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

[Brain357]

Did that study show that more rounds were never used? Did it show that all defensive shootings involved less than 7 rounds? Or less than 10?

Averages are a wonderful thing. But they can be misleading.

You cannot show that any of the mass shootings (a very minor portion of the gun related murders) would be stopped by a ban on high capacity magazines. All you have is a study showing the average number of shots fired, and the HOPE that a shooter will make a mistake during reloading.

I, on the other hand, listed several mass shootings that involved no hi cap magazines at all.

Then list examples of a defender needing a hi cap magazine. Your previous example used 4 shots to scare off 3 thugs.

You are the one wishing to deprive law abiding gun owners of their property. The onus is on you to show, beyond a doubt, that the magazine capacity is a critical factor in murders but never in defensive shootings.

You have no examples, that is very telling.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Right, 'cuz those criminals and crazies will surely hand them over when asked to do so...

Why do they have them now?

Because you can't 'un-invent' things.

Wouldn't anyone stand up twenty years ago and admit to how hazardous they are?

Inanimate objects cannot by definition be hazardous. Only people misusing inanimate objects are hazardous, which is pretty much the whole point here.

NO!

YES!

The gun nuts fought for them. The NRA fought for them. And now everyone has to go down with the ship piloted by the idiots and their lobbyists

High capacity magazines have been around long before anyone needed to fight for the right to not be outgunned by criminals and crazies. Fail.

But to the point, you're NOT able to show how criminals would turn in banned magazines, thereby insuring only they have them. Got it.

Wonderful plan...

 

[Brain357]

The Giffords shooting was stopped because the shooter dropped a magazine, not because of the magazine capacity.

So the more the shooter reloads the more chances for a drop. You yourself have admitted mistakes happen. Why not give the mass shooter more opportunities for mistakes?

So your reason for banning high capacity magazines is because you HOPE the shooter will make a mistake? Not much of a reason.

We are dealing with lives, any hope is worth it. Sorry you value lives so little. Many shooters have been stopped at reload.

 

[WinterBorn]

The right of the people to live without the fear of semi automatic guns discharged in schools, churches, places of business and the streets trumps the right of anyone to own such weapons.

Or more importantly, the ability of the NKVD to kick in a door in the middle of the night to dissappear enemies of the party without fear that the occupant will defend themselves is vital to the party.

It is GLORIOUS dream you have, Comrade.

What's more realistic: kids shot in school or your fantasy of the NKVD? Should we accept the stench of death in our schools as the cost of your warped fantasy

What's more realistic, keeping violent felons locked up (they commit 75% of gun murders) or banning weapons or magazines based on their use in mass shootings (which account for 1% of gun murders)?

 

[eflatminor]

Once they become illegal many of the millions would be destroyed. Anyone found with one would be fined heavily and the magazine destroyed.

Many...but not all. So once again, the only people to have these supposedly devastating devices would be law breakers.

Setting aside the totalitarian and unconstitutional nature of your "solution", you've demonstrated my point. You can NEVER get criminals to obey your laws and you can NEVER remove the supply foru that which there is a demand.

It's as though intentions are more important to you than actual results. What a way to think! Your plan will have the actual result of ensuring good people are at a tactical disadvantage. Amazing.

Either way, molon labe.

As the study shows, defense on average is 2 shots. So citizens will not be affected.

On average...I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the law abiding guy that needed more rounds than your omnipotence deemed necessary...

 

[Brain357]

Right, 'cuz those criminals and crazies will surely hand them over when asked to do so...

Why do they have them now?

Because you can't 'un-invent' things.



Inanimate objects cannot by definition be hazardous. Only people misusing inanimate objects are hazardous, which is pretty much the whole point here.

NO!

YES!

The gun nuts fought for them. The NRA fought for them. And now everyone has to go down with the ship piloted by the idiots and their lobbyists

High capacity magazines have been around long before anyone needed to fight for the right to not be outgunned by criminals and crazies. Fail.

But to the point, you're NOT able to show how criminals would turn in banned magazines, thereby insuring only they have them. Got it.

Wonderful plan...

The effectiveness of machine gun laws is actually a great example of why this would be effective.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then list examples of a defender needing a hi cap magazine. Your previous example used 4 shots to scare off 3 thugs.

You are the one wishing to deprive law abiding gun owners of their property. The onus is on you to show, beyond a doubt, that the magazine capacity is a critical factor in murders but never in defensive shootings.

You have no examples, that is very telling.

I don't need any examples. You are the one wishing to legislate to deprive people of their property. And you do so claiming self defense never requires more than a few rounds. The onus is on you to prove that defensive shootings never require more rounds.

 

[Brain357]

Many...but not all. So once again, the only people to have these supposedly devastating devices would be law breakers.

Setting aside the totalitarian and unconstitutional nature of your "solution", you've demonstrated my point. You can NEVER get criminals to obey your laws and you can NEVER remove the supply foru that which there is a demand.

It's as though intentions are more important to you than actual results. What a way to think! Your plan will have the actual result of ensuring good people are at a tactical disadvantage. Amazing.

Either way, molon labe.

As the study shows, defense on average is 2 shots. So citizens will not be affected.

On average...I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the law abiding guy that needed more rounds than your omnipotence deemed necessary...

Let's hear examples of a defender needing more rounds.

 

[Brain357]

You are the one wishing to deprive law abiding gun owners of their property. The onus is on you to show, beyond a doubt, that the magazine capacity is a critical factor in murders but never in defensive shootings.

You have no examples, that is very telling.

I don't need any examples. You are the one wishing to legislate to deprive people of their property. And you do so claiming self defense never requires more than a few rounds. The onus is on you to prove that defensive shootings never require more rounds.

Hence the study showing 2 rounds for defense.

 

[bripat9643]

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

the only problem with your claim is that it's not a fact.

Well that, and that his claim is jaw-droppingly fucking stupid...

The U.S army put 13 .50 caliber machine guns on B-17s during WW II that each fired 500 rounds a minute and it supplied each with several thousand rounds of ammunition, and they were all for defensive purposes. American aircraft carriers are equipped with a Phalanx missile defense system that fires 6000 rounds of .50 cal ammunition per minute. These weapons are purely defensive. The idea that you can classify one number of bullets as "defensive" and another number as "offensive" is utterly ludicrous.

 

[eflatminor]

Why do they have them now?

Because you can't 'un-invent' things.



Inanimate objects cannot by definition be hazardous. Only people misusing inanimate objects are hazardous, which is pretty much the whole point here.



YES!

The gun nuts fought for them. The NRA fought for them. And now everyone has to go down with the ship piloted by the idiots and their lobbyists

High capacity magazines have been around long before anyone needed to fight for the right to not be outgunned by criminals and crazies. Fail.

But to the point, you're NOT able to show how criminals would turn in banned magazines, thereby insuring only they have them. Got it.

Wonderful plan...

The effectiveness of machine gun laws is actually a great example of why this would be effective.

Bullshit. You're only demonstrating your ignorance. Machine guns are not designed to kill people, they're designed to keep an enemy in place, to keep them from moving from one point of cover to another while your fellow soldiers make such a move. If you want to kill people, a semi auto firearm is a far more effective weapon than unloading a magazine in a few seconds.

Your ignorance reminds me of a politician that was just sure she knew what was best for everyone else despite having ZERO knowledge on the laws she was advocating...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U[/ame]

 

[WinterBorn]

Here is an interesting article arguing in favor of high capacity magazines for civilian defense.

from:

"In stressful shooting situations, most studies show “hit rates” of less than 50 percent. A New York Times article from Dec. 2007 noted the hit rate for law enforcement in the city was 17.4 percent in 2005 and 28.3 percent in 2006. Los Angeles law enforcement shot placement was better than New York’s in 2006, with a 40 percent hit rate. Keep in mind these are law enforcement officers, who partake in regular training.

Civilians would be taking a more defensive posture, but the stress level is still there. In a situation where multiple attackers invade a home or attack someone on the street, it would be very reasonable to assume one defending himself or his family may run out of ammunition quickly if they were limited to a ten round magazine capacity. Certainly home invasions or attacks by multiple gun-toting criminals are rare, but mass shootings like Columbine and Tucson are even more rare.

Combine low hit rates in stressful situations with the fact one, two, three or even four rounds that hit the aggressor may not stop the threat, and you have a strong case to completely avoid a magazine capacity limit."

 

[eflatminor]

We are dealing with lives, any hope is worth it.

Ah! The "It will be different this time" argument. The six most dangerous words in the English language.

The thousands of existing laws that haven't stopped crazy people from doing crazy things hasn't worked, but if we had just one more...

Who cares if it only effects the good guys, this is about intention dammit!!!

 

[WinterBorn]

You have no examples, that is very telling.

I don't need any examples. You are the one wishing to legislate to deprive people of their property. And you do so claiming self defense never requires more than a few rounds. The onus is on you to prove that defensive shootings never require more rounds.

Hence the study showing 2 rounds for defense.

Once again, the study you posted dealt with average shots fired. It did not show the most rounds fired or even give a listing of the number of rounds fired per shooting.

 

[bripat9643]

You have no examples, that is very telling.

I don't need any examples. You are the one wishing to legislate to deprive people of their property. And you do so claiming self defense never requires more than a few rounds. The onus is on you to prove that defensive shootings never require more rounds.

Hence the study showing 2 rounds for defense.

It shows that 2 were used ON AVERAGE. The cases selected appear to be purely arbitrary. It doesn't show the maximum number of shots that were fired. I doubt that the persons involved in those cases would be mollified to know that ON AVERAGE only two shots were needed for defensive uses of guns.

 

[WinterBorn]

So the more the shooter reloads the more chances for a drop. You yourself have admitted mistakes happen. Why not give the mass shooter more opportunities for mistakes?

So your reason for banning high capacity magazines is because you HOPE the shooter will make a mistake? Not much of a reason.

We are dealing with lives, any hope is worth it. Sorry you value lives so little. Many shooters have been stopped at reload.

Have they? I would like to see a list of those.

The VaTech shooter was not armed with high capacity magazines. He had 17 magazines loaded and with him. He reloaded repeatedly. And his was the deadliest school shooting in over 100 years.

 

[Nosmo King]

Or more importantly, the ability of the NKVD to kick in a door in the middle of the night to dissappear enemies of the party without fear that the occupant will defend themselves is vital to the party.

It is GLORIOUS dream you have, Comrade.

What's more realistic: kids shot in school or your fantasy of the NKVD? Should we accept the stench of death in our schools as the cost of your warped fantasy

What's more realistic, keeping violent felons locked up (they commit 75% of gun murders) or banning weapons or magazines based on their use in mass shootings (which account for 1% of gun murders)?

You get the small government hyperConservatives in congress to appropriate the money for more prisons and we'll both count it as a minor victory.

 

[eflatminor]

As the study shows, defense on average is 2 shots. So citizens will not be affected.

On average...I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the law abiding guy that needed more rounds than your omnipotence deemed necessary...

Let's hear examples of a defender needing more rounds.

I've posted it on this forum before, my own personal experience. While I fully expect you to say "That didn't happen", I really don't give a shit, because I know the truth.

Two armed men broke into my family's home when I was a teenager. My father was travelling, my mother and sister asleep upstairs. I suspect they thought the home was unoccupied because my mom's car was in the shop.

They both had high capacity pistols. I confronted them with a Mini 14 .223 caliber rifle with a 20 round magazine. I REALLY didn't want to shoot anyone. That was my mindset. When I confronted them and saw a firearm in their hands, I was confident that I could get them to drop those guns by discharging a few rounds into the couch in front of the fireplace. After all, I had plenty of rounds if that didn't do the trick.

Luckily, it did. The stopped and dropped their guns and were subsequently arrested by the police. They had committed several burglaries in the area. Had I had a double barrel shotgun as 'ol VP plugs recommends, I could not have fired that warning shot and would have been forced to shoot one of them, probably both.

So there you go, a high capacity firearm saving not only my life but my family's and that of a common burglar.

There are other examples if you'd take the time to look:

Costas: Give Me One Example of Someone Using an 'Assault Rifle' Constructively

But that's not the point. The point is that you don't get to determine what I need to protect my family and secondly, your plan only ensures that criminals end up with high capacity firearms while the good guys remain at a disadvantage.

It's fucking ridiculous.

 

[eflatminor]

What's more realistic: kids shot in school or your fantasy of the NKVD? Should we accept the stench of death in our schools as the cost of your warped fantasy

What's more realistic, keeping violent felons locked up (they commit 75% of gun murders) or banning weapons or magazines based on their use in mass shootings (which account for 1% of gun murders)?

You get the small government hyperConservatives in congress to appropriate the money for more prisons and we'll both count it as a minor victory.

Isn't that a state issue? Federal authorities are rarely involved in imprisoning typical violent felons. What am I missing here?

 

[Nosmo King]

The gun owners and the NRA fought against stupid legislation that served no purpose. You insist that it would make a difference, and yet can show no evidence of such.

And you were the one who argued against keeping the violent felons locked up, and you still harp on the high capacity magazines, as if it were an answer.

I am also still amused that you think magazine capacity is the determining factor in whether a gun is offensive or defensive.

You say that banning high capacity magazines serves no purpose? It makes the assault weapon an offensive weapon. Unless you really REALLY believe that you will need more than ten rounds of ammunition to extricate yourself from a dangerous situation, you must agree. Unless, of course, you harbor some fantasy of holding back hordes of zombies or Chinese troops landing off the coast of Sarasota or fending off all the gangbangers in Detroit all by yourself. Ten rounds serves for self defense. More than that enables postal workers to go postal, mass shooters to shoot masses of people, and bank robbers to pin down the LAPD.

And how is it that you know, for sure, that no one will ever need more than 10 rounds to defend themselves?

And just to educate you, the difference between an offensive weapon and a defensive weapon (in this context) is the way it is used. Magazine capacity has no bearing on the matter. If I attack you with a derringer, that makes the two shot pistol an offensive weapon.

If I walked into a shopping mall with a 60 round clip, I could kill more people faster than with a two shot derringer. That's the difference between a weapon used for defense and one used for offense.