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

[Brain357]

Your problem to get your facts passed off as valid, is that you must have a set scenario with an already known equation to get it to work.
What if you have more than 1 attacker armed as equally if not more?
Now you can go back to ignoring this fact.

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

 

[Brain357]

Here you go
My AR-15 Story: Why I Needed My AR-15 - YouTube

Text within the video

Does he live in Mexico? 12 guys during the day and they knock first? Well story ends without A shot fired. So this supports my argument hi cap magazines aren't necessary. I doubt anybody wanted to get shot so a .44 magnum revolver would have done the job.

Dumb you are blatantly stupid.
IT wasn't until one of the people in the group saw the AR with the magazine that they backed down.

You doubt anyone wants to get shot? But in gangs they get shot regularly. I am glad I don't live by your rules, I would have to put your plan into action to see if you need 6 rounds or less.

They knocked first. If they were willing to have a shoot out they wouldn't have knocked to see if anyone was home. AR or not 5-12 guns to one they would have won, but they clearly didn't want to get shot. Great example of defense without firing a shot, which is way less than 10. You call me blatantly stupid? Your the one posting an example to support my argument.

 

[Spoonman]

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

10 round? even in my pistols i like at least 30

 

[Brain357]

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

10 round? even in my pistols i like at least 30

Are you half blind and a really poor shot? Or just so paranoid and scared it takes that big a magazine to keep you from peeing yourself every time you hear a noise?

 

[Spoonman]

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

10 round? even in my pistols i like at least 30

Are you half blind and a really poor shot? Or just so paranoid and scared it takes that big a magazine to keep you from peeing yourself every time you hear a noise?

call it more of a fuck you to cuomo and other politicians trying to ban my rights to have it. I bought that 2 weeks after the passage of the safe act, along with many other high capacity mags.

 

[PratchettFan]

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

And you have not come close to changing my mind. The argument that you think they are dangerous is certainly not going to cut it. A 10 round limitation accomplishes nothing. It is merely an arbitrary number which, for some reason, gives you a comfort zone. I have no idea why, unless you simply don't understand the problem. A semi-auto weapon (whether rifle or pistol) is just as dangerous with a 10 round magazine as with a 30 round magazine. You can then argue that it is not necessary, so why not create the limit. To that I simply respond that it won't solve any problem, so why create the limit? Why generate a law which accomplishes nothing?

If you actually expect support, then you have to give a better reason than "I don't like it so it shouldn't be allowed."

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

And you have not come close to changing my mind. The argument that you think they are dangerous is certainly not going to cut it. A 10 round limitation accomplishes nothing. It is merely an arbitrary number which, for some reason, gives you a comfort zone. I have no idea why, unless you simply don't understand the problem. A semi-auto weapon (whether rifle or pistol) is just as dangerous with a 10 round magazine as with a 30 round magazine. You can then argue that it is not necessary, so why not create the limit. To that I simply respond that it won't solve any problem, so why create the limit? Why generate a law which accomplishes nothing?

If you actually expect support, then you have to give a better reason than "I don't like it so it shouldn't be allowed."

Indeed.
His premise to that effect has been proven unsound - he simply refuses to believe it.

 

[Politico]

Great you should be able to share some then. I've still not heard one.

Why do you want children to die for politicization?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Great you should be able to share some then. I've still not heard one.

Why do you want children to die for politicization?

The ends justify the means.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

Your bull shit is starting to get tiring
Have you ever heard of Miller vs U.S. 1939?
IT'S RULING WAS,
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller
Therefore any magazine restriction would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a militia

 

[CMike]

A better comparison would be to Washington D.C and Chicago which have strict anti-gun ownership rights and very high murder rates.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

Still waiting for you to prove your claim that no one needs hi-cap magazines to defend themselves.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

Still waiting for you to prove your claim that no one needs hi-cap magazines to defend themselves.

Who me?>

 

[Brain357]

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

Your bull shit is starting to get tiring
Have you ever heard of Miller vs U.S. 1939?
IT'S RULING WAS,
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller
Therefore any magazine restriction would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a militia

So what about a machine gun? A militia seems greatly restricted by all the things you can't get now. If you had to face a military with what you have now it wouldn't go well.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

Your bull shit is starting to get tiring
Have you ever heard of Miller vs U.S. 1939?
IT'S RULING WAS,
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller
Therefore any magazine restriction would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a militia

So what about a machine gun? A militia seems greatly restricted by all the things you can't get now. If you had to face a military with what you have now it wouldn't go well.

you can legally have a "machine gun"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

Your bull shit is starting to get tiring
Have you ever heard of Miller vs U.S. 1939?
IT'S RULING WAS,
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller
Therefore any magazine restriction would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a militia

So what about a machine gun? A militia seems greatly restricted by all the things you can't get now. If you had to face a military with what you have now it wouldn't go well.

There isn't any law preventing anyone from owning an automatic firearm.

 

[Darkwind]

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

You and the people you mentioned can all continue to defend yourselves with 10 round magazines. And since it seems nobody has had to use more than 10 rounds for defense you'll be very safe.

I happen to think hi cap semi autos are too dangerous like machine guns and not necessary for defense. As you know they have been used in many mass shootings to kill innocent people. Prove to me hi cap mags are needed for defense and ill change my argument. So far I've heard examples of people who defended with far fewer than 10 rounds and one who didn't fire a shot. Nothing close to changing my mind.

I will continue to defend Myself with any size magazine I wish. If I had a tommy gun with a drum magazine, you still would not be in any more danger from Me then if I had just a single round. I happen to think that people who fear weapons are paranoid people with fears of losing the apron strings, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot you.

As you likely know, or you should, the largest mass killing happen at the hands of governments. Governments that first disarm the citizens, and then kill them by the millions. You could limit a rogue government to 10 rounds a clip. All that would do is just take them longer to kill as many of their citizens as they deemed, 'radical'.

One last clue for you. Nothing you will ever say will ever change My mind about My right to bear arms. Because I am right and have the truth on My side.

Gun control has killed and will kill more people than it will ever save.

 

[Brain357]

Your bull shit is starting to get tiring
Have you ever heard of Miller vs U.S. 1939?
IT'S RULING WAS,
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller
Therefore any magazine restriction would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a militia

So what about a machine gun? A militia seems greatly restricted by all the things you can't get now. If you had to face a military with what you have now it wouldn't go well.

There isn't any law preventing anyone from owning an automatic firearm.

Then maybe we should treat hi cap magazines the same way? I assume you would be ok with that.

 

[JimH52]

Perhaps people are the problem, but Money is dictating the NRA. The gun companies own the NRA. The companies will continue to give money to the NRA to buy Congressional votes until voters finally figure out the slick game they are playing. I expect it will happen with a few years. But first the Voters will need to handle the Senators who walked the NRA line. They went against the wishes of 87% of Americans and it will not be forgotten.

 

[Darkwind]

Of course, you are correct.

But the question was how many examples were there of people using more than 10 rounds to keep themselves from being overwhelmed.

After all, if a gang of people break into your house and they have no bullets, but a bunch of bats and knives, why then several dozen clips of 20 or more bullets will keep them at bay, or do away with the threat.

The difference between the two is in My scenario, the law abiding citizen is using more than just 10 rounds to keep himself and his family alive, whereas the other scenario is that the criminal is just killing people and keeping the defenders at bay BECAUSE he has more than 10 bullets

I made My point and destroyed the argument.

I win.

yes you did

i read self defense reports all the time

there certainly are cases that it took more then 10 rounds

Great you should be able to share some then. I've still not heard one.

Comprehension problems?

Tell Me, did you hear about the Colorado Theater shooting?