Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.
So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.
Ten is enough to discourage three bad guys.The law allows for ten. Why are you telling me THREE is not enough?If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?
Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.
You can shoot a big guy three times unless your using a 45 maybe..and he can keep coming at you. Especially because in those situations people are running on pure adrenaline. Three guys break into your house or business? well, you know.. its safer just to give up every time right? just hope they don't hurt you.
because I figured you had enough sense to add up what happens if there are three assailants. maybe you dont need to fire any shots. maybe you just need to point it at them and they will back on off, but at least you will have the confidence that you have ten rounds in your gun and you can afford to miss with a couple and not be defenseless.
If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....
So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."
This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...
Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package
Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.
What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?
Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.
OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?
Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job
The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.
There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.
This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.
As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.
Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.
Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.
Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?
I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.
If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.
Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.
Are you talking about larger mags? They exist so they will always be around? For awhile they will, but if they're so necessary for defending ourselves against all those roving bands of bad guys, I can only imagine they will quickly be used up.thats closing the barn door after the cows got out,,,With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.
So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.
there are millions already in the public domain
and it doesnt work anywhere in the world,,,every country has people killing other people
Yet we have 3 times the gun homicide rate of France. BECAUSE SO MANY OF OUR gun deaths are by ordinary assholes, not professional terrorists or hit men.With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.
So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.
Criminals in France get fully automatic military rifles...they are a status symbol there....they are completely illegal there.....guns are banned and confiscated in Britain, and the British police just released a report that they can't stop the massive influx of illegal guns into their country.....
Oh. Yeah, I HAD heard that somewhere, but I forgot--thanks.Are you talking about larger mags? They exist so they will always be around? For awhile they will, but if they're so necessary for defending ourselves against all those roving bands of bad guys, I can only imagine they will quickly be used up.thats closing the barn door after the cows got out,,,With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.
So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.
there are millions already in the public domain
and it doesnt work anywhere in the world,,,every country has people killing other people
You know the magazines can be reused right? I mean, you fire all the ammo out of them, and then you, this is hard to believe, you put more ammunition into them.
If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.
What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?
Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.
And that is still a dumb comment every time you guys say it...... self defense is not something that you can determine before the violent criminal tries to rape, rob or murder you, they may be armed too, there may be more than one, and the more bullets you have as the innocent victim, the less need you have to reload your gun...the gun you are using to save your life, or the life of your family members. That means that if you are injured, or merely dealing with the adrenaline surge of combat, you will have more bullets before you have to take the risk of changing your magazine...something made infinitely more difficult when someone is trying to rape or kill you....
Yet again this moron claims he needs large magazines for self defense while saying that large magazines are no advantage for mass shooters.
Hypocrite much?
Because the two situations are completely different. Research into mass public shootings and eye witness accounts of the survivors state that the mass public shooter is calm, and takes his time.....shooting helpless, unarmed people, without anyone shooting back. This means he can change magazines or guns easily and without interference....so there is no impact on his ability to murder helpless people.
The individual under attack, by one or more criminals, who will likely be armed.....is on his own, has to deal with a surprise attack, an adrenaline rush, and having to fend off a violent physical assault....which means changing a magazine is 1000% harder for him than for a mass public shooter, especially if they are injured during the attack....
Those are the facts, you don't like them but those are the facts.
You know it isn't, how?Ten is enough to discourage three bad guys.The law allows for ten. Why are you telling me THREE is not enough?If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.
You can shoot a big guy three times unless your using a 45 maybe..and he can keep coming at you. Especially because in those situations people are running on pure adrenaline. Three guys break into your house or business? well, you know.. its safer just to give up every time right? just hope they don't hurt you.
because I figured you had enough sense to add up what happens if there are three assailants. maybe you dont need to fire any shots. maybe you just need to point it at them and they will back on off, but at least you will have the confidence that you have ten rounds in your gun and you can afford to miss with a couple and not be defenseless.
You know this How?
Yet we have 3 times the gun homicide rate of France. BECAUSE SO MANY OF OUR gun deaths are by ordinary assholes, not professional terrorists or hit men.With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.
So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.
Criminals in France get fully automatic military rifles...they are a status symbol there....they are completely illegal there.....guns are banned and confiscated in Britain, and the British police just released a report that they can't stop the massive influx of illegal guns into their country.....
France vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
You know it isn't, how?Ten is enough to discourage three bad guys.The law allows for ten. Why are you telling me THREE is not enough?You can shoot a big guy three times unless your using a 45 maybe..and he can keep coming at you. Especially because in those situations people are running on pure adrenaline. Three guys break into your house or business? well, you know.. its safer just to give up every time right? just hope they don't hurt you.
because I figured you had enough sense to add up what happens if there are three assailants. maybe you dont need to fire any shots. maybe you just need to point it at them and they will back on off, but at least you will have the confidence that you have ten rounds in your gun and you can afford to miss with a couple and not be defenseless.
You know this How?
If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?
Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.
And that is still a dumb comment every time you guys say it...... self defense is not something that you can determine before the violent criminal tries to rape, rob or murder you, they may be armed too, there may be more than one, and the more bullets you have as the innocent victim, the less need you have to reload your gun...the gun you are using to save your life, or the life of your family members. That means that if you are injured, or merely dealing with the adrenaline surge of combat, you will have more bullets before you have to take the risk of changing your magazine...something made infinitely more difficult when someone is trying to rape or kill you....
Yet again this moron claims he needs large magazines for self defense while saying that large magazines are no advantage for mass shooters.
Hypocrite much?
Because the two situations are completely different. Research into mass public shootings and eye witness accounts of the survivors state that the mass public shooter is calm, and takes his time.....shooting helpless, unarmed people, without anyone shooting back. This means he can change magazines or guns easily and without interference....so there is no impact on his ability to murder helpless people.
The individual under attack, by one or more criminals, who will likely be armed.....is on his own, has to deal with a surprise attack, an adrenaline rush, and having to fend off a violent physical assault....which means changing a magazine is 1000% harder for him than for a mass public shooter, especially if they are injured during the attack....
Those are the facts, you don't like them but those are the facts.
So, these shooters run out & just take their sweet time changing magazines because there is no risk of someone attacking them at that time? Right.
and france is such a safe space,,,why dont you move there???Yet we have 3 times the gun homicide rate of France. BECAUSE SO MANY OF OUR gun deaths are by ordinary assholes, not professional terrorists or hit men.With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.
So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.
Criminals in France get fully automatic military rifles...they are a status symbol there....they are completely illegal there.....guns are banned and confiscated in Britain, and the British police just released a report that they can't stop the massive influx of illegal guns into their country.....
France vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
makes us wonder what else you forgot,,,Oh. Yeah, I HAD heard that somewhere, but I forgot--thanks.Are you talking about larger mags? They exist so they will always be around? For awhile they will, but if they're so necessary for defending ourselves against all those roving bands of bad guys, I can only imagine they will quickly be used up.thats closing the barn door after the cows got out,,,With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.
So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.
there are millions already in the public domain
and it doesnt work anywhere in the world,,,every country has people killing other people
You know the magazines can be reused right? I mean, you fire all the ammo out of them, and then you, this is hard to believe, you put more ammunition into them.
Yep. Right after hitler started taking guns and took govt control.Yeah, that's what the Germans said.Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.
]We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.
Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?
To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.
Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?
Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.
If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.
What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?
Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.
OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?
Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job
The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.
There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.
This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.
As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.
Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.
Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.
Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?
I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.
If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.
Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.
What is always curious to me is a trend we Americans have. Perhaps you can help me. Six gangsters use Thompson Submachine Guns to kill other people. None of the other million or so people with automatic weapons which were legal up until then did anything, so we outlaw the weapon the six gangsters used.
Less than one percent of the people buying Sudafed cook it into Crystal Meth. So we limit and prosecute people for buying Sudafed. This has had a huge effect on the production of Crystal Meth, it is up over 1,000%.
One percent of the people who are proscribed Opiods for chronic pain are abusing them. So we restrict Opiods, and cause tens of thousands of people to commit suicide to escape the agonizing pain they are enduring.
Example after example, it is always the same. Less than one percent and instead of focusing on the behavior of those who are breaking the existing rules, we pass laws to punish the other 99% who aren’t. Why? Because morons want to blame the inanimate object, Teddy Roosevelt took two machine guns with him during the Spanish American Wars, both were privately owned, purchased and donated to the unit, by a citizen in New Jersey.
Guns have no soul, nor any mind. They are inanimate objects. Like the cars that are used by Drunk Drivers to kill many. Only you want to blame Ford for making the car, instead of the idiot who got behind the wheel. You want to blame Porsche for making a car that went so fast, instead of the driver who lost control and killed himself, and Paul Walker.
The tool never committed the crime, and banning or restricting never ends the problem. Death by overdoses of Opiods has remained about the same. Why? The people overdosing are using Heroine, Fentinol, and other illegal drugs. The people suffering indescribable pain are the ones suffering to the point where they can’t take it anymore. Because of people like you, who operate under the idea that you know what is best for everyone.
Yes. I have a Magnum. You should be glad that not many of us have them. You see, as I pointed out more than once, the Magnum has twice the kinetic energy of a 9MM or even a .45ACP. What that means is that the wound from a Magnum is much, much worse. It tends to be through and through, instead of stopping inside the body. That means there are two holes to let the blood out, and many more destroyed blood vessels to leak from. The speed of the projectile also creates hydrostatic damage to the tissues. What that means is more of the tissue is torn and shredded, causing even faster loss of blood.
The bullet once it passes through a person, and it is highly likely that it will pass through, tends to continue on its merry way, possibly striking and killing a second person.
You see, if you limit the magazine size, then people will go for a much bigger, more powerful bullet instead. Right now, you have better than seventy percent probability of survival if you get shot. If everyone switches to Magnum rounds, that drops to just above fifty percent probability. In other words, you are going to see a lot more dead people, instead of wounded people. If as you say, your goal is to see people live, why are you setting up the scenario where more of them will die?
Thousands more will die every year, and will you blame your own actions? Your pathological hatred of the inanimate object known as a gun? Your knee jerk response of ban it? No. You’ll blame the gun again, just as idiots are right now blaming Opiods for the increase in Suicides.
I on the other hands, encourage you, and everyone, to live you lives your way, so long as you don’t harm another. When you do harm another, I believe you should be punished by law. We already have laws on the books for using a weapon in a criminal manner, what those laws have not done is end gun violence, because you can’t end anything with words on paper. Ask anyone who has been watching the Drug War, now entering it’s fiftieth successful year.
]We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.
Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?
To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.
Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?
Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.
If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?
Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.
OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?
Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job
The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.
There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.
This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.
As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.
Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.
Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.
Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?
I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.
If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.
Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.
What is always curious to me is a trend we Americans have. Perhaps you can help me. Six gangsters use Thompson Submachine Guns to kill other people. None of the other million or so people with automatic weapons which were legal up until then did anything, so we outlaw the weapon the six gangsters used.
Less than one percent of the people buying Sudafed cook it into Crystal Meth. So we limit and prosecute people for buying Sudafed. This has had a huge effect on the production of Crystal Meth, it is up over 1,000%.
One percent of the people who are proscribed Opiods for chronic pain are abusing them. So we restrict Opiods, and cause tens of thousands of people to commit suicide to escape the agonizing pain they are enduring.
Example after example, it is always the same. Less than one percent and instead of focusing on the behavior of those who are breaking the existing rules, we pass laws to punish the other 99% who aren’t. Why? Because morons want to blame the inanimate object, Teddy Roosevelt took two machine guns with him during the Spanish American Wars, both were privately owned, purchased and donated to the unit, by a citizen in New Jersey.
Guns have no soul, nor any mind. They are inanimate objects. Like the cars that are used by Drunk Drivers to kill many. Only you want to blame Ford for making the car, instead of the idiot who got behind the wheel. You want to blame Porsche for making a car that went so fast, instead of the driver who lost control and killed himself, and Paul Walker.
The tool never committed the crime, and banning or restricting never ends the problem. Death by overdoses of Opiods has remained about the same. Why? The people overdosing are using Heroine, Fentinol, and other illegal drugs. The people suffering indescribable pain are the ones suffering to the point where they can’t take it anymore. Because of people like you, who operate under the idea that you know what is best for everyone.
Yes. I have a Magnum. You should be glad that not many of us have them. You see, as I pointed out more than once, the Magnum has twice the kinetic energy of a 9MM or even a .45ACP. What that means is that the wound from a Magnum is much, much worse. It tends to be through and through, instead of stopping inside the body. That means there are two holes to let the blood out, and many more destroyed blood vessels to leak from. The speed of the projectile also creates hydrostatic damage to the tissues. What that means is more of the tissue is torn and shredded, causing even faster loss of blood.
The bullet once it passes through a person, and it is highly likely that it will pass through, tends to continue on its merry way, possibly striking and killing a second person.
You see, if you limit the magazine size, then people will go for a much bigger, more powerful bullet instead. Right now, you have better than seventy percent probability of survival if you get shot. If everyone switches to Magnum rounds, that drops to just above fifty percent probability. In other words, you are going to see a lot more dead people, instead of wounded people. If as you say, your goal is to see people live, why are you setting up the scenario where more of them will die?
Thousands more will die every year, and will you blame your own actions? Your pathological hatred of the inanimate object known as a gun? Your knee jerk response of ban it? No. You’ll blame the gun again, just as idiots are right now blaming Opiods for the increase in Suicides.
I on the other hands, encourage you, and everyone, to live you lives your way, so long as you don’t harm another. When you do harm another, I believe you should be punished by law. We already have laws on the books for using a weapon in a criminal manner, what those laws have not done is end gun violence, because you can’t end anything with words on paper. Ask anyone who has been watching the Drug War, now entering it’s fiftieth successful year.
It is not a knee jerk reaction to guns. Most of the people I know, including my own son and granddaughter, own a gun or guns. I am not losing any sleep over it because they are reasonable, law abiding people. I have always chosen not to own a gun because it is a killing machine.
What I DO rely on is actual facts. Look at the gun homicide rate in European countries like Great Britain and France and compare it to the United States. It is very obvious that stricter gun control causes far fewer gun deaths.
There is no getting around it and that is all I am basing it on.
I imagine this will trigger several page long articles from 2AGuy showing that somehow gun control in other countries doesn't work, but it DOES. I want to get us down to 130 gun homicides per year, which is the equiv. of Great Britain's rate.
Then I'll be happy.
26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually
We're not going to talk about gun control anymore, you and I.Yep. Right after hitler started taking guns and took govt control.Yeah, that's what the Germans said.Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.
We could do this all day
]We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.
Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?
To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.
Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?
Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.
If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.
OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?
Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job
The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.
There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.
This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.
As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.
Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.
Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.
Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?
I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.
If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.
Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.
What is always curious to me is a trend we Americans have. Perhaps you can help me. Six gangsters use Thompson Submachine Guns to kill other people. None of the other million or so people with automatic weapons which were legal up until then did anything, so we outlaw the weapon the six gangsters used.
Less than one percent of the people buying Sudafed cook it into Crystal Meth. So we limit and prosecute people for buying Sudafed. This has had a huge effect on the production of Crystal Meth, it is up over 1,000%.
One percent of the people who are proscribed Opiods for chronic pain are abusing them. So we restrict Opiods, and cause tens of thousands of people to commit suicide to escape the agonizing pain they are enduring.
Example after example, it is always the same. Less than one percent and instead of focusing on the behavior of those who are breaking the existing rules, we pass laws to punish the other 99% who aren’t. Why? Because morons want to blame the inanimate object, Teddy Roosevelt took two machine guns with him during the Spanish American Wars, both were privately owned, purchased and donated to the unit, by a citizen in New Jersey.
Guns have no soul, nor any mind. They are inanimate objects. Like the cars that are used by Drunk Drivers to kill many. Only you want to blame Ford for making the car, instead of the idiot who got behind the wheel. You want to blame Porsche for making a car that went so fast, instead of the driver who lost control and killed himself, and Paul Walker.
The tool never committed the crime, and banning or restricting never ends the problem. Death by overdoses of Opiods has remained about the same. Why? The people overdosing are using Heroine, Fentinol, and other illegal drugs. The people suffering indescribable pain are the ones suffering to the point where they can’t take it anymore. Because of people like you, who operate under the idea that you know what is best for everyone.
Yes. I have a Magnum. You should be glad that not many of us have them. You see, as I pointed out more than once, the Magnum has twice the kinetic energy of a 9MM or even a .45ACP. What that means is that the wound from a Magnum is much, much worse. It tends to be through and through, instead of stopping inside the body. That means there are two holes to let the blood out, and many more destroyed blood vessels to leak from. The speed of the projectile also creates hydrostatic damage to the tissues. What that means is more of the tissue is torn and shredded, causing even faster loss of blood.
The bullet once it passes through a person, and it is highly likely that it will pass through, tends to continue on its merry way, possibly striking and killing a second person.
You see, if you limit the magazine size, then people will go for a much bigger, more powerful bullet instead. Right now, you have better than seventy percent probability of survival if you get shot. If everyone switches to Magnum rounds, that drops to just above fifty percent probability. In other words, you are going to see a lot more dead people, instead of wounded people. If as you say, your goal is to see people live, why are you setting up the scenario where more of them will die?
Thousands more will die every year, and will you blame your own actions? Your pathological hatred of the inanimate object known as a gun? Your knee jerk response of ban it? No. You’ll blame the gun again, just as idiots are right now blaming Opiods for the increase in Suicides.
I on the other hands, encourage you, and everyone, to live you lives your way, so long as you don’t harm another. When you do harm another, I believe you should be punished by law. We already have laws on the books for using a weapon in a criminal manner, what those laws have not done is end gun violence, because you can’t end anything with words on paper. Ask anyone who has been watching the Drug War, now entering it’s fiftieth successful year.
It is not a knee jerk reaction to guns. Most of the people I know, including my own son and granddaughter, own a gun or guns. I am not losing any sleep over it because they are reasonable, law abiding people. I have always chosen not to own a gun because it is a killing machine.
What I DO rely on is actual facts. Look at the gun homicide rate in European countries like Great Britain and France and compare it to the United States. It is very obvious that stricter gun control causes far fewer gun deaths.
There is no getting around it and that is all I am basing it on.
I imagine this will trigger several page long articles from 2AGuy showing that somehow gun control in other countries doesn't work, but it DOES. I want to get us down to 130 gun homicides per year, which is the equiv. of Great Britain's rate.
Then I'll be happy.
26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually
yeah but GB's violent crime,robbery and rape rates have skyrocketed
again you are ignoring the tens of thousands times a yr guns stop crimes
crime rates are down across the board thanks to armed citizens
but gun control is what you want,,,and ben needs to stick to the medical fieldWe're not going to talk about gun control anymore, you and I.Yep. Right after hitler started taking guns and took govt control.Yeah, that's what the Germans said.Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.
We could do this all day
For others reading these posts, they should read this--read the historical FACTS about gun restriction in Nazi Germany.
Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust
]We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?
To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.
Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?
Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.
OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?
Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job
The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.
There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.
This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.
As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.
Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.
Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.
Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?
I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.
If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.
Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.
What is always curious to me is a trend we Americans have. Perhaps you can help me. Six gangsters use Thompson Submachine Guns to kill other people. None of the other million or so people with automatic weapons which were legal up until then did anything, so we outlaw the weapon the six gangsters used.
Less than one percent of the people buying Sudafed cook it into Crystal Meth. So we limit and prosecute people for buying Sudafed. This has had a huge effect on the production of Crystal Meth, it is up over 1,000%.
One percent of the people who are proscribed Opiods for chronic pain are abusing them. So we restrict Opiods, and cause tens of thousands of people to commit suicide to escape the agonizing pain they are enduring.
Example after example, it is always the same. Less than one percent and instead of focusing on the behavior of those who are breaking the existing rules, we pass laws to punish the other 99% who aren’t. Why? Because morons want to blame the inanimate object, Teddy Roosevelt took two machine guns with him during the Spanish American Wars, both were privately owned, purchased and donated to the unit, by a citizen in New Jersey.
Guns have no soul, nor any mind. They are inanimate objects. Like the cars that are used by Drunk Drivers to kill many. Only you want to blame Ford for making the car, instead of the idiot who got behind the wheel. You want to blame Porsche for making a car that went so fast, instead of the driver who lost control and killed himself, and Paul Walker.
The tool never committed the crime, and banning or restricting never ends the problem. Death by overdoses of Opiods has remained about the same. Why? The people overdosing are using Heroine, Fentinol, and other illegal drugs. The people suffering indescribable pain are the ones suffering to the point where they can’t take it anymore. Because of people like you, who operate under the idea that you know what is best for everyone.
Yes. I have a Magnum. You should be glad that not many of us have them. You see, as I pointed out more than once, the Magnum has twice the kinetic energy of a 9MM or even a .45ACP. What that means is that the wound from a Magnum is much, much worse. It tends to be through and through, instead of stopping inside the body. That means there are two holes to let the blood out, and many more destroyed blood vessels to leak from. The speed of the projectile also creates hydrostatic damage to the tissues. What that means is more of the tissue is torn and shredded, causing even faster loss of blood.
The bullet once it passes through a person, and it is highly likely that it will pass through, tends to continue on its merry way, possibly striking and killing a second person.
You see, if you limit the magazine size, then people will go for a much bigger, more powerful bullet instead. Right now, you have better than seventy percent probability of survival if you get shot. If everyone switches to Magnum rounds, that drops to just above fifty percent probability. In other words, you are going to see a lot more dead people, instead of wounded people. If as you say, your goal is to see people live, why are you setting up the scenario where more of them will die?
Thousands more will die every year, and will you blame your own actions? Your pathological hatred of the inanimate object known as a gun? Your knee jerk response of ban it? No. You’ll blame the gun again, just as idiots are right now blaming Opiods for the increase in Suicides.
I on the other hands, encourage you, and everyone, to live you lives your way, so long as you don’t harm another. When you do harm another, I believe you should be punished by law. We already have laws on the books for using a weapon in a criminal manner, what those laws have not done is end gun violence, because you can’t end anything with words on paper. Ask anyone who has been watching the Drug War, now entering it’s fiftieth successful year.
It is not a knee jerk reaction to guns. Most of the people I know, including my own son and granddaughter, own a gun or guns. I am not losing any sleep over it because they are reasonable, law abiding people. I have always chosen not to own a gun because it is a killing machine.
What I DO rely on is actual facts. Look at the gun homicide rate in European countries like Great Britain and France and compare it to the United States. It is very obvious that stricter gun control causes far fewer gun deaths.
There is no getting around it and that is all I am basing it on.
I imagine this will trigger several page long articles from 2AGuy showing that somehow gun control in other countries doesn't work, but it DOES. I want to get us down to 130 gun homicides per year, which is the equiv. of Great Britain's rate.
Then I'll be happy.
26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually
yeah but GB's violent crime,robbery and rape rates have skyrocketed
again you are ignoring the tens of thousands times a yr guns stop crimes
crime rates are down across the board thanks to armed citizens
Yes, they're having a gang problem there, too, I hear.
