There is no catastrophe so ghastly that we will reform our gun laws

[RKMBrown]

If you cannot hit your target with 10 rounds, why should you take that weapon into a theater, school, church or shopping center and claim it is for defense? those ten bullets are going somewhere, if not at your target. And those ten bullets are lethal when fired among innocent bystanders.

Yours is just another badly formed rationalization to defend a Rambo fantasy.

So why does virtually every law enforcement agency issue pistols with high capacity magazines?

Training? Experience?

I just assumed they had more than one bullet in their gun cause there might be more than one bad guy and the bad guys might be shooting back at them. That and dead men tell no tales. After the cops blow up the babies in their cribs with grenades they can follow up a melee of rounds to kill all the witnesses. JK to all my cop friends who are not out to blow up babies.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you cannot hit your target with 10 rounds, why should you take that weapon into a theater, school, church or shopping center and claim it is for defense? those ten bullets are going somewhere, if not at your target. And those ten bullets are lethal when fired among innocent bystanders.

Yours is just another badly formed rationalization to defend a Rambo fantasy.

So why does virtually every law enforcement agency issue pistols with high capacity magazines?

Training? Experience?

Doesnt that undercut your argument that no one really needs more than 10 rounds?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not cosmetics. It's the firing and reloading systems. Reagan was shot with a .22

.22LR revolver, maed by RG in fact. George Wallace was shot with the same type of gun.
What was your point here again?

A revolver does not make an effective weapon in a 'mass shooting'. Could Adam Lanza killed as many children with six rounds?

Well that's wrong.
United States Capitol shooting incident (1998) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nosmo King]

So why does virtually every law enforcement agency issue pistols with high capacity magazines?

Training? Experience?

Doesnt that undercut your argument that no one really needs more than 10 rounds?

No. Law enforcement personnel will require that type of weapon while a citizen should not fire that type of weapon in a confused, smoke filled adrenaline charged situation.

 

[Spoonman]

Training? Experience?

Doesnt that undercut your argument that no one really needs more than 10 rounds?

No. Law enforcement personnel will require that type of weapon while a citizen should not fire that type of weapon in a confused, smoke filled adrenaline charged situation.

so the guy doing the shooting will have the advantage because he is going to have the large capacity magazines.

 

[The Rabbi]

Training? Experience?

Doesnt that undercut your argument that no one really needs more than 10 rounds?

No. Law enforcement personnel will require that type of weapon while a citizen should not fire that type of weapon in a confused, smoke filled adrenaline charged situation.

Sorry but that makes no sense. Didnt you write that if you can't hit your target in 10 rds you have no business shooting? So arent cops supposed to be trained to do just that? (P.S. They aren't. Cops are terrible shots for the most part). So why not insist cops also carry 10rd mags to cut down on collateral damage?

 

[Nosmo King]

Doesnt that undercut your argument that no one really needs more than 10 rounds?

No. Law enforcement personnel will require that type of weapon while a citizen should not fire that type of weapon in a confused, smoke filled adrenaline charged situation.

Sorry but that makes no sense. Didnt you write that if you can't hit your target in 10 rds you have no business shooting? So arent cops supposed to be trained to do just that? (P.S. They aren't. Cops are terrible shots for the most part). So why not insist cops also carry 10rd mags to cut down on collateral damage?

Cops are bad shots? What makes you think that a civilian is a marksman? Civilians armed with high capacity magazines pose a greater threat in a dangerous situation. They will spray bullets until the bad guy goes down, but what about that collateral damage?

 

[martybegan]

It's not cosmetics. It's the firing and reloading systems. Reagan was shot with a .22

.22LR revolver, maed by RG in fact. George Wallace was shot with the same type of gun.
What was your point here again?

A revolver does not make an effective weapon in a 'mass shooting'. Could Adam Lanza killed as many children with six rounds?

Adam Lanza could have used a rifled musket as a club and probably have killed just as many people. No one was armed, and the armed response to time to get there.

With a few speed loaders in a bag Lanza could have easily used a revolver to kill the number of people he did.

 

[martybegan]

No. Law enforcement personnel will require that type of weapon while a citizen should not fire that type of weapon in a confused, smoke filled adrenaline charged situation.

Sorry but that makes no sense. Didnt you write that if you can't hit your target in 10 rds you have no business shooting? So arent cops supposed to be trained to do just that? (P.S. They aren't. Cops are terrible shots for the most part). So why not insist cops also carry 10rd mags to cut down on collateral damage?

Cops are bad shots? What makes you think that a civilian is a marksman? Civilians armed with high capacity magazines pose a greater threat in a dangerous situation. They will spray bullets until the bad guy goes down, but what about that collateral damage?

Cops shoot for training because they have to. A lot of CCW holders and semi auto rifle owners shoot far more for practice than police officers.

and speaking of controlled fire:

NYPD: 9 shooting bystander victims hit by police gunfire | Fox News

All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.

 

[martybegan]

Training? Experience?

Doesnt that undercut your argument that no one really needs more than 10 rounds?

No. Law enforcement personnel will require that type of weapon while a citizen should not fire that type of weapon in a confused, smoke filled adrenaline charged situation.

law enforcement officers ARE normal citizens, they are peace officers. The only additional ability should have is the ability to arrest other citizens. They should follow the exact same gun laws we have to follow.

Anything else creates a new class of knights.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. Law enforcement personnel will require that type of weapon while a citizen should not fire that type of weapon in a confused, smoke filled adrenaline charged situation.

Sorry but that makes no sense. Didnt you write that if you can't hit your target in 10 rds you have no business shooting? So arent cops supposed to be trained to do just that? (P.S. They aren't. Cops are terrible shots for the most part). So why not insist cops also carry 10rd mags to cut down on collateral damage?

Cops are bad shots? What makes you think that a civilian is a marksman? Civilians armed with high capacity magazines pose a greater threat in a dangerous situation. They will spray bullets until the bad guy goes down, but what about that collateral damage?

Let's take that one by one:
Cops are bad shots. Yes, they are. I've shot competitions with them and they suck. And those are the ones who actually want to compete. In more general terms their hit ratios on the range tend to be minimal. The average armed citizen is probably a better shot than the average armed cop mainly because the cop HAS to carry the gun and qualify, the citizen chooses to. In any case, the hit ratio in shootings is poor: 34% in NYC for example.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Given the stress of the situation that is not surprising. But it suggests we ought to limit cops to under 10 shots, not private citizens.

 

[P@triot]

I just wish every parent who's kid gets shot would be a proud member of the NRA. Or instead of innocent Gabby Gifford why couldn't it be one of those republicans who takes money from the NRA who gets shot? Then maybe they would pass some common sense gun legislation.

Oh, and I find it ironic that the GOP is the party that is anti abortion because they say "all life is precious". It isn't so precious that you will give an inch on your 2nd amendment rights.

Can I have anti tank and surface to air missles? Why not? I want weapons that can protect me in case my government tries to tread on me. What if I am the former owner of the Clippers and I have 2 billion dollars? Can I buy a nuke from Russia? Why not? The government has nukes.

So maybe we should only have long range rifles for hunting, shot guns for home protecting and revolvers or glocks with only 10 rounds max?

I like my guns too but god damn!

What I think is interesting is that it is usally people such as yourself demanding gun control and then wishing that people were shot and killed. Kids in this case - even worse.

That should not surprise me though. Your argument must rely on emotion because facts dose not back it up.

You are right. I gave up trying to even come up with a solution to this because there is no solution. So, from now on, I'm going to just hope that every person that gets shot in the future is a christian. Because christians are so sure that they are going to heaven, I don't want any people who are atheists or agnostic or another religion that isn't christian to go to hell so from now on I'm going to hope all victims are christians because they get to go to heaven so cool if they get shot, right? And I hope the shooter is a christian too because before he or the police take him out he can just ask for forgiveness and he'll go to heaven and hang out with the people he killed.

Now see, if we were liberals, we would go bezerk at your audacity to "hope" something bad happens. However, being that I'm an intelligent, enlightened person who respects the constitution (in other words, a conservative), I stand up and applaud your response here sir.

If you disagree with the 2nd Amendment, and you can't get it legally altered, then you should "hope" or "wish" whatever bad things you want. I pray all the time that God rids America of the cancer known as liberals. I don't demand that government break the law and arrest you people. I don't ask society to persecute you people. I don't go around killing you people. Those are the types of steps liberals take. I simply pray.

 

[P@triot]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

We have - it's called ridding society of criminals. Sadly though, it's you liberals that try to keep our streets filled with criminals because they comprise the majority of your voter base.

How would you people to justify violating the 2nd Amendment if you didn't leave criminals on the streets to commit acts of violence with firearms? How would Obama get re-elected if all of the Occupy Wall Street rapists were behind bars where they belong? How would you justify your communism if you didn't have poverty to blame for crime?

There is nothing you liberals love more than excusing the animal committing heinous crimes and then losing your fuck'n minds (small as they may be) over an inanimate object.

Forget gun control - how about we get some fucking CRIMINAL CONTROL?!? But that doesn't fit your brainwashed little agenda, does it junior?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[FA_Q2]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

No, they are rejected because they are absolutely ineffective at all.
It not panacea that we are looking for. It is at least ONE IOTA of effectiveness. You assume that your asinine assertion is somehow going to cause some benefit. It is then shown over and over that such an assertion is flat out false. It does NOTHING.

Then you howl that it is rejected because it is not perfect. How dishonest can you get. Come up with something that has a chance of actually affecting some positive and we can talk. Keep coming up with the same old tired solution and no, you are not going to get any headway.

 

[JoeB131]

No, the reason why we made drugs illegal was because by the turn of the century, we had 2 million drug addicts out of a population of 100 million.

And, yes, making drugs illegal did reduce the number of drug addicts.

 

[JoeB131]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

We have - it's called ridding society of criminals. Sadly though, it's you liberals that try to keep our streets filled with criminals because they comprise the majority of your voter base.

How would you people to justify violating the 2nd Amendment if you didn't leave criminals on the streets to commit acts of violence with firearms? How would Obama get re-elected if all of the Occupy Wall Street rapists were behind bars where they belong? How would you justify your communism if you didn't have poverty to blame for crime?

There is nothing you liberals love more than excusing the animal committing heinous crimes and then losing your fuck'n minds (small as they may be) over an inanimate object.

Forget gun control - how about we get some fucking CRIMINAL CONTROL?!? But that doesn't fit your brainwashed little agenda, does it junior?

Hey, dumbass, if locking up "Criminals" was the solution, we wouldn't have any problems.

The United States locks up 2,000,000 people. Most of them for non-violent offenses.

Compare that other industrialized nations. YOu know, those "socialist" countries that ban guns, have social welfare programs and universal health care. The ones that have a fraction of our murder rate? How many people are they locking up?

Oh, look, while the US locks up 724 people per 100,000. Japan only locks up 62.

Germany only locks up 97.

The United Kingdom only locks up 144.

Clearly, locking people up isn't the answer, as all of those countries have much lower murder rates than we do.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

We have - it's called ridding society of criminals. Sadly though, it's you liberals that try to keep our streets filled with criminals because they comprise the majority of your voter base.

How would you people to justify violating the 2nd Amendment if you didn't leave criminals on the streets to commit acts of violence with firearms? How would Obama get re-elected if all of the Occupy Wall Street rapists were behind bars where they belong? How would you justify your communism if you didn't have poverty to blame for crime?

There is nothing you liberals love more than excusing the animal committing heinous crimes and then losing your fuck'n minds (small as they may be) over an inanimate object.

Forget gun control - how about we get some fucking CRIMINAL CONTROL?!? But that doesn't fit your brainwashed little agenda, does it junior?

Hey, dumbass, if locking up "Criminals" was the solution, we wouldn't have any problems.

The United States locks up 2,000,000 people. Most of them for non-violent offenses.

Compare that other industrialized nations. YOu know, those "socialist" countries that ban guns, have social welfare programs and universal health care. The ones that have a fraction of our murder rate? How many people are they locking up?

Oh, look, while the US locks up 724 people per 100,000. Japan only locks up 62.

Germany only locks up 97.

The United Kingdom only locks up 144.

Clearly, locking people up isn't the answer, as all of those countries have much lower murder rates than we do.

We already know that the UK doesn't count a killing a murder unless there is a conviction.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, the reason why we made drugs illegal was because by the turn of the century, we had 2 million drug addicts out of a population of 100 million.

And, yes, making drugs illegal did reduce the number of drug addicts.

The so called war on drugs has had no impact on drug use

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/business/in-rethinking-the-war-on-drugs-start-with-the-numbers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[FA_Q2]

No, the reason why we made drugs illegal was because by the turn of the century, we had 2 million drug addicts out of a population of 100 million.

And, yes, making drugs illegal did reduce the number of drug addicts.

The so called war on drugs has had no impact on drug use

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/business/in-rethinking-the-war-on-drugs-start-with-the-numbers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But it is one of the key reasons that we have so high an incarceration rate.