Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[Brain357]

You don't have a fucking clue if you think I helped your argument. She emptied her gun into one guy, and he walked away. What if he was NOT alone then what?
Stop wait I need to reload?

Either your joking or you bulb isn't very bright. So let me explain how debating works. I say that hi cap magazines are not needed for self defense. Now to back this up I would give examples of people successfully defending themselves not needing a hi cap magazine.

How does the fact that some people have defended themselves w/o hi-cap magazines prove that everyone can defend themselves w/o hi-cap mags?

Well the important fact is that ALL people who have defended themselves have done it without needing a hi cap magazine. I can't imagine needing more proof than that. Do the math.

 

[Brain357]

As all of the arguments from the anti-gun side are based in emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, you are correct.

There are bad arguments on both sides, your correct. But please don't act like the pro gun side arguments are all that great. Seems like many of them are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Such as magazine size doesn't matter because you can reload so fast. Then the same people argue that the criminals would have an advantage if they had a hi cap magazine and the good citizen didn't. See that is dishonest debate. Either magazine size matters or it doesn't. You can't argue both sides without being dishonest.

you can reload fast

what is so hard to understand about that

plus banning a magazine serves no purpose

then to restrict the la abiding

Ok, so your saying that you can reload so fast that magazine capacity doesn't matter. Then your arguing that it is somehow restricting the law abiding?

It is clear that nobody needs a hi cap magazine for self defense. So it is not resticting the law abiding. Hi cap do however have a long history of being used in mass shooting. So the only one restricted is the mass shooter. Now if you don't want to restrict the mass shooter then make that your argument. Bring that one to the American people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Think I've been pretty clear that I don't think people need more than a 10 round capacity magazine. Yes some come with hi cap magazines as standard. I'm fully aware of that.

So I say give me an example of someone needing a high cap magazine for defense and you give an example of someone successfully defending with a 6 shot revolver? Thanks for helping my argument. And you say I need a clue...

You don't have a fucking clue if you think I helped your argument. She emptied her gun into one guy, and he walked away. What if he was NOT alone then what?
Stop wait I need to reload?

Either your joking or you bulb isn't very bright. So let me explain how debating works. I say that hi cap magazines are not needed for self defense. Now to back this up I would give examples of people successfully defending themselves not needing a hi cap magazine. You did this for me so hence you are helping my argument. Now if you were arguing against my argument you would provide documented examples of people needing a hi cap magazine. These of course seem to not exist, but that is what you would do. Now I've heard a lot of "what if's" and hypothetical situations, but not a single example of someone needing a hi cap magazine. So we can safely conclude they are not needed for defense. See how it works now?

Are you stupidly saying that one person always breaks into a home?

 

[CrazedScotsman]

I seen this one gun, a Colt .45 1911 walking down the street the other day just firing rounds at everyone that came into range. I was hiding behind this big bush so the gun didn't see me and try to kill me. Man, I was scared, so scared I almost pissed myself.

Wait...

I think this was a dream. Aren't guns inanimate objects that require people to fire?

No...

It was hammers walking down the...

Wait...

That was a movie. I think it was "The Wall", yeah, that's what it was.

 

[Brain357]

You don't have a fucking clue if you think I helped your argument. She emptied her gun into one guy, and he walked away. What if he was NOT alone then what?
Stop wait I need to reload?

Either your joking or you bulb isn't very bright. So let me explain how debating works. I say that hi cap magazines are not needed for self defense. Now to back this up I would give examples of people successfully defending themselves not needing a hi cap magazine. You did this for me so hence you are helping my argument. Now if you were arguing against my argument you would provide documented examples of people needing a hi cap magazine. These of course seem to not exist, but that is what you would do. Now I've heard a lot of "what if's" and hypothetical situations, but not a single example of someone needing a hi cap magazine. So we can safely conclude they are not needed for defense. See how it works now?

Are you stupidly saying that one person always breaks into a home?

I didn't say that. But you can't provide a single example of someone successfully using and needing a hi cap magazine for home defense. 10 rounds can take out a lot of people if you know what your doing. Are you stupidly saying it takes 10 rounds to drop a single intruder?

 

[jon_berzerk]

There are bad arguments on both sides, your correct. But please don't act like the pro gun side arguments are all that great. Seems like many of them are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Such as magazine size doesn't matter because you can reload so fast. Then the same people argue that the criminals would have an advantage if they had a hi cap magazine and the good citizen didn't. See that is dishonest debate. Either magazine size matters or it doesn't. You can't argue both sides without being dishonest.

you can reload fast

what is so hard to understand about that

plus banning a magazine serves no purpose

then to restrict the la abiding

Ok, so your saying that you can reload so fast that magazine capacity doesn't matter. Then your arguing that it is somehow restricting the law abiding?

It is clear that nobody needs a hi cap magazine for self defense. So it is not resticting the law abiding. Hi cap do however have a long history of being used in mass shooting. So the only one restricted is the mass shooter. Now if you don't want to restrict the mass shooter then make that your argument. Bring that one to the American people.

banning certainly does restrict the rights of the law abiding

 

[Brain357]

you can reload fast

what is so hard to understand about that

plus banning a magazine serves no purpose

then to restrict the la abiding

Ok, so your saying that you can reload so fast that magazine capacity doesn't matter. Then your arguing that it is somehow restricting the law abiding?

It is clear that nobody needs a hi cap magazine for self defense. So it is not resticting the law abiding. Hi cap do however have a long history of being used in mass shooting. So the only one restricted is the mass shooter. Now if you don't want to restrict the mass shooter then make that your argument. Bring that one to the American people.

banning certainly does restrict the rights of the law abiding

Then your saying that it only resticts the rights of the law abiding? So then the honest debate is that people should be able to have them because they want them? Then we can just throw out all the other non sense like they can't defend themselves with just a 10 cap magazine? I guess we then debate is their want for hi cap magazines more important than public safety? More important than saving a few lives? There are lots of wants that are restricted now.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Japan are much more reserved people. Look when the Earthquake hit . No looting, no nothing. Here during Katrina . Not so much .. They are different culture

Well, it's not like there was a big interest in looting "irradiated goods", was there?

The Japanese are really not that different than we are. They like the same stuff we do, they watch the same violent movies and the same violent videogames. Or worse. Seriously, you should look up some Japanese stuff on YouTube some time.

The thing they don't have are a lot of guns...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ok, so your saying that you can reload so fast that magazine capacity doesn't matter. Then your arguing that it is somehow restricting the law abiding?

It is clear that nobody needs a hi cap magazine for self defense. So it is not resticting the law abiding. Hi cap do however have a long history of being used in mass shooting. So the only one restricted is the mass shooter. Now if you don't want to restrict the mass shooter then make that your argument. Bring that one to the American people.

banning certainly does restrict the rights of the law abiding

Then your saying that it only restricts the rights of the law abiding? So then the honest debate is that people should be able to have them because they want them? Then we can just throw out all the other non sense like they can't defend themselves with just a 10 cap magazine? I guess we then debate is their want for hi cap magazines more important than public safety? More important than saving a few lives? There are lots of wants that are restricted now.

the cap is nothing but an arbitrary number

banning a magazine

will not stop those who want them from having them

 

[Brain357]

banning certainly does restrict the rights of the law abiding

Then your saying that it only restricts the rights of the law abiding? So then the honest debate is that people should be able to have them because they want them? Then we can just throw out all the other non sense like they can't defend themselves with just a 10 cap magazine? I guess we then debate is their want for hi cap magazines more important than public safety? More important than saving a few lives? There are lots of wants that are restricted now.

the cap is nothing but an arbitrary number

banning a magazine

will not stop those who want them from having them

Amazing. I give you the honest debate and you go right back to the crap.

It is a number that might save lives. As I have clearly shown, hi cap magazines are not needed for defense, but are used for mass shootings. Those of us that are anti mass shootings would like to slow them down.

I am pretty sure those who have done mass shootings would have liked a machine gun or a grenade. Why didn't they use those? Maybe because laws make them too hard to get? And if the shooter is then buying an illegal magazine that gives them a chance to be caught for that crime before the shooting ever occurs. If doing something illegal there is always a chance to be caught.

So I guess you want to make sure the mass shooter gets the gun and magazine he wants and gets it easily? You don't want any chance at catching him before the shooting occurs?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Then your saying that it only restricts the rights of the law abiding? So then the honest debate is that people should be able to have them because they want them? Then we can just throw out all the other non sense like they can't defend themselves with just a 10 cap magazine? I guess we then debate is their want for hi cap magazines more important than public safety? More important than saving a few lives? There are lots of wants that are restricted now.

the cap is nothing but an arbitrary number

banning a magazine

will not stop those who want them from having them

Amazing. I give you the honest debate and you go right back to the crap.

It is a number that might save lives. As I have clearly shown, hi cap magazines are not needed for defense, but are used for mass shootings. Those of us that are anti mass shootings would like to slow them down.

I am pretty sure those who have done mass shootings would have liked a machine gun or a grenade. Why didn't they use those? Maybe because laws make them too hard to get? And if the shooter is then buying an illegal magazine that gives them a chance to be caught for that crime before the shooting ever occurs. If doing something illegal there is always a chance to be caught.

So I guess you want to make sure the mass shooter gets the gun and magazine he wants and gets it easily? You don't want any chance at catching him before the shooting occurs?

it is an arbitrary number

if you can not admit that

there is no reason to continue

there you go again

i do not want criminals to have 30 round magazines

or any magazine for that matter

you are being dishonest when you post crap like that

 

[M14 Shooter]

Either your joking or you bulb isn't very bright. So let me explain how debating works. I say that hi cap magazines are not needed for self defense. Now to back this up I would give examples of people successfully defending themselves not needing a hi cap magazine.

How does the fact that some people have defended themselves w/o hi-cap magazines prove that everyone can defend themselves w/o hi-cap mags?

Well the important fact is that ALL people who have defended themselves have done it without needing a hi cap magazine. I can't imagine needing more proof than that. Do the math.

That's inductive reasoning, not a concrete proof.
Feel free to try again.
Recall that you made a claim and so it is up to you to support it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Amazing. I give you the honest debate and you go right back to the crap.

You said this ^^^

Then you say this:

It is a number that might save lives. As I have clearly shown, hi cap magazines are not needed for defense,

 

[Brain357]

the cap is nothing but an arbitrary number

banning a magazine

will not stop those who want them from having them

Amazing. I give you the honest debate and you go right back to the crap.

It is a number that might save lives. As I have clearly shown, hi cap magazines are not needed for defense, but are used for mass shootings. Those of us that are anti mass shootings would like to slow them down.

I am pretty sure those who have done mass shootings would have liked a machine gun or a grenade. Why didn't they use those? Maybe because laws make them too hard to get? And if the shooter is then buying an illegal magazine that gives them a chance to be caught for that crime before the shooting ever occurs. If doing something illegal there is always a chance to be caught.

So I guess you want to make sure the mass shooter gets the gun and magazine he wants and gets it easily? You don't want any chance at catching him before the shooting occurs?

it is an arbitrary number

if you can not admit that

there is no reason to continue

there you go again

i do not want criminals to have 30 round magazines

or any magazine for that matter

you are being dishonest when you post crap like that

It is not arbitrary. It is a number that should be high enough for self defense. Given that there isn't an example of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for defense, the number is 10 or lower. That makes it not an arbitrary number.

I'm not being dishonest, they are questions, not statements. If you really wanted to keep guns away from criminals, shouldn't you be for stronger background checks? If you really wanted to slow a mass shooter shouldn't you be fine with limits on magazine capacity? My questions are what any intelligent person would guess about you based on your own comments.

 

[PaulS1950]

It might save lives if we prohibit the free exercise of religion in this country.
It might save lives if we prohibit free speech.
It might save lives if we allow searches by the police anf DHS on the street.
It might save lives if we restrict the second amendment.

But it will not keep us free.

 

[Brain357]

Amazing. I give you the honest debate and you go right back to the crap.

You said this ^^^

Then you say this:

It is a number that might save lives. As I have clearly shown, hi cap magazines are not needed for defense,

Sorry, but it's pretty clear to any intelligent person that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

I'll use the examples that I read today of the guy with a shotgun defending his home and the woman with the revolver. Both successfully defended their homes. Now your welcome to counter those if you wish.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Amazing. I give you the honest debate and you go right back to the crap.

It is a number that might save lives. As I have clearly shown, hi cap magazines are not needed for defense, but are used for mass shootings. Those of us that are anti mass shootings would like to slow them down.

I am pretty sure those who have done mass shootings would have liked a machine gun or a grenade. Why didn't they use those? Maybe because laws make them too hard to get? And if the shooter is then buying an illegal magazine that gives them a chance to be caught for that crime before the shooting ever occurs. If doing something illegal there is always a chance to be caught.

So I guess you want to make sure the mass shooter gets the gun and magazine he wants and gets it easily? You don't want any chance at catching him before the shooting occurs?

it is an arbitrary number

if you can not admit that

there is no reason to continue

there you go again

i do not want criminals to have 30 round magazines

or any magazine for that matter

you are being dishonest when you post crap like that

It is not arbitrary. It is a number that should be high enough for self defense. Given that there isn't an example of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for defense, the number is 10 or lower. That makes it not an arbitrary number.

I'm not being dishonest, they are questions, not statements. If you really wanted to keep guns away from criminals, shouldn't you be for stronger background checks? If you really wanted to slow a mass shooter shouldn't you be fine with limits on magazine capacity? My questions are what any intelligent person would guess about you based on your own comments.

it is a made up number no other way around it

why are you for criminal having 10 round magazines

personally i am against

 

[Brain357]

It might save lives if we prohibit the free exercise of religion in this country.
It might save lives if we prohibit free speech.
It might save lives if we allow searches by the police anf DHS on the street.
It might save lives if we restrict the second amendment.

But it will not keep us free.

Your correct. It's all a balance of freedom and safety I suppose. We just need to decide if the less freedom is worth it. I don't get any happiness from hi cap magazines so I can do without them. Can most Americans do the same or is the want for them more than the want to save some lives? If we had an honest debate we might find out.

 

[Brain357]

it is an arbitrary number

if you can not admit that

there is no reason to continue

there you go again

i do not want criminals to have 30 round magazines

or any magazine for that matter

you are being dishonest when you post crap like that

It is not arbitrary. It is a number that should be high enough for self defense. Given that there isn't an example of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for defense, the number is 10 or lower. That makes it not an arbitrary number.

I'm not being dishonest, they are questions, not statements. If you really wanted to keep guns away from criminals, shouldn't you be for stronger background checks? If you really wanted to slow a mass shooter shouldn't you be fine with limits on magazine capacity? My questions are what any intelligent person would guess about you based on your own comments.

it is a made up number no other way around it

why are you for criminal having 10 round magazines

personally i am against

Sorry but I just explained my reasoning for why the number is 10 or less. An arbitrary number is random. I used reason to arrive at the number. That makes it not at all an arbitrary number. Look up the definition if you have to.

I'm for stronger background checks so I'm for criminals having no gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Amazing. I give you the honest debate and you go right back to the crap.

You said this ^^^

Then you say this:

It is a number that might save lives. As I have clearly shown, hi cap magazines are not needed for defense,

Sorry, but it's pretty clear to any intelligent person that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

I'm sorry - you made a claim, and, as demonstrated, you haven't proven it.
To argue otherwise is simply dishonest.