The only gun control needed.

[candycorn]

Limiting magazine and clip sizes so rampage killers will have to re-load. This gives people time to run and react and draw their own weaponry/return fire.

According to the multiple award winning series Frontline, the guy who tried to murder Gabby Gifford (the congresswoman from Arizona) had a 33 round clip on his Glock. He dropped his magazine while re-loading it and one of her aids grabbed it allowing the madman to be tackled and held until authorities showed up. Had he been limited to 5 bullets, people would still be alive.

It fits in the Constitution so there is no argument to be made on those grounds. It creates only a minor inconvenience for target shooters.

With a little practice one can change out magazines quicker than it takes to describe the process or even quicker switching to a secondary. Please point out the part of the Constitution that covers clips sizes of firearms.

How fast to break off, expel the old magazine, drop in a new piece and reacquire target?

So, 2-4 seconds in perfect no stress conditions.

Right?

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

With a little practice one can change out magazines quicker than it takes to describe the process or even quicker switching to a secondary. Please point out the part of the Constitution that covers clips sizes of firearms.

How fast to break off, expel the old magazine, drop in a new piece and reacquire target?

So, 2-4 seconds in perfect no stress conditions.

Right?

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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

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.

 

[Kosh]

Weapon on safe until needed, finger off trigger until ready to fire, and the round hits what I'm aiming at down range.

Trite, childish, and lame.

Yes all you far left drones and your religious narratives are that!

 

[Dr Grump]

Heh.
In your response, feel free to post ONE that does not stand on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Just one.

none of them are. Just because you think they stand on the above, doesn't mean they do.

 

[Dr Grump]

You mean kind of like what happens to a liberal when they see an American flag burning?

Yeah, that's the one <rolls eyes>....

 

[Dr Grump]

If it weren't for hunters, you would have NO money for conservation. Money collected for fishing and hunting licenses goes towards conservation. Hunters are usually extremely environment conscious because it matters to them.

Never said otherwise....

 

[Dr Grump]

And if you don't think our government is at war with us, then don't you let me ever catch you posting in any of the BLM threads.

The Police Are Still Out of Control

What are BLM threads. And no, I don't think your govt is at war with you. The problem with the US govt is the type of system you have. It's not that great.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

With a little practice one can change out magazines quicker than it takes to describe the process or even quicker switching to a secondary. Please point out the part of the Constitution that covers clips sizes of firearms.

How fast to break off, expel the old magazine, drop in a new piece and reacquire target?

So, 2-4 seconds in perfect no stress conditions.

Right?

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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.

I can consistently hits targets at 300 yards without a scope.

 

[candycorn]

How fast to break off, expel the old magazine, drop in a new piece and reacquire target?

So, 2-4 seconds in perfect no stress conditions.

Right?

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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.

 

[jillian]

Weapon on safe until needed, finger off trigger until ready to fire, and the round hits what I'm aiming at down range.

Haven't said this for a while, but this is a classic example of men seeing their peashooter as an extension of their wiener.

This post is more macho BS from the gun lovers and why most of us don;t buy this 'we want a gun to protect our family, it's our second amendment right <inserts BS, lame excuse here>..

Why can't all the gun-loving dorks admit that they like the sound a gun makes when fired, the smell of gun powder, and how they get a little stiffie when they hit the target/animal/person they are aiming at.

You mean kind of like what happens to a liberal when they see an American flag burning?

no. are you really that ignorant?

never mind.... rhetorical question.

 

[jillian]

Ha ha the classic response for those that have no answer to this particular issue. I don't need an inanimate object to give me a "stiffy". On the very rare occasion I do hunt I eat what ever I kill. I very much enjoy target shooting as a hobby and I would never shoot anyone unless they threatened myself or someone I loved. Hell I would even protect a stranger not because of macho bullshit but because I'm the type of guy who believes one human shouldn't pray on another.

I have made plenty of other responses...

Tell me something, what goes through your mind when you hit a deer or rabbit or whatever? Don't tell me you DON'T get a rush. If you say no, you're a liar...

If it weren't for hunters, you would have NO money for conservation. Money collected for fishing and hunting licenses goes towards conservation. Hunters are usually extremely environment conscious because it matters to them.

and?

is anyone arguing that?

 

[jillian]

[
Not in the slightest -- in fact, you only serve to further prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Keep up the good work.

You haven't even addressed my points, which are all rational BTW. Talk about ignorant and dishonest.
This guy says it best. Especially from 1.55 onwards.

This progressive New York liberal Jewish woman says it better.






I had a similar change in viewpoint. I still don't have a gun. Maybe someday. I just can't see spending that much money on something like that.

And if you don't think our government is at war with us, then don't you let me ever catch you posting in any of the BLM threads.

The Police Are Still Out of Control

so-called "BLM threads" have zero to do with our government being at war with us.

our government is NOT at war with us. that does not mean that it isn't dangerous to be a young black male in this country and that needs to change.

but you seem to have all this stuff running around your brain without sorting it out.

 

[candycorn]

How fast to break off, expel the old magazine, drop in a new piece and reacquire target?

So, 2-4 seconds in perfect no stress conditions.

Right?

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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.

I can consistently hits targets at 300 yards without a scope.

Are the targets moving? Are you shooting through walls (there are not a lot of empty rooms that are 3 football fields long) Is anyone shooting back at you? Is there pure bedlam all around you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, 2-4 seconds in perfect no stress conditions.

Right?

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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

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.

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.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

So, 2-4 seconds in perfect no stress conditions.

Right?

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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.

"idiotic second amendment" This statement brought to you by the 1st Amendment.

 

[candycorn]

So, 2-4 seconds in perfect no stress conditions.

Right?

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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.

 

[Norman]

I have a solution to gun violence.

Stop selling weapons to terrorist muslims, without a background check Mr. Obama.

Obama wants only the terrorists to be armed, not law abiding Americans. I guess he was gullible enough to actually buy that Islam is a religion of peace, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[candycorn]

So, 2-4 seconds in perfect no stress conditions.

Right?

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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.

"idiotic second amendment" This statement brought to you by the 1st Amendment.

And?

As far as I know, they (the framers) were the smartest people of their time. However, no group of people, regardless of motives, education, or luck can foresee the societal, technological, or international threat changes wrought in the ensuing 237 years. It's not their fault but they missed on this one.
In the prism of 1789 when there were few police forces, a paltry standing army, and little organization between the state militia's to provide for a common defense, it made sense to have weaponry available to citizenry since sharks were circling the fledgling nation. In the 2016 prism, it's ridiculous. They were equally worried about opposition armies forcing you to house their soldiers....is that a clue as to the mindset of the framers?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

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.

"idiotic second amendment" This statement brought to you by the 1st Amendment.

And?

As far as I know, they (the framers) were the smartest people of their time. However, no group of people, regardless of motives, education, or luck can foresee the societal, technological, or international threat changes wrought in the ensuing 237 years. It's not their fault but they missed on this one.
In the prism of 1789 when there were few police forces, a paltry standing army, and little organization between the state militia's to provide for a common defense, it made sense to have weaponry available to citizenry since sharks were circling the fledgling nation. In the 2016 prism, it's ridiculous. They were equally worried about opposition armies forcing you to house their soldiers....is that a clue as to the mindset of the framers?

The framers didn't miss a beat. Of course they expected firearms to be more advanced as the years passed. They knew that society might change entirely. That's why they included an amendment process in our Constitution. Of course there would have to be a strong consensus for it to change, but they didn't want to see such changes in our Constitution based on a simple majority of opinion one way or the other.