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

[Nosmo King]

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.

Please post a picture of a "60 round clip".

I have never seen one.

http://www.carlsontoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/clipC.jpg

 

[Spoonman]

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.

actually large magazines are a defensive tool. if you are being attacked, the attacker generally has the element of surprise and you are handicapped by both surprise and fear. having a two shot derringer, i'll bet 8 out of 10 times the defender wouldn't even hit the attacker coming at him. that was one of the complaints the police even had. the standard issue six shooter put them at a disadvantage when attacked.

the bottom line is, no matter what is legislated, chances are the criminal will have more than the law will allow. you can ban guns, confiscate every gun in the united states, the criminal will still get them. even today your gangs aren't running around with the AR's and the AK's your average guy picks up at his local gun store. They have full autos and Scars and stuff you just can't walk into a shop and buy. the ydon't get it from a gun dealer, and they don't steal if from someone. they are running hundreds and thousands of these guns all the time. and as soon as they have a market with demand, they will be dealing to the general public. the market is there, people want guns. and they will buy from what ever source is available. just like booze. they bought from legitimate sources before prohibition. they bought from the black market after. no one was drinking less. but gangs and mobs got richer. the government lost a ton of tax revenue, violence among competing gangs got worse. today if you cut out hard liquor and left only wine and beer, people wouldn't be content with that. moonshining would rise, the black market would fill the gap. same with guns, ban a scary gun, people will still buy them. ban a large clip, people will still buy them. people will make them and sell them.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

 

[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.

Actually I think if you rack a pump action 12 gauge shot gun, any assailant would immediately know what was going on and leave post haste.

Counting rounds in a magazine would never occur to someone facing a gun. But if your magazine holds greater than ten shots, would you feel disadvantaged? Or are you harboring fantasies of being Rambo?

 

[eflatminor]

actually large magazines are a defensive tool.

Yep.

They're also PERFECT for hunting hogs, especially in thick brush and they're standard issue in shooting competitions, including ISPC, Bullseye, and 3-gun competitions.

Of course, I really don't have to justify why or how they're used. If I'm not infringing on the rights of another, it's nobody's damn business.

 

[bripat9643]

Since when do we need to have justification to do what we like to do and to own what we want?

Screw you. If I want a high capacity magazine, I should be able to have one. We do live in the US.

The libturd believes that we are all government property and that we can only do what the government explicitly permits us to do. We must all ask government for permission before we do anything. Preferably we should fill out a dozen forms and submit to a rectal exam.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

Actually I think if you rack a pump action 12 gauge shot gun, any assailant would immediately know what was going on and leave post haste.

Counting rounds in a magazine would never occur to someone facing a gun. But if your magazine holds greater than ten shots, would you feel disadvantaged? Or are you harboring fantasies of being Rambo?

This liberal sure changed the subject in a hurry when his point was refuted, didn't he? Suddenly he's talking about "How I feel".......

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Actually I think if you rack a pump action 12 gauge shot gun, any assailant would immediately know what was going on and leave post haste.

Counting rounds in a magazine would never occur to someone facing a gun. But if your magazine holds greater than ten shots, would you feel disadvantaged? Or are you harboring fantasies of being Rambo?

This liberal sure changed the subject in a hurry when his point was refuted, didn't he? Suddenly he's talking about "How I feel".......

One way or another, you seem to want to defend high capacity magazines. You realize that such equipment is what puts the "mass" in mass shootings, right? So you are okay with mass shootings so long as no one ever does anything to stop them?

 

[WinterBorn]

Hell YES!!! I have no problem with a ban on fire ants. Those little bastards are like wingless wasps!!

I think the EPA has made them a protected species...

No way!! They were an invasive species.

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually I think if you rack a pump action 12 gauge shot gun, any assailant would immediately know what was going on and leave post haste.

Counting rounds in a magazine would never occur to someone facing a gun. But if your magazine holds greater than ten shots, would you feel disadvantaged? Or are you harboring fantasies of being Rambo?

This liberal sure changed the subject in a hurry when his point was refuted, didn't he? Suddenly he's talking about "How I feel".......

One way or another, you seem to want to defend high capacity magazines. You realize that such equipment is what puts the "mass" in mass shootings, right? So you are okay with mass shootings so long as no one ever does anything to stop them?

I am not ok with mass shootings. But there is no reason to think that these relatively rare events would be stopped if you pass legislation banning hi cap magazines. But then, most gun ban legislation is based on the anti-gunner's fears and not on reality.

 

[eflatminor]

You realize that such equipment is what puts the "mass" in mass shootings, right?

Of course, such equipment didn't put the "mass" in mass killings. Just ask the Rwandans, killed by the hundreds of thousands without the use of firearms, much less high capacity magazines.

Or are they somehow less dead?

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually I think if you rack a pump action 12 gauge shot gun, any assailant would immediately know what was going on and leave post haste.

Counting rounds in a magazine would never occur to someone facing a gun. But if your magazine holds greater than ten shots, would you feel disadvantaged? Or are you harboring fantasies of being Rambo?

This liberal sure changed the subject in a hurry when his point was refuted, didn't he? Suddenly he's talking about "How I feel".......

One way or another, you seem to want to defend high capacity magazines. You realize that such equipment is what puts the "mass" in mass shootings, right? So you are okay with mass shootings so long as no one ever does anything to stop them?

You claim it is what puts the "mass" in mass shootings. You also claimed the capacity of the magazine is what determines whether a gun is offensive or defensive. And you claimed that all semi-auto firearms are "assault weapons". So far your lack of knowledge of the topic glaringly obvious.

 

[Nosmo King]

This liberal sure changed the subject in a hurry when his point was refuted, didn't he? Suddenly he's talking about "How I feel".......

One way or another, you seem to want to defend high capacity magazines. You realize that such equipment is what puts the "mass" in mass shootings, right? So you are okay with mass shootings so long as no one ever does anything to stop them?

You claim it is what puts the "mass" in mass shootings. You also claimed the capacity of the magazine is what determines whether a gun is offensive or defensive. And you claimed that all semi-auto firearms are "assault weapons". So far your lack of knowledge of the topic glaringly obvious.

Why? What other than body count and the tools that achieve that body count amount to a mass shooting? If you're packing a magazine with 20, 40, 120 rounds, are you looking for self defense, or merely the ability to shoot as many people as quickly as possible? Could a mass shooting happen without the ability to shoot quickly and often?

Why are gun nuts so quick to wrap themselves in semantics? Is that the only way the images of bullet ridden school kids palatable? It must be a terrible thing to have to defend semi automatic guns once the carnage they bring is so luridly true.

 

[WinterBorn]

One way or another, you seem to want to defend high capacity magazines. You realize that such equipment is what puts the "mass" in mass shootings, right? So you are okay with mass shootings so long as no one ever does anything to stop them?

You claim it is what puts the "mass" in mass shootings. You also claimed the capacity of the magazine is what determines whether a gun is offensive or defensive. And you claimed that all semi-auto firearms are "assault weapons". So far your lack of knowledge of the topic glaringly obvious.

Why? What other than body count and the tools that achieve that body count amount to a mass shooting? If you're packing a magazine with 20, 40, 120 rounds, are you looking for self defense, or merely the ability to shoot as many people as quickly as possible? Could a mass shooting happen without the ability to shoot quickly and often?

Why are gun nuts so quick to wrap themselves in semantics? Is that the only way the images of bullet ridden school kids palatable? It must be a terrible thing to have to defend semi automatic guns once the carnage they bring is so luridly true.

I posted names of mass shootings that involved no high capacity magazines. In fact, for a few of them the shooter used a revolver.

Unless the shooter bumbles the reload, changing magazines is not much of a vulnerability for him. However, most people do not carry backup magazines with them, so their one load is what they have. The mass shooter is prepared for war, the average person with a CWP is not.

And I don't have to defend anything. But I do feel responsible enough to try and defend against unnecessary gov't intrusion that will ultimately make no real difference.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually I think if you rack a pump action 12 gauge shot gun, any assailant would immediately know what was going on and leave post haste.

Counting rounds in a magazine would never occur to someone facing a gun. But if your magazine holds greater than ten shots, would you feel disadvantaged? Or are you harboring fantasies of being Rambo?

This liberal sure changed the subject in a hurry when his point was refuted, didn't he? Suddenly he's talking about "How I feel".......

One way or another, you seem to want to defend high capacity magazines. You realize that such equipment is what puts the "mass" in mass shootings, right? So you are okay with mass shootings so long as no one ever does anything to stop them?

Actually not. It's the "gun free zone" sign that makes mass shootings possible.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

it is not a false claim it is easy to do

simply google it you dumb fucker

i get so tired of you lazy holey then thou losers

just because you cant do does not mean

no buddy can do it

So you won't make one even though it is so easy? That is telling. How do you get the right spring tension?

springs are easy

piano wire

or just take one out of the box full of em

 

[Brain357]

it is not a false claim it is easy to do

simply google it you dumb fucker

i get so tired of you lazy holey then thou losers

just because you cant do does not mean

no buddy can do it

So you won't make one even though it is so easy? That is telling. How do you get the right spring tension?

springs are easy

piano wire

or just take one out of the box full of em

oh? And you've made one from piano wire have you? What diameter would work best? Do you just bend it or is there something else that needs to be done?

 

[Brain357]

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!



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]

Hey they were popular with criminals for a long time. Ever hear of the tommy gun?

 

[Brain357]

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."

I have a video of a woman fending off 3 thugs with 4 shots.

 

[Brain357]

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.

And how many examples do you want? What would be a lot of examples? So far I've seen no examples of a defender needing a hi cap magazine.