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

[koshergrl]

And when the federal officers are thugs who steal and kill the property and animals of citizens, then we are obligated to object.

 

[koshergrl]

If any of those gun toting rednecks were nearby, they would've run away anyway; Or shot and missed.

I think you underestimate what a "gun-toting redneck" can do.

But it is obvious that discussions based on facts do not interest you.

They don't look like they're running here:

 

[Brain357]

Since the gangbangers are almost all felons or underage, they are not buying their guns via legal means. If there are no fully automatic weapons used, then I was mistaken. That does not change the fact that a ban on high capacity magazines would not be obeyed by these thugs.

As for the number of high capacity magazines in law abiding citizens hands, you need to show more than just your opinion that banning them would make a big difference.

All the mass shootings involving hi cap magazines is not just my opinion.

And how many of these shootings with high capacity magazines had people within close range to stop the shooter as he reloaded? Or are you planning on all future mass shooters dropping a magazine as well?

That's not the only possible scenario. It could be the few seconds used to reload allows a few more people to run out the door. Or maybe it gives the concealed carry guy a few seconds to get that shot off and kill the shooter. Slowing down the shooter will save lives in a lot of ways.

 

[Brain357]

Since the gangbangers are almost all felons or underage, they are not buying their guns via legal means. If there are no fully automatic weapons used, then I was mistaken. That does not change the fact that a ban on high capacity magazines would not be obeyed by these thugs.

As for the number of high capacity magazines in law abiding citizens hands, you need to show more than just your opinion that banning them would make a big difference.

All the mass shootings involving hi cap magazines is not just my opinion.

A quick look at the details of the Columbine shooting and the VaTech shooting shows that both involved reloading their handguns.

There are also several mass shooting that had fewer than 10 fatalities.

Would you care to share the link to where you found the info that all the mass shooting involved high capacity magazines?

The shooting at Chardon High school was done with a Ruger MkII .2 pistol. They come standard with a 10 round magazine.

The shooting at the Pinelake Health & rehab Nursing home was accomplished with a .357 revolver, an unnamed .22 pistol, and a Winchester 1300 shotgun. No mention of a high capacity magazine at all.

The shooting at the Louisianna technical College in Baton Rouge was done with a .357 revolver. No magazine at all.

The shooting at City Hall in Kirkwood Missouri was done with a .44 magnum revolver and a S&W .40 cal. (as far as I know, the only S&W in .40 cal was the M&P - the magazines hold 6 or 7 rounds)

The shooting at the Trolley Mall in Salt Lake City involved a Mossberg pump shotgun and a S&W revolver. No magazine involved in either.



So what was that you were saying about all the mass shooting involving high capacity magazines being not just your opinion???

I guess you don't mind playing it fast and loose with the facts, do you?

I have not said all mass shootings involve a hi cap magazine. What I'm saying is those that have would have had fewer casualties/injuries if magazine capacity was limited. The Giffords shooting is a great example of why. The shooter for this thread didn't use a semi auto and we have 6 wounded instead of dead.

 

[martybegan]

All the mass shootings involving hi cap magazines is not just my opinion.

A quick look at the details of the Columbine shooting and the VaTech shooting shows that both involved reloading their handguns.

There are also several mass shooting that had fewer than 10 fatalities.

Would you care to share the link to where you found the info that all the mass shooting involved high capacity magazines?

The shooting at Chardon High school was done with a Ruger MkII .2 pistol. They come standard with a 10 round magazine.

The shooting at the Pinelake Health & rehab Nursing home was accomplished with a .357 revolver, an unnamed .22 pistol, and a Winchester 1300 shotgun. No mention of a high capacity magazine at all.

The shooting at the Louisianna technical College in Baton Rouge was done with a .357 revolver. No magazine at all.

The shooting at City Hall in Kirkwood Missouri was done with a .44 magnum revolver and a S&W .40 cal. (as far as I know, the only S&W in .40 cal was the M&P - the magazines hold 6 or 7 rounds)

The shooting at the Trolley Mall in Salt Lake City involved a Mossberg pump shotgun and a S&W revolver. No magazine involved in either.



So what was that you were saying about all the mass shooting involving high capacity magazines being not just your opinion???

I guess you don't mind playing it fast and loose with the facts, do you?

I have not said all mass shootings involve a hi cap magazine. What I'm saying is those that have would have had fewer casualties/injuries if magazine capacity was limited. The Giffords shooting is a great example of why. The shooter for this thread didn't use a semi auto and we have 6 wounded instead of dead.

So magazine capacity affects caliber and aim? I never would have known.

 

[martybegan]

Are you saying your "solution" is, we should round up all the Cliven Bundy allies that were a part of the show of force against Federal Agents in Bunkerville?
.

WTF?? Are you saying that the Cliven Bundy allies are all violent felons??

I have no idea where you came in with the crap about a solution being rounding up those people.

You seem to be unaware that threatening a federal agent is a felony?
.

So I guess federal agents are the new knights in your new progressive feudal society, with worth above and beyond us mere peasants.

 

[Brain357]

A quick look at the details of the Columbine shooting and the VaTech shooting shows that both involved reloading their handguns.

There are also several mass shooting that had fewer than 10 fatalities.

Would you care to share the link to where you found the info that all the mass shooting involved high capacity magazines?

The shooting at Chardon High school was done with a Ruger MkII .2 pistol. They come standard with a 10 round magazine.

The shooting at the Pinelake Health & rehab Nursing home was accomplished with a .357 revolver, an unnamed .22 pistol, and a Winchester 1300 shotgun. No mention of a high capacity magazine at all.

The shooting at the Louisianna technical College in Baton Rouge was done with a .357 revolver. No magazine at all.

The shooting at City Hall in Kirkwood Missouri was done with a .44 magnum revolver and a S&W .40 cal. (as far as I know, the only S&W in .40 cal was the M&P - the magazines hold 6 or 7 rounds)

The shooting at the Trolley Mall in Salt Lake City involved a Mossberg pump shotgun and a S&W revolver. No magazine involved in either.



So what was that you were saying about all the mass shooting involving high capacity magazines being not just your opinion???

I guess you don't mind playing it fast and loose with the facts, do you?

I have not said all mass shootings involve a hi cap magazine. What I'm saying is those that have would have had fewer casualties/injuries if magazine capacity was limited. The Giffords shooting is a great example of why. The shooter for this thread didn't use a semi auto and we have 6 wounded instead of dead.

So magazine capacity affects caliber and aim? I never would have known.

And I guess you are unaware that the more times you get shot it's more likely you'll be killed. There must be a lot you don't know.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

One expensive 3D printer can make a lot of cheap illegal magazines. Your belief that well-to-do people always obey all the government's pernicious laws is just plain idiotic.

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you saying your "solution" is, we should round up all the Cliven Bundy allies that were a part of the show of force against Federal Agents in Bunkerville?
.

WTF?? Are you saying that the Cliven Bundy allies are all violent felons??

I have no idea where you came in with the crap about a solution being rounding up those people.

You seem to be unaware that threatening a federal agent is a felony?
.

And you seem to be unaware that I have been referring to violent, convicted felons. I have not made this about Bundy at all.

 

[eflatminor]

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???

I find it telling that none of the gun grabbers every attempt to honestly answer these kind of questions.

Logical fallacy in 3...2...

Still no response. Telling indeed. Let's try it one more time, just for shit's and giggles. Okay gun grabbers, tell us:

What exactly makes you think these "shooters" will obey your magazine limit law...or any law that restricts the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves?

I really would love to see someone address this question DIRECTLY.

Not holding my breath...

 

[Nosmo King]

Confiscate the magazines and melt them down to cast manhole covers! It's the appropriate thing to do. Cover the stench of death that high capacity magazines wrought the way we cover the stench from our sewers.

Gun nuts rationalize the absolute need for high capacity magazines because, in their warped fantasy world, they will be called upon to face down both the Bloods and the Cryps and then the entire Sioux Nation with the Corleone Family in reserve.

No one needs more than ten shots unless that person is going on the offensive with a gun.

 

[TooTall]

So a massacre happens at a business that doesn't allow firearms and this somehow proves that people having the ability to defend themselves doesn't stop massacres?

Sometimes I wonder why we bother trying to talk with people so clearly irrational.

The whole idea behind Kennesaw's laws is just that: to reinforce and underscore the Stand Your Ground laws. Sorry this irony totally escapes you.

Stand your ground laws weren't even around when the Kennesaw ordinance was passed.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Since the police are supposedly better trained than civilians and therefore more accurate, one would reasonably assume that they should fire fewer shots than untrained civilians. Yet, there are multiple examples of the police firing several dozen shots to take down an assailant. In fact, there is one example I can think of where the police fired thousand of rounds to take down two assailants who were wearing bullet proof vests.

As for whether the study lies or not, the fact is that studies often do lie. They often give deliberately misleading results. This study is highly suspect since only 35% of the incidents used in the study involved no shots being fired. The reality is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, no shots are fired. Simply brandishing a weapon is usually enough to make the perpetrator give up or run away. If we averaged all those incidents together, then the average number of bullets fire would be almost zero.

However, when the assailants don't give up and start blasting away, you're going to want more than two bullets in your weapon. You're going to want more than enough to do the job.

If you look at combatants in a war, they may not fire their weapons for months at a time. However, there may come a day when they have to fire 500 hundred rounds because they encounter a concentration of the enemy. If you told the general of those troops that they only need to carry 10 bullets with them because some "study" showed that was the average number of bullets fire per day, they would think you were daft, and they would be correct. The average is utterly meaningless in terms of what's needed. the maximum your ever going to need is the quantity the military and the police look at, because if you run out, you aren't going to care much what some moronic pinko professor has to say on the subject.

Another failure of you study is that it only looks at situations where the perpetrator was armed with a gun. there are numerous situations where the perpetrator is only armed with a knife or a bat, or he is simply physically more intimidating than his victim.

This study was designed to give misleading results to propagate the gun control argument. It's nothing more than sleazy propaganda.

 

[Brain357]

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.

One expensive 3D printer can make a lot of cheap illegal magazines. Your belief that well-to-do people always obey all the government's pernicious laws is just plain idiotic.

Why would they spend many thousands on a printer to make hi cap magazines? You gun nuts always say you can reload so fast capacity doesn't matter. Do these magazines pop out ready to be loaded or do they need a spring? How does a printer pop out a spring?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

One expensive 3D printer can make a lot of cheap illegal magazines. Your belief that well-to-do people always obey all the government's pernicious laws is just plain idiotic.

Why would they spend many thousands on a printer to make hi cap magazines? You gun nuts always say you can reload so fast capacity doesn't matter. Do these magazines pop out ready to be loaded or do they need a spring? How does a printer pop out a spring?

you can pound one out of tin

in less then a 1/2 hour

so who cares

 

[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.

Since the police are supposedly better trained than civilians and therefore more accurate, one would reasonably assume that they should fire fewer shots than untrained civilians. Yet, there are multiple examples of the police firing several dozen shots to take down an assailant. In fact, there is one example I can think of where the police fired thousand of rounds to take down two assailants who were wearing bullet proof vests.

As for whether the study lies or not, the fact is that studies often do lie. They often give deliberately misleading results. This study is highly suspect since only 35% of the incidents used in the study involved no shots being fired. The reality is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, no shots are fired. Simply brandishing a weapon is usually enough to make the perpetrator give up or run away. If we averaged all those incidents together, then the average number of bullets fire would be almost zero.

However, when the assailants don't give up and start blasting away, you're going to want more than two bullets in your weapon. You're going to want more than enough to do the job.

If you look at combatants in a war, they may not fire their weapons for months at a time. However, there may come a day when they have to fire 500 hundred rounds because they encounter a concentration of the enemy. If you told the general of those troops that they only need to carry 10 bullets with them because some "study" showed that was the average number of bullets fire per day, they would think you were daft, and they would be correct. The average is utterly meaningless in terms of what's needed. the maximum your ever going to need is the quantity the military and the police look at, because if you run out, you aren't going to care much what some moronic pinko professor has to say on the subject.

Another failure of you study is that it only looks at situations where the perpetrator was armed with a gun. there are numerous situations where the perpetrator is only armed with a knife or a bat, or he is simply physically more intimidating than his victim.

This study was designed to give misleading results to propagate the gun control argument. It's nothing more than sleazy propaganda.

Police are trying to capture criminals. Citizens are just defending themselves. Completely different.

 

[Brain357]

One expensive 3D printer can make a lot of cheap illegal magazines. Your belief that well-to-do people always obey all the government's pernicious laws is just plain idiotic.

Why would they spend many thousands on a printer to make hi cap magazines? You gun nuts always say you can reload so fast capacity doesn't matter. Do these magazines pop out ready to be loaded or do they need a spring? How does a printer pop out a spring?

you can pound one out of tin

in less then a 1/2 hour

so who cares

Well then make one now and take pictures and document the steps. But again why bother if you can reload so fast? I'm not sure you guys believe your own arguments.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Why would they spend many thousands on a printer to make hi cap magazines? You gun nuts always say you can reload so fast capacity doesn't matter. Do these magazines pop out ready to be loaded or do they need a spring? How does a printer pop out a spring?

you can pound one out of tin

in less then a 1/2 hour

so who cares

Well then make one now and take pictures and document the steps. But again why bother if you can reload so fast? I'm not sure you guys believe your own arguments.

who the fuck are you to make such demands

 

[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???

I find it telling that none of the gun grabbers every attempt to honestly answer these kind of questions.

Logical fallacy in 3...2...

Still no response. Telling indeed. Let's try it one more time, just for shit's and giggles. Okay gun grabbers, tell us:

What exactly makes you think these "shooters" will obey your magazine limit law...or any law that restricts the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves?

I really would love to see someone address this question DIRECTLY.

Not holding my breath...

They will become hard to get and not often used just like machine guns. You said capacity doesn't matter because you can reload so fast, so why would criminals bother with them?

 

[Brain357]

you can pound one out of tin

in less then a 1/2 hour

so who cares

Well then make one now and take pictures and document the steps. But again why bother if you can reload so fast? I'm not sure you guys believe your own arguments.

who the fuck are you to make such demands

I'm asking you to prove your false claim. Only a half hour right? Get to it.