Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You said:Read. I said I have proven it is not an arbitrary number. It is not random as I have shown so it is not arbitrary.
Since I am using reason to arrive at the number it is not arbitrary
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your reasoning is flawed and therefore any conclusion you reach using that flawed resoning is unsond?
Your number, arrived at without sound reason, is indeed arbitrary.
You need a dictionary. Arbitrary is random. My number is not random. You can disagree with my reasoning, but the number is still not arbitrary.
You said:
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your reasoning is flawed and therefore any conclusion you reach using that flawed resoning is unsond?
Your number, arrived at without sound reason, is indeed arbitrary.
You need a dictionary. Arbitrary is random. My number is not random. You can disagree with my reasoning, but the number is still not arbitrary.
ar·bi·trar·y
/ˈärbiˌtrerē/Adjective
1.Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
define arbitrary - Google Search
You fail to understand that w/o a sound resonin behind your choice, it is indeed arbitrary.
You have no such sound reason.
Thus, arbitrary.
It is impossible for you to honestly argue otherwise.
You need a dictionary. Arbitrary is random. My number is not random. You can disagree with my reasoning, but the number is still not arbitrary.
ar·bi·trar·y
/ˈärbiˌtrerē/Adjective
1.Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
define arbitrary - Google Search
You fail to understand that w/o a sound resonin behind your choice, it is indeed arbitrary.
You have no such sound reason.
Thus, arbitrary.
It is impossible for you to honestly argue otherwise.
Show me a definition stating the reasoning must be Sound. That one states any reason.
ar·bi·trar·y
/ˈärbiˌtrerē/Adjective
1.Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
define arbitrary - Google Search
You fail to understand that w/o a sound resonin behind your choice, it is indeed arbitrary.
You have no such sound reason.
Thus, arbitrary.
It is impossible for you to honestly argue otherwise.
Show me a definition stating the reasoning must be Sound. That one states any reason.
You are very clearly unwilling to have an honest discussion on this issue. I shall waste no more time on you.
This is a lie, as you know you have proven no such thing.It is not an arbitrary number as I have proven.
Here we go again for the slow people. I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 shots for self defense. Clearly even the gun nuts here can't come up with a documented example either. That being true i feel that 10 rounds is plenty for defense. Since it is enough for defense I would limit magazine capacity to 10. Since I am using reason to arrive at the number it is not arbitrary.
This is a lie, as you know you have proven no such thing.
Here we go again for the slow people. I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 shots for self defense. Clearly even the gun nuts here can't come up with a documented example either. That being true i feel that 10 rounds is plenty for defense. Since it is enough for defense I would limit magazine capacity to 10. Since I am using reason to arrive at the number it is not arbitrary.
Okay, so you're out for a walk in the woods and somehow get cornered by an angry grizzly and you're not the best of shots, you hit him 10 times and he keeps coming, now what?
It's really very simple.
If I need to defend my home against armed home invaders I want to have the most powerful firearm I can handle with the most ammo.
Why? Because I need to win the fight.
The worst possible situation to be in is to run out of ammo in a gun fight.
Why is this concept so hard for the far left to understand?
I understand your want and realize the mass shooter has the same want for most powerful firearm. Now my research has shown nobody needing to fire more than 10 shots for defense. Mass shooters however use these hi cap mags to kill lots of innocent people. So if you can be safe and we can slow a mass shooter everyone wins. Now if I heard real examples of someone needing to fire more than 10 times I might have to rethink.
It's really very simple.
If I need to defend my home against armed home invaders I want to have the most powerful firearm I can handle with the most ammo.
Why? Because I need to win the fight.
The worst possible situation to be in is to run out of ammo in a gun fight.
Why is this concept so hard for the far left to understand?
I understand your want and realize the mass shooter has the same want for most powerful firearm. Now my research has shown nobody needing to fire more than 10 shots for defense. Mass shooters however use these hi cap mags to kill lots of innocent people. So if you can be safe and we can slow a mass shooter everyone wins. Now if I heard real examples of someone needing to fire more than 10 times I might have to rethink.
I would like to see this so called "research."
Very little research has shown misses.
Very few people are able to train with moving multiple targets.
If there is a home invasion you can have moving, multiple, targets, in low lights conditions.
Missing would be very easy.
In addition with a handgun it normally takes multiple hits to "stop" an assailant.
The bad guys don't care about the laws and will break the law and have high capacity magazines. If not they can just reload. It takes few seconds.
Let's say the bag guys have 30 rounds and you have 10. You are now at a big disadvantage.
I don't believe in a fair fight.
If it's the life of my wife and myself on the line, I want the more powerful firearm, with more ammo.
Yanno why?
Because the moment I run out of ammo in a gun fight I am dead.
I understand your want and realize the mass shooter has the same want for most powerful firearm. Now my research has shown nobody needing to fire more than 10 shots for defense. Mass shooters however use these hi cap mags to kill lots of innocent people. So if you can be safe and we can slow a mass shooter everyone wins. Now if I heard real examples of someone needing to fire more than 10 times I might have to rethink.
I would like to see this so called "research."
Very little research has shown misses.
Very few people are able to train with moving multiple targets.
If there is a home invasion you can have moving, multiple, targets, in low lights conditions.
Missing would be very easy.
In addition with a handgun it normally takes multiple hits to "stop" an assailant.
The bad guys don't care about the laws and will break the law and have high capacity magazines. If not they can just reload. It takes few seconds.
Let's say the bag guys have 30 rounds and you have 10. You are now at a big disadvantage.
I don't believe in a fair fight.
If it's the life of my wife and myself on the line, I want the more powerful firearm, with more ammo.
Yanno why?
Because the moment I run out of ammo in a gun fight I am dead.
You have provided a hypothetical. Now to prove that is likely to happen share some documented stories of these big shoot outs in defense. I don't think they happen in the real world. Most of the time not a single shot needs to be fired.
As I have stated if someone is shooting at me I want them to have to reload often. They may fumble for next magazine, drop one, look away long enough for people to escape....
So, this is really about a fantasy you have in your head. You have created this little scenario and based upon that I should accept this entirely arbitrary restriction. Your solution solves nothing and I see no reason to accept it.
The problem is not the size of the magazine. The problem is the nature of the weapon. As long as the weapon is there, the size of the magazine is irrelevant. However, in this country we have the 2nd amendment. You can't get rid of the weapon unless you repeal the 2nd amendment - which I would oppose and I doubt you would have any chance doing. So if you are going to propose solutions you can't point to other countries which do not have the equivelant of the 2nd amendment. You have to propose solutions which take into account the continued presence of these weapons - because they are not going away.
Unless you have a solution which complies with the Constitution and will actually do something, you are doomed to failure.
It is not an arbitrary number as I have proven.
We've already had limitations on magazine capacity so clearly it can be done.
So I guess if someone is shooting at you and your family, you want them to have the biggest magazines?
This is a lie, as you know you have proven no such thing.It is not an arbitrary number as I have proven.
Here we go again for the slow people. I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 shots for self defense. Clearly even the gun nuts here can't come up with a documented example either. That being true i feel that 10 rounds is plenty for defense. Since it is enough for defense I would limit magazine capacity to 10. Since I am using reason to arrive at the number it is not arbitrary.
You said:Read. I said I have proven it is not an arbitrary number. It is not random as I have shown so it is not arbitrary.
Since I am using reason to arrive at the number it is not arbitrary
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your reasoning is flawed and therefore any conclusion you reach using that flawed resoning is unsond?
Your number, arrived at without sound reason, is indeed arbitrary.
You need a dictionary. Arbitrary is random. My number is not random. You can disagree with my reasoning, but the number is still not arbitrary.
The lack of a firearm has saved many people. And why was there a lack of a firearm?
Gun control?
Mentality of I don't need one?
Take your pick
At least 8000 murders how many of those killed had access to a firearm? Or where they unarmed at the time of their death?
How many murders haven't occurred because there were no firearms available?
What arms are a lot that you are talking about slick.You don't want to own a firearm, than don't. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you have the right to tell others they can't. Constitutional Rights trump opinions & agendas. Period, end of story.
I've not argued to take guns from anyone. But there are already lots of arms that are illegal so apparently it can be done.
At least 8000 murders how many of those killed had access to a firearm? Or where they unarmed at the time of their death?
How many murders haven't occurred because there were no firearms available?
How many murders haven't occurred because there were no firearms available?
Yep, stupid question eh?
Yep, stupid question eh?
Yes you asked a stupid question.
At least 8000 murders how many of those killed had access to a firearm? Or where they unarmed at the time of their death?
Stop it dumb ass my question was easy to answer. It was not a stupid question. But a god damn moron would think a logical question is stupid. So shit stain tell me how many of those 8000 plus people murdered did not have a firearm or restrictive laws that prevented them from having a firearm?Yep, stupid question eh?
Yes you asked a stupid question.
I'm trying to be just like you.
At least 8000 murders how many of those killed had access to a firearm? Or where they unarmed at the time of their death?
Stop it dumb ass my question was easy to answer. It was not a stupid question. But a god damn moron would think a logical question is stupid. So shit stain tell me how many of those 8000 plus people murdered did not have a firearm or restrictive laws that prevented them from having a firearm?Yes you asked a stupid question.
I'm trying to be just like you.
At least 8000 murders how many of those killed had access to a firearm? Or where they unarmed at the time of their death?
You said:
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your reasoning is flawed and therefore any conclusion you reach using that flawed resoning is unsond?
Your number, arrived at without sound reason, is indeed arbitrary.
You need a dictionary. Arbitrary is random. My number is not random. You can disagree with my reasoning, but the number is still not arbitrary.
On the contrary, it is you in need of a dictionary. Arbitrary does not mean random. It means: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.
What you are suggesting is arbitrary.
