1 woman & her purse vs. 3 violent men...no one has a gun...poor woman...

[Brain357]

The Long Island shooting...if you look at that...no one was interested in tackling the guy as he shot people...until they had no where else to go...

Long Island Rail Road massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Shooting
On December 7, 1993, Ferguson purchased a ticket for the 5:33 p.m. east-bound train at the Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn. This train stopped at the Jamaica Station in Queens. Ferguson boarded the third car of the east-bound Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) commuter train from Penn Station to Mineola, along with more than 80 other passengers. Ferguson, who sat on the southwestern end of the car,[13] was carrying his handgun and a canvas bag filled with 160 rounds of ammunition.[6][14] As the train approached the Merillon Avenue Station, Ferguson drew the gun, dropped several cartridges on the ground, stood up and opened fire at random. During the next three minutes, Ferguson killed six people and injured another 19. Some passengers mistook the gunshots for caps or fireworks until a woman shouted, "He's got a gun! He's shooting people!"[13] Ferguson walked east on the train, pulling the trigger steadily about every half second. Several passengers tried to hide beneath their seats, while others fled to the eastern end of the train and tried to go into the next car. Ferguson walked down the aisle of the train and shot people to his right and left as he passed each seat, briefly facing each victim before firing. The New York Times later wrote the motions were "as methodical as if he were taking tickets".[13] Ferguson said, "I'm going to get you", over and over as he walked down the aisle.[14]

The LIRR unit in which the shootings happened were cars #9891 and #9892, a pair of standard M3 electric cars. After this incident and trial, the cars were renumbered to #9945-46, to keep in sequence with the numbers of the M3 rosters. This unit still sees regular service today, using those numbers.[15] According to sources[who?], the cars were ordered held out of service as evidence for the trials, appeals, and inevitable lawsuits.

Other passengers farther away in the train did not realize a shooting had occurred until after the train stopped. As a crowd of panicked passengers fled from the third car into neighboring cars, one man appeared annoyed by their unruliness and said, "Be calm", before they forced a train door open and fled into the station.[13] Two people were injured in the stampede of passengers. After the train's conductor was informed of the shooting, he decided against opening the train doors right away because two of the cars were not yet at the platform. An announcement ordering conductors not to open the doors was made; however, Engineer Thomas Silhan climbed out the window of his cab and opened each door from the outside so panicked passengers could escape.[11]

Ferguson had emptied two 15-round magazines during the shooting. While reloading his third magazine, somebody yelled, "Grab him!"[13] Passengers Michael O'Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled Ferguson and pinned him to one of the train's seats.[14] Several other passengers ran forward to grab his arms and legs and help hold him pinned across a three-seat row with his head towards the window and legs towards the aisle. While he was pinned, Ferguson said, "O, God, what did I do? What did I do? I deserve whatever I get."[13] He also repeatedly pleaded with those holding him, "Don't shoot me. I'm sorry, I'm sorry." Five to six people continued to hold him pinned for some time while they awaited relief. While those who hadn't tackled him, but were holding him down, inquired as to the location of the gun, they were assured that it had been kicked away and that there had only been one gunman. Most if not all passengers still in the car were concerned that no further violence take place and that the shooter be held rather than attacked. He was held down for several minutes. Soon, Andrew Roderick, an off-duty Long Island Rail Road police officer who was picking up his wife from the train, boarded the train car and handcuffed Ferguson.[14]

A ten round magazine limit would not have saved lives here....no one was confronting him when he started shooting...and they only did it when they couldn't escape...

You want this guy shooting more between reloads? You cannot say having to reload sooner wouldn't have saved lives.

 

[Brain357]

Yes limited, like mag capacity should be.

ROFLMNAO! Why would one want to limit the number of chances it has to destroy that which threatens it without reloading?

Don't tell me you're one of those people who 'believe' that 'NO ONE NEEDS 2 rounds!'

Because only mass shooters and criminals are firing that much. Bullets going all over is a danger to everyone. Defense shouldn't be spraying bullets everywhere. If you can't defend yourself with a 10 rd mag you shouldn't have a gun.

ROFLMNAO!

So ... just to follow you're reasoning here.

You're telling me that you have certain knowledge, that there are "MASS-SHOOTERS" out there, which you KNOW TO BE USING HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES... for the specific purpose of MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE...

And YOUR SOLUTION is to limit the number of rounds that INNOCENT PEOPLE CAN LOAD?

What the "#UCK are YOU? Some sort of "MASS-SHOOTER" AGENT? Is it your job to spend your time in debate forums, protecting the interests of sociopaths intent on inflicting mayhem upon the innocent?


I mean seriously, do you truly feel that the product of socialism needs an edge, to the degree that you're prepared to SET THAT EDGE INTO LAW?

Or didn't you get the clue that the products of socialism are ALREADY USING THE EDGE THAT THE LAST BATCH OF LAWS LIMITING WHERE GUNS CAN BE, PROVIDED THEM?

LOL! You people are truly the Hallmark of contributors.

A mass shooter in CA used 10 rd mags because those are what's easy to get in ca.

You have examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag for defense?

When one is defending themselves from a threat to their life, what they need is TIME... where that is not available, what they need is AMMO... as much as they can GET... sadly, without time, what they HAVE is ALL THEY CAN GET.

You seem to be long on questions and short on the means to ANSWER QUESTIONS IN SUSTAINING YOUR FAILING ARGUMENT.

Pretend that your position hasn't been answered again and you're going to ignore. I have no tolerance for trolls.

Give me example of defenders needing so much ammo. Should be easy to find actual examples if what you say is true.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

He probably killed fewer people because he had to reload. Just like the Giffords shooter would have killed fewer had he needed to reload sooner.

What a crock...giffords was at a crowded mall with lots of targets, and the mistake the guy made was getting too close, had he kept more distance they wouldn't have been able to tackle him...

Sort of like Sandy Hook, where the principal charged the gunman and he killed her...or Luby's cafe where Suzanna Gratia Hupps dad charged the killer and was shot in the chest and killed...

Try reloading an actual gun sometime...it is obvious your lack of knowledge is clouding your beliefs...

You have said...in a shooting people run away and don't stop running...you said that...so how are they supposed to tackle a guy who is shooting at them from a safe distance...

colin fergusen...another shooter who was tackled...why...he shot up train car and the people had no choice but to charge him since they had no place to go...and they only succeeded after he had already killed a bunch of people...had he chosen to kill on the platform he would not have been grabbed...

None of that changes that in actual events lives would be saved. If shooter is far they will have more time to run behind something for cover as has happened. If shooter is close they might stop him as has happened.

Lives would have been saved, IF Progressives had not diluted from the respective idiots, the knowledge of what rights are, from where they come and their own RESPONSIBILITIES in terms of sustaining THEIR OWN RIGHTS.

But that genie is out of the bottle, so the only viable solution NOW, is to be armed to the teeth where one is likely to encounter the inherent product of socialism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO! Why would one want to limit the number of chances it has to destroy that which threatens it without reloading?

Don't tell me you're one of those people who 'believe' that 'NO ONE NEEDS 2 rounds!'

Because only mass shooters and criminals are firing that much. Bullets going all over is a danger to everyone. Defense shouldn't be spraying bullets everywhere. If you can't defend yourself with a 10 rd mag you shouldn't have a gun.

ROFLMNAO!

So ... just to follow you're reasoning here.

You're telling me that you have certain knowledge, that there are "MASS-SHOOTERS" out there, which you KNOW TO BE USING HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES... for the specific purpose of MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE...

And YOUR SOLUTION is to limit the number of rounds that INNOCENT PEOPLE CAN LOAD?

What the "#UCK are YOU? Some sort of "MASS-SHOOTER" AGENT? Is it your job to spend your time in debate forums, protecting the interests of sociopaths intent on inflicting mayhem upon the innocent?


I mean seriously, do you truly feel that the product of socialism needs an edge, to the degree that you're prepared to SET THAT EDGE INTO LAW?

Or didn't you get the clue that the products of socialism are ALREADY USING THE EDGE THAT THE LAST BATCH OF LAWS LIMITING WHERE GUNS CAN BE, PROVIDED THEM?

LOL! You people are truly the Hallmark of contributors.

A mass shooter in CA used 10 rd mags because those are what's easy to get in ca.

You have examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag for defense?

When one is defending themselves from a threat to their life, what they need is TIME... where that is not available, what they need is AMMO... as much as they can GET... sadly, without time, what they HAVE is ALL THEY CAN GET.

You seem to be long on questions and short on the means to ANSWER QUESTIONS IN SUSTAINING YOUR FAILING ARGUMENT.

Pretend that your position hasn't been answered again and you're going to ignore. I have no tolerance for trolls.

Give me example of defenders needing so much ammo. Should be easy to find actual examples if what you say is true.

EVERY TIME ONE HAS COME TO NEED THEIR FIREARM TO DEFEND THEMSELVES... THEY >NEED< as much ammunition as they can GET!

Now why is that?

It's because in reality, scamp... time is compressed... this means that where they have not a substantial experience in the use of their equipment, under compressed time, they will succumb to physiological instabilities. This produces stark inaccuracies in their setup... right hand shooters will pull the strikes left. and without a visible strike providing the means to adjust, they will miss.

If the perp is pumped on drugs and/or adrenaline, he will not flee... and will continue to close. Typical 9mm shooter will exhaust 14 rnds in 1.5 - 3 seconds.

So... does that in any way answer your question?

 

[BullKurtz]

Typical street ambush....the first two walked past her to block her retreat in that direction and the third one assaults her. Real brave.....all three of them should be castrated and then hanged.....anybody starting to think the Klan might have been right all along?

 

[AtticusF]

Well, another anti gunner victory...no one in this situation had a gun...so the woman was viciously beaten for her purse by three men....she didn't have a gun....neither did they....an anti gunner paradise....

the attack was,caught on video....it shows how vicious the attack was....

Trio of Black New York Men Beat Hispanic Woman in Robbery Attempt

The other two then swarm around her trying to pry her wrap around purse from her body as she lay helpless on the sidewalk. Two of them men drag her several feet by the purse strap.

"I just remember the whole attack, and for them leaving me, I remember them just dragging me, and then I started yelling for someone to help me," Reyes told CBS. "And then that's when I realized blood was coming from my face, but I didn't know where from my face."

The victim's father said that his daughter was traumatized by the attack.

"And her jeans were covered in blood and her sneakers were covered in blood," Jay Reyes said.

I can see that this is so much better...sure, she might have been killed, she might have been beaten into a coma...but it is better for society that she just take the beating...quietly, and without fuss, so that the anti gunners can feel safe....better 1000 innocent people be raped, robbed, brutally beaten or killed, than one criminal be shot....

Right?

Not likely women would have gotten to her gun, and very possible she would have been killed with it. Glad no one had a gun. Glad women survived.

LOL!

Tell ya what scamp... put a gun in your purse and spend some time walking around with it... I think you'll find that you're reasoning to this point is fatally flawed by your lack of experience in actually carrying a deadly weapon.

There's this thing called "THE SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY"... and it comes slamming down on ya the minute that you possess a device that has the means to instantly take a human life. Contrary to the idiocy being liberally splashed around that most people just toss a gun in their belt or purse and walk around until they find a plausible reason to shoot someone... the responsibility intrinsic to such, literally produces the precisely OPPOSITE EFFECT. When carrying, one's sense of one's environment is heightened. And NOT because one desires to kill someone, but because one desires to NOT BE KILLED WITH ONE'S FIREARM by the product of socialism which mugs your ass and takes your piece.


Now... before ya feel like you've some experience to share in this which trumps my experience... you're speaking to a person who was, fairly recently, MUGGED: ON A SHOOTING RANGE!

The line was hot and I was on line, in my lane when a Roid-Raging-DoucheBag did not appreciate my telling him to mind his own business, after he demanded that I put on EYE PROTECTION. I had my loaded .40 caliber Sig in my hands... and he had a 1911 .45ACP holstered on his hip.

He repeatedly struck me on the side my head and ribs... then proceeded to choke me in a headlock, all the while doing his best to pull me out of my lane... again... even as I had a loaded firearm, with which I am fully trained, proficient and highly effective in its use and have tens of thousands of rounds in all manner of training environments in terms of experience.

Guess what... no one died, because no one was shot.

First, I did not want to shoot the dumbass. Second, I never felt my life was at risk... and Third... even if my life was at risk, the range was PACKED with people that day. There were three kids directly behind him; within a few to ten feet and had I felt that shooting him was necessary to prevent my personal death or serious injury, there was a very high likelihood that they would have been injured. So, with those factors and the high likelihood that with a dozen adult males of the American variety being right there... I just stayed on my feet until they got a handle on the idiot.

Whole thing lasted 45 seconds to a minute... and I was back on line and training on a MASSIVE dose of adrenaline in five. Then I came back the next day and the day after, to exploit the opportunity to train on three severely bruised ribs and a wrenched neck. Good stuff...

BS -- Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves, etc., show you guys aren't as "responsible" as you say.

 

[ClosedCaption]

All this guns are the answer to everything stuff reminds me of the time Homer Simpson got a gun.

Guns, like hammers, are tools with a specific purpose. The hammer to drive spikes into wood... Guns to kill human beings that threaten the innocent, and beasts so they can sustain life.

These are serious matters, suited for serious people... matters poorly suited for the constituents of anti-social fiction.

LOL! Socialists... D'OH!

You should've stopped with the bolded.

Why?

Because guns shoot and not only for the reasons you stated. Its like saying Hammers are tool to drive good spikes who like to have a good time

 

[ClosedCaption]

Here is a question you wouldn't expect to have to ask...why do you anti gunners prefer that a woman is brutally raped, rather than use a gun to stop that rape....that is what you believe...right?

I hope someone tries to answer this...that answer will be fascinating...

The reason you wouldnt expect for this question to be asked is because your question is a strawman and no one has expressed that opinion. Thats why the question is so out there

 

[Brain357]

Because only mass shooters and criminals are firing that much. Bullets going all over is a danger to everyone. Defense shouldn't be spraying bullets everywhere. If you can't defend yourself with a 10 rd mag you shouldn't have a gun.

ROFLMNAO!

So ... just to follow you're reasoning here.

You're telling me that you have certain knowledge, that there are "MASS-SHOOTERS" out there, which you KNOW TO BE USING HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES... for the specific purpose of MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE...

And YOUR SOLUTION is to limit the number of rounds that INNOCENT PEOPLE CAN LOAD?

What the "#UCK are YOU? Some sort of "MASS-SHOOTER" AGENT? Is it your job to spend your time in debate forums, protecting the interests of sociopaths intent on inflicting mayhem upon the innocent?


I mean seriously, do you truly feel that the product of socialism needs an edge, to the degree that you're prepared to SET THAT EDGE INTO LAW?

Or didn't you get the clue that the products of socialism are ALREADY USING THE EDGE THAT THE LAST BATCH OF LAWS LIMITING WHERE GUNS CAN BE, PROVIDED THEM?

LOL! You people are truly the Hallmark of contributors.

A mass shooter in CA used 10 rd mags because those are what's easy to get in ca.

You have examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag for defense?

When one is defending themselves from a threat to their life, what they need is TIME... where that is not available, what they need is AMMO... as much as they can GET... sadly, without time, what they HAVE is ALL THEY CAN GET.

You seem to be long on questions and short on the means to ANSWER QUESTIONS IN SUSTAINING YOUR FAILING ARGUMENT.

Pretend that your position hasn't been answered again and you're going to ignore. I have no tolerance for trolls.

Give me example of defenders needing so much ammo. Should be easy to find actual examples if what you say is true.

EVERY TIME ONE HAS COME TO NEED THEIR FIREARM TO DEFEND THEMSELVES... THEY >NEED< as much ammunition as they can GET!

Now why is that?

It's because in reality, scamp... time is compressed... this means that where they have not a substantial experience in the use of their equipment, under compressed time, they will succumb to physiological instabilities. This produces stark inaccuracies in their setup... right hand shooters will pull the strikes left. and without a visible strike providing the means to adjust, they will miss.

If the perp is pumped on drugs and/or adrenaline, he will not flee... and will continue to close. Typical 9mm shooter will exhaust 14 rnds in 1.5 - 3 seconds.

So... does that in any way answer your question?

I don't see any examples supporting what you are saying.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO!

So ... just to follow you're reasoning here.

You're telling me that you have certain knowledge, that there are "MASS-SHOOTERS" out there, which you KNOW TO BE USING HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES... for the specific purpose of MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE...

And YOUR SOLUTION is to limit the number of rounds that INNOCENT PEOPLE CAN LOAD?

What the "#UCK are YOU? Some sort of "MASS-SHOOTER" AGENT? Is it your job to spend your time in debate forums, protecting the interests of sociopaths intent on inflicting mayhem upon the innocent?


I mean seriously, do you truly feel that the product of socialism needs an edge, to the degree that you're prepared to SET THAT EDGE INTO LAW?

Or didn't you get the clue that the products of socialism are ALREADY USING THE EDGE THAT THE LAST BATCH OF LAWS LIMITING WHERE GUNS CAN BE, PROVIDED THEM?

LOL! You people are truly the Hallmark of contributors.

A mass shooter in CA used 10 rd mags because those are what's easy to get in ca.

You have examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag for defense?

When one is defending themselves from a threat to their life, what they need is TIME... where that is not available, what they need is AMMO... as much as they can GET... sadly, without time, what they HAVE is ALL THEY CAN GET.

You seem to be long on questions and short on the means to ANSWER QUESTIONS IN SUSTAINING YOUR FAILING ARGUMENT.

Pretend that your position hasn't been answered again and you're going to ignore. I have no tolerance for trolls.

Give me example of defenders needing so much ammo. Should be easy to find actual examples if what you say is true.

EVERY TIME ONE HAS COME TO NEED THEIR FIREARM TO DEFEND THEMSELVES... THEY >NEED< as much ammunition as they can GET!

Now why is that?

It's because in reality, scamp... time is compressed... this means that where they have not a substantial experience in the use of their equipment, under compressed time, they will succumb to physiological instabilities. This produces stark inaccuracies in their setup... right hand shooters will pull the strikes left. and without a visible strike providing the means to adjust, they will miss.

If the perp is pumped on drugs and/or adrenaline, he will not flee... and will continue to close. Typical 9mm shooter will exhaust 14 rnds in 1.5 - 3 seconds.

So... does that in any way answer your question?

I don't see any examples supporting what you are saying.

You don't see examples, because I provided sound reasoning, of the unimpeachable variety.

By virtue of this absurdly obtuse response, which is in keeping with your typical response, YOU ARE HEREBY SENTENCED TO LIFE IN IGNORE.

Say hi to the other idiots for me... TT

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not likely women would have gotten to her gun, and very possible she would have been killed with it.

You know that an argument based on nothing but your supposition means nothing - right?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here is a question you wouldn't expect to have to ask...why do you anti gunners prefer that a woman is brutally raped, rather than use a gun to stop that rape....that is what you believe...right?

I hope someone tries to answer this...that answer will be fascinating...

The reason you wouldnt expect for this question to be asked is because your question is a strawman and no one has expressed that opinion. Thats why the question is so out there

In FACT: The Ideological Left is PRETENDING that 'social pressure' will resolve the 'rape' thing.

In the US Culture, we will KILL YOU FOR RAPE. That's about all the social pressure a social group can apply.

All that is left is for the woman herself to apply the penalty AT THE TIME THAT THE RAPE IS SCHEDULED TO GET STARTED.

Now, a sociopath doesn't give a dam' about the woman, or the possibility that he will be strapped to a padded bench and have poison injected into his blood stream. Just as a sociopath doesn't care that their policy advocacy will result in a woman being raped because they prohibited her from possessing and effectively using the most effective anti-rape device ever created... just as a sociopath doesn't care that their policy advocacy forces a person into servitude by baking a cake which celebrates sexual perversion.... which they consider abhorrent... effectively making law which precludes the baker from freely exercising their religion.

Relativism, expressed as an ideology is socialism and socialism is the political means by which sociopathy is politically implemented... In such a world, people are CONSTANTLY BEING TOLD THEY PREFER PEOPLE SUFFER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE... which in truth is the antithesis of justice. Which is part and parcel of 'they' telling women that they will be raped, because the social-justice cult can't allow people the means to defend themselves, because if they did, the social-justice cult would BE OUT OF BUSINESS!

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, another anti gunner victory...no one in this situation had a gun...so the woman was viciously beaten for her purse by three men....she didn't have a gun....neither did they....an anti gunner paradise....

the attack was,caught on video....it shows how vicious the attack was....

Trio of Black New York Men Beat Hispanic Woman in Robbery Attempt

The other two then swarm around her trying to pry her wrap around purse from her body as she lay helpless on the sidewalk. Two of them men drag her several feet by the purse strap.

"I just remember the whole attack, and for them leaving me, I remember them just dragging me, and then I started yelling for someone to help me," Reyes told CBS. "And then that's when I realized blood was coming from my face, but I didn't know where from my face."

The victim's father said that his daughter was traumatized by the attack.

"And her jeans were covered in blood and her sneakers were covered in blood," Jay Reyes said.

I can see that this is so much better...sure, she might have been killed, she might have been beaten into a coma...but it is better for society that she just take the beating...quietly, and without fuss, so that the anti gunners can feel safe....better 1000 innocent people be raped, robbed, brutally beaten or killed, than one criminal be shot....

Right?

Not likely women would have gotten to her gun, and very possible she would have been killed with it. Glad no one had a gun. Glad women survived.

LOL!

Tell ya what scamp... put a gun in your purse and spend some time walking around with it... I think you'll find that you're reasoning to this point is fatally flawed by your lack of experience in actually carrying a deadly weapon.

There's this thing called "THE SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY"... and it comes slamming down on ya the minute that you possess a device that has the means to instantly take a human life. Contrary to the idiocy being liberally splashed around that most people just toss a gun in their belt or purse and walk around until they find a plausible reason to shoot someone... the responsibility intrinsic to such, literally produces the precisely OPPOSITE EFFECT. When carrying, one's sense of one's environment is heightened. And NOT because one desires to kill someone, but because one desires to NOT BE KILLED WITH ONE'S FIREARM by the product of socialism which mugs your ass and takes your piece.


Now... before ya feel like you've some experience to share in this which trumps my experience... you're speaking to a person who was, fairly recently, MUGGED: ON A SHOOTING RANGE!

The line was hot and I was on line, in my lane when a Roid-Raging-DoucheBag did not appreciate my telling him to mind his own business, after he demanded that I put on EYE PROTECTION. I had my loaded .40 caliber Sig in my hands... and he had a 1911 .45ACP holstered on his hip.

He repeatedly struck me on the side my head and ribs... then proceeded to choke me in a headlock, all the while doing his best to pull me out of my lane... again... even as I had a loaded firearm, with which I am fully trained, proficient and highly effective in its use and have tens of thousands of rounds in all manner of training environments in terms of experience.

Guess what... no one died, because no one was shot.

First, I did not want to shoot the dumbass. Second, I never felt my life was at risk... and Third... even if my life was at risk, the range was PACKED with people that day. There were three kids directly behind him; within a few to ten feet and had I felt that shooting him was necessary to prevent my personal death or serious injury, there was a very high likelihood that they would have been injured. So, with those factors and the high likelihood that with a dozen adult males of the American variety being right there... I just stayed on my feet until they got a handle on the idiot.

Whole thing lasted 45 seconds to a minute... and I was back on line and training on a MASSIVE dose of adrenaline in five. Then I came back the next day and the day after, to exploit the opportunity to train on three severely bruised ribs and a wrenched neck. Good stuff...

BS -- Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves, etc., show you guys aren't as "responsible" as you say.

S..TFU. Idiots should try not to be seen and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THEY SPEAK.

The only thing Zimmerman did wrong, was waiting as long as he did to shoot. As doing so nearly cost him his life. Never heard of the other two...

 

[Brain357]

A mass shooter in CA used 10 rd mags because those are what's easy to get in ca.

You have examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag for defense?

When one is defending themselves from a threat to their life, what they need is TIME... where that is not available, what they need is AMMO... as much as they can GET... sadly, without time, what they HAVE is ALL THEY CAN GET.

You seem to be long on questions and short on the means to ANSWER QUESTIONS IN SUSTAINING YOUR FAILING ARGUMENT.

Pretend that your position hasn't been answered again and you're going to ignore. I have no tolerance for trolls.

Give me example of defenders needing so much ammo. Should be easy to find actual examples if what you say is true.

EVERY TIME ONE HAS COME TO NEED THEIR FIREARM TO DEFEND THEMSELVES... THEY >NEED< as much ammunition as they can GET!

Now why is that?

It's because in reality, scamp... time is compressed... this means that where they have not a substantial experience in the use of their equipment, under compressed time, they will succumb to physiological instabilities. This produces stark inaccuracies in their setup... right hand shooters will pull the strikes left. and without a visible strike providing the means to adjust, they will miss.

If the perp is pumped on drugs and/or adrenaline, he will not flee... and will continue to close. Typical 9mm shooter will exhaust 14 rnds in 1.5 - 3 seconds.

So... does that in any way answer your question?

I don't see any examples supporting what you are saying.

You don't see examples, because I provided sound reasoning, of the unimpeachable variety.

By virtue of this absurdly obtuse response, which is in keeping with your typical response, YOU ARE HEREBY SENTENCED TO LIFE IN IGNORE.

Say hi to the other idiots for me... TT

You have given an opinion which you can't back up with a single real world example. Sorry but you fail. And based on the ignore you clearly know it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Here is a question you wouldn't expect to have to ask...why do you anti gunners prefer that a woman is brutally raped, rather than use a gun to stop that rape....that is what you believe...right?

I hope someone tries to answer this...that answer will be fascinating...

The reason you wouldnt expect for this question to be asked is because your question is a strawman and no one has expressed that opinion. Thats why the question is so out there

In FACT: The Ideological Left is PRETENDING that 'social pressure' will resolve the 'rape' thing.

Wrong. You should look up what fact means and apologize.

In the US Culture, we will KILL YOU FOR RAPE. That's about all the social pressure a social group can apply.

All that is left is for the woman herself to apply the penalty AT THE TIME THAT THE RAPE IS SCHEDULED TO GET STARTED.

Scheduled? Maybe thats why you dont understand. There is no rape timer that goes off

Now, a sociopath doesn't give a dam' about the woman, or the possibility that he will be strapped to a padded bench and have poison injected into his blood stream. Just as a sociopath doesn't care that their policy advocacy will result in a woman being raped because they prohibited her from possessing and effectively using the most effective anti-rape device ever created... just as a sociopath doesn't care that their policy advocacy forces a person into servitude by baking a cake which celebrates sexual perversion.... which they consider abhorrent... effectively making law which precludes the baker from freely exercising their religion.

Relativism, expressed as an ideology is socialism and socialism is the political means by which sociopathy is politically implemented... In such a world, people are CONSTANTLY BEING TOLD THEY PREFER PEOPLE SUFFER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE... which in truth is the antithesis of justice. Which is part and parcel of 'they' telling women that they will be raped, because the social-justice cult can't allow people the means to defend themselves, because if they did, the social-justice cult would BE OUT OF BUSINESS!

See how that works?

No you sound retarded

 

[AtticusF]

Not likely women would have gotten to her gun, and very possible she would have been killed with it.

You know that an argument based on nothing but your supposition means nothing - right?

This whole damn tread is based upon the supposition that an armed couple would have been able to pull a gun -- after being jumped by 3 men -- and squeeze off a few shots to kill the perpetrators without injuring anyone else. I think that is a quite a supposition, but common among gun cultists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not likely women would have gotten to her gun, and very possible she would have been killed with it.

You know that an argument based on nothing but your supposition means nothing - right?

This whole damn tread is based upon the supposition that an armed couple would have been able to pull a gun

COULD have been able to, possible only if they have a gun.
Which is true.
No way to soundly argue otherwise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In FACT: The Ideological Left is PRETENDING that 'social pressure' will resolve the 'rape' thing.

Wrong. You should look up what fact means and apologize.

FACT: a thing that is indisputably the case.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

In the US Culture, we will KILL YOU FOR RAPE. That's about all the social pressure a social group can apply.

All that is left is for the woman herself to apply the penalty AT THE TIME THAT THE RAPE IS SCHEDULED TO GET STARTED.

Scheduled? Maybe thats why you dont understand. There is no rape timer that goes off

No? this is why standards for membership for these forums is SO important. The intellectually Less Fortunate tend to slow the discussion through their inability to understand context and creative license.

Your concession to that point is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Now, a sociopath doesn't give a dam' about the woman, or the possibility that he will be strapped to a padded bench and have poison injected into his blood stream. Just as a sociopath doesn't care that their policy advocacy will result in a woman being raped because they prohibited her from possessing and effectively using the most effective anti-rape device ever created... just as a sociopath doesn't care that their policy advocacy forces a person into servitude by baking a cake which celebrates sexual perversion.... which they consider abhorrent... effectively making law which precludes the baker from freely exercising their religion.

Relativism, expressed as an ideology is socialism and socialism is the political means by which sociopathy is politically implemented... In such a world, people are CONSTANTLY BEING TOLD THEY PREFER PEOPLE SUFFER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE... which in truth is the antithesis of justice. Which is part and parcel of 'they' telling women that they will be raped, because the social-justice cult can't allow people the means to defend themselves, because if they did, the social-justice cult would BE OUT OF BUSINESS!

See how that works?

No you sound retarded

TROLLING? LOL! You're inability to comprehend the reasoning at issue, is not the responsibility of those who offered it for consideration.

Auto-concession duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Just so ya know... Any more trolling on your part, toward me, and you'll be summarily sentenced to ignore. Life is too short to tolerate imbeciles. Here's hoping you find a way to rise above it.)

 

[2aguy]

This whole damn tread is based upon the supposition that an armed couple would have been able to pull a gun -- after being jumped by 3 men -- and squeeze off a few shots to kill the perpetrators without injuring anyone else. I think that is a quite a supposition, but common among gun cultists.

Th re is a story posted by itself and here in this thread where a grandfather....who was captured in his home got a gun and fought off 3' home invaders...after they tried to rape his grand daughter....an old man vs. 3 men with guns, starting without the gun..And he still won


the problem is anti gunners give no credit to individual human beings....so they assume they will just be victims....so they look to the government to keep them safe...the Borg Collective..

 

[AtticusF]

This whole damn tread is based upon the supposition that an armed couple would have been able to pull a gun -- after being jumped by 3 men -- and squeeze off a few shots to kill the perpetrators without injuring anyone else. I think that is a quite a supposition, but common among gun cultists.

Th re is a story posted by itself and here in this thread where a grandfather....who was captured in his home got a gun and fought off 3' home invaders...after they tried to rape his grand daughter....an old man vs. 3 men with guns, starting without the gun..And he still won


the problem is anti gunners give no credit to individual human beings....so they assume they will just be victims....so they look to the government to keep them safe...the Borg Collective..

This whole damn tread is based upon the supposition that an armed couple would have been able to pull a gun -- after being jumped by 3 men -- and squeeze off a few shots to kill the perpetrators without injuring anyone else. I think that is a quite a supposition, but common among gun cultists.

Th re is a story posted by itself and here in this thread where a grandfather....who was captured in his home got a gun and fought off 3' home invaders...after they tried to rape his grand daughter....an old man vs. 3 men with guns, starting without the gun..And he still won


the problem is anti gunners give no credit to individual human beings....so they assume they will just be victims....so they look to the government to keep them safe...the Borg Collective..

I don't have a real issue with someone having a gun or two at home (but not a weapons cache as many seem to need). I do have a problem with most folks walking around in public with one or two strapped to their body.

If someone breaks in your house, you know something us up. Walking down the street, you usually would get jumped before pulling your gun. Well, I suspect some of the bigots here pull them the moment they see "scary" person. Usually, the criminal will shoot you, take your gun, and it's likely innocent people will be endangered.

Leave your gunz at home and fondle them there, if you must.