F
fbl9
Guest
why? wouldn’t the ol m1 garand be the better rifle.
- Status
T
Tony2255
Guest
Both have their pros and cons. Some don’t like the magazine in M1a. Some say the M1a gas system is better. Personally I haven’t had the opportunity to fire the M1 (though I’ve wanted to.) So I couldn’t say which is better. For me the M14 was a pleasant shooting experience. Nothing technical just a personal choice. I’m sure someone could come up with a dozen better choices.
S
SamH
Guest
The Garand is heavier, limited to 8 rounds and you shouldn’t run commercial ammunition through them. The 30-06 ball ammo the army used is lower compression (SAAMI specs) than current hunting ammunition. Not to mention the fact that the newest one you can buy is over 60 years old.
I have a CMP “Danish” return that was arsenal refurbished before it went into storage. New barrel (new in the 1950s) and several other parts have been replaced. They are decent rifles, but not a lot real world applications. Certainly nothing I would reach for to hunt with with the AR10 in .308 sitting beside it. I paid $400 for mine back in the late 1990s, supposedly it’s easily worth an even $1000 today.
A
Actaeon
Guest
I think the point is that seven rounds is ridiculous, and is actually a circuitous way of getting rid of existing guns.
Let’s look: is there a 7 round magazine for the AR-15? No. Anyone in the state who owns one will NEVER be able to fire it without becoming a criminal, whether they register it or not.
Is there a 7 round magazine for the ruger 10/22? No. Again, a person owning one will NEVER be able to fire it without being a criminal.
Is there a 7 round magazine for MOST rifles and pistols out there? Nope. Most of those owners will NEVER be able to fire their weapons without being instant criminals.
What’s ridiculous is that under the new NY law, the ruger 10/22 is basically now an “assault .22”, the ruger KP95 is now an “assault pistol”, and there are even target .22 LR revolvers that are now “assault revolvers” and cannot even be owned because they have a cylinder with greater than 7 shots.
The ONLY guns that will be legal to own and fire (because you won’t even be legally allowed to own the magazines) under this law are bolt action rifles, compact pistols with less than 7 rounds, and shotguns which don’t have pistol grips, collapsable stocks, or interchangeable chokes (that’s right, a threaded barrel is a qualification of an assault weapon, meaning that MOST shotguns are now illegal weapons in NY too).
Basically, almost all guns have been made illegal to fire in NY state now. I don’t own a single firearm that is legal in NY, and I wouldn’t consider my collection to be extreme “tacticool” by any measure.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
The Marine and his rifle. I was in the Corps too. Marksmanship is important. I was fortunate to be trained with semi-automatic pistol too.
If you’re in a gun battle I think ammo count matters a lot. It matters a lot less I would say when you’re the only one with the gun. And if a man doesn’t go down with 33 rounds maybe he wasn’t meant to go down.
The vast majority of people are severely injured after a few hits with some bullets. My personal view is that shooting someone till they fall to the ground can be “overkill” so to speak, depending on the context and scenario.
It would probably be good for everyone to be required to stand and get shot in the stomach. It would be a huge cost burden on our medical system but it would change most peoples perception of what it is to be shot. They’d more likely come away with the feel one bullet to the belly is pretty good medicine and you really don’t need 20 or 30 doses of that good medicine.
You can get around the magazine count though just by carrying extra mags on you.
You remind me of myself with this feeling and intent and fears to some extent.
I didn’t know until coming on this website that the Church teaches that morally legitimate self defense can not include the intent to kill. Kind of surprised me. I thought such intent was fine. Anyways, for most my adult life my intent has been to kill if I ever needed to use a firearm (or probably even a knife).
In fact when I got involved in JKD style martial arts I did not give the usual and typical response why I was training. Most people say for fitness or for self defense. I would say to other students that I got involved so I could learn how to maim and severely injure other people.
There was a time I would probably aim a shotgun at someone’s head. Hey, I was and am somewhat of an environmentalist. Less plastic and metal to discard.
Today I’m different. In general I don’t want to kill someone if I have to shoot them. Or feel I have to shoot them I should say. That’s with most people that is. Even petty thieves. There are some people I would want to kill and shoot to kill I’m sure.
But in general I don’t even necessarily want to see someone else go through the physical pain of recovery I had to go through when I was recovering from being shot. Which oddly made me want to inflict less pain on others rather than more.
Something that really bothers me though is when children are shot and have to go through that kind of excruciating recovery.
But I have a fear similar to yours. It’s not with Occupy Protestors (I take it you must be conservative given who you’re afraid of) but with a possible break down in law and order one day, and mobs of people attacking others. A lot of it being racially motivated. My mother is white and her and my fathers home is in a predominately black area. If the U.S. Government largely collapsed (probably highly unlikely) one day, and cities fell into anarchy largely, I can foresee mobs of young men (and women) attacking my mother and father.
That’s probably an irrational fear. Like being scared in the dark or afraid of the bogyman. But it is a fear of mine nonetheless. It motivates my thinking and inspires me with regards to firearms and telling myself I should own some firearms and assault rifles.
I have other fears to that motivate my thinking on guns. That’s just one.
S
SamH
Guest
Government collapsed? Just shut the power off for a couple days and see what happens.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Bear in mind that’s law enforcement. LE and military are not usually regarded as great intellectuals. There’s a reason for that.
Someone in MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) might–likely–would have a different opinion on the difficulties of subduing a severely injured/wounded opponent.
I used to believe the same things tactically as that was the kind of thinking and fears instilled in me in my military training. But my thinking began to change a long time after I was out of the military and began novice level boxing training. I started late in life with that. I didn’t start boxing train until I was in my 30’s. Again, that was motivated out of fear too. Most things I’ve ever done or pursued in life have been–when traced to its root–motivated out of fear. But with boxing I began to think or realize that I should be able to defeat with my bare hands, if by no other way than wearing down, a larger, stronger, better fighter if they are freshly shot once or more.
In my mind Mike Tyson can defeat me in a boxing ring or on the street 100% of the time 7 days a week. Except if he comes in a ring or steps on the corner to battle me freshly wounded from 7 shots. This is especially so if he was hit once or more in the belly. And being the nice–or not so nice–guy I am I will throw my best thundering blows I can to his midsection.
And if it is true that the Church teaches–or universally true period–that self defense is only moral if you do not intend to kill someone, then knowing what I know about fighting, I’m placed in a conundrum of sorts if I shoot someone 15, 20, or 33 times. And that’s without me having any medical knowledge. I suspect if I was educated in medicine and or nursing that would only provide me less ground to stand on if I used that level of force to subdue my opponent.
Since ignorance is bliss… if in my heart in my heart I want to mortally wound someone or maim them then probably best I never seek an education and background in medicine or nursing. That way I can tell Jesus on the day I stand before Him in judgment, “I didn’t know.”
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
LOL. We see what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Even the cops became brazen thieves and murderers I heard.
More interesting–or telling–is that post-Katrina New Orleans had something like a 100 person per 100,000 person homicide rate even with the well armed elite Army Airborne placed in the city to patrol and restore order due to the violence and stealing.
B
Brendan
Guest
The key, in terms of both Catholic Moral Theology, and yes, even in military training, is to cease the defense when the attack ends.
Yes, you can shoot the person 20,30, 40 times in center Mass, but after the area is secure, if you find the person is alive, you call for medical assistance. I would hope that no one ever instructed you to just stick your firearm up against his temple and fire a few more shots…
Likewise in the military, you can call for an strongpoint to be carpet bombed by a full Wing of B-52s, but if there are survivors in the wreckage, you call for the medics. To go about shooting the disabled wounded is immoral and a war crime.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Good point.
It seems to me to be a scare tactic too to always suggest if there becomes more strict or very strict gun control in the U.S. that the U.S. will be communist or under a dictatorship.
I dunno… I find that hard to believe especially given the culture of greed and innovation and democracy raised up to the level of a religion. This seems stronger to me in Americans than in the Brits and the Brits seem to do fine being “free” and capitalist with elected officials even though they have more strict gun laws than the U.S.
Firearms are tools too. You can respect them as tools, collect them or even use them for sport or other purposes without raising it to the level of an idol.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
A
Actaeon
Guest
That assumes that depriving the weak of legitimate means of defense is NOT a sin… I’m not so convinced in that case.
The assumption of banning guns is that it’s somehow morally superior to scrape the dead rape victim’s body out of an alleyway the next morning rather than having a woman explain to the police why she shot a man who attacked her with a knife. That’s wrong.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
I’m pretty sure the Marine Corps culture promotes killing your enemy when engaged in battle. There is not a “shoot to injure” culture in the Corps. But you are correct. In the Corps like in the Army even privates are instilled with the morals–and instructed–to take prisoners and not execute people on spot after the battle ceases.
But the process of the battle itself is one of killing on the macro level. For instance, in training, when dug in and our position is being over run, those with M-16’s would switch from single fire to three round bursts and spray indiscriminately within each rifleman’s zone of fire. That’s not about attempting to injure. Nor is donning bayonet and spearing your enemy.
Yes, you can shoot the person 20,30, 40 times in center Mass, but after the area is secure, if you find the person is alive, you call for medical assistance. I would hope that no one ever instructed you to just stick your firearm up against his temple and fire a few more shots…
I know what you are saying but you are assessing this from the stand point of the person behind the gun or from the officer, soldier, or civilian protecting his or her home, property, family, or body.
I’m suggesting that from the position of the person that practices medicine or nursing (the person that is in MMA [Mixed Martial Arts] might have a different angle or view point than the doctor, nurse, soldier, or cop) the “not intended to kill” may not seem logically coherent with 20, 30, or 40 rounds fired into a persons body. Kind of like throwing gasoline on someone and lighting them on fire. Someone puts them out. The paramedics take them to the hospital. They survive (perhaps in spite of the odds). The level of damage to the body was such that the person practicing medicine or nursing might view the level of force used as excesses irrespective of what the person that executed the violence thinks. You can replace the gasoline and lighter with a military flamethrower if you prefer.
S
SamH
Guest
Agreed.
Then you go on offense.
P
pnewton
Guest
Either your grammer is wrong or your vocabulary is wrong. For something to be a “fact”, it must be true. You could say that registration is has led to confiscation. But fact? You are not the first to claim your own opinion for fact. Fortunately most people know the difference.
As to what will happen in America, we really have no idea. We are so far off the charts. Our per capita gun ownership is off the charts. Our culture is much more accepting of guns in the homes and on the person. I just do not see confiscation ever happening in the next few centuries.
On the other hand, our unique position means what has worked in other countries simply do not apply to us. We can not have police unarmed, for example. Heck, it is questionable whether teachers should be unarmed now.
P
pnewton
Guest
Two things you will never find in Catholic teaching.
- Owning a gun is a divine right
- Owning a gun is sinful.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
I had a long discussion tonight with a gun expert and some ex-military friends who read the laws and executive orders. There are two things that can be concluded from all this. One is that Cuomo, and other government officials, are obviously clueless about guns. The other is that his executive orders are effectively useless, and would do nothing to stop a Sandy Hook type massacre. It’s simply feel-good actions punishing law-abiding citizens.
S
seekerz
Guest
B
BroomWagon
Guest
Some big mistakes in this legislation alright.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
- Status