Plenty of "Good Guys with Guns" But 6 Injured Anyway

[Brain357]

Hardly. You really don't think to deeply into this do you? For one thing, you're overlooking the millions of incidents where a good guy with a firearm defends himself. You're also overlooking the overwhelming evidence in other countries where banning civilian gun ownership does not result in less violent crime or a decreasing murder rate.

You're gonna have to think beyond soundbites here.



Riiight. Are firearm owners ALWAYS home with their weapons?

See how foolish you look?

Well the more believable stats I've seen are about 100,000 defenses per year. And last I checked there were like 232,000 guns stolen per year. Not a good ratio. How many of those defenders needed a gun because some other gun owner armed the criminal?

What YOU'VE seen, eh? Yea, pass. The actual evidence points to millions of occurrences each year. But hey, I'm sure you know better...

Btw, I'm not for banning guns. I want universal background checks, registration, and magazine capacity limits

And you expect that to stop thugs and crazies from using firearms?

California has had such restrictions for DECADES. How's that working out for them???

This study says 108,000.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

 

[Brain357]

The ideas would not completely remove all potential death in the event a determined, and suicidal, person decides to kill people. The best step would be to work on better prevention, as in work place mediation for problems ect.

And since there is virtually no way to guarantee 100% safety, the best ideas are those that limit the loss of life.

Considering how easy it is to make a bomb or lethal gas, there pretty much can be no guarantee of safety. Clorox and Windex can be combined to make chlorine gas. That has the potential to kill more people than died in the shooting in Kennesaw.

I agree with you. This is why I believe in magazine cap limits. These shooters are often stopped at reload.

And what exactly makes you think these "shooters" will obey your magazine limit law?

You realize they're nothing but sheet metal and a spring, right? You realize there are MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in existence, right?

What EXACTLY do you hope to accomplish by limiting magazine size other than to put law abiding citizens at a tactical disadvantage against the thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about your rules???

If they are so easy to make, please document making one and fire it in your favorite gun. I would much prefer the guy shooting at me is using some junk magazine he made.

Tactical disadvantage? In a previous post you were going on about how fast you can reload. Well you can't have both sides of this argument. If you can reload so fast then it's not a disadvantage. And studies show defense uses 2-3 shots. Only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters and gang bangers.

 

[Nosmo King]

What other use, other than killing the most people inthe shortest period of time is a weapon with a magazine of greater than ten rounds? It is a weapon of war and a weapon used on offense.

Apparently this strange person thinks that if a guy is robbing my store, and I pull out a gun that has an eight-round magazine, the guy will run away or surrender. But if I pull out a gun that has a twelve-round mag, they guy will apparently stop, count the rounds in the mag, and then go right on robbing the store. Because a gun with a twelve-round mag isn't a defensive weapon.

Boy, when these liberals lose a debate, they start coming up with the screwiest "facts" imaginable. And they actually think they DON'T look ridiculous to normal people.

You're right! We should surrender to the gun nuts! They have NO CONCERN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. Only a lust for all things that go Bang! Like little boys who have become bored by firecrackers or constantly want to play Army, the gun nuts offer no solutions to gun violence.

They rationalize the deaths of of school children by citing constitutional rights to bear arms. They forget the lost lives and advocate slathering on MORE GUNS as a solution.

Their obscene action movie heroes have obliterated any sense of responsibility toward keeping our nation safe from gun violence. I surrender! Let's all get guns, gather on a hot summer night, get pissed drunk and shoot each other in one last orgy of gun violence!

You idiots offer no solutions. Only escalated violence for violence sake and some death wish by constitutional fiat. Your objections to back ground checks as impotent is a weak and perilous position. Your rationalization against limiting ammunition capacity supposes that you yourself will have to face down both the Bloods AND the Cryps as well as the entire Sioux Nation and the Coreleone Family. It's a fantasy! It's delusional. It's irresponsible.

Gun nuts should be ashamed, but their lack of awareness to the plight which they champion, guns on the streets, makes them incapable of understanding grief and despair and loss.

 

[Brain357]

The fact remains that more than ten rounds makes a weapon offensive rather than defensive.

Umm, where do you come up with such irrelevant bunk?

They are called studies. You should read some of them. This one says 2 shots for defense.
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables)

 

[bripat9643]

The fact remains that more than ten rounds makes a weapon offensive rather than defensive.

Umm, where do you come up with such irrelevant bunk?

They are called studies. You should read some of them. This one says 2 shots for defense.
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables)

ROFL!


It's unfornate that your so-called "studies" run up against the evidence of hard cold experience. There have been examples were police firde 40 to 50 shots at an assailant before stopping him. There was an example posted in this forum where a mother was fighting off a home invasion by three armed assailants and fired every round of a 15 round magazine into them, and they were still able to run away.

The 2-round theory was invented by toady government professors who live in gated communities in quiet university towns and never come within 10 miles of an armed felon.

I've never seen such unmitigated crap in my life.

 

[WinterBorn]

What other use, other than killing the most people inthe shortest period of time is a weapon with a magazine of greater than ten rounds? It is a weapon of war and a weapon used on offense.

Apparently this strange person thinks that if a guy is robbing my store, and I pull out a gun that has an eight-round magazine, the guy will run away or surrender. But if I pull out a gun that has a twelve-round mag, they guy will apparently stop, count the rounds in the mag, and then go right on robbing the store. Because a gun with a twelve-round mag isn't a defensive weapon.

Boy, when these liberals lose a debate, they start coming up with the screwiest "facts" imaginable. And they actually think they DON'T look ridiculous to normal people.

You're right! We should surrender tothe gun nuts! They have NO CONCERN FORPUBLIC SAFETY. Only a list for all things that go Bang! Like little boys who have become bored by firecrackers or constantly want to play Army, the gun nuts offer no solutions to gun violence.

They rationalize the deaths of of school children by citing constitutional rights to bear arms. They forget the lost lives and advocate slathering on MORE GUNS as a solution.

Their obscene action movie heroes have obliterated any sense of responsibility toward keeping our nation safe from gun violence. I surrender! Let's all get guns, gather on a hot summer night, get pissed drunk and shoot each other. In one last orgy of gun violence!

You idiots offer no solutions. But escalated violence for violence sake and some death wish by constitutional fiat.

Oh please, enough with the "you offer no solutions!" nonsense.

I have offered a solution that would do far more to curb gun violence than the bans of high capacity magazines.

Keep the violent felons locked up. I posted a link to an article that shows that 75% of gun related murders are committed by convicted felons. If they were not on the street you have reduced the gun violence by 75%.

You are staying focused on the mass shootings which only account for 1% of the gun related murders every year.

Now who is it that is not offering solutions??

 

[bripat9643]

I agree with you. This is why I believe in magazine cap limits. These shooters are often stopped at reload.

And what exactly makes you think these "shooters" will obey your magazine limit law?

You realize they're nothing but sheet metal and a spring, right? You realize there are MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in existence, right?

What EXACTLY do you hope to accomplish by limiting magazine size other than to put law abiding citizens at a tactical disadvantage against the thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about your rules???

If they are so easy to make, please document making one and fire it in your favorite gun. I would much prefer the guy shooting at me is using some junk magazine he made.

Tactical disadvantage? In a previous post you were going on about how fast you can reload. Well you can't have both sides of this argument. If you can reload so fast then it's not a disadvantage. And studies show defense uses 2-3 shots. Only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters and gang bangers.

Ammo clips of any capacity can easily be made using a 3D printer.

 

[WinterBorn]

The fact remains that more than ten rounds makes a weapon offensive rather than defensive.

Umm, where do you come up with such irrelevant bunk?

They are called studies. You should read some of them. This one says 2 shots for defense.
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables)

Yes, the average defensive shooter fired two rounds. This is a good study.

But it does not prove anything about what anyone will need to defend themselves, nor does it do anything to continue the insane idea that you need to regulate the people who do not commit crimes in order to stop crimes.

 

[Brain357]

Umm, where do you come up with such irrelevant bunk?

They are called studies. You should read some of them. This one says 2 shots for defense.
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables)

ROFL!


It's unfornate that your so-called "studies" run up against the evidence of hard cold experience. There have been examples were police firde 40 to 50 shots at an assailant before stopping him. There was an example posted in this forum where a mother was fighting off a home invasion by three armed assailants and fired every round of a 15 round magazine into them, and they were still able to run away.

The 2-round theory was invented by toady government professors who live in gated communities in quiet university towns and never come within 10 miles of an armed felon.

I've never seen such unmitigated crap in my life.

We aren't discussing how many times police fire. The study doesn't lie. I notice you posted no links to back anything up. Try facts.

 

[WinterBorn]

I agree with you. This is why I believe in magazine cap limits. These shooters are often stopped at reload.

And what exactly makes you think these "shooters" will obey your magazine limit law?

You realize they're nothing but sheet metal and a spring, right? You realize there are MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in existence, right?

What EXACTLY do you hope to accomplish by limiting magazine size other than to put law abiding citizens at a tactical disadvantage against the thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about your rules???

If they are so easy to make, please document making one and fire it in your favorite gun. I would much prefer the guy shooting at me is using some junk magazine he made.

Tactical disadvantage? In a previous post you were going on about how fast you can reload. Well you can't have both sides of this argument. If you can reload so fast then it's not a disadvantage. And studies show defense uses 2-3 shots. Only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters and gang bangers.

Oh please!! Such drivel! There are plenty of legal, law-abiding citizens using high capacity magazines. They just don't use them to kill anyone.

Look, I get that you are pissed off about the gun violence. But being pissed at gun owners who have likely never pointed a gun at another human being is a waste of time and insulting as hell.

You want to be pissed at someone? Leave the gun owner alone and be pissed at the legal system that puts violent felons back out on the street where they commit 75% of the gun related murders. They are the problem. Not people like me. The capacity of the magazine has nothing to do with the intent of the person holding the gun.

Be pissed at the system that puts violent felons back out on the street, even though they know that 86% of them will be rearrested in 5 years or less. Those are the irresponsible ones who are causing the slaughter. Not the gun owners.

Be pissed at the media who makes celebrities out of the mass murderers. The fact that almost everyone knows who Dylan Klebold is proves my point. If the media didn't publicize them, there wouldn't be the crazies emulating them. Be pissed at the people who make them famous, not the gun owner following the laws and regulations.

 

[Brain357]

And what exactly makes you think these "shooters" will obey your magazine limit law?

You realize they're nothing but sheet metal and a spring, right? You realize there are MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in existence, right?

What EXACTLY do you hope to accomplish by limiting magazine size other than to put law abiding citizens at a tactical disadvantage against the thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about your rules???

If they are so easy to make, please document making one and fire it in your favorite gun. I would much prefer the guy shooting at me is using some junk magazine he made.

Tactical disadvantage? In a previous post you were going on about how fast you can reload. Well you can't have both sides of this argument. If you can reload so fast then it's not a disadvantage. And studies show defense uses 2-3 shots. Only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters and gang bangers.

Ammo clips of any capacity can easily be made using a 3D printer.

An EXTREMELY expensive 3D printer. If you can afford the printer you wouldn't be making what would be illegal magazines. And yes they are called magazines.

 

[Brain357]

Umm, where do you come up with such irrelevant bunk?

They are called studies. You should read some of them. This one says 2 shots for defense.
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables)

Yes, the average defensive shooter fired two rounds. This is a good study.

But it does not prove anything about what anyone will need to defend themselves, nor does it do anything to continue the insane idea that you need to regulate the people who do not commit crimes in order to stop crimes.

I'm interested in saving lives. There is no reason for anyone to have a hi cap magazine. It's not used for defense and it's not used for hunting. Why not make the mass shooter reload a lot and give his victims more of a chance?

 

[TooTall]

So you lost your original point and are left with outright blathering and references to minute.

You are possibly the most idiotic poster on this forum. I've taken shits with a higher IQ than yours.

That's insulting to some of the turds I've had. Many of them were far more articulate than NoTea, and all of them better informed.

Bathroom humor because you can't answer my question:

What are the legal implications of a business owner allowing guns on his or her property? It's called a big lawsuit, honey, if either an employee or customer is harmed either intentionally or accidentally, doesn't matter. And even though the FedEx facility has a sign posted banning guns, you can bet your sweet ass that FedEx will have a lawsuit with at least....oh six....plaintiffs.

So if you are a good citizen of Kennesaw you are supposed to take your gun and lock it up in your car before going inside the FedEx facility to either work or conduct business. What a great town. It really is the law there:

Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law | Reuters

The Kennesaw city ordinance does require homeowners to own and maintain a firearm. Maintain in legalese means have at least one bullet for the gun. The laws intent was to allow people to protect their homes. To take a concealed firearm out in public a Georgia Weapons Carry License is required. The law exempted those with religious objections to owning a firearm as well as several other valid reasons to opt out.

When the law was passed many years ago it was to counter a patently unconstitutional law that was enacted in Morton Grove, Ill that banned all handguns.

The liberal Atlanta-Journal Constitution wrote an oped that said, and I paraphrase, "All you criminals in Atlanta that want a gun, just drive 20 miles north on I-75 and break into any house in Kennesaw and you can find a gun.'"

The Mayor of Kennesaw responded with a letter to the editor, and to their credit, they did print it. He stated, "All you criminals in Atlanta that want a gun, just drive 20 miles north on I-75 and break into any house in Kennesaw and you can find a gun. Just remember, you have to come out of that house sometime and 7 or 8 neighbors will have a gun pointed at you."

I don't think their was a house burglarized in Kennesaw for 5 or 6 years after the law was passed.

 

[WinterBorn]

They are called studies. You should read some of them. This one says 2 shots for defense.
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables)

ROFL!


It's unfornate that your so-called "studies" run up against the evidence of hard cold experience. There have been examples were police firde 40 to 50 shots at an assailant before stopping him. There was an example posted in this forum where a mother was fighting off a home invasion by three armed assailants and fired every round of a 15 round magazine into them, and they were still able to run away.

The 2-round theory was invented by toady government professors who live in gated communities in quiet university towns and never come within 10 miles of an armed felon.

I've never seen such unmitigated crap in my life.

We aren't discussing how many times police fire. The study doesn't lie. I notice you posted no links to back anything up. Try facts.

And even if the study looked at more than the 482 (or something) shootings, that does not mean there is any reason to ban high capacity magazines. As was shown before at least one mom used more than 2 rounds to defend her home. She used 15 rounds to chase the 3 thugs away. Would you have her surrender because she was outgunned?

The point is not the capacity of the weapon or even the weapon itself. It is the intent of the shooter.


Also, if your answer is limiting all magazines to 10 rounds, then you are essentially saying "It's ok to kill 10 people. But damn you for killing 12!!!"

 

[Brain357]

And what exactly makes you think these "shooters" will obey your magazine limit law?

You realize they're nothing but sheet metal and a spring, right? You realize there are MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in existence, right?

What EXACTLY do you hope to accomplish by limiting magazine size other than to put law abiding citizens at a tactical disadvantage against the thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about your rules???

If they are so easy to make, please document making one and fire it in your favorite gun. I would much prefer the guy shooting at me is using some junk magazine he made.

Tactical disadvantage? In a previous post you were going on about how fast you can reload. Well you can't have both sides of this argument. If you can reload so fast then it's not a disadvantage. And studies show defense uses 2-3 shots. Only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters and gang bangers.

Oh please!! Such drivel! There are plenty of legal, law-abiding citizens using high capacity magazines. They just don't use them to kill anyone.

Look, I get that you are pissed off about the gun violence. But being pissed at gun owners who have likely never pointed a gun at another human being is a waste of time and insulting as hell.

You want to be pissed at someone? Leave the gun owner alone and be pissed at the legal system that puts violent felons back out on the street where they commit 75% of the gun related murders. They are the problem. Not people like me. The capacity of the magazine has nothing to do with the intent of the person holding the gun.

Be pissed at the system that puts violent felons back out on the street, even though they know that 86% of them will be rearrested in 5 years or less. Those are the irresponsible ones who are causing the slaughter. Not the gun owners.

Be pissed at the media who makes celebrities out of the mass murderers. The fact that almost everyone knows who Dylan Klebold is proves my point. If the media didn't publicize them, there wouldn't be the crazies emulating them. Be pissed at the people who make them famous, not the gun owner following the laws and regulations.

So lets have hi cap magazines because gun owners are too lazy to reload their magazines often? Sorry I think lazy is no reason to not try to save lives.

I am mad about all those things. I don't disagree with you on your points.

 

[Brain357]

ROFL!


It's unfornate that your so-called "studies" run up against the evidence of hard cold experience. There have been examples were police firde 40 to 50 shots at an assailant before stopping him. There was an example posted in this forum where a mother was fighting off a home invasion by three armed assailants and fired every round of a 15 round magazine into them, and they were still able to run away.

The 2-round theory was invented by toady government professors who live in gated communities in quiet university towns and never come within 10 miles of an armed felon.

I've never seen such unmitigated crap in my life.

We aren't discussing how many times police fire. The study doesn't lie. I notice you posted no links to back anything up. Try facts.

And even if the study looked at more than the 482 (or something) shootings, that does not mean there is any reason to ban high capacity magazines. As was shown before at least one mom used more than 2 rounds to defend her home. She used 15 rounds to chase the 3 thugs away. Would you have her surrender because she was outgunned?

The point is not the capacity of the weapon or even the weapon itself. It is the intent of the shooter.


Also, if your answer is limiting all magazines to 10 rounds, then you are essentially saying "It's ok to kill 10 people. But damn you for killing 12!!!"

For every case of someone using a hi cap mag for defense there are at least 1000 of some criminal using one for criminal activity like a mass shooting or a drive by. I still have not seen a link to this woman chasing the thugs away. Share it or it doesn't exist. BTW I believe you said you can reload so fast that mag capacity doesn't matter. So I guess these defenders would still be fine.

 

[WinterBorn]

They are called studies. You should read some of them. This one says 2 shots for defense.
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables)

Yes, the average defensive shooter fired two rounds. This is a good study.

But it does not prove anything about what anyone will need to defend themselves, nor does it do anything to continue the insane idea that you need to regulate the people who do not commit crimes in order to stop crimes.

I'm interested in saving lives. There is no reason for anyone to have a hi cap magazine. It's not used for defense and it's not used for hunting. Why not make the mass shooter reload a lot and give his victims more of a chance?

So it is ok if he kills 10 people. But damn him if he kills more????

If you are really interested in saving lives, why in the hell are you focused only on mass shootings??? They account for 1% of the gun related deaths. Even if you limit magazine capacity, you are not stopping the mass shootings. You are simply HOPING that someone grabs him while he reloads. So he can kill 10 people before he is grabbed. How is that doing anything but paying lip-service to saving lives.

You want to save lives? Take the energy put into banning guns or magazines, and focus on keeping violent felons locked up.

Stopping all mass shootings prevents 1% of gun related murders.
Keeping violent felons locked up stops 75% of gun related murders.

Which shows a real interest in saving lives???

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Jeez, you really are stretching the bounds of reality.

No one says that armed good guys would stop all murders. But what would very likely happen is that there would be fewer injured and fewer dead.

Do you think this would be news if one guy shot another guy, then got shot?

So what are you all saying? And what are you basing your idea that there would be less injured or killed. Are you just "guessing" because your "guess" supports your desire for everyone that wants to be armed to be armed.

This shooter killed himself, again. After shooting whoever he intended to shoot. You shoot a lot, how long you think it took for this entire scene to happen? 30 seconds? A minute?
What would you have done to change the outcome?
"

You have no idea what would happen. come on now admit it. It happens on US military bases where they have many many guns and tanks and rifles, machine guns and you know what? Soldiers die. So, the whole premise is idiotic.

Military bases are no gun zones. They may have many weapons at their disposal but aren't allowed to carry them. That is thanks to Clinton. If they were armed then these shootings wouldn't be so dramatic.

 

[WinterBorn]

We aren't discussing how many times police fire. The study doesn't lie. I notice you posted no links to back anything up. Try facts.

And even if the study looked at more than the 482 (or something) shootings, that does not mean there is any reason to ban high capacity magazines. As was shown before at least one mom used more than 2 rounds to defend her home. She used 15 rounds to chase the 3 thugs away. Would you have her surrender because she was outgunned?

The point is not the capacity of the weapon or even the weapon itself. It is the intent of the shooter.


Also, if your answer is limiting all magazines to 10 rounds, then you are essentially saying "It's ok to kill 10 people. But damn you for killing 12!!!"

For every case of someone using a hi cap mag for defense there are at least 1000 of some criminal using one for criminal activity like a mass shooting or a drive by. I still have not seen a link to this woman chasing the thugs away. Share it or it doesn't exist. BTW I believe you said you can reload so fast that mag capacity doesn't matter. So I guess these defenders would still be fine.

Yes, I did say that. I can reload my semi-auto pistol in less than 2 seconds.

But my point is that you are focusing your attention on something that makes very little difference. The high capacity magazines are NOT the problem. I have shown you what the problem is, and yet you still spout that drivel about "gun owners don't care about solutions!". When it is you who don't seem to give a shit about solutions. You ignore the one that can have a profound effect in favor of one that would matter only in the tiny percentage of cases.

 

[WinterBorn]

We aren't discussing how many times police fire. The study doesn't lie. I notice you posted no links to back anything up. Try facts.

And even if the study looked at more than the 482 (or something) shootings, that does not mean there is any reason to ban high capacity magazines. As was shown before at least one mom used more than 2 rounds to defend her home. She used 15 rounds to chase the 3 thugs away. Would you have her surrender because she was outgunned?

The point is not the capacity of the weapon or even the weapon itself. It is the intent of the shooter.


Also, if your answer is limiting all magazines to 10 rounds, then you are essentially saying "It's ok to kill 10 people. But damn you for killing 12!!!"

For every case of someone using a hi cap mag for defense there are at least 1000 of some criminal using one for criminal activity like a mass shooting or a drive by. I still have not seen a link to this woman chasing the thugs away. Share it or it doesn't exist. BTW I believe you said you can reload so fast that mag capacity doesn't matter. So I guess these defenders would still be fine.

Here is the link for the mom who defended her home with weapon with a high capacity magazine.

Now, by your own logic, your statement "For every case of someone using a hi cap mag for defense there are at least 1000 of some criminal using one for criminal activity like a mass shooting or a drive by.", do you have a link for that?

If not it is bullshit.