldn’t recommend wearing them unless you’re priming for your shot - and then only if you feel you need them.

But fair warning, unless they’re well made, I understand they can have a negative impact on the accuracy of your firearm. Just from what I read. I’ve never owned a silencer.

 

[Maximilian75]

Those are both valid points

 

[Escabrosa]

So using that reasoning, they should be popular with criminals in Europe where they’re easy to get. I don’t know the stats on that, but I haven’t heard it was a problem.

 

[Vonsalza]

So using that reasoning…

The American federal government found the additional risk posed to broader society by allowing the continued proliferation of silencers to be too great and thus curtailed their availability.

Fairly reasonable to me…

I don’t know the stats on that, but I haven’t heard it was a problem.

Probably because it’s hard to obtain assault weapons and handguns in a lot of European countries. Now a bolt action rifle? An actual “sporting” rifle? Yes those are a little easier to obtain. But it’s difficult to have a mass killing with a bolt gun that holds 5 rounds.

Additionally, “movie quiet” is nearly achievable using sub-sonic ammunition — which is very difficult to find for rifle cartridges as practically all rifle calibers are super-sonic by design with regular loading.

For example, I think a .308 comes out roughly three times faster than sound. If I remember correctly. It would be hard to find a manufacturer that makes a .308 at 1/3 the muzzle velocity!

 

[Escabrosa]

That there is called a Red Herring fallacy. You’re moving off topic.

BTW, you don’t have to use subsonic ammo for a suppressor to be effective.

 

[Vonsalza]

That there is called a Red Herring fallacy. You’re moving off topic.

If you wanna cry technicality, I’m going to need you to be substantially more specific than that.

BTW, you don’t have to use subsonic ammo for a suppressor to be effective.

Sure. I didn’t say “effective” though. I said “Additionally, “movie quiet” is nearly achievable using sub-sonic ammunition”.

Which is accurate.

 

[Seeksadvice]

How many times have you fired a weapon? Practice frankly sucks in the noise department even with hearing protection. I live ~2.5 miles from the law enforcement firing range out here. Under the right conditions, I can hear distinct pistol shots from down there, let alone their rifles. State Patrol used to carry M14 battle-rifles. Being around a burst of fire from 7.62x51 (.308Win) without a suppressor is pretty loud.

Automatics are highly, highly overrated. The reason the bump fire worked in Las Vegas is because it’s a big crowd. Accuracy is garbage most of the time with auto/pseudo auto. Automatic is for spray-n-pray suppressive fire, etc. Some of the machine pistols could be controlled, knew folks who served in WWII and used the infamous M-3 “grease gun”.

With regard to subsonic rounds… depending on the calibre, they aren’t terribly common. Most 9x19mm that I’ve seen is either 115grain or 124grain in +P and non+P flavors, I order in my 147grain heavy winter carry and heavy practice ammo for 9mm. .45ACP is about the only relatively common subsonic I’ve found, and that’s simply a function of the firearm. But since 99.99% of the criminals I see out here carry Tulammo or similar quality, it really is a mixed bag as to velocity (Winchester White Box is the “good stuff”). I would be shocked and amazed to see a gang banger with a suppressed 9mm firing say IWI 158grain subsonic, or even a regular 147grainer.

Guessing that you’d probably also be in favor of banning the Barnes all copper bullet, and its derivatives, for the sheer penetration for bullet weight power that it has simply because you don’t feel that it’s necessary?

 

[Vonsalza]

How many times have you fired a weapon?

Between growing up in rural Kentucky, JROTC and ROTC FTXs, buying and selling milsurps while I was in college and the occasional range visit or hunting trip with my buddies?

I didn’t keep count. But “1000’s of times” feels pretty right.

Please understand, Seeks, I was one of those NRA-loving “gun-nuts” for a very long time. All the tiresome rhetoric some people toss up about some jack-booted gubmint boogey-man coming in the night to take your guns away - I knew all of it by heart because once-upon-a-time I lived and believed it.

No longer, fortunately.

Practice frankly sucks in the noise department even with hearing protection.

I’ve never fired a rifle that was so loud that a headset couldn’t sufficiently muffle it. Rented the Browning .50 cal one year at the Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot (I’m not going to tell you what each bang cost…). My ear protection worked just fine.

I live ~2.5 miles from the law enforcement firing range out here. Under the right conditions, I can hear distinct pistol shots from down there, let alone their rifles.

Good deal. If someone is discharging weaponry that can potentially “reach out and touch me”, I wanna know about it. They shouldn’t do that in silence. It should be very obvious that rounds are being discharged nearby.

State Patrol used to carry M14 battle-rifles. Being around a burst of fire from 7.62x51 (.308Win) without a suppressor is pretty loud.

They can be, yeah. My favorite of all my cabinet queens is my Springfield m1 - almost the exact same rifle.
You get used to it.

Automatics are highly, highly overrated.

I agree. Semi-auto in the hands of a competent rifleman is a far, FAR deadlier situation because the probabilistic miss inherent to “spray and pray” is reduced in favor of aiming and control.

No surprise, I don’t think semis should be easily available either. A rifle that fires and self-reloads in one mechanical cycle should not be a civilian weapon - particularly when paired with detachable magazines.

With regard to subsonic rounds… depending on the calibre, they aren’t terribly common.

Right on. For some calibers I’m not sure they even exist. What’s the point of .308 if it comes out of the muzzle under 1100 fps?

But sub-sonic can get common for handgun rounds. Heck, some of them are already inherently subsonic.

Guessing that you’d probably also be in favor of banning the Barnes all copper bullet, and its derivatives, for the sheer penetration for bullet weight power that it has simply because you don’t feel that it’s necessary?

The question is always “Is accessibility worth the abuses”. For some things the answer is “yes”. For some it’s “no”.

Related; I still think the soft ban on Black Talon ammo was justified. Plenty of law enforcement officials heartily agreed.

 

[upant]

No longer, fortunately

what changed your mind?

do you honestly believe gun control will work to reduce violent crime? in california where many assault rifles are banned mass murder still occurs. you have to know a pistol can be as effective as an ar and unless all semi-autos including pistols are banned mass murder will continue.

in england 60% of all burglaries are with the occupants home compared to 14% for the US. england’s violent crime rate is 5 times the us rate.

the banners will not stop until all guns are banned. it doesn’t really matter what you think is acceptable for gun control, whatever the big money is pushing is what we will be forced to live with? once the idea, taking guns away, is generally acceptable, a total ban will follow.

 

[Seagull]

Wow - no one’s running out of ammunition - concerning this topic -
every time that I click on - I see that’s it’s still active !
I actually forgot the original question

 

[Pup7]

in england 60% of all burglaries are with the occupants home compared to 14% for the US. england’s violent crime rate is 5 times the us rate.

And in places like Texas where practically everyone is armed with some sort of firepower, home invasions are an even rarer event. (Mostly because in Texas if I see you breaking into my neighbor’s home, and I think you’re there to cause harm, I can legally use deadly force from my yard. Who wants to chance that? I love their castle doctrine interpretation.)

I’m starting to understand why my Brit husband exercises his right to bear arms here in the US of A even more so than I do.

Funny you mention California. Some of the toughest gun laws in the country, yet mass murder continues. When is it no longer the fault of administration and rule of law and the fault of the culture itself? At what point is that revelation going to occur? When they finally think they’ve banned everything and someone shoots up a crowd anyway - despite the rule of law?

I’d rather walk down a dark alley alone in Dallas than in San Francisco. At least in Dallas I know I can have a more equal fight.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

No longer, fortunately

what changed your mind?

Simply this; I realized that the free access to these weapons are not worth to social ills they cause.

I always knew they were capable of creating absolutely tremendous amounts of violence and destrction in a very small window of time - but I’d counter that with the notion that 1. I should have it to defend my home and 2. I need it for when the government becomes tyrannical.

-ok-

For number one, armed home invasions (as opposed to burglaries where the resident just happens to be home) are incredibly rare events. Like, lightening-strike-rare. So taking action to be ready for them is nonsensical. Or at least, if you’re worried about being in a home invasion, you should also carry bear mace and lightening rods - just in case - regardless where you live.

In addition, when they DO happen, the perp isn’t going to dial you up on the phone and say “Hey, bud, I’m coming through your door in a few seconds with malicious intent, so arm yourself!”
He’s going to ram through your door when your watching TV or sleeping and if you don’t immediately submit to their will, you’re probably bound for your grave in short order.

For number two, an AR-10 is probably the most deadly weapon most people can manage to afford (AR-15 that shoots .308).
An Abrams Tank is probably the most deadly weapon on-the-ground that the government can afford.
So where, exactly, can you shoot an Abrams tank with an AR-10 that would cause it substantial impairment before they leveled the canon at you and blasted you into vaguely pink mist?
Because the answer to this question is “nowhere”, I have realized that owning weaponry for the purpose of overthrowing a potentially tyrannical US government is a total, hysterical joke. Seriously.

So in sum, I’m no longer an avid gun-nut because my reasons for being so were predicated exclusively on fantasies. The only real reason to own one now is if you’re a prepper and then a .22 and/or bolt guns that cause you to conserve shots (as ammo probably won’t be manufactured anymore) are all better choices.

do you honestly believe gun control will work to reduce violent crime?

Violent crime? No.
Gun crime? Yeah.

Here’s the difference;

Guy at bar gets rage-mad at you. Wants to do maximum violence to your face.
If he has a gun, you’re getting shot in the face.
If he doesn’t, you’re getting punched in the face.

Violent crime still occurred. One has a vastly superior outcome.

in california where many assault rifles are banned mass murder still occurs.

Sure. Any state ban only requires a short drive/straw buyer to defeat.

 

[Vonsalza]

the banners will not stop until all guns are banned.

I understand that this is the emotional rhetoric you’re attached to (I used to be attached to it too), but it’s not true.

There isn’t a huge, ideologically homogenous class of people called “gun banners” that want to take away every gun. These people exist, but they’re a super small group.

What we have in reality are groups with progressively conservative/liberal agendas and when they get incrementally satisfied, they stop pushing for the cause. Tons of people want assault rifles banned. A handful want all semi-autos banned. A tiny sect pushes for the total banning of all firearms.

 

[Theo520]

Guy at bar gets rage-mad at you. Wants to do maximum violence to your face.
If he has a gun, you’re getting shot in the face.
If he doesn’t, you’re getting punched in the face.

IF that was a scenario of any frequency, it would be foisted in our face.
It’s not, because people who LEGALLY CARRY just don’t seem to to that.
I’d guess either they control their drinking, control their temper, or they leave the gun in the car.
Don’t make up boogie man stories not based in reality.