The only gun control needed.

[The Rabbi]

Yes, but Adam Lanza wouldn't have had access to them via his mom's arsenal. Thus kids would likely still be alive due to this fact.

I know, those kids lives aren't worth you having to reload at the range...right?

I don't want to reload if a bunch of assholes like you show up. But Lanza's mom was stupid, I don't want to pay for her or your stupidity. How hard would it be to reload around a bunch of kids anyway?

Adam Lanza probably could have passed any background check. He chose not to. He killed his mother and took her guns. All of that was illegal.
What law would have stopped Adam Lanza?

What law would have stopped Lanza? If we had a law where no guns are allowed in the home of people like him..........but I don't want to give the libs any more ideas.

A gun safe whose combination was known only to the "responsible" adults would have stopped Lanza.

In truth, as long as we have the 2nd Amendment, we will have people doing rampage shootings for reasons they only understand. And if we didn't have it, we would likely still have them as other nations do. Most people don't remember it but Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before we had the bikers at Twin Peaks in Waco, they had another shooting at a Luby's Restaurant next door in Killeen. Luby's is a cafeteria chain in Texas. A man named George Hennard drove his truck into the restaurant and began killing everyone he could see. Had a Glock 17 and a Ruger. Apparently with no modifications to the magazine or gun. Hennard was a known loser who hated women.

George Jo Hennard | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers

He's the reason you see concrete barriers in front of places of business now...

vs

Anyway, There was nothing going on there except mental anguish and hopelessness. Before that, there was the guy Whitman in the UT Tower. Before that, I'm sure there was a mad man somewhere else in the world who took lives without rhyme or reason...

If it is no big deal to switch out 5 round mags, why not agree to the limit and make the potential killer do it? Surely the argument isn't that you may get jumped by 5 guys because you could be jumped by 50 guys or 500 guys or whatever....

Funny you mention the Luby's Cafeteria shooting. Because one of the survivors was Susanna Grati-Hupp, who made that the focal point for her pro-gun campaign. See, she had a gun but had to leave it in the car because it was posted no-guns.
With 30rd mags so plentiful why would you make them illegal?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

Actually two for sure. Lanza and Laughner. I know, I know, since you weren't personally affected, you don't give two shits that someone's son or daughter may be alive today. Right?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

So it's no inconvenience at all to people on the range? Great. So why the resistance?

PS: You forgot to add in the time it takes to re-aim and fire.

Do you realize how silly you sound trying to use fractions of seconds as a solution to mass killings?

No, But I do understand that seconds save lives. Everything from calling 9/11 quicker to getting away from the shooter quicker. Does it "stop" the rampage killer? No. Does putting distance between people and the killer save lives? Yes.

Politically, it is great that you're still arguing against common sense...if you force a guy to re-load, you save lives. I'm sure the victims look forward to yours and the NRA's offer of thoughts and prayers.

And I said nothing about convenience at a gun range. What I said is that for self-education, YOU should go to a gun range and learn about guns before criticizing them. Who knows, maybe you'll get a kick out of them like we do and buy a couple for yourself.

I care a lot about innocent people not getting killed. That's why I'm behind more law biding citizens having firearms, because you're not going to save one life with more bureaucracy or laws in this country. Those are designed to placate the anti-gun voters, but won't do anybody else any good.

Nice words...but it doesn't divert from the logic that is inarguable...

If you're reloading...you're not firing.
If you're not firing, you're not killing people.
Thus forcing the shooter to re-load more often will mean that there are potentially fewer deaths.

Law abiding citizens can also shoot back at the assailant safer when he is re-loading...no?

You clearly know nothing about reloading. A decent shot will be able to reload within about 2-3 seconds. No, that will make exactly zero difference in lives lost. None whatsoever. It is libs engaging in magical thinking again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

Actually two for sure. Lanza and Laughner. I know, I know, since you weren't personally affected, you don't give two shits that someone's son or daughter may be alive today. Right?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

So it's no inconvenience at all to people on the range? Great. So why the resistance?

PS: You forgot to add in the time it takes to re-aim and fire.

Do you realize how silly you sound trying to use fractions of seconds as a solution to mass killings?

No, But I do understand that seconds save lives. Everything from calling 9/11 quicker to getting away from the shooter quicker. Does it "stop" the rampage killer? No. Does putting distance between people and the killer save lives? Yes.

Politically, it is great that you're still arguing against common sense...if you force a guy to re-load, you save lives. I'm sure the victims look forward to yours and the NRA's offer of thoughts and prayers.

And I said nothing about convenience at a gun range. What I said is that for self-education, YOU should go to a gun range and learn about guns before criticizing them. Who knows, maybe you'll get a kick out of them like we do and buy a couple for yourself.

I care a lot about innocent people not getting killed. That's why I'm behind more law biding citizens having firearms, because you're not going to save one life with more bureaucracy or laws in this country. Those are designed to placate the anti-gun voters, but won't do anybody else any good.

Nice words...but it doesn't divert from the logic that is inarguable...

If you're reloading...you're not firing.
If you're not firing, you're not killing people.
Thus forcing the shooter to re-load more often will mean that there are potentially fewer deaths.

Law abiding citizens can also shoot back at the assailant safer when he is re-loading...no?

No, you don't wait for somebody to reload until you shoot back. You start shooting as fast and as accurate as you can no matter what he's doing. Watch a shootout between a cop and a criminal sometime. You'll see what I mean.

And if you are so convinced that the time to put in a new magazine gives the opponent time to shoot back, what are law abiding people supposed to do when they have to change magazines every five rounds and the criminal doesn't because he has an illegal 30 round mag?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, but Adam Lanza wouldn't have had access to them via his mom's arsenal. Thus kids would likely still be alive due to this fact.

I know, those kids lives aren't worth you having to reload at the range...right?

I don't want to reload if a bunch of assholes like you show up. But Lanza's mom was stupid, I don't want to pay for her or your stupidity. How hard would it be to reload around a bunch of kids anyway?

Adam Lanza probably could have passed any background check. He chose not to. He killed his mother and took her guns. All of that was illegal.
What law would have stopped Adam Lanza?

What law would have stopped Lanza? If we had a law where no guns are allowed in the home of people like him..........but I don't want to give the libs any more ideas.

A gun safe whose combination was known only to the "responsible" adults would have stopped Lanza.

In truth, as long as we have the 2nd Amendment, we will have people doing rampage shootings for reasons they only understand. And if we didn't have it, we would likely still have them as other nations do. Most people don't remember it but Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before we had the bikers at Twin Peaks in Waco, they had another shooting at a Luby's Restaurant next door in Killeen. Luby's is a cafeteria chain in Texas. A man named George Hennard drove his truck into the restaurant and began killing everyone he could see. Had a Glock 17 and a Ruger. Apparently with no modifications to the magazine or gun. Hennard was a known loser who hated women.

George Jo Hennard | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers

He's the reason you see concrete barriers in front of places of business now...

vs

Anyway, There was nothing going on there except mental anguish and hopelessness. Before that, there was the guy Whitman in the UT Tower. Before that, I'm sure there was a mad man somewhere else in the world who took lives without rhyme or reason...

If it is no big deal to switch out 5 round mags, why not agree to the limit and make the potential killer do it? Surely the argument isn't that you may get jumped by 5 guys because you could be jumped by 50 guys or 500 guys or whatever....

I did point that out, but I also pointed out that it's very common to miss your target. You may have to shoot several times before landing one bullet if you land one at all. Then what do you do when you're all out of ammo because of some stupid law to curb mass shootings that didn't do any good in the first place?

That's besides the fact that it was ruled unconstitutional anyway in regards to New York trying to limit rounds:

"On December 31, 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, of the Federal District Court in Buffalo, upheld most of the New York SAFE Act, saying that its provisions "further the state's important interest in public safety.... it does not totally disarm New York's citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their right to self-defense".[10] However he struck down the provision that only seven rounds of ammunition could be loaded into a ten-round magazine, calling it "an arbitrary restriction" that violated the Second Amendment, and saying that it could result in "pitting the criminal with a fully-loaded magazine against the law-abiding citizen limited to seven rounds."[10]"

NY SAFE Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jon_berzerk]

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

Thats just the point...thanks for making it for me yet again....

When you have 33 rounds in a Glock, you may not have a chance. You limit that to 5, and there are chances to rush the attacker. Its what stopped Laughtner out here from murdering more people that were there with Gabby Giffords. It's the only thing that stopped him....

And despite your illustration of showing how fast someone can re-load under perfect conditions, you're likely to have 3-5 seconds per re-load to move. Likely more since most of the "retards" and "clowns" are not as proficient at it as the guy in the video. IF anyone believes what he sees in the movies...its you silly.

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

California has a law limiting the size of magazines

in the latest terror attack

the terrorists did not care about the law

and used 30 round ones

Yes, but Adam Lanza wouldn't have had access to them via his mom's arsenal. Thus kids would likely still be alive due to this fact.

I know, those kids lives aren't worth you having to reload at the range...right?

how can you say with a straight face

first off the magazines are illegal in California *yet* the terrorists acquired them

so demonstrate "how that could not have happened" in the lanza case

2ndly the terrorists and lanza had the time to swap out magazines

since in both situations it was a gun free zone

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

Thats just the point...thanks for making it for me yet again....

When you have 33 rounds in a Glock, you may not have a chance. You limit that to 5, and there are chances to rush the attacker. Its what stopped Laughtner out here from murdering more people that were there with Gabby Giffords. It's the only thing that stopped him....

And despite your illustration of showing how fast someone can re-load under perfect conditions, you're likely to have 3-5 seconds per re-load to move. Likely more since most of the "retards" and "clowns" are not as proficient at it as the guy in the video. IF anyone believes what he sees in the movies...its you silly.

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

California has a law limiting the size of magazines

in the latest terror attack

the terrorists did not care about the law

and used 30 round ones

Yes, but Adam Lanza wouldn't have had access to them via his mom's arsenal. Thus kids would likely still be alive due to this fact.

I know, those kids lives aren't worth you having to reload at the range...right?

It's childish to blame the firearm, progressives are very predictable...

true

 

[IsaacNewton]

Latest NRA Double-Chin training video as seen at your favorite local walm art.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.
Any position based on a fallacy is unsound.
Why do you not care if your positions are unsound?

Couple of things. Who says my position is based on emotion. As I said, it is common sense.

As soon as you post one that you think is not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, I will illustrate for you and the rest of the world how it is based ion emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

That aside, who's playing god and saying an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy?

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
http://192.168.16.253/webfilter/blockpage?nonce=2fbe6a538983c9ae&tid=5
Logical Fallacies Handlist
You can continue to believe that an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy -- it just means you choose to be wrong.

And so, I ask again:
Why do you not care if your positions are unsound?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, I was simply showing where national hysteria can overturn the founders intent.

Yes.... like mindless, unnecessary bans on 'assault weapons'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

There is no sound argument for arbitrary limits magazine capacities. None whatsoever.

 

[The Rabbi]

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

There is no sound argument for arbitrary limits magazine capacities. None whatsoever.

I notice that when LEOs carry AR style rifles they always have 30 rd magazines in them. Now, if LEOs have 30rd magazines then there must be some reason for it. And that same reason would apply to the average citizen as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, but Adam Lanza wouldn't have had access to them via his mom's arsenal. Thus kids would likely still be alive due to this fact.

We all know that you know you have noway of proving any of this.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

332-206. Success.

One second? Hardly

And the guy being filmed is likely highly trained or even an expert with nobody yelling at him, shooting back or distracting him.

Now imagine the 100+ rounds Adam Lanza squeezed off except add in
20 periods of down time of 2-3 seconds (-although we all know it would be much longer). That is 40-60 seconds to get away.

You can run several hundred yards in that time

You can also return fire or tackle the gunman.

The lone downside is inconvenience to some folks.

Lanza was a retard. People who plan such things have already practiced their moves just like that guy in the video.

Maybe so, maybe no. You're speaking from ignorance. But I doubt having to carry a gym bag of 20-30 extra mags or clips or whatever on your person will help your reload speed any. If you have high capacity mags, you needn't worry. If you don't, you have to lug around a bunch of smaller capacity mags, reload every 5 rounds or so. Huge game changer.

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

I Seriously doubt he's prepared for the bedlam of 100 screaming people, water sprinklers going off (as they did in SB), overturned tables and chairs and getting wounded or tackled.

You can return fire? Who? How? In your world, nobody has a gun except the police and the criminals. In our world, yes, there would be no restrictions on legal gun carriers and they might be able to minimize the tragedy by shooting the suspect.

That's the point here.

False statement. We have this idiotic second amendment that douche bags like you feel is somehow a Jeffersonian ouiji board type of fortelling of a battle between the government and yourselves and you've gotta be ready for it. So this means carrying your gun everywhere you go. And, in true douche nozzle form, the folks who should know better have taken up your laughable positions and passed laws so you can carry your guns into Twin Peaks, Chuckee Cheese, and other outlets of tyrrany.

In the cases of large numbers of people gathering who shouldn't be armed, like schools, I fully support having armed guards at the campuses, on the buses, and at any school function.

[
I'm also at odds with my liberal friends about having security guards at schools. I mean, if you're going to call a cop to come and take care of an active shooter, wouldn't having an armed security guard on the premises make more sense?

We live in the same world douchebag. The difference is that I recognize we need to address the near monthly bloodbaths and you just want to erect barriers to prevent any such remedy.

I'm speaking from ignorance?

Yes,you are.

You probably never shot a gun in your life yet alone go through training and licensing.

That you have allows you to be put in the mindset of a rampage killer? I played guitar for several years...would I have the first clue of what it's like to be Dave Grohl or Mark Knopfler? Not at all.

Plus you think that by making larger magazines illegal, that would stop a criminal from getting them. Yeah, just like it stopped them from getting a gun in the first place.
The Colorado shooter got much of his stuff from the internet.

Well, we were talking about Adam Lanza who used his mom's arsenal to murder 26 people. She's been called a responsible gun owner here several times.... She wouldn't have the larger magazines now would she?

Yes, our wonderful Constitution did give us the right to protect ourselves from criminals and government by allowing citizens to be armed. But with that right comes responsibility, just like the responsibility you have drinking alcohol, driving an automobile, paying your credit bills, raising children. Not all people that are supposed to be responsible will be, so you can't make laws against everything in life that requires responsibility.

Agreed. But what you can do as a society is take common sense approaches to situations that our founding fathers could not have foreseen. Such as liability insurance for automobiles being mandated in most if not all states. Such as not allowing John Q. Public to purchase Atomic weapons.

If you're having 10,000 people killed every year by someone else with a gun, taking some measure to reduce that number would seem to be the responsible thing to do.

We put seat belts in cars when deaths became alarmingly high. When we found out asbestos was bad for you we, outlawed it in new constructions. When we have dry weather, we issue "burn bands".

And those "bloodbaths" are not how we see most people die from firearms in this country. It's those individual shootings that take place in cities like Chicago, Detroit, and even right here in my town of Cleveland. The mass shootings are sensationalized by the media and get the most attention. Here, we have so many shootings sometimes it doesn't even make the news.

You're right about that. I fail to see how limiting a size of a magazine to 5 will result in more deaths since (if it is two gangs and thus two criminal enterprises) both would avail themselves of larger magazines.

So if a mass murderer kills 13 people instead of 14, that makes it better?

I carry a high capacity magazine when I'm armed. Why? Because experience tells me that you don't hit your target all the time. The farther away you are, the less likely you are to hit your target, and two, you may be defending yourself from several attackers instead of one. There have been people that been shot with several bullets and continued their attack. The police officer in Philadelphia is a prime example. He was shot three times, ran after the shooter and apprehended him. Do you think police should have limited magazines too?

When you take firearms training, you are taught that shooting at cardboard is much different than shooting at another human being who is shooting back. There is no real training for how to react to that so you just do the best you can with the information you were given. It's the same way for police officers. Nobody is trained with live human beings shooting at them. The best you can do is prepare.

Does playing a guitar make you as experienced as Dave Grohl or Mark Knopfler? No, but you are a hell of a lot more familiar with their experiences than somebody that never picked up a guitar. I used to teach during the time Guitar Hero was the biggest video game. I used to get students who thought that playing a real guitar was similar to playing Guitar Hero. Most of them quit rather quickly when they learned that playing a real guitar was not a video game. It took timing, fingering, picking and reading. But until that time, I'm sure many thought they had the talent and ability to be a professional guitarist.

Nobody is trained with live human beings shooting at them.

Well, not 100% true. Special Operations troops doing urban combat training use civilian volunteers to enhance the human element of the training. Using non-lethal simunition rounds, there is someone firing back at you. I have the scars to prove it!

 

[M14 Shooter]

In truth, as long as we have the 2nd Amendment, we will have people doing rampage shootings for reasons they only understand.

You can have freedom, or you can have safety.
Why do you hate freedom?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Ray are you wanting students to be carrying as well?
You do know that teachers are not in the classroom 100% of the time.
What if the shooter shoots the teacher first?

So should students be carrying as well? And at what age would it be ok for the kids to be carrying? 12? 15? What is the magic number?

You know some schools are just grade school. Some are jr. high. And of course high schoolers.

I think it a great idea that some hormone laden boy with an attitude problem should be able to carry a gun to school. Dont you think that a great idea?

If not, why not? teachers and security guards will be the first shot. You gonna leave them kids not able to defend themselves?

I don't know where you went to school, but I am in my classroom 100% of the time. So are the other teachers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So if a mass murderer kills 13 people instead of 14, that makes it better?

If you our your 10 year old daughter are the 14th person...you tell me.
Obviously fewer deaths are preferable to more deaths.

I carry a high capacity magazine when I'm armed. Why? Because experience tells me that you don't hit your target all the time. The farther away you are, the less likely you are to hit your target, and two, you may be defending yourself from several attackers instead of one. There have been people that been shot with several bullets and continued their attack. The police officer in Philadelphia is a prime example. He was shot three times, ran after the shooter and apprehended him. Do you think police should have limited magazines too?

No. Police should have access to superior firepower in my view. I don't get bent out of shape when I see the tactical vehicles deployed like some liberals do either so save your argument.

When you take firearms training, you are taught that shooting at cardboard is much different than shooting at another human being who is shooting back. There is no real training for how to react to that so you just do the best you can with the information you were given.

Funny,earlier you were saying that Rampage killers were prepared. Now it's "no real training".

You stated:

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

Obviously, when you add that factor of resistance environmentally, mentally, or in terms of ballistics into the mix, the time it takes to change magazines will lengthen considerably. Don't pretend otherwise.

It's the same way for police officers. Nobody is trained with live human beings shooting at them. The best you can do is prepare.

Which is why I trust a cop whose minutes away much more than some armed, untrained yahoo who happens to be closer by. The cop's job is to prepare.

That being said, with the 2nd Amendment and it's fortified place in the culture, I accept that there will be people close by who are likely carrying firearms. Do I trust them? No. I think they are almost as big a threat as the original assailant like this dope from the Twin Peaks video 32 second mark.



Still, let's say Adam Lanza was on the receiving end of that shot being fired wildy in his direction. That'll give you a second or two to pause and probably duck behind something instead of continuing your rampage. So net benefit perhaps (unless the wildly fired round hit someone).

No, because most of these clowns are suicidal. They know they are going to die and likely by their own hands. It's one of the reasons they choose gun free zones. They don't want to be hit and injured. They don't want to serve any time in jail. They want to kill as many people as they can, and then kill themselves.

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Also, what you said is that a few seconds to change magazines makes a real difference but waiting for police for a couple of minutes won't?

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

What I said earlier is that the attacker is prepared for all the commotion.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

Thats just the point...thanks for making it for me yet again....

When you have 33 rounds in a Glock, you may not have a chance. You limit that to 5, and there are chances to rush the attacker. Its what stopped Laughtner out here from murdering more people that were there with Gabby Giffords. It's the only thing that stopped him....

And despite your illustration of showing how fast someone can re-load under perfect conditions, you're likely to have 3-5 seconds per re-load to move. Likely more since most of the "retards" and "clowns" are not as proficient at it as the guy in the video. IF anyone believes what he sees in the movies...its you silly.

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

Do you have any idea how easy it is to build your own magazines?

 

[Rustic]

Latest NRA Double-Chin training video as seen at your favorite local walm art.

A bunch of progressives thinking they know and can handle firearms...

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Dr Grump]

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.
Any position based on a fallacy is unsound.
Why do you not care if your positions are unsound?

Couple of things. Who says my position is based on emotion. As I said, it is common sense.

As soon as you post one that you think is not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, I will illustrate for you and the rest of the world how it is based ion emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

That aside, who's playing god and saying an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy?

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
http://192.168.16.253/webfilter/blockpage?nonce=2fbe6a538983c9ae&tid=5
Logical Fallacies Handlist
You can continue to believe that an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy -- it just means you choose to be wrong.

And so, I ask again:
Why do you not care if your positions are unsound?

My positions are sound. Just because you say they are not and are hiding behind the fallacy BS doesn't make you right. You're just offering an opinion. If I was to say to you that if there were NO guns at all in the US then nobody would die from gunshot wounds you'd call it a logical fallacy. IOW, you're just bandying those words around because you have nothing else. Banning certain guns because they are not necessary in a modern, civilised society is not any sort of fallacy. it's common sense. Every other western society agrees with me.