Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
Because the mechanism of action primarily isn’t legal - it’s economic. Producers simply cannot produce any more in the US.
Click to expand...
If it’s an economic argument you’re going to make than you need to account for the law of supply and demand. If the demand remains but the supply goes down…then others will find the financial incentive to fill the supply chain. The new product might not be as precise as your typical S&W, but it will do the job. I don’t think there is much chance guns will disappear simply because legal gun manufacturers go out of business.
 
Ender said:
If it’s an economic argument you’re going to make…
Click to expand...
…It’s not. It’s a moral argument. The method of mopping them up is just economic.
If the demand remains but the supply goes down…then others will find the financial incentive to fill the supply chain.
Click to expand...
Sure. The points of production are very easily controllable in the US. Just audit the boxes that come out of S&W, Colt and Ruger’s factories.

Where we’d have a systemic weakness would be lathe owners and machinists, but the NAFTA and international trade since the late 80s have made those professions pretty rare in the US. Moreover, those that were willing to make and sell home-made guns would have to hide to do so.

Not super easy equipment to hide… Electricity audits would catch a lot of them.
The new product might not be as precise as your typical S&W, but it will do the job.
Click to expand...
If it didn’t, the types of people they sold it to probably wouldn’t be satisfied with just a refund! 🙂

But either way, when it boils down to that, then that means we’ve been incredibly successful in mopping up many of the guns in America. I’d have a celebratory beer.
I don’t think there is much chance guns will disappear…
Click to expand...
You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, so that’s not the goal.

I wanna make them (and crimes involving them) rare.

And there ARE ways to do that.
 
Last edited:
As a note, I’ve no issue with guns where firing the weapon and loading the weapon are separate actions - like bolt and lever guns.

It’s autos and semi-autos - particularly those with detachable mags - that need to dry up a little.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
When there are fewer guns, there are fewer gun crimes. They get so expensive on the black market that your petty thugs can’t even afford them.
Click to expand...
where i am from, the cops frequently post various actual accounts of thugs and their arrest. most of them are carrying a good amount of cash. money doesn’t seem to be the issue. there seems to be a lot of drug money floating around. how do you account for the bmw’s and lexus’ they drive?

when there are fewer guns, knife murders go up as london shows us. evil doesn’t stop because man makes a law.
Vonsalza said:
It’s why crime involving automatics practically doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
how often were machine guns used in a crime when they were legal?
Vonsalza said:
It’s a moral argument.
Click to expand...
how is it a moral argument? are certain guns immoral?
 
Vonsalza said:
…It’s not. It’s a moral argument. The method of mopping them up is just economic.
Click to expand...
It isn’t a moral argument; it is a prudential one. You think it’s the right thing to do because you believe it would be effective. I believe it is the wrong thing to do because I believe it would be ineffective. There is no moral distinction between those positions, although clearly one would be a more accurate prediction than the other.
I wanna make them (and crimes involving them) rare.

And there ARE ways to do that.
Click to expand...
If making guns rare made crimes rare you wouldn’t see the mayor of London trying to make carrying knives illegal. The weapon du jour is not the problem.
 
Ender said:
If you’re going to argue that the law abiding citizen ought to lose his right to own and carry a weapon it really ought to be necessary to demonstrate that his exercise of that right is a problem.
Click to expand...
This is the exact point @Vonsalza has been stepping around, pretending it was irrelevant rather than central to a discussion on the 2nd Amendment.
 
Maximilian75 said:
Look at Chicago in the '20s and '30s. Thompsons were everywhere. They were called ‘typewriters’ for a reason
Click to expand...
No, it was called the ‘typewriter’ because the tat tat tat sounded like a typewriter.
Typewriters were still a specialty business tool in the 20’s
 
Vonsalza said:
These things aren’t like stereos where the abuse of one is just an annoyance. When rifles are abused people die.
Click to expand...
300 deaths per year from electrocution. Ban stereos! March for our Music! Miley for President!
 
upant said:
where i am from, the cops frequently post various actual accounts of thugs and their arrest. most of them are carrying a good amount of cash. money doesn’t seem to be the issue.
Click to expand...
It is finite by rule and scarcity raises prices.

They’re just not presently scarce enough.
when there are fewer guns, knife murders go up
Click to expand...
I’ve seen some data on this, which I find a bit questionable. But then then, “knife murders” don’t go up in the same magnitude “gun murders” go down in a ban.

It takes a bit more “involvement” to stab someone to death than it does to shoot them.
how is it a moral argument? are certain guns immoral?
Click to expand...
All of them. They wouldn’t exist in world that didn’t fall.
 
Ender said:
The weapon du jour is not the problem.
Click to expand...
As certain weapons are inherently more lethal than others, you’re wrong here.

It it easier to kill a man with an AR-15 or a switchblade?

Do you really need to even think about it?
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
Ender:
If you’re going to argue that the law abiding citizen ought to lose his right to own and carry a weapon it really ought to be necessary to demonstrate that his exercise of that right is a problem.
Click to expand...
This is the exact point @Vonsalza has been stepping around, pretending it was irrelevant rather than central to a discussion on the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
I’m not discussing the second amendment. I’m discussing ways to reduce gun crime.

The day the modern tank rolled off the production lines, the role your rifle played in limiting government tyranny ended.
 
Last edited:
We even see that here in this state. The further East you go, the more liberal it gets. Guess who has the home invasion issues… Hint, it’s not the places that have 00 buck or something ready to say hello.

Vonsalza: Don’t think that there are too many pistol rounds that can go 2.5 miles. The .45ACP +P shot by most of the law enforcement out here certainly isn’t going to be landing on my doorstep any time soon. As far as directional stuff, at 2.5 miles between the houses and other sources of echoes/reverb, you wouldn’t be able to determine the source of the fire very well if you didn’t know what you were listening for. I wouldn’t consider 2.5 miles as “near by” for gunshots even for .308Win (7.62x51).
Also, another little tidbit: I prosecute firearms related cases. You would be amazed at how many people don’t “hear” a gunshot, even when it should be brutally obvious what it is. Having something make a loud noise isn’t a sure fire bet that people would recognize it as gunfire. Have heard of suicides where people have used higher calibre pistols in a house with other people, and nobody heard it. I think I even remember hearing about a suicide with a rifle in an occupied house that people didn’t hear. The odds of people hearing and recognizing gunfire decrease pretty quickly as you get away from direct proximity. You can have a murder in a house, and the neighbors don’t hear a thing despite somebody looking like Swiss cheese.
Haha, “Black talon”. I’ve got a collection. Gotta love the left-wing B.S. on that. Take a good look at the “Ranger-T” brand and the SXT bullet (i.e. Ranger SXT), especially their expansion marketing puffery … ironically, claimed to work better than that Black Talon. The Black Talon must not be the end-all-be all if it needed improvement. I guess it’s less evil because it’s not black (just like non-black rifles)?
 
Seeksadvice said:
Also, another little tidbit: I prosecute firearms related cases. You would be amazed at how many people don’t “hear” a gunshot, even when it should be brutally obvious what it is. Having something make a loud noise isn’t a sure fire bet that people would recognize it as gunfire. Have heard of suicides where people have used higher calibre pistols in a house with other people, and nobody heard it. I think I even remember hearing about a suicide with a rifle in an occupied house that people didn’t hear. The odds of people hearing and recognizing gunfire decrease pretty quickly as you get away from direct proximity. You can have a murder in a house, and the neighbors don’t hear a thing despite somebody looking like Swiss cheese.
Click to expand...
We had a patient - a 13 year old - commit suicide with a shotgun upstairs and in the back corner of the house. Somehow he successfully muffled the sound with pillows and the mattress - I have no idea how.

A pistol outside can sound like a car backfiring - and vice versa - if you really don’t know what you’re listening to. Completely true.
 
Last edited:
Well, that did at least take care of that problem… had to be a hell of a mess though. Hopefully he had enough common sense to make it a head shot than these people who shoot themselves in the heart. Conscientious suiciders use a .22LR to the temple… no exit wound and minimal entry wound/blood, just slightly pureed brains as it rattles around inside the skull a but. Shotguns are just… messy.

It does depend on the pistol though. Had a guy shoot a .357Mag inside a nursing home, and nobody recognized it as a gunshot. Conversely, the fusillade when some hunters finally tracked down a cougar that was near town sounded very much like magnum revolver. If you’ve never heard a .41/.44Mag or higher, you wouldn’t know what you were hearing.
 
I have wondered if it was less that it was noticed and more that people didn’t know what they were supposed to hear. And yes, there was no…correcting the act. God bless that poor child and that poor family.
 
I admit that I have starting taking the position that, who am I to say Bob can’t kill himself it he wants to. Just, please do it in a way that isn’t as much of a problem to deal with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top