Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

[Vonsalza]

What you’re really after are semi-automatic handguns.

Nope. All semiautos. The handguns used in regular crime and the assault rifles used in mass shootings.

All of them.

Let me try again: the statistics were collected as to the types of guns used, and then were categorized by the researchers, not by the inmates…

That doesn’t solve your subjectivity problem. You’re still essentially asking if these inmates thought their weapon was a “military-type weapon”. I would have predicted that the overwhelming majority of respondents would have selected another descriptor - particularly given their setting (prison… likely trying to appeal the crime they’re there fore).

In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use. An assault weapon can be a pistol, a rifle, or a shotgun.

“Naw, man. My piece wasn’t for combat. And I only had 4 or 5 shots in it…”
That subjectivity issue seems to be getting bigger the more I look at your data…

What would have been far, far better is if the researchers didn’t ask the inmates anything at all and just compiled the makes and models of the firearms used in their crimes. I’m sure it’s recorded somewhere - it just would have been more work. And as we’ve already covered, you can reasonably expect the majority of them to be semiautomatic handguns.

Most would be unfamiliar with the facts.

That probably includes you on this matter.

In 2016 Handguns were used 19 times more than rifles in homicides.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

Best sellers that year? Every one of them are semiautomatic.

Best-Selling Guns of 2016

Discover the best-selling guns of 2016 based on sales. It was a big year for concealed carry and self-defense pistols.

www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com

McGonigal and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center studied firearm homicides that occurred in Philadelphia: 145 in 1985 and 324 in 1990.

Your info is really, really outdated - 30 years old.

Around that time was the explosion of the “wonder nines” where Glock and S&W semiautomatic 9mms contributed to pistol sales passing revolver sales and have never looked back.

Walk in to any gun store you want. Check their new inventory. Compare the number of new semis they have for sale vs new revolvers. Now, in their “used” case, you might find more revolvers than semis. Maybe even some that date back to your antique study.

Theo520’s observation seems inevitable: “It’s highly unlikely banning automatics would stop gun crime, people just substitute another weapon…”

He’s just another guy that wants to ignore basic economics because it too can be wielded to curtail the availability of the weapons he has a primarily emotional attachment to. And I understand that.

But the fact remains, when a primary good is unavailable, people will seek alternatives or exit the market.

 

[Ender]

That doesn’t solve your subjectivity problem. You’re still essentially asking if these inmates thought their weapon was a “military-type weapon”.

What would have been far, far better is if the researchers didn’t ask the inmates anything at all and just compiled the makes and models of the firearms used in their crimes. I’m sure it’s recorded somewhere - it just would have been more work.

Final try: the researches DID NOT ASK the inmates to categorize their weapons. They asked them about the specific weapons they used. Here is a sample of the findings:

In their 1983 study, Wright, Rossi, and Daly asked a sample of felons about the handgun they had most recently acquired. Of the felons sampled:

• 29% had acquired a .38 caliber handgun
• 20% had acquired a .357 caliber handgun
• 16% had acquired a .22 caliber handgun.

That doesn’t seem all that subjective.

And as we’ve already covered, you can reasonably expect the majority of them to be semiautomatic handguns.

As I showed before, your assumption is at odds with the facts.

In both years, revolvers were the predominant type of handgun used…

Your info is really, really outdated - 30 years old.

This objection at least is valid. It was just the first study I encountered, but given that you’re immune to its data it isn’t clear it’s worth my time looking for a more recent one.

But the fact remains, when a primary good is unavailable, people will seek alternatives or exit the market.

Yes, criminals will seek alternatives (revolvers), which will be as readily available as before, and the effect on crime will probably be unnoticeable.

 

[Vonsalza]

Final try:…

In their 1983 study…

Wow. Did not notice the date on that study the first time around…

Your subjectivity-problem plagued study is also another antique. It was made almost four decades ago

In the meantime, Glock got big. The “wonder nines” came out. ARs recently got cheaper than they’ve ever been relative to average income.

Outside of niches, revolvers are largely dead, Ender. Have been since the early 90s. Now if you’re my age, it’s hard to believe that it’s been that long. But it has. Gun ownership patterns have changed and the semi has fully, completely replaced the revolver as the sidearm of choice.

The kid that was born roughly when it happened is approaching their 30s now… Wow.

As I showed before, your assumption is at odds with the facts.

Lol. “Facts” that were printing-press fresh circa 1985.

C’mon man. You’re not serious here. You can’t be.

Your info is really, really outdated - 30 years old.

This objection at least is valid.

Thanks for the honest admission. I didn’t realize that it also applies to your other source as well.

Yes, criminals will seek alternatives (revolvers), which will be as readily available as before, and the effect on crime will probably be unnoticeable.

You hope that’s true because maybe you’ve encountered a decent argument for banning guns and denial is your go-to here. But the Aussies and the Brits would like a word with you on this…

 

[Bradskii]

And as a passport carrying citizen of both countries I can say that the situation in my two countries and the the US is different. There is, and never has been, a gun culture in either the UK or Oz.

What happened in both countries was that the vast majority of citizens said, effectively, we don’t want to end up like the States. And demanded that the governments in both states took action. It wasn’t a demand for change so much as a people stating unequivocably that over there is a direction that no sane person wants to go.

Yes, heavy restrictions in both countries reduced the number of gun deaths. And no, in neither country did the bad guys immediately switch to other means of killing. And yes you can still buy guns in Australia - there is a need here that doesn’t exist so much in the UK. But you don’t see ammo for sale next to the kids toys as I did last week in a Walmart. It’s matter of attitude.

You guys need to get away from looking at guns as an answer to a problem and treating them as a problem in themselves. Once you get to that common ground then you can all sit around with a beer and look for ways to reduce the carnage. Tell each other that no-one is going to take your guns away and you can have access to pravtically anything you’d like. As long as there are checks and balances in place.

 

[Theo520]

Your info is really, really outdated - 30 years old.

I would agree the market has shifted towards more semi-automatic hand guns.
However, banning them would do no more than having criminals revert back to pistols as their go to choice…

 

[Vonsalza]

Fine with me. Really.

Unambiguous improvement.

 

[upant]

To be honest, I think you’re entrenched in your pro-gun ideology to the point that if I did post a picture of my rifles with bent barrels and cut receivers, you’d almost certainly switch to some other defense. Again, it’s probably because your attachment to these things is more emotional than rational so rational arguments both for and against are secondary concerns.

i would at least know you are true in your beliefs. i don’t see that now. i see you as wanting to control other people.

“I require a solution that fixes everything and is simple and doesn’t inconvenience me in the slightest”

not at all, your solution doesn’t take the guns away from those using them to commit a gun crime.

Some have and some have exited the murder market as their homicide rates show. They’ve been dropping or flat for the last 15 years in Britain as a whole.

what did the usa rate do during this time ftame?

 

[Ender]

Outside of niches, revolvers are largely dead, Ender. Have been since the early 90s. Now if you’re my age, it’s hard to believe that it’s been that long. But it has. Gun ownership patterns have changed and the semi has fully, completely replaced the revolver as the sidearm of choice.

Well you made me find a more recent study, so here’s one from the BJS from 2002, and the data isn’t all that different.

Percent of prison inmates carrying a firearm during current offense

Type of firearm … … … … … State … … Federal

Handgun… … … … … … … . 83.2 % … . 86.7 %
Rifle … … … … … … … … … . 7.3 … … . 8.9
Shotgun … … … … … … … … 13.1 … … 13.7

Single shot … … … … … … … 53.9 % … . 49.2 %
Conventional semiautomatic … 43.2 … … 51.8
Military-style semiautomatic … … 6.8 … … . 9.3
Fully automatic … … … … … … . 2.4 … … 3.8

Number of inmates … … … …190,383 … 12,936

They categorized revolvers as “single shot” weapons, and you can see they are still over half of all weapons used. Not quite niche weapons yet. These facts are quite different from what you intuited.

 

[MonteRCMS]

I was attending a public ceremony and was walking behind some police officers. They were carrying semi-automatic pistols but with no magazine.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I assist with the distribution of Holy Communion as Mass frequently. I can’t tell you the number of poorly concealed handguns I’ve seen on those in communion line. When many raise their hands for communion and their clothing moves, I’ve seen them under jackets, in jacket pockets and in IWB holsters. Many likely do not know they are breaking the law, even if they have a CWP, by bringing firearms into a church without written permission of the pastor. That permission, of course, would rightly never be granted.

 

[The_Wizard]

I will agree with you that if one chooses to carry concealed it should be done with the utmost discretion. One reason for doing so is so firearmphobics will not overact at the mere hint of a firearm. And two so the bad guy will have to think twice as to whether there is a firearm that might use to stop him doing his nasty act. As to your point about it being illegal to bring a firearm into church, at least in Colorado there is not law that says it is illegal to carry concealed in a church! The law in Colorado is that if any business, church etc does not want concealed carry firearms on/in their premises they must clearly post a sign stating NO CONCEALED CARRY ALLOWED! If no sign is posted this implies tacit approval to carry concealed on the premises. It would be common curiosity to inform the pastor of your intent to carry concealed but written permission is not required, at least not in Colorado. Of the parishes I have attended over the 20 years that I have had my CCW license none of the pastors have told me they prefer me not to carry. In fact two were glad to hear that someone was able to provide some level of security given some of the incidents that have occurred over time. I respect your decision to leave your security in the hands of others. Please respect my decision to provide my own security.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I assure you. Once your bishop issues a policy on the matter, no guns will be allowed in your church. This is already happening, quietly, in many dioceses. Trust me. A place full of amateurs with guns who all think they’re sharpshooters during a real incident is no place to be. They may stop it but with additional, unintended, unnecessary tragedy. Professional security is the only way to go.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree. A lot of pro gunners on this thread seem to tbink that they would stand tall when bullets start flying and pick off ‘the perp’ like it was a video game.

The reality is an extremely long way from that.

 

[upant]

I agree. A lot of pro gunners on this thread seem to tbink that they would stand tall when bullets start flying and pick off ‘the perp’ like it was a video game.

The reality is an extremely long way from that.

i doubt anyone would stand tall, it doesn’t work that way. it isn’t the old west

you duck and manuver until you can safely place the shot.

 

[Bradskii]

you duck and manuver until you can safely place the shot.

No. The vast majority of people would cower, not cover. You flinch. You protect the important parts of your body. You turn to give your face and your genitals fhe best chance of avoiding whatever is coming. You raise your arms. A few millions years of evolution will override any Gung ho macho ideas you might have in advance of this happening.

Unless you are EXTREMELY well trained in facing a man with a gun, then the guy who is pointing his gun at you has a massive advantage.

 

[Theo520]

I agree. A lot of pro gunners on this thread seem to tbink that they would stand tall when bullets start flying and pick off ‘the perp’ like it was a video game.

The reality is an extremely long way from that.

Well you must have lots of examples to back up your vivid mental picture.
If not, then you are just projecting and it’s not reality.

 

[Theo520]

Trust me. A place full of amateurs with guns who all think they’re sharpshooters during a real incident is no place to be. They may stop it but with additional, unintended, unnecessary tragedy. Professional security is the only way to go.

Considering how pervasive guns are in America, you should be able to provide dozens if not hundreds of stories where what you describe has happened.

I think your conjecture is wrong in the whole. Most of these people have been carrying a gun for years, and practice on a regular basis. They have a reasonable estimate of their ability. Though many may still cower behind protection, I don’t recall stories of these incidents erupting into major fire fights killing loads of bystanders.

From the video and stories I’ve seen, the legal gun owner fires 1-2 misses and the perp flees. That they miss more than they hit doesn’t mean their action didn’t end the conflict.

 

[o_mlly]

Unless you are EXTREMELY well trained in facing a man with a gun, then the guy who is pointing his gun at you has a massive advantage.

Your argument favors the gun advocate as there is a condition worse than a “massive disadvantage.” Is not the EXTREMELY well trained man without a gun EXTREMELY disadvantaged? By all means, get trained but keep your gun handy.

 

[Theo520]

Your argument favors the gun advocate as there is a condition worse than a “massive disadvantage.” Is not the EXTREMELY well trained man without a gun EXTREMELY disadvantaged? By all means, get trained but keep your gun handy.

I’d say most perps have far less gun experience than the people doing concealed carry for many years.

Also, both parties are hindered by the adrenaline rush but the person with concealed carry can have a powerful element of surprise. You see this in video of many store robberies where the robber flees as soon as his target fires back.

 

[Ender]

Here’s an interesting statistic:

In fact, after Colorado’s 2003 concealed carry law was enacted, Colorado State University decided to allow concealed carry, while the University of Colorado prohibited firearms. The former observed a rapid decline in reported crimes, while the latter, under the gun ban they claimed was for safety, observed a rapid increase in crime. Crime at the University of Colorado has risen 35 percent since 2004, while crime at Colorado State University has dropped 60 percent in the same time frame.