Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[iceberg]

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

Both cases of a shooter with a rifle and 100 round drums? Killed fewer people than the guys with the pump action shotguns........ you have no rational argument.........

well when you prove what he says in incorrect, your situation doesn't apply and he'll move the goalposts.

that is why i stopped playing his game. you find common ground, just see where he is trying to take you.

 

[Slade3200]

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

So the 100 round mag is not dangerous because it jammed once and the shooter had to switch guns?! Ok, nice argument

Why do higher cap magazines jam? [Archive] - Calguns.net
Losing Count: The Empty Case for “High-Capacity” Magazine Restrictions

you don't research the shit you say, do you? anyone with experience knows those suckers jam up far more often than not. but you don't go look that up, you sit there and go OH ONE TIME!!! like a bandcamp reference.

You two Yahoos need to step back and listen to how ridiculous you sound. You’re making the case that 100 round mags are not more dangerous because they sometimes jam. That is the silliest argument I’ve heard yet!

Know what? The Chauchat machine gun used to jam all the time so let’s toss that back in the mix. Ok?

 

[iceberg]

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

So the 100 round mag is not dangerous because it jammed once and the shooter had to switch guns?! Ok, nice argument

Why do higher cap magazines jam? [Archive] - Calguns.net
Losing Count: The Empty Case for “High-Capacity” Magazine Restrictions

you don't research the shit you say, do you? anyone with experience knows those suckers jam up far more often than not. but you don't go look that up, you sit there and go OH ONE TIME!!! like a bandcamp reference.

You two Yahoos need to step back and listen to how ridiculous you sound. You’re making the case that 100 round mags are not more dangerous because they sometimes jam. That is the silliest argument I’ve heard yet!

Know what? The Chauchat machine gun used to jam all the time so let’s toss that back in the mix. Ok?

and you're acting like they never do and every gun owner has one.

quite a bit sillier.

 

[Slade3200]

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

So the 100 round mag is not dangerous because it jammed once and the shooter had to switch guns?! Ok, nice argument

Nope...... the argument again, is the gun and the magazines count less than the gun free location.

Hey.....guess what....

The Russian shooter....killed 20 and injured 40 with a tube fed, no magazine, 5 shot, pump action shotgun...........no rifle, no magazine...

The Aurora Theater Shooter? With a rifle and 100 round drum magazine?

He killed 12.

So again......the gun free zone, not the weapon or magazine, creates the body count......

Ok I agree they count less. But you know what? They STILL count! It’s not all or nothing

 

[Slade3200]

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

Both cases of a shooter with a rifle and 100 round drums? Killed fewer people than the guys with the pump action shotguns........ you have no rational argument.........

Sure I do. Those were different situations and different environments. Apples and oranges.

 

[Slade3200]

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

i tried digging in. you kept going to bullshit extremes to avoid coming to a concensus.

ain't no reason to go back and try for a 3rd time.

And another dodge. That’s three in a row. You’re out

 

[Slade3200]

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

So the 100 round mag is not dangerous because it jammed once and the shooter had to switch guns?! Ok, nice argument

Why do higher cap magazines jam? [Archive] - Calguns.net
Losing Count: The Empty Case for “High-Capacity” Magazine Restrictions

you don't research the shit you say, do you? anyone with experience knows those suckers jam up far more often than not. but you don't go look that up, you sit there and go OH ONE TIME!!! like a bandcamp reference.

You two Yahoos need to step back and listen to how ridiculous you sound. You’re making the case that 100 round mags are not more dangerous because they sometimes jam. That is the silliest argument I’ve heard yet!

Know what? The Chauchat machine gun used to jam all the time so let’s toss that back in the mix. Ok?

and you're acting like they never do and every gun owner has one.

quite a bit sillier.

I don’t think that nor am I acting like that

 

[iceberg]

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

i tried digging in. you kept going to bullshit extremes to avoid coming to a concensus.

ain't no reason to go back and try for a 3rd time.

And another dodge. That’s three in a row. You’re out

 

[Slade3200]

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

Both cases of a shooter with a rifle and 100 round drums? Killed fewer people than the guys with the pump action shotguns........ you have no rational argument.........

well when you prove what he says in incorrect, your situation doesn't apply and he'll move the goalposts.

that is why i stopped playing his game. you find common ground, just see where he is trying to take you.

Hey Ice can you show one question I haven’t answered? Cause I can show a bunch that your dodging. You say your trying to dig in but avoiding questions and replying with insults isn’t digging in. It’s being a hypocrite.

 

[iceberg]

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

Both cases of a shooter with a rifle and 100 round drums? Killed fewer people than the guys with the pump action shotguns........ you have no rational argument.........

well when you prove what he says in incorrect, your situation doesn't apply and he'll move the goalposts.

that is why i stopped playing his game. you find common ground, just see where he is trying to take you.

Hey Ice can you show one question I haven’t answered? Cause I can show a bunch that your dodging. You say your trying to dig in but avoiding questions and replying with insults isn’t digging in. It’s being a hypocrite.

don't really give a shit what you do man. just don't look for me to tag along.

you keep moving goal posts and i get tired of following so suddenly i'm the bad guy. whatever man.

 

[Slade3200]

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

Both cases of a shooter with a rifle and 100 round drums? Killed fewer people than the guys with the pump action shotguns........ you have no rational argument.........

well when you prove what he says in incorrect, your situation doesn't apply and he'll move the goalposts.

that is why i stopped playing his game. you find common ground, just see where he is trying to take you.

Hey Ice can you show one question I haven’t answered? Cause I can show a bunch that your dodging. You say your trying to dig in but avoiding questions and replying with insults isn’t digging in. It’s being a hypocrite.

don't really give a shit what you do man. just don't look for me to tag along.

you keep moving goal posts and i get tired of following so suddenly i'm the bad guy. whatever man.

So is that a No, you can’t point to an example of what you claim I’m doing?

That’s what I thought

 

[iceberg]

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

Both cases of a shooter with a rifle and 100 round drums? Killed fewer people than the guys with the pump action shotguns........ you have no rational argument.........

well when you prove what he says in incorrect, your situation doesn't apply and he'll move the goalposts.

that is why i stopped playing his game. you find common ground, just see where he is trying to take you.

Hey Ice can you show one question I haven’t answered? Cause I can show a bunch that your dodging. You say your trying to dig in but avoiding questions and replying with insults isn’t digging in. It’s being a hypocrite.

don't really give a shit what you do man. just don't look for me to tag along.

you keep moving goal posts and i get tired of following so suddenly i'm the bad guy. whatever man.

So is that a No, you can’t point to an example of what you claim I’m doing?

That’s what I thought

you gone yet?

 

[Slade3200]

Both cases of a shooter with a rifle and 100 round drums? Killed fewer people than the guys with the pump action shotguns........ you have no rational argument.........

well when you prove what he says in incorrect, your situation doesn't apply and he'll move the goalposts.

that is why i stopped playing his game. you find common ground, just see where he is trying to take you.

Hey Ice can you show one question I haven’t answered? Cause I can show a bunch that your dodging. You say your trying to dig in but avoiding questions and replying with insults isn’t digging in. It’s being a hypocrite.

don't really give a shit what you do man. just don't look for me to tag along.

you keep moving goal posts and i get tired of following so suddenly i'm the bad guy. whatever man.

So is that a No, you can’t point to an example of what you claim I’m doing?

That’s what I thought

you gone yet?

Well Ice, I’m sorry to see you digress into another evasive troll. There are far too many of those on this board. Hoping you’re just having a bad day.

 

[iceberg]

well when you prove what he says in incorrect, your situation doesn't apply and he'll move the goalposts.

that is why i stopped playing his game. you find common ground, just see where he is trying to take you.

Hey Ice can you show one question I haven’t answered? Cause I can show a bunch that your dodging. You say your trying to dig in but avoiding questions and replying with insults isn’t digging in. It’s being a hypocrite.

don't really give a shit what you do man. just don't look for me to tag along.

you keep moving goal posts and i get tired of following so suddenly i'm the bad guy. whatever man.

So is that a No, you can’t point to an example of what you claim I’m doing?

That’s what I thought

you gone yet?

Well Ice, I’m sorry to see you digress into another evasive troll. There are far too many of those on this board. Hoping you’re just having a bad day.

i'm sorry to say you can't follow through to come to a conclusion on a topic without going LOOK 7-11 GUNS as a sidetrack.

i got tired of following your never ending sideshows and hey - now i'm the troll.

being sick of your shit doesn't make me a troll. just human.

 

[Slade3200]

Hey Ice can you show one question I haven’t answered? Cause I can show a bunch that your dodging. You say your trying to dig in but avoiding questions and replying with insults isn’t digging in. It’s being a hypocrite.

don't really give a shit what you do man. just don't look for me to tag along.

you keep moving goal posts and i get tired of following so suddenly i'm the bad guy. whatever man.

So is that a No, you can’t point to an example of what you claim I’m doing?

That’s what I thought

you gone yet?

Well Ice, I’m sorry to see you digress into another evasive troll. There are far too many of those on this board. Hoping you’re just having a bad day.

i'm sorry to say you can't follow through to come to a conclusion on a topic without going LOOK 7-11 GUNS as a sidetrack.

i got tired of following your never ending sideshows and hey - now i'm the troll.

being sick of your shit doesn't make me a troll. just human.

711 guns isnt a side track is lays a foundation of consensus that we both agree on. Guns are dangerous and shouldnt be sold to anybody at 711 with out checks. Machine guns are dangerous and should be highly regulated. We both agreed on those points. But then you ask me for proof to back up my thoughts on mag regs and you accuse me of FEELZ... yet when I ask you to prove your support of those “711” scenarios you can’t answer. You dodge them because your answers would be the same ones that I’ve been using that you call FEELZ. It’s obvious what’s going on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

If criminals felt that machine guns would benefit them greatly, they would smuggle them in like drugs. But the truth is even if they were legal, very few would buy them due to the expense, and their bulk, weight and inaccuracy makes them impractical.

Those who wish to kill don't need a machine gun. Any semi-automatic will do.

 

[Slade3200]

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

If criminals felt that machine guns would benefit them greatly, they would smuggle them in like drugs. But the truth is even if they were legal, very few would buy them due to the expense, and their bulk, weight and inaccuracy makes them impractical.

Those who wish to kill don't need a machine gun. Any semi-automatic will do.

Probably true. Doesn’t make the high regulations on machine guns invalidated. It’s a responsible law IMO

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

it's what you were going after. you tend to go WAY OUT THERE as if it's a normal situation. for someone who says they try to stay centric, you sure do go to extremes to either be cute, or think you're proving a point. i just got tired of trying to figure out which.

I don’t mean to suggest they are normal situations the are extreme situations to make the point I’m trying to make painfully clear. It’s effective with clarifying boundary’s and defining concepts that I’m trying to communicate. I wasn’t trying to piss you off. That’s how I think

didn't piss me off - just got old to keep going back to vast extremes when we're trying to pin down why you want to regulate mag capacity. it's like you were avoiding giving a simple answer.

i wanted to equate suggestions to the goal. you are ok with "well we did SOMETHING" of which i think is bullshit. if doing "something" doesn't fix it, then you do "something else". in this case, MORE regulation.

when do we stop going "well we did SOMETHING" and sit the fuck down and figure out what we can do that doesn't violate the constitution? all these mythical extremes you go to are chatter, to me, to avoid addressing why we don't fix this and are ok with "well we did something".

If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Well you would be wrong as the video I posted displayed the guy changing his magazine while still shooting. He's not a magician. What he did can be done by anybody with a little practice. If a person is counting their shots, you would never know when he changed his magazine by simply listing to the shooting.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

If criminals felt that machine guns would benefit them greatly, they would smuggle them in like drugs. But the truth is even if they were legal, very few would buy them due to the expense, and their bulk, weight and inaccuracy makes them impractical.

Those who wish to kill don't need a machine gun. Any semi-automatic will do.

Probably true. Doesn’t make the high regulations on machine guns invalidated. It’s a responsible law IMO

It's also a law that didn't prevent anything ether.

 

[Scamp]

We have thousands of gun laws at the Federal, State, and local levels. We only need one gun law...Anyone found guilty of using a gun in a violent crime gets hanged by the neck until dead.