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

[zeke]

Brian. You couldn't expect a gun nutter to agree with you that a guy with a 100 round drum magazine could shoot more people more quickly than a guy with a 6 shot revolver.

Why, that just wouldn't make sense. Seeing as how all gun nutters can reload a revolver in less than .00000065 seconds. And carry 20 speed loaders with them at all times. Faster than the drum magazine can fire. Nah, not a problem with those high capacity magazines. Not a problem at all.

 

[Brain357]

Ehhh.. wrong answer.. you want to ASSUME it to be true.. because it fits your agenda

Perhaps you should watch how fast a reload of a magazine can happen

I know I know.. you want only revolvers.. or black powder rifles... and then will complain that if there were no firearms, it would be even less...

Idiotic gun control nuts

I have already posted 3 real examples of mass shooters being stopped at reload. It DOES happen. I've also posted a video of a guy taking quite a few seconds to reload. It does happen.

Just as you can be stopped while scanning and looking in a different direction.. your correlation means nothing... your conclusion is complete horse shit... those of us actually trained in firearms use have a bit more insight

And if a guy takes a long time to reload just shooting at target like in the video, he's much more likely to take longer in a stressful situation.

Sorry you can't say it doesn't happen when I've given 3 examples of it happening.

 

[Brain357]

Brian, a gun nut can and will deny anything and everything that doesn't reflect well on massive amounts of guns and ammo in the hands of most everyone that wants them.

It's like the high capacity magazines. They are not needed. But they are available. If they are available that means the bad guys have them, if the bad guys have them then the good guys MUST have them to.

This is just the nature of an arms war. And that's what we got here. We got assault rifles, they got assault rifles. They have body armor, gun nuts have body armor.

Gun nuts armed to the teeth to protect themselves from some criminal types also armed to the teeth.

Seems like it would be best to just accept that, as more and more people arm themselves there will be more and more children accidentally shot, more suicide by gun, more domestic violence by gun etc etc.

These "causalities of war" must be accepted so that the gun nutters can feel safe and secure in their fortresses. I mean homes.

There is a war going on out there in all the gun nutters fantasy camps. And ONLY more armed people can stop it.

Free fire zone. Go.

All common sense seems to go out the window for these guys.

 

[WinterBorn]

Those mistakes would happen a lot more if he has to reload more often. You can't deny that, it's just science. And as you've already admitted, mistakes do happen. So it would save lives.

Ehhh.. wrong answer.. you want to ASSUME it to be true.. because it fits your agenda

Perhaps you should watch how fast a reload of a magazine can happen

I know I know.. you want only revolvers.. or black powder rifles... and then will complain that if there were no firearms, it would be even less...

Idiotic gun control nuts

I have already posted 3 real examples of mass shooters being stopped at reload. It DOES happen. I've also posted a video of a guy taking quite a few seconds to reload. It does happen.

You have posted 3 examples that cover a 20 year period.

And two examples rely on a mechanical failure or human error to allow time for the civilians around them to be able to stop them.

The True Cost link you posted showed 9 cases in which the shooter reloaded, with two specifically saying that the shooter reloaded "many" times.

 

[WinterBorn]

Brian. You couldn't expect a gun nutter to agree with you that a guy with a 100 round drum magazine could shoot more people more quickly than a guy with a 6 shot revolver.

Why, that just wouldn't make sense. Seeing as how all gun nutters can reload a revolver in less than .00000065 seconds. And carry 20 speed loaders with them at all times. Faster than the drum magazine can fire. Nah, not a problem with those high capacity magazines. Not a problem at all.

You insist on calling us "gun nutters". Do you really think that helps us have a rational conversation on a topic?

 

[WinterBorn]

I have already posted 3 real examples of mass shooters being stopped at reload. It DOES happen. I've also posted a video of a guy taking quite a few seconds to reload. It does happen.

Just as you can be stopped while scanning and looking in a different direction.. your correlation means nothing... your conclusion is complete horse shit... those of us actually trained in firearms use have a bit more insight

And if a guy takes a long time to reload just shooting at target like in the video, he's much more likely to take longer in a stressful situation.

Sorry you can't say it doesn't happen when I've given 3 examples of it happening.

Indeed, some people do not practice and cannot reload very fast. This is why I refused to answer your questions yesterday.

You have given 3 examples, and yet only one was stopped during actual reloading. The other two were an error by the shooter and a mechanical failure.

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually if your going to insist on what he said as correct then he didn't miss:
CALLER: “I just put 15 rounds in him.”
OPERATOR: “You just did what?”
If that is the case then the guy went down with the first shot and he unloaded the magazine in him. Again, no NEED to fire 15 times.

I think this is the important part of what you wrote: "Without evidence you have no way of knowing whether the 15 shots were needed or not."
This disqualifies this example, as you admit we don't know. I would tend to believe the witnesses who were not in a stressful situation and say 4-5 shots. I realize you're extremely desperate for an example, but this just isn't it.

I am not desperate at all. But you did post the same mass shooting twice in the hopes it would be "another" one that was stopped while reloading.

And how do you know he went down? How do you know he was hit 15 times?

The idea that you can, with so little information, try to make a judgement about a situation in which a home intruder is shot, baffles me. I am sure it seems very logical while your are sitting at your computer in the light of day. But things are certainly different if a stranger breaks into your home at night.

So your trying to have it both ways again? Your going to insist on counting it because he says he put 15 rounds in him. Even though witnesses say 4-5 shots. But you're not going to believe then that he hit him 15 times, even though he said put 15 rounds IN him. Sorry but you've already admitted we don't know what happened. It is disqualified. As you state, with so little information. Without more information this one is disqualified. Sorry.

I don't care whether you count it or not. I am still going to insist that there is no legitimate reason to ban law abiding gun owners from having high capacity magazines.

 

[zeke]

Brian. You couldn't expect a gun nutter to agree with you that a guy with a 100 round drum magazine could shoot more people more quickly than a guy with a 6 shot revolver.

Why, that just wouldn't make sense. Seeing as how all gun nutters can reload a revolver in less than .00000065 seconds. And carry 20 speed loaders with them at all times. Faster than the drum magazine can fire. Nah, not a problem with those high capacity magazines. Not a problem at all.

You insist on calling us "gun nutters". Do you really think that helps us have a rational conversation on a topic?

I call 'em like I see 'em.
You and a few others are OBSESSED with guns. That makes you gun nutters. Not a derogatory term in my mind. Just accurate. I have friends who I call gun nutters. They agree. They are obsessed with guns. Spend all their discretionary income on guns and ammo. My buddies M4 with laser sight is fine. He doesn't need it. Lives in a nice neighborhood. Never been robbed. etc etc. Has probably 15,000 rounds of ammo. But he is a nutter. I built a gun range for another nutter friend. He fires, on average, 1000 rounds a week end on his range. All types of weapons. I built one separate room, heated and AC'd for his re load equipment. He's a nutter.

And what rational conversation is there to be had? You want no restrictions on the types of weapons owned and the types of magazines to deliver large amounts of fire power.

I want some restrictions on those same things. I believe (like Brian does) that some restrictions are warranted. You don't.

My position is rational. Yours isn't. The end.

Hell we can't even agree on what is an assault rifle. How we gonna have a rational conversation when most nutters don't seem to know what an assault rifle is. They are always asking; is this an assault rifle, is that an assault rifle. Why such confusion?

But I take it that you are willing to accept the increased accidental child deaths, the domestic violence shootings and the suicides along with the straight out accidental shootings from people who can't handle their weapon, just so long as you feel that your rights haven't been infringed. Is that correct?

 

[WinterBorn]

Brian. You couldn't expect a gun nutter to agree with you that a guy with a 100 round drum magazine could shoot more people more quickly than a guy with a 6 shot revolver.

Why, that just wouldn't make sense. Seeing as how all gun nutters can reload a revolver in less than .00000065 seconds. And carry 20 speed loaders with them at all times. Faster than the drum magazine can fire. Nah, not a problem with those high capacity magazines. Not a problem at all.

You insist on calling us "gun nutters". Do you really think that helps us have a rational conversation on a topic?

I call 'em like I see 'em.
You and a few others are OBSESSED with guns. That makes you gun nutters. Not a derogatory term in my mind. Just accurate. I have friends who I call gun nutters. They agree. They are obsessed with guns. Spend all their discretionary income on guns and ammo. My buddies M4 with laser sight is fine. He doesn't need it. Lives in a nice neighborhood. Never been robbed. etc etc. Has probably 15,000 rounds of ammo. But he is a nutter. I built a gun range for another nutter friend. He fires, on average, 1000 rounds a week end on his range. All types of weapons. I built one separate room, heated and AC'd for his re load equipment. He's a nutter.

And what rational conversation is there to be had? You want no restrictions on the types of weapons owned and the types of magazines to deliver large amounts of fire power.

I want some restrictions on those same things. I believe (like Brian does) that some restrictions are warranted. You don't.

My position is rational. Yours isn't. The end.

Hell we can't even agree on what is an assault rifle. How we gonna have a rational conversation when most nutters don't seem to know what an assault rifle is. They are always asking; is this an assault rifle, is that an assault rifle. Why such confusion?

But I take it that you are willing to accept the increased accidental child deaths, the domestic violence shootings and the suicides along with the straight out accidental shootings from people who can't handle their weapon, just so long as you feel that your rights haven't been infringed. Is that correct?

Excuse me? Have we not had several conversations concerning firearms? And did you not say I was more rational than most?

But now I am a gun nutter and I am willing to accept increased accidental child deaths, the domestic violence shootings and the suicides along with the straight out accidental shootings?

It gets old being blamed for everything. In fact, what gets older is having discussed safe storage laws and advocating FOR them, and now being, once again, talked down to like I am some murderer because you THINK I am to blame for accident shootings ect ect. I notice you even forgot conversations that you and I had freakin yesterday.

 

[Brain357]

Just as you can be stopped while scanning and looking in a different direction.. your correlation means nothing... your conclusion is complete horse shit... those of us actually trained in firearms use have a bit more insight

And if a guy takes a long time to reload just shooting at target like in the video, he's much more likely to take longer in a stressful situation.

Sorry you can't say it doesn't happen when I've given 3 examples of it happening.

Indeed, some people do not practice and cannot reload very fast. This is why I refused to answer your questions yesterday.

You have given 3 examples, and yet only one was stopped during actual reloading. The other two were an error by the shooter and a mechanical failure.

The point is to give the shooter more opportunities to error. Hence make him reload more often.

 

[WinterBorn]

And just as there are gun nuts who want machine guns in elementary schools (hell, you can exaggerate like crazy, so can I), there are gun-grabbers who want to ban all firearms from civilian hands. And then there are the ones who jump in the argument with so little knowledge, and then have a melt-down. A perfect example is the guy who insists that all semi-auto firearms are assault weapons and should be completely banned. He also argues about magazine capacity, but since he is banning all semi-autos, mag capacity should be a moot point.

 

[WinterBorn]

Brian. You couldn't expect a gun nutter to agree with you that a guy with a 100 round drum magazine could shoot more people more quickly than a guy with a 6 shot revolver.

Why, that just wouldn't make sense. Seeing as how all gun nutters can reload a revolver in less than .00000065 seconds. And carry 20 speed loaders with them at all times. Faster than the drum magazine can fire. Nah, not a problem with those high capacity magazines. Not a problem at all.

You insist on calling us "gun nutters". Do you really think that helps us have a rational conversation on a topic?

I call 'em like I see 'em.
You and a few others are OBSESSED with guns. That makes you gun nutters. Not a derogatory term in my mind. Just accurate. I have friends who I call gun nutters. They agree. They are obsessed with guns. Spend all their discretionary income on guns and ammo. My buddies M4 with laser sight is fine. He doesn't need it. Lives in a nice neighborhood. Never been robbed. etc etc. Has probably 15,000 rounds of ammo. But he is a nutter. I built a gun range for another nutter friend. He fires, on average, 1000 rounds a week end on his range. All types of weapons. I built one separate room, heated and AC'd for his re load equipment. He's a nutter.

And what rational conversation is there to be had? You want no restrictions on the types of weapons owned and the types of magazines to deliver large amounts of fire power.

I want some restrictions on those same things. I believe (like Brian does) that some restrictions are warranted. You don't.

My position is rational. Yours isn't. The end.

Hell we can't even agree on what is an assault rifle. How we gonna have a rational conversation when most nutters don't seem to know what an assault rifle is. They are always asking; is this an assault rifle, is that an assault rifle. Why such confusion?

But I take it that you are willing to accept the increased accidental child deaths, the domestic violence shootings and the suicides along with the straight out accidental shootings from people who can't handle their weapon, just so long as you feel that your rights haven't been infringed. Is that correct?

Let's address your last paragraph.

First, as I said, we discussed safe storage yesterday and I clearly said I was in favor of it and of legislation requiring it. So either your memory is shit or you simply don't give a rat's ass about accuracy. Pick one.

The domestic violence shootings? If the man has been cnvicted of domestic violence, he is not allowed to own a gun. I have not problem with that. If the man has never been convicted of domestic violence, there is no reason to limit his rights. How in the hell did you come up with the idea that I am willing to accept the domestic violence shootings? Have you seen where I discussed it AT ALL?

And the suicides are not going to be stopped by gun laws. If someone uses a gun to commit suicide, they were serious about wanting to die. It was NOT a plea for help. If someone is serious about wanting to die, they can make that happen. All the legislation in the world won't change that.

The accidental shootings could be reduced by having more firearms training. But the mere mention of it throws many people into shock or seizures. The idea that gun safety could be taught in schools is akin to trying to convince people that we should shoot every third student in a classroom. The rampant fear of, and ignorance about, firearms is not the fault of the gun owners. We love to show them, talk about them, and shoot them. And we are VERY safety conscious.

 

[WinterBorn]

You will, hopefully, forgive my continued rant.

I try very hard to be respectful on these forums. And yet, I am so rarely offered the same courtesy.

Is it so hard to have a serious discussion without the drama, name-calling or misquoting what people say??

Apparently it is.

 

[Brain357]

You will, hopefully, forgive my continued rant.

I try very hard to be respectful on these forums. And yet, I am so rarely offered the same courtesy.

Is it so hard to have a serious discussion without the drama, name-calling or misquoting what people say??

Apparently it is.

I think I have remained quite civil.

 

[WinterBorn]

You will, hopefully, forgive my continued rant.

I try very hard to be respectful on these forums. And yet, I am so rarely offered the same courtesy.

Is it so hard to have a serious discussion without the drama, name-calling or misquoting what people say??

Apparently it is.

I think I have remained quite civil.

For the most part, you have. I have enjoyed our conversation and I respect your opinions.

 

[Brain357]

You will, hopefully, forgive my continued rant.

I try very hard to be respectful on these forums. And yet, I am so rarely offered the same courtesy.

Is it so hard to have a serious discussion without the drama, name-calling or misquoting what people say??

Apparently it is.

I think I have remained quite civil.

For the most part, you have. I have enjoyed our conversation and I respect your opinions.

Same here. As I stated early on I think we agree on much more than we disagree. But I'm here to debate ideas so I don't mind when others disagree with me. As you can imagine I often get very negative responses laced with vulgarity. But sometimes those are kinda funny too.

 

[zeke]

What is there to have a "serious discussion" about? You have your views on gun ownership and they won't change and I have mine and Brian has his.

But hurt over this perceived lack of respect? I guess it comes from engaging the likes of 2amendment, goforit, skookerisabill and a few other gun nutters who could care less about the deaths of anyone else for any reason. People who celebrate the killing of thief's. Gun nutters who are so callous to those that lost kids to accidental shootings, loved ones to gun suicides and other loved ones to domestic violence with a gun. And you say nothing to these people. Don't they offend you? If you have a kid and the kid goes over to a friends house and the friend shows your kid his Dad's loaded gun and your kid gets shot, how you gonna act then?

On that topic. Why you keep saying someone convicted of domestic violence can't buy a gun. Did you ever stop and think that they wouldn't have been convicted of domestic violence until they killed or wounded their spouse. Talk about avoiding the subject by deflection.

Buddy of mine not to long ago killed himself. He had a domestic violence problem and couldn't buy a gun in a gun store. He had no problem finding a private seller to purchase the .45 he shot himself with.

Responsible gun owners such as yourself should be interested in stopping this kind of violence and promote rules and regs to help stop it.

Instead you fight tooth and nail to keep ANY kind of reasonable restrictions from being enacted. Why?

 

[WinterBorn]

What is there to have a "serious discussion" about? You have your views on gun ownership and they won't change and I have mine and Brian has his.

But hurt over this perceived lack of respect? I guess it comes from engaging the likes of 2amendment, goforit, skookerisabill and a few other gun nutters who could care less about the deaths of anyone else for any reason. People who celebrate the killing of thief's. Gun nutters who are so callous to those that lost kids to accidental shootings, loved ones to gun suicides and other loved ones to domestic violence with a gun. And you say nothing to these people. Don't they offend you? If you have a kid and the kid goes over to a friends house and the friend shows your kid his Dad's loaded gun and your kid gets shot, how you gonna act then?

On that topic. Why you keep saying someone convicted of domestic violence can't buy a gun. Did you ever stop and think that they wouldn't have been convicted of domestic violence until they killed or wounded their spouse. Talk about avoiding the subject by deflection.

Buddy of mine not to long ago killed himself. He had a domestic violence problem and couldn't buy a gun in a gun store. He had no problem finding a private seller to purchase the .45 he shot himself with.

Responsible gun owners such as yourself should be interested in stopping this kind of violence and promote rules and regs to help stop it.

Instead you fight tooth and nail to keep ANY kind of reasonable restrictions from being enacted. Why?

People have been convicted of domestic violence for simple physical fights. They have not seriously injured or killed anyone, and yet they are not allowed to buy guns. I agree with that. If you cannot control yourself enough not to hit your partner, you lack the self-control necessary to be a gun owner.

As for the backgrond checks for private sales, all I have said is to ask how we accomplish it without making everyone able to dial a phone capable of gaining personal information. Most background checks include your social security number. I am willing to give that to a licensed dealer, but not to some jackleg selling a single shot hunting rifle.

As for my kid being shot with his friend's father's gun, I have said (several times) that I am in favor of safe storage laws. And yet you continue to throw up my supposed opposition to it. When will it register that I agree with you on this?

And if you want to know why I am opposed to legislation that I believe will not make a difference, you have only to look at the most restrictive gun laws and the places that have them. Chicago, NY and DC did not start out with ridiculously restrictive gun laws. It is incremental. Until it gets to the point that private gun ownership is virtually impossible. A perfect example is NY's new gun laws. They have made any gun capable of holding more than 7 rounds illegal. That means that my M1911-A1, with an 8 round magazine is completely illegal. The gun was designed over 100 years ago. And yet it is lumped in with machineguns as far as private ownership. And the cities with the most restrictive gun laws also have some of the worst gun violence. Those laws do not work, so the politicians pander to the uninformed and press for more and greater restrictions. It is about taking away control, not promoting safety.

While removing high capacity magazines might make a small difference in the rare occasions, the fact that it won't make a huge change will prompt some to push for more. As NY did.

And then you have those, like KingNosmo, who insist that all semi-auto weapons should be banned and destroyed. There is no rational basis for this. His views on firearms is obviously uninformed. And yet, when the restriction for less than 10 rounds per mag passes and does not change anything,his view will seem rational to other uninformed people.

As for your buddy, I am sorry for your loss. But if he used a gun to commit suicide then he was serious about wanting to die. If he had been unable to obtain a gun, I see no reason to believe he would not have managed his suicide via another method.

I guess my biggest complaint is that we have these discussions, and yet you totally ignore the things I have said in agreement with you. I have pushed for safe storage rules, legislation and laws. And yet, you continue to berate me for not wanting to do so.

Which makes me wonder why I bother to join these discussions, since you are obviously not paying any attention to what I say.

 

[WinterBorn]

I think I have remained quite civil.

For the most part, you have. I have enjoyed our conversation and I respect your opinions.

Same here. As I stated early on I think we agree on much more than we disagree. But I'm here to debate ideas so I don't mind when others disagree with me. As you can imagine I often get very negative responses laced with vulgarity. But sometimes those are kinda funny too.

Most of the insults don't bother me. It is the nature of the game.

But I do get pissed when I say I agree with something, then I am accused of wanting people to die because I don't agree with them on that same issue. Then I carefully point out that I do not disagree. And a short time later that same person accuses me of wanting people to die because I do not agree with them on that issue.

If they are not going to actually read what people say, why are they here?

 

[hunarcy]

I call 'em like I see 'em.
You and a few others are OBSESSED with guns. That makes you gun nutters. Not a derogatory term in my mind. Just accurate. I have friends who I call gun nutters. They agree. They are obsessed with guns. Spend all their discretionary income on guns and ammo. My buddies M4 with laser sight is fine. He doesn't need it. Lives in a nice neighborhood. Never been robbed. etc etc. Has probably 15,000 rounds of ammo. But he is a nutter. I built a gun range for another nutter friend. He fires, on average, 1000 rounds a week end on his range. All types of weapons. I built one separate room, heated and AC'd for his re load equipment. He's a nutter.

And what rational conversation is there to be had? You want no restrictions on the types of weapons owned and the types of magazines to deliver large amounts of fire power.

I want some restrictions on those same things. I believe (like Brian does) that some restrictions are warranted. You don't.

My position is rational. Yours isn't. The end.

Hell we can't even agree on what is an assault rifle. How we gonna have a rational conversation when most nutters don't seem to know what an assault rifle is. They are always asking; is this an assault rifle, is that an assault rifle. Why such confusion?

But I take it that you are willing to accept the increased accidental child deaths, the domestic violence shootings and the suicides along with the straight out accidental shootings from people who can't handle their weapon, just so long as you feel that your rights haven't been infringed. Is that correct?

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read! Anyone can see that the person who's OBSESSED with guns is you. They seem to be your whole focus. You can't see that a firearm is an inanimate object that takes no independent action on its own and that the real problem is the people who misuse them. You can't see that some people enjoy refining the skill that it takes to be a good shot and instead imply they suffer from an mental illness merely because they don't behave in a way you approve.

I laughed out loud when I read "My position is rational. Yours isn't. The end." for it's the most irrational thing that you could say. You fail to accept that we've had "common sense gun laws" since 1934 and with each generation those laws have gotten more and more restrictive because, in the end, they don't work so we need MORE "common sense gun laws" which won't work. As we found out in Prohibition and the "war on drugs", banning an object doesn't work. Dealing with criminals and the mentally ill is what works.

And, it's totally irrational to base your attempt to restrict the rights of your fellow citizens who have not abused their rights on emotional appeal. The only reason to wave "the bloody shirt" in an argument is because you have no logical argument to achieve your position.

I thank you for the laugh, but your argument ultimately fails because you're obsessed with firearms and unwilling to see that others have valid points.