Another concealed carry owner doing the wrong thing

[Brain357]

I am making suggestions that would save lives. If you don't like them you are welcome to move to another thread. But try speaking in facts and not gibberish if your going to keep posting.

Look Brain, I understand guns frighten you. but quit telling us what we need or what we should own. I tire of morons who know nothing about this subject projecting their fear and ignorance upon the rest of us

 

[Brain357]

Oakland father charged for accidental shooting of 1-year-old son www.ktvu.com

 

[turtledude]

Oakland father charged for accidental shooting of 1-year-old son www.ktvu.com

Do you realize how moronic it is to try to smear 100 million lawful gun owners over the stupidity of a few?

 

[turtledude]

I am making suggestions that would save lives. If you don't like them you are welcome to move to another thread. But try speaking in facts and not gibberish if your going to keep posting.

Look Brain, I understand guns frighten you. but quit telling us what we need or what we should own. I tire of morons who know nothing about this subject projecting their fear and ignorance upon the rest of us

you don't have the understanding or the objectivity to make suggestions of any merit. you have proven you want to harass lawful gun owners an your pretend your idiotic suggestions are designed to stop crime

 

[Brain357]

Smear? Look at it as a reminder to be careful. Don't want you shooting yourself.

Oakland father charged for accidental shooting of 1-year-old son www.ktvu.com

Do you realize how moronic it is to try to smear 100 million lawful gun owners over the stupidity of a few?

 

[turtledude]

Sorry but that is extremely stupid. You are just defending yourself. The NRA study shows that is 2 shots in the majority of cases. You are not arresting people. Cops do not pick the time and place, if they knew when a crime was going to happen crimes wouldn't happen. It is not a handicap, again defense is 2 shots. If somebody shoots 20 shots there are bullets going all over and at that point they are endangering everyone around. Aren't you the guy who gave two examples of defenses where neither did you even have to shoot? Yes I think you are.

You are not arresting criminals.

that is a stupid on several levels. The first being is

1) cops pick the time and place to confront criminals

2) other civilians do not. we also don't have backup readily available by radio, nor do we normally wear body armor

If anything we need more powerful weapons than cops

criminals will have whatever they want. why do you want citizens to be handicapped?

hey moron-there is absolutely no disadvantage to me having 17 shots in my pistol and there are huge disadvantages if I run into more than a couple criminals and I am limited to six shots.

how many gun fights have you been in "Brain"

how many have you studied as part of your job

Me

One

450+

 

[turtledude]

Smear? Look at it as a reminder to be careful. Don't want you shooting yourself.

Oakland father charged for accidental shooting of 1-year-old son www.ktvu.com

Do you realize how moronic it is to try to smear 100 million lawful gun owners over the stupidity of a few?

hey moron, I was a federal officer for 24 years. Plus I was the one who colleagues came to when they had to qualify with firearms

I also was a world class competitive shooter

I know guns. more than you can ever fathom

 

[Brain357]

And you have brought virtually no substance to this conversation, only insults. Now here is your chance again. I say limits on magazine capacity would save lives. Mass shooters use them all the time and people are constantly hit with strays from gang bangers. Mass shooters have been stopped while reloading. Obviously the fewer shots before being stopped the better. The Giffords shooting is a great example:
2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now you seem to be worried about defense. But as the NRA study that I posted earlier showed only two shots are used in the vast majority of defenses. Your own examples involved no shots fired. So don't worry mr paranoid, you will safe. Now do you have some examples of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for defense? Do you have any study to support your ideas? Or are you just going to come back with insults and nothing much else?

I am making suggestions that would save lives. If you don't like them you are welcome to move to another thread. But try speaking in facts and not gibberish if your going to keep posting.

Look Brain, I understand guns frighten you. but quit telling us what we need or what we should own. I tire of morons who know nothing about this subject projecting their fear and ignorance upon the rest of us

you don't have the understanding or the objectivity to make suggestions of any merit. you have proven you want to harass lawful gun owners an your pretend your idiotic suggestions are designed to stop crime

 

[Brain357]

Ah more name calling. Very impressive. Sounds like you should be able to come up with lots of great examples of defenses needing to fire massive amounts of shots. Please share them and include links.

Smear? Look at it as a reminder to be careful. Don't want you shooting yourself.

Oakland father charged for accidental shooting of 1-year-old son www.ktvu.com

Do you realize how moronic it is to try to smear 100 million lawful gun owners over the stupidity of a few?

hey moron, I was a federal officer for 24 years. Plus I was the one who colleagues came to when they had to qualify with firearms

I also was a world class competitive shooter

I know guns. more than you can ever fathom

 

[Brain357]

Are you suggesting the NRA study is wrong?

Sorry but that is extremely stupid. You are just defending yourself. The NRA study shows that is 2 shots in the majority of cases. You are not arresting people. Cops do not pick the time and place, if they knew when a crime was going to happen crimes wouldn't happen. It is not a handicap, again defense is 2 shots. If somebody shoots 20 shots there are bullets going all over and at that point they are endangering everyone around. Aren't you the guy who gave two examples of defenses where neither did you even have to shoot? Yes I think you are.

You are not arresting criminals.

that is a stupid on several levels. The first being is

1) cops pick the time and place to confront criminals

2) other civilians do not. we also don't have backup readily available by radio, nor do we normally wear body armor

If anything we need more powerful weapons than cops

criminals will have whatever they want. why do you want citizens to be handicapped?

hey moron-there is absolutely no disadvantage to me having 17 shots in my pistol and there are huge disadvantages if I run into more than a couple criminals and I am limited to six shots.

how many gun fights have you been in "Brain"

how many have you studied as part of your job

Me

One

450+

 

[turtledude]

Are you suggesting the NRA study is wrong?

where did you get that bit of stupidity? I am suggesting that since I do not choose when or how I may be attacked by criminals, it is stupid for me to be limited to a certain number of rounds given there is absolutely NO DOWNSIDE with my handgun having 17 rounds and me carrying two extra magazines

 

[turtledude]

Ah more name calling. Very impressive. Sounds like you should be able to come up with lots of great examples of defenses needing to fire massive amounts of shots. Please share them and include links.

Smear? Look at it as a reminder to be careful. Don't want you shooting yourself.

Oakland father charged for accidental shooting of 1-year-old son www.ktvu.com

Do you realize how moronic it is to try to smear 100 million lawful gun owners over the stupidity of a few?

hey moron, I was a federal officer for 24 years. Plus I was the one who colleagues came to when they had to qualify with firearms

I also was a world class competitive shooter

I know guns. more than you can ever fathom

If there is one case of someone needing lots of rounds, that is sufficient reason to have them

EVERY MAJOR POLICE DEPARTMENT has concluded that 15-17 round pistols are the most suitable defensive weapon for their employees-even supervisors or desk bound officers

so such weapons are equally suitable for us other civilians who might have to deal with violent criminals

 

[turtledude]

And you have brought virtually no substance to this conversation, only insults. Now here is your chance again. I say limits on magazine capacity would save lives. Mass shooters use them all the time and people are constantly hit with strays from gang bangers. Mass shooters have been stopped while reloading. Obviously the fewer shots before being stopped the better. The Giffords shooting is a great example:
2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now you seem to be worried about defense. But as the NRA study that I posted earlier showed only two shots are used in the vast majority of defenses. Your own examples involved no shots fired. So don't worry mr paranoid, you will safe. Now do you have some examples of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for defense? Do you have any study to support your ideas? Or are you just going to come back with insults and nothing much else?

I am making suggestions that would save lives. If you don't like them you are welcome to move to another thread. But try speaking in facts and not gibberish if your going to keep posting.

Look Brain, I understand guns frighten you. but quit telling us what we need or what we should own. I tire of morons who know nothing about this subject projecting their fear and ignorance upon the rest of us

you don't have the understanding or the objectivity to make suggestions of any merit. you have proven you want to harass lawful gun owners an your pretend your idiotic suggestions are designed to stop crime

I have nothing but contempt of people who want to piss on our constitutional rights and whose motivations for doing so are based either in stupidity or dishonesty.

You are completely moronic if you think that criminals willing to commit capital murder will obey magazine limits

its illegal for criminals to have any guns

so you want to handicap honest people so you can pretend you did something

people like you are aiding and abetting criminals

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Ah more name calling. Very impressive. Sounds like you should be able to come up with lots of great examples of defenses needing to fire massive amounts of shots. Please share them and include links.

Smear? Look at it as a reminder to be careful. Don't want you shooting yourself.

Oakland father charged for accidental shooting of 1-year-old son www.ktvu.com

Do you realize how moronic it is to try to smear 100 million lawful gun owners over the stupidity of a few?

hey moron, I was a federal officer for 24 years. Plus I was the one who colleagues came to when they had to qualify with firearms

I also was a world class competitive shooter

I know guns. more than you can ever fathom

If there is one case of someone needing lots of rounds, that is sufficient reason to have them

EVERY MAJOR POLICE DEPARTMENT has concluded that 15-17 round pistols are the most suitable defensive weapon for their employees-even supervisors or desk bound officers

so such weapons are equally suitable for us other civilians who might have to deal with violent criminals

You do understand the inherent flaw in this argument don't you?

A LEO is MUCH more likely to need to come into contact with a criminal than a civilian is. Magnitudes more likely.

And even at that, most LEO go there whole career without ever firing their weapon in anger.

 

[Brain357]

The downside is that mass shooters are using them to kill lots of innocent people. The downside is that gang bangers empty their magazines and strays are hitting innocent people. I see no reason to believe you need that many rounds unless you are a really bad shot. In that case you are too much of a danger to others around you so you shouldn't have a gun. You defended yourself without even shooting, why are you now so paranoid that you think you need a hi cap magazine? Why are you so selfish that you won't try to save innocent lives? You seem to only argue from emotion. I've used real events and studies.

Are you suggesting the NRA study is wrong?

where did you get that bit of stupidity? I am suggesting that since I do not choose when or how I may be attacked by criminals, it is stupid for me to be limited to a certain number of rounds given there is absolutely NO DOWNSIDE with my handgun having 17 rounds and me carrying two extra magazines

 

[Brain357]

CA has magazine limits. The Santa Barbara mass shooter stayed within those limits. There is your proof. He was a mass murderer, yet he stayed in the magazine limits.

And you have brought virtually no substance to this conversation, only insults. Now here is your chance again. I say limits on magazine capacity would save lives. Mass shooters use them all the time and people are constantly hit with strays from gang bangers. Mass shooters have been stopped while reloading. Obviously the fewer shots before being stopped the better. The Giffords shooting is a great example:
2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now you seem to be worried about defense. But as the NRA study that I posted earlier showed only two shots are used in the vast majority of defenses. Your own examples involved no shots fired. So don't worry mr paranoid, you will safe. Now do you have some examples of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for defense? Do you have any study to support your ideas? Or are you just going to come back with insults and nothing much else?

I am making suggestions that would save lives. If you don't like them you are welcome to move to another thread. But try speaking in facts and not gibberish if your going to keep posting.

Look Brain, I understand guns frighten you. but quit telling us what we need or what we should own. I tire of morons who know nothing about this subject projecting their fear and ignorance upon the rest of us

you don't have the understanding or the objectivity to make suggestions of any merit. you have proven you want to harass lawful gun owners an your pretend your idiotic suggestions are designed to stop crime

I have nothing but contempt of people who want to piss on our constitutional rights and whose motivations for doing so are based either in stupidity or dishonesty.

You are completely moronic if you think that criminals willing to commit capital murder will obey magazine limits

its illegal for criminals to have any guns

so you want to handicap honest people so you can pretend you did something

people like you are aiding and abetting criminals

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The downside is that mass shooters are using them to kill lots of innocent people. The downside is that gang bangers empty their magazines and strays are hitting innocent people. I see no reason to believe you need that many rounds unless you are a really bad shot. In that case you are too much of a danger to others around you so you shouldn't have a gun. You defended yourself without even shooting, why are you now so paranoid that you think you need a hi cap magazine? Why are you so selfish that you won't try to save innocent lives? You seem to only argue from emotion. I've used real events and studies.

Are you suggesting the NRA study is wrong?

where did you get that bit of stupidity? I am suggesting that since I do not choose when or how I may be attacked by criminals, it is stupid for me to be limited to a certain number of rounds given there is absolutely NO DOWNSIDE with my handgun having 17 rounds and me carrying two extra magazines

I can't understand why anyone needs the right to not be searched without a warrant. What's the big deal if you're not a criminal?

Will you give up your 4th Amendment rights?

 

[turtledude]

CA has magazine limits. The Santa Barbara mass shooter stayed within those limits. There is your proof. He was a mass murderer, yet he stayed in the magazine limits.

And you have brought virtually no substance to this conversation, only insults. Now here is your chance again. I say limits on magazine capacity would save lives. Mass shooters use them all the time and people are constantly hit with strays from gang bangers. Mass shooters have been stopped while reloading. Obviously the fewer shots before being stopped the better. The Giffords shooting is a great example:
2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now you seem to be worried about defense. But as the NRA study that I posted earlier showed only two shots are used in the vast majority of defenses. Your own examples involved no shots fired. So don't worry mr paranoid, you will safe. Now do you have some examples of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for defense? Do you have any study to support your ideas? Or are you just going to come back with insults and nothing much else?

I am making suggestions that would save lives. If you don't like them you are welcome to move to another thread. But try speaking in facts and not gibberish if your going to keep posting.

Look Brain, I understand guns frighten you. but quit telling us what we need or what we should own. I tire of morons who know nothing about this subject projecting their fear and ignorance upon the rest of us

you don't have the understanding or the objectivity to make suggestions of any merit. you have proven you want to harass lawful gun owners an your pretend your idiotic suggestions are designed to stop crime

I have nothing but contempt of people who want to piss on our constitutional rights and whose motivations for doing so are based either in stupidity or dishonesty.

You are completely moronic if you think that criminals willing to commit capital murder will obey magazine limits

its illegal for criminals to have any guns

so you want to handicap honest people so you can pretend you did something

people like you are aiding and abetting criminals

I guess the limits on murder and assault though, he didn't

stupid argument.

 

[Brain357]

You said criminals wouldn't follow magazine limits. I gave you an example of one who did. Guess I was right.

CA has magazine limits. The Santa Barbara mass shooter stayed within those limits. There is your proof. He was a mass murderer, yet he stayed in the magazine limits.

And you have brought virtually no substance to this conversation, only insults. Now here is your chance again. I say limits on magazine capacity would save lives. Mass shooters use them all the time and people are constantly hit with strays from gang bangers. Mass shooters have been stopped while reloading. Obviously the fewer shots before being stopped the better. The Giffords shooting is a great example:
2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now you seem to be worried about defense. But as the NRA study that I posted earlier showed only two shots are used in the vast majority of defenses. Your own examples involved no shots fired. So don't worry mr paranoid, you will safe. Now do you have some examples of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for defense? Do you have any study to support your ideas? Or are you just going to come back with insults and nothing much else?

I am making suggestions that would save lives. If you don't like them you are welcome to move to another thread. But try speaking in facts and not gibberish if your going to keep posting.

you don't have the understanding or the objectivity to make suggestions of any merit. you have proven you want to harass lawful gun owners an your pretend your idiotic suggestions are designed to stop crime

I have nothing but contempt of people who want to piss on our constitutional rights and whose motivations for doing so are based either in stupidity or dishonesty.

You are completely moronic if you think that criminals willing to commit capital murder will obey magazine limits

its illegal for criminals to have any guns

so you want to handicap honest people so you can pretend you did something

people like you are aiding and abetting criminals

I guess the limits on murder and assault though, he didn't

stupid argument.

 

[turtledude]

The downside is that mass shooters are using them to kill lots of innocent people. The downside is that gang bangers empty their magazines and strays are hitting innocent people. I see no reason to believe you need that many rounds unless you are a really bad shot. In that case you are too much of a danger to others around you so you shouldn't have a gun. You defended yourself without even shooting, why are you now so paranoid that you think you need a hi cap magazine? Why are you so selfish that you won't try to save innocent lives? You seem to only argue from emotion. I've used real events and studies.

Are you suggesting the NRA study is wrong?

where did you get that bit of stupidity? I am suggesting that since I do not choose when or how I may be attacked by criminals, it is stupid for me to be limited to a certain number of rounds given there is absolutely NO DOWNSIDE with my handgun having 17 rounds and me carrying two extra magazines

I see no reason for you to handicap honest people

why are you so afraid of fellow citizens having the same number of rounds as our police? It is you who is paranoid because you want to pass laws that only impact honest people. Any your pathetic moronic and dishonest claim that I am selfish for not agreeing to the suggestions of dishonest moronic and pernicious gun banners really takes the cake. You are arguing from emotion because you want to be able to pretend you have done something to stop crime

you really are a moron