Man opens fire on police

[Brain357]

What the anti-gun nuts seem to forget is that the tool is not what is dangerous.

If I am a law abiding citizen, whether I have a gun that will hold 6 rounds or 100, you are not in danger.
If I am a criminal, whether you make the high capacity magazines illegal or not, I will still have them and use them.

A criminal with an m16 is more dangerous than one with a derringer.

No shit.
So what's your point?

Winter born doesn't think so, talk to him. Seems obvious to me too.

 

[martybegan]

If we don't need them then the cops don't need them.

I swear you people want to create a new class of feudal knights, people with the sole right to bear arms by government fiat.

Cops need to stop criminals, that is different than defending. Defending you shoot a couple times at burglar and he takes off situation done. Cop can't let criminal escape, has to pursue.

How can you be absolutely sure than the criminals will flee or that there will never be a case where they are armed and want to fight?

I am sure that criminals use hi cap mags way more than they will ever be needed for defense.

And I am sure those criminals will follow the laws against high capacity magazines?

But you did not answer my question.

My answer shows hi cap magazines do way more damage than good. You have an example of anyone needing one for defense? I have long list of mass shooters using them.

The 4th amendment does way more damage than good if you look at it a certain way, why not get rid of that? if cops didnt have to go through that pesky warrant process, things would be SOOOOO much easier...

 

[WinterBorn]

If we don't need them then the cops don't need them.

I swear you people want to create a new class of feudal knights, people with the sole right to bear arms by government fiat.

Cops need to stop criminals, that is different than defending. Defending you shoot a couple times at burglar and he takes off situation done. Cop can't let criminal escape, has to pursue.

How can you be absolutely sure than the criminals will flee or that there will never be a case where they are armed and want to fight?

I am sure that criminals use hi cap mags way more than they will ever be needed for defense.

And I am sure those criminals will follow the laws against high capacity magazines?

But you did not answer my question.

My answer shows hi cap magazines do way more damage than good. You have an example of anyone needing one for defense? I have long list of mass shooters using them.

Using the difference between a derringer and an M16 is not the same as the difference between an 8 round magazine and a 15 round magazine.

And, as I said, the derringer can be concealed far more easily than an M16. To the first 2 people shot, it is just as deadly.

 

[Brain357]

So the high capacity magazine is why the shooter is dangerous?

Helps make him more dangerous. Lots of examples of hi cap magazines used for evil, but never good.

No. He's dangerous to begin with. No normal person would even consider such an act.
Your premise presupposes the factor of temptation. That but for the high capacity magazine, the shooter would not have committed the act at all.
That is illogical.

Not at all. It's about limiting the damage done by the person.

So as long as he doesn't fire too many rounds, he isn't so bad?

Nope, still horrible. But the people who's lives are saved might appreciate it. You prefer larger body counts?

 

[WinterBorn]

What the anti-gun nuts seem to forget is that the tool is not what is dangerous.

If I am a law abiding citizen, whether I have a gun that will hold 6 rounds or 100, you are not in danger.
If I am a criminal, whether you make the high capacity magazines illegal or not, I will still have them and use them.

A criminal with an m16 is more dangerous than one with a derringer.

No shit.
So what's your point?

Winter born doesn't think so, talk to him. Seems obvious to me too.

Only if you ignore the facts. But your strawman argument really doesn't apply.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If we don't need them then the cops don't need them.

I swear you people want to create a new class of feudal knights, people with the sole right to bear arms by government fiat.

Cops need to stop criminals, that is different than defending. Defending you shoot a couple times at burglar and he takes off situation done. Cop can't let criminal escape, has to pursue.

How can you be absolutely sure than the criminals will flee or that there will never be a case where they are armed and want to fight?

I am sure that criminals use hi cap mags way more than they will ever be needed for defense.

And I am sure those criminals will follow the laws against high capacity magazines?

But you did not answer my question.

My answer shows hi cap magazines do way more damage than good. You have an example of anyone needing one for defense? I have long list of mass shooters using them.

Stories about people using firearms to defend their home, business or person do not get the attention in the same proportion as criminal acts.
In fact, the liberal main stream media goes out of its way to bury home or personal defense stories because they call attention away from the anti gun narrative

 

[WinterBorn]

So the high capacity magazine is why the shooter is dangerous?

Helps make him more dangerous. Lots of examples of hi cap magazines used for evil, but never good.

No. He's dangerous to begin with. No normal person would even consider such an act.
Your premise presupposes the factor of temptation. That but for the high capacity magazine, the shooter would not have committed the act at all.
That is illogical.

Not at all. It's about limiting the damage done by the person.

So as long as he doesn't fire too many rounds, he isn't so bad?

Nope, still horrible. But the people who's lives are saved might appreciate it. You prefer larger body counts?

I prefer no body counts.

 

[Brain357]

Giffords shooting was not in gun free zone. Shooter was stopped by unarmed people when he tried to reload.

Yep, when he bungled the reload. But those people were very close to the shooter. A situation not likely to happen with a rifle shooter.

But with rifle he might pull the trigger to find he's empty allowing someone to get away.

Looks like someone has a case of "mabye-coulda-mighta-itis.

Sounds like you want criminals to be as well armed as possible.

Again, your argument is a fail when you mention criminals.
We can outlaw anything. Criminals do not abide by the laws. That's why they are called criminals.

We can make it harder for criminals to get things. We don't see machine guns in many crimes because they are difficult to get.

 

[Brain357]

Helps make him more dangerous. Lots of examples of hi cap magazines used for evil, but never good.

No. He's dangerous to begin with. No normal person would even consider such an act.
Your premise presupposes the factor of temptation. That but for the high capacity magazine, the shooter would not have committed the act at all.
That is illogical.

Not at all. It's about limiting the damage done by the person.

So as long as he doesn't fire too many rounds, he isn't so bad?

Nope, still horrible. But the people who's lives are saved might appreciate it. You prefer larger body counts?

I prefer no body counts.

Me too. Background checks on all gun sales would help with that.

 

[Brain357]

Cops need to stop criminals, that is different than defending. Defending you shoot a couple times at burglar and he takes off situation done. Cop can't let criminal escape, has to pursue.

How can you be absolutely sure than the criminals will flee or that there will never be a case where they are armed and want to fight?

I am sure that criminals use hi cap mags way more than they will ever be needed for defense.

And I am sure those criminals will follow the laws against high capacity magazines?

But you did not answer my question.

My answer shows hi cap magazines do way more damage than good. You have an example of anyone needing one for defense? I have long list of mass shooters using them.

Stories about people using firearms to defend their home, business or person do not get the attention in the same proportion as criminal acts.
In fact, the liberal main stream media goes out of its way to bury home or personal defense stories because they call attention away from the anti gun narrative

Prove it. I bet fox really hates reporting them.

 

[Brain357]

Cops need to stop criminals, that is different than defending. Defending you shoot a couple times at burglar and he takes off situation done. Cop can't let criminal escape, has to pursue.

How can you be absolutely sure than the criminals will flee or that there will never be a case where they are armed and want to fight?

I am sure that criminals use hi cap mags way more than they will ever be needed for defense.

And I am sure those criminals will follow the laws against high capacity magazines?

But you did not answer my question.

My answer shows hi cap magazines do way more damage than good. You have an example of anyone needing one for defense? I have long list of mass shooters using them.

Using the difference between a derringer and an M16 is not the same as the difference between an 8 round magazine and a 15 round magazine.

And, as I said, the derringer can be concealed far more easily than an M16. To the first 2 people shot, it is just as deadly.

So you prefer shooter is stopped after 15 rather than 10?

 

[martybegan]

Yep, when he bungled the reload. But those people were very close to the shooter. A situation not likely to happen with a rifle shooter.

But with rifle he might pull the trigger to find he's empty allowing someone to get away.

Looks like someone has a case of "mabye-coulda-mighta-itis.

Sounds like you want criminals to be as well armed as possible.

Again, your argument is a fail when you mention criminals.
We can outlaw anything. Criminals do not abide by the laws. That's why they are called criminals.

We can make it harder for criminals to get things. We don't see machine guns in many crimes because they are difficult to get.

They are also a pain in the ass to lug around, not the weapon of choice for some gang bangin.

 

[Brain357]

But with rifle he might pull the trigger to find he's empty allowing someone to get away.

Looks like someone has a case of "mabye-coulda-mighta-itis.

Sounds like you want criminals to be as well armed as possible.

Again, your argument is a fail when you mention criminals.
We can outlaw anything. Criminals do not abide by the laws. That's why they are called criminals.

We can make it harder for criminals to get things. We don't see machine guns in many crimes because they are difficult to get.

They are also a pain in the ass to lug around, not the weapon of choice for some gang bangin.

There are little ones. Size didn't stop gangsters from using tommy guns, laws did.

 

[WinterBorn]

In the situation discussed in the OP, where shots are being fired at cops and not at close range.

Which is more dangerous, a snub-nosed .357 revolver that holds 6 rounds or a scoped hunting rifle that holds 4 rounds?

 

[martybegan]

Looks like someone has a case of "mabye-coulda-mighta-itis.

Sounds like you want criminals to be as well armed as possible.

Again, your argument is a fail when you mention criminals.
We can outlaw anything. Criminals do not abide by the laws. That's why they are called criminals.

We can make it harder for criminals to get things. We don't see machine guns in many crimes because they are difficult to get.

They are also a pain in the ass to lug around, not the weapon of choice for some gang bangin.

There are little ones. Size didn't stop gangsters from using tommy guns, laws did.

Not a machine gun, a sub-machine gun. get your nomenclature right.

And this is a bout semi auto handguns and rifles with mags of 15-30.

The sign of a weak argument is the proponent bouncing around from topic to topic like a gazelle with ADD.

 

[Brain357]

In the situation discussed in the OP, where shots are being fired at cops and not at close range.

Which is more dangerous, a snub-nosed .357 revolver that holds 6 rounds or a scoped hunting rifle that holds 4 rounds?

A hunting rifle that holds 25 rounds.

 

[Brain357]

Sounds like you want criminals to be as well armed as possible.

Again, your argument is a fail when you mention criminals.
We can outlaw anything. Criminals do not abide by the laws. That's why they are called criminals.

We can make it harder for criminals to get things. We don't see machine guns in many crimes because they are difficult to get.

They are also a pain in the ass to lug around, not the weapon of choice for some gang bangin.

There are little ones. Size didn't stop gangsters from using tommy guns, laws did.

Not a machine gun, a sub-machine gun. get your nomenclature right.

And this is a bout semi auto handguns and rifles with mags of 15-30.

The sign of a weak argument is the proponent bouncing around from topic to topic like a gazelle with ADD.

I was giving an example of an effective gun law. It was used appropriately.

 

[WinterBorn]

In the situation discussed in the OP, where shots are being fired at cops and not at close range.

Which is more dangerous, a snub-nosed .357 revolver that holds 6 rounds or a scoped hunting rifle that holds 4 rounds?

A hunting rifle that holds 25 rounds.

Not fond of actually answering the question you are asked, are you? But you certainly don't mind asking them.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, your argument is a fail when you mention criminals.
We can outlaw anything. Criminals do not abide by the laws. That's why they are called criminals.

We can make it harder for criminals to get things. We don't see machine guns in many crimes because they are difficult to get.

They are also a pain in the ass to lug around, not the weapon of choice for some gang bangin.

There are little ones. Size didn't stop gangsters from using tommy guns, laws did.

Not a machine gun, a sub-machine gun. get your nomenclature right.

And this is a bout semi auto handguns and rifles with mags of 15-30.

The sign of a weak argument is the proponent bouncing around from topic to topic like a gazelle with ADD.

I was giving an example of an effective gun law. It was used appropriately.

Was it? You can still buy a machinegun. You simply have to pay a $200 tax stamp.

 

[Brain357]

In the situation discussed in the OP, where shots are being fired at cops and not at close range.

Which is more dangerous, a snub-nosed .357 revolver that holds 6 rounds or a scoped hunting rifle that holds 4 rounds?

A hunting rifle that holds 25 rounds.

Not fond of actually answering the question you are asked, are you? But you certainly don't mind asking them.

Do you disagree that is the most dangerous weapon in scenario?