Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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.
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 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.
that is a specious claim. he had THREE handguns. where is your citation as to the magazines he had. He didn't follow the laws against murder. BTW it was illegal for him to buy guns with the intent of using them illegally
Moron
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
With all the times you have been wrong I'm starting to think you don't know much about guns.
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.
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.
that is a specious claim. he had THREE handguns. where is your citation as to the magazines he had. He didn't follow the laws against murder. BTW it was illegal for him to buy guns with the intent of using them illegally
Moron
The NRA study says it is not a handicap. You have given no reasons for me to believe it is. Your own examples of defense required no shots fired.
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
The NRA study says it is not a handicap. You have given no reasons for me to believe it is. Your own examples of defense required no shots fired.
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
You are lying in your interpretation
every major police department issue 15-17 round pistols
that is the most important proof
what is the downside to someone legally allowed to own a gun having as many rounds as criminals?
With all the times you have been wrong I'm starting to think you don't know much about guns.
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.
I guess the limits on murder and assault though, he didn't
stupid argument.
that is a specious claim. he had THREE handguns. where is your citation as to the magazines he had. He didn't follow the laws against murder. BTW it was illegal for him to buy guns with the intent of using them illegally
Moron
lets take a poll
no one who understands guns posts the kind of crap you do
you are a gun banner pure and simple. your attitude is that if it stops one criminal, a law should be passed
people like you help violent criminals. I haven't been wrong about anything
only a moron or a liar thinks criminals obey laws
How am I lying? It clearly states 2 rounds for defense. There is no lying you just don't want to believe it. Again you are not arresting criminals, you are just defending. Your own exampled of defense are no shots fired.
The NRA study says it is not a handicap. You have given no reasons for me to believe it is. Your own examples of defense required no shots fired.
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.
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
You are lying in your interpretation
every major police department issue 15-17 round pistols
that is the most important proof
what is the downside to someone legally allowed to own a gun having as many rounds as criminals?
Now you are making stuff up again. Show me where I have suggested banning guns?
With all the times you have been wrong I'm starting to think you don't know much about guns.
You said criminals wouldn't follow magazine limits. I gave you an example of one who did. Guess I was right.
I guess the limits on murder and assault though, he didn't
stupid argument.
that is a specious claim. he had THREE handguns. where is your citation as to the magazines he had. He didn't follow the laws against murder. BTW it was illegal for him to buy guns with the intent of using them illegally
Moron
lets take a poll
no one who understands guns posts the kind of crap you do
you are a gun banner pure and simple. your attitude is that if it stops one criminal, a law should be passed
people like you help violent criminals. I haven't been wrong about anything
only a moron or a liar thinks criminals obey laws
How am I lying? It clearly states 2 rounds for defense. There is no lying you just don't want to believe it. Again you are not arresting criminals, you are just defending. Your own exampled of defense are no shots fired.
The NRA study says it is not a handicap. You have given no reasons for me to believe it is. Your own examples of defense required no shots fired.
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.
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
You are lying in your interpretation
every major police department issue 15-17 round pistols
that is the most important proof
what is the downside to someone legally allowed to own a gun having as many rounds as criminals?
I guess you are too stupid to understand that citizens are attacked all the time by criminals
is it your proposal to limit citizens to two rounds?
Now you are making stuff up again. Show me where I have suggested banning guns?
With all the times you have been wrong I'm starting to think you don't know much about guns.
You said criminals wouldn't follow magazine limits. I gave you an example of one who did. Guess I was right.
that is a specious claim. he had THREE handguns. where is your citation as to the magazines he had. He didn't follow the laws against murder. BTW it was illegal for him to buy guns with the intent of using them illegally
Moron
lets take a poll
no one who understands guns posts the kind of crap you do
you are a gun banner pure and simple. your attitude is that if it stops one criminal, a law should be passed
people like you help violent criminals. I haven't been wrong about anything
only a moron or a liar thinks criminals obey laws
gun banners are almost always incrementalists. but your mind set is that of a gun banner. first ban 30 round magazines. then 15 round magazines, then semi autos etc etc
Sure I am. Do you always talk out of your rear?
Now you are making stuff up again. Show me where I have suggested banning guns?
With all the times you have been wrong I'm starting to think you don't know much about guns.
that is a specious claim. he had THREE handguns. where is your citation as to the magazines he had. He didn't follow the laws against murder. BTW it was illegal for him to buy guns with the intent of using them illegally
Moron
lets take a poll
no one who understands guns posts the kind of crap you do
you are a gun banner pure and simple. your attitude is that if it stops one criminal, a law should be passed
people like you help violent criminals. I haven't been wrong about anything
only a moron or a liar thinks criminals obey laws
gun banners are almost always incrementalists. but your mind set is that of a gun banner. first ban 30 round magazines. then 15 round magazines, then semi autos etc etc
MILLER The high-capacity magazine myth - Washington Times
Studies prove that the arbitrary magazine capacity restriction that was in place for a decade did not reduce crime,” Lawrence Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s senior vice president and general counsel, told The Washington Times. “In searching for effective means to reduce violence, we should not repeat failed policies, especially when they infringe on the constitutional rights of the law-abiding.”
Violent crime has decreased 17 percent since the assault weapons ban expired.
In the latest incarnation of Mrs. Feinstein’s ban, we would see the return of an ammunition limit that had no proven impact on crime while it was in effect from 1994-2004. The proposal outlaws all ammunition feeding devices — magazines, strips and drums — capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf
And there is strong empirical evidence showing that the use of guns for self-protection is both frequent and effective. Making LCM’s unavailable for self-defense can therefore cost lives, and this cost must be taken into account when considering the possible benefit of limiting on magazine capacity that could save lives in only the rarest of crimes.
Sure I am. Do you always talk out of your rear?
Now you are making stuff up again. Show me where I have suggested banning guns?
With all the times you have been wrong I'm starting to think you don't know much about guns.
lets take a poll
no one who understands guns posts the kind of crap you do
you are a gun banner pure and simple. your attitude is that if it stops one criminal, a law should be passed
people like you help violent criminals. I haven't been wrong about anything
only a moron or a liar thinks criminals obey laws
gun banners are almost always incrementalists. but your mind set is that of a gun banner. first ban 30 round magazines. then 15 round magazines, then semi autos etc etc
what a stupid comment. why are you paranoid of fellow citizens having the same guns as cops?
See all the mass shootings we have. The answer is pretty obvious, amazed you have to ask.
Sure I am. Do you always talk out of your rear?
Now you are making stuff up again. Show me where I have suggested banning guns?
lets take a poll
no one who understands guns posts the kind of crap you do
you are a gun banner pure and simple. your attitude is that if it stops one criminal, a law should be passed
people like you help violent criminals. I haven't been wrong about anything
only a moron or a liar thinks criminals obey laws
gun banners are almost always incrementalists. but your mind set is that of a gun banner. first ban 30 round magazines. then 15 round magazines, then semi autos etc etc
what a stupid comment. why are you paranoid of fellow citizens having the same guns as cops?
See all the mass shootings we have. The answer is pretty obvious, amazed you have to ask.
Sure I am. Do you always talk out of your rear?
Now you are making stuff up again. Show me where I have suggested banning guns?
gun banners are almost always incrementalists. but your mind set is that of a gun banner. first ban 30 round magazines. then 15 round magazines, then semi autos etc etc
what a stupid comment. why are you paranoid of fellow citizens having the same guns as cops?
mass shootings are extremely rare SFBs
Loughner had already reloaded his Pistol when he was tackledGreenwald National Law Enforcement Leaders Have Supported High-Capacity Magazine Ban to Reduce Gun Violence Assemblyman Lou Greenwald
The fewer the bullets, the more often the shooter has to stop firing, eject the empty cartridge and load another one.
During the Tucson, Ariz., attack on Rep. Gabby Giffords, gunman Jared Loughner was wrestled down when he stopped shooting to reload his 9-millimeter pistol.
"We've also seen this in Baltimore County, in a school shooting that we had, where the reload became very instrumental in allowing the teacher to actually tackle a student that was trying to reload a double-barreled shotgun," he said . . .
"High-capacity ammunition magazines were designed as weapons of war," Bratton says.
"They were designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time . . . They simply do not belong in untrained civilian hands."
"There is no reason that a peaceful society based on rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round magazines," Police Chief Charlie Beck said at a news conference, adding that they transform a gun "into a weapon of mass death rather than a home-protection-type device."
"It turns a killer into a killing machine," says David Chipman, who served for 25 years as a special agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Outlawing high-capacity magazines won't prevent gun crimes from happening, Chipman notes, but might well reduce the carnage: "Maybe 3 kids get killed instead of 20."
MILLER The high-capacity magazine myth - Washington Times
Studies prove that the arbitrary magazine capacity restriction that was in place for a decade did not reduce crime,” Lawrence Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s senior vice president and general counsel, told The Washington Times. “In searching for effective means to reduce violence, we should not repeat failed policies, especially when they infringe on the constitutional rights of the law-abiding.”
Violent crime has decreased 17 percent since the assault weapons ban expired.
In the latest incarnation of Mrs. Feinstein’s ban, we would see the return of an ammunition limit that had no proven impact on crime while it was in effect from 1994-2004. The proposal outlaws all ammunition feeding devices — magazines, strips and drums — capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf
And there is strong empirical evidence showing that the use of guns for self-protection is both frequent and effective. Making LCM’s unavailable for self-defense can therefore cost lives, and this cost must be taken into account when considering the possible benefit of limiting on magazine capacity that could save lives in only the rarest of crimes.
Loughner had already reloaded his Pistol when he was tackledGreenwald National Law Enforcement Leaders Have Supported High-Capacity Magazine Ban to Reduce Gun Violence Assemblyman Lou Greenwald
The fewer the bullets, the more often the shooter has to stop firing, eject the empty cartridge and load another one.
During the Tucson, Ariz., attack on Rep. Gabby Giffords, gunman Jared Loughner was wrestled down when he stopped shooting to reload his 9-millimeter pistol.
"We've also seen this in Baltimore County, in a school shooting that we had, where the reload became very instrumental in allowing the teacher to actually tackle a student that was trying to reload a double-barreled shotgun," he said . . .
"High-capacity ammunition magazines were designed as weapons of war," Bratton says.
"They were designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time . . . They simply do not belong in untrained civilian hands."
"There is no reason that a peaceful society based on rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round magazines," Police Chief Charlie Beck said at a news conference, adding that they transform a gun "into a weapon of mass death rather than a home-protection-type device."
"It turns a killer into a killing machine," says David Chipman, who served for 25 years as a special agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Outlawing high-capacity magazines won't prevent gun crimes from happening, Chipman notes, but might well reduce the carnage: "Maybe 3 kids get killed instead of 20."
MILLER The high-capacity magazine myth - Washington Times
Studies prove that the arbitrary magazine capacity restriction that was in place for a decade did not reduce crime,” Lawrence Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s senior vice president and general counsel, told The Washington Times. “In searching for effective means to reduce violence, we should not repeat failed policies, especially when they infringe on the constitutional rights of the law-abiding.”
Violent crime has decreased 17 percent since the assault weapons ban expired.
In the latest incarnation of Mrs. Feinstein’s ban, we would see the return of an ammunition limit that had no proven impact on crime while it was in effect from 1994-2004. The proposal outlaws all ammunition feeding devices — magazines, strips and drums — capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf
And there is strong empirical evidence showing that the use of guns for self-protection is both frequent and effective. Making LCM’s unavailable for self-defense can therefore cost lives, and this cost must be taken into account when considering the possible benefit of limiting on magazine capacity that could save lives in only the rarest of crimes.
Bratton is a hack with no credibility. Why are civilian cops using "weapons of war" Any cop who thinks other civilians should not have the same weapons those cops have should be stripped of his badge and gun.
you have three anti gun hacks who want other civilians to have less rounds than they have
people like that are not fit for public office. 95% of the street officers polled during the clinton administration opposed the "assault weapon ban"
Reno suppressed the report since it didn't show what she hoped it would. I saw it because the US Attorney in my district had a copy of it and I was able to read it
