Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone

[Rustic]

But you want anyone to own them. No training, no classes, no background checks. No permits to carry. Carry them in schools and in bars.

You want idiots like me to have no regulations.

Freedom isn’t free! Lol

Just like a chainsaw? Or a forge?

Moron...

Hey everyone. I’m a hypocrite like al gore when he preached about going green. Sure he has 3 homes all burning electricity and he flies on private jets but that doesn’t mean he can’t be for us as a society going green.

Same for me. I said my new gun comes with an 8 round clip and they shouldn’t make clips that hold more rounds, but then the guy shows up and he had two normal clips and one that holds ten instead of 8.

That doesn’t mean I approve of them making ten round clips.

But, guess which clip this hypocrite put in the gun? Lol

 

[Rustic]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an evil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Your so called "Common Sense" regulations always include some type of ban on certain types of firearms. You can pretty it up all you want but that is taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Making it more expensive to own a firearm is effectively taking guns away from people.

The Constitution is very specific on the Governments right to infringement on firearm ownership. No.

Listen. You know the automatics the criminals used in heat? I wouldn’t be upset to know that in 100 years weapons like that no longer exist.

What will it take? Will it take 100 isis sleeper cells to one day take guns like this out in all 50 states and wreak havoc on 50 major cities taking out 1000 in each city? So in one day a group of bad people take out 50,000 people.

Would you still want those guns made available?

Or is your solution we should have good citizens walking around ready for such an incident?

Maybe there are some weapons that should not be given to average citizens? Too many nuts.

I wish everyone who’s a bra nut could experience the loss of a love one to a gun wacko. I wonder if they would change their opinion.

We should ask sandy hook parents if they were gun nuts before and are they still.

Or the survivors of the Vegas shooter

Lol
I get it, you run around scared of life obviously

 

[Rustic]

To have "common sense gun control laws" you have to have people with common sense enacting them. That ain't the case with Liberals. Liberals don't have a damn bit of common sense. For instance, the dumb mutherfuckers want to take away guns that are very seldom used in crimes away from the people that don't commit the crimes. That is the kind of idiots they are.

I admit that. Like I have a handgun ruger 45 1911. You just rack and shoot ten as fast as you want. Then you put a new clip in, rack and ten more.

I bet I could carry 100 clips.

So maybe we need to regulate the sale of all weapon parts sold. If you own a ruger 1911 then you can only legally buy 10 clips. You can trade damaged ones in for new ones but you can’t legally buy more than 10 clips.

What possible reason do you need more other than to go on a rampage?

Actually it should be 3 clips not ten. You should only be able to mass murder 30 people with any one gun.

There is a good regulation the gun lobbyists won’t like

 

[Rustic]

Our goal is to decrease the carnage. At this point I’m more worried a nuts gonna kill me than I am the government

Lol
The vast majority of violent crime in this country is done by repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban areas… We have no criminal control obviously.
And gun control has never been about firearms, it’s always been about control… The civilian federal government/deep state of an armed America thinking for themselves.

 

[Rustic]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an evil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Your so called "Common Sense" regulations always include some type of ban on certain types of firearms. You can pretty it up all you want but that is taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Making it more expensive to own a firearm is effectively taking guns away from people.

The Constitution is very specific on the Governments right to infringement on firearm ownership. No.

Listen. You know the automatics the criminals used in heat? I wouldn’t be upset to know that in 100 years weapons like that no longer exist.

What will it take? Will it take 100 isis sleeper cells to one day take guns like this out in all 50 states and wreak havoc on 50 major cities taking out 1000 in each city? So in one day a group of bad people take out 50,000 people.

Would you still want those guns made available?

Or is your solution we should have good citizens walking around ready for such an incident?

Maybe there are some weapons that should not be given to average citizens? Too many nuts.

I wish everyone who’s a bra nut could experience the loss of a love one to a gun wacko. I wonder if they would change their opinion.

We should ask sandy hook parents if they were gun nuts before and are they still.

Or the survivors of the Vegas shooter

I'm not giving up a Constitutional right and that's all there is to it. By the way none of the weapons used in these shootings were automatics.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin.

But you already have. You can still own a machine gun but look at all the regulations. And they have to be made before 1986. That means we don’t make them anymore.

So you mean you’re not giving up any more than you already have.

Lol
Of course they are still making them

 

[Rustic]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an evil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Your so called "Common Sense" regulations always include some type of ban on certain types of firearms. You can pretty it up all you want but that is taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Making it more expensive to own a firearm is effectively taking guns away from people.

The Constitution is very specific on the Governments right to infringement on firearm ownership. No.

Listen. You know the automatics the criminals used in heat? I wouldn’t be upset to know that in 100 years weapons like that no longer exist.

What will it take? Will it take 100 isis sleeper cells to one day take guns like this out in all 50 states and wreak havoc on 50 major cities taking out 1000 in each city? So in one day a group of bad people take out 50,000 people.

Would you still want those guns made available?

Or is your solution we should have good citizens walking around ready for such an incident?

Maybe there are some weapons that should not be given to average citizens? Too many nuts.

I wish everyone who’s a bra nut could experience the loss of a love one to a gun wacko. I wonder if they would change their opinion.

We should ask sandy hook parents if they were gun nuts before and are they still.

Or the survivors of the Vegas shooter

How about the experience of the 1.1 million Americans who use their legal guns to save the lives of loved ones from violent criminals that the democrat party judges, politicians and prosecutors keep letting out of jail? They have a vastly different experience with legal guns, which they use to save lives, and they would tell you that you are an idiot who doesn't understand the issue.....

Did any of them need more than three clips to save their love ones?

 

[Rustic]

"Common sense" is understanding and adhering to the Bill of Rights.

People can do a lot more damage with a 20 clip than they can a ten.

Let’s just limit clips to ten and the most clips you can buy per gun is 6

 

[Rustic]

"Common sense" is understanding and adhering to the Bill of Rights.

People can do a lot more damage with a 20 clip than they can a ten.

Let’s just limit clips to ten and the most clips you can buy per gun is 6

Lets not. I have never done any damage with my 30 round "clips" so you can go fuck yourself.

I’ve never pushed the button on my nuke but my city doesn’t want me having it. Can I move to your city with my nuke?

 

[pismoe]

gun controllers , lefties , dems and many 'repubs' and 'mrguncontrol' himself want to turn gun ownership in the USA into a FAVOR Granted by 'govenment' just like its a favor granted by 'government' in 'england' , 'wales' and other places and 'governments' .

 

[Rustic]

"Common sense" is understanding and adhering to the Bill of Rights.

People can do a lot more damage with a 20 clip than they can a ten.

Let’s just limit clips to ten and the most clips you can buy per gun is 6

That is in fact, untrue......as actual research shows...

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

Ridiculous. Only the shooters themselves feel the nerves and shock of what it’s like to murder lots of people. Most people would stumble for the next round. They’d be shaking. They’ve never experienced anything like it before.

You can practice all you want and be real quick practicing. Real life is different story

 

[Meister]

“Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone”

True.

In fact, there are common sense measures that can be taken having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms, such as universal background checks and ensuring the states have the funding and ability to update the NICS database in a timely manner.

But the NRA and most on the right continue to propagate their ridiculous lie and slippery slope fallacy that common sense measures will lead to the ‘banning’ of all guns and their eventual ‘confiscation.’

Cut the crap. Gun bans have been the left's goal for decades

I feel you and people like you will no longer be tolerated.
There is a tsunami of emotion and actions, led by the young, that will drive you into your rat hole.

Same ones that eat tide pods?

I'm not too concerned

You should be concerned. You support the narrative of the Russians who hacked our election. Are you a Russian. Are you one of the stupid ones who were organized by Russians

trolling your own thread?

 

[Rustic]

Have any of you ever experienced buck fever?

Lol
“Buck fever” is the lack of preparation...

 

[OldLady]

“Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone”

True.

In fact, there are common sense measures that can be taken having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms, such as universal background checks and ensuring the states have the funding and ability to update the NICS database in a timely manner.

But the NRA and most on the right continue to propagate their ridiculous lie and slippery slope fallacy that common sense measures will lead to the ‘banning’ of all guns and their eventual ‘confiscation.’

So called "universal background checks" are just gun registration in disguise. States don't update the NCIS database. What most of the leftwing douche bags in here are demanding is making semi-automatic weapons illegal. That would make about 3/4 of all the guns in this country illegal.

States PROVIDE the data for the NCIS database and a lot of them are falling down on the job. Even the military which is federal is not (or was not) reporting felony domestic violence convictions of military personnel. How good a background check do you get when half the convictions aren't in the database? Who even knows about the folks deemed dangerous to themselves or others by psychiatrists.

C'mon.

 

[Rustic]

"Common sense" is understanding and adhering to the Bill of Rights.

People can do a lot more damage with a 20 clip than they can a ten.

Let’s just limit clips to ten and the most clips you can buy per gun is 6

Lets not. I have never done any damage with my 30 round "clips" so you can go fuck yourself.

I’ve never pushed the button on my nuke but my city doesn’t want me having it. Can I move to your city with my nuke?

And this judge understands exactly how you anti-gunners think and act....

It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to predict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds. To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round “loophole” and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legislature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are “necessary.”


Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round “loophole” and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds is “necessary.” And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun.


Or perhaps, one gun, but no ammunition. Or ammunition issued only to persons deemed trustworthy.


This is not baseless speculation or scare-mongering. One need only look at New Jersey and New York. In the 1990’s, New Jersey instituted a prohibition on what it would label “large capacity ammunition magazines.” These were defined as magazines able to hold more than 15 rounds. Slipping down the slope, last year, New Jersey lowered the capacity of permissible magazines from 15 to 10 rounds. See Firearms, 2018 N.J. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 39 (ASSEMBLY No. 2761) (WEST). At least one bill had been offered that would have reduced the allowed capacity to only five rounds. (See New Jersey Senate Bill No. 798, introduced in the 2018 Session, amending N.J.S. 2C:39-1(y)

This judge is legislating from the bench

Lol
Career politicians are clueless when it comes to firearms... fact

 

[Rustic]

“Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone”

True.

In fact, there are common sense measures that can be taken having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms, such as universal background checks and ensuring the states have the funding and ability to update the NICS database in a timely manner.

But the NRA and most on the right continue to propagate their ridiculous lie and slippery slope fallacy that common sense measures will lead to the ‘banning’ of all guns and their eventual ‘confiscation.’

So called "universal background checks" are just gun registration in disguise. States don't update the NCIS database. What most of the leftwing douche bags in here are demanding is making semi-automatic weapons illegal. That would make about 3/4 of all the guns in this country illegal.

States PROVIDE the data for the NCIS database and a lot of them are falling down on the job. Even the military which is federal is not (or was not) reporting felony domestic violence convictions of military personnel. How good a background check do you get when half the convictions aren't in the database? Who even knows about the folks deemed dangerous to themselves or others by psychiatrists.

C'mon.

Lol
Failure is strong with the federal government, that’s old news.

 

[Rustic]

"Common sense" is understanding and adhering to the Bill of Rights.

People can do a lot more damage with a 20 clip than they can a ten.

Let’s just limit clips to ten and the most clips you can buy per gun is 6

That is in fact, untrue......as actual research shows...

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

Ridiculous. Only the shooters themselves feel the nerves and shock of what it’s like to murder lots of people. Most people would stumble for the next round. They’d be shaking. They’ve never experienced anything like it before.

You can practice all you want and be real quick practicing. Real life is different story

Again.....you have no idea what you are talking about......you make things up and present them as if they are true....actual research shows you are wrong...on all counts.

Research from the judge?

Use common sense.

Is it quicker to shoot two 10 round clips or a 20? Duh. You can’t say that’s not true. Neither can the judge

 

[eflatminor]

It takes a special kind of stupid to think criminals will be in any way impacted by yet more gun control laws. They're okay killing someone...but other laws they'll follow? Yea, that's especially stupid thinking.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

“Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone”

True.

In fact, there are common sense measures that can be taken having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms, such as universal background checks and ensuring the states have the funding and ability to update the NICS database in a timely manner.

But the NRA and most on the right continue to propagate their ridiculous lie and slippery slope fallacy that common sense measures will lead to the ‘banning’ of all guns and their eventual ‘confiscation.’

Cut the crap. Gun bans have been the left's goal for decades

I feel you and people like you will no longer be tolerated.
There is a tsunami of emotion and actions, led by the young, that will drive you into your rat hole.

Same ones that eat tide pods?

I'm not too concerned

You should be concerned. You support the narrative of the Russians who hacked our election. Are you a Russian. Are you one of the stupid ones who were organized by Russians

trolling your own thread?

I'm not concerned because I have the Second on my side and the youngsters would be wise to learn that.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

gun controllers , lefties , dems and many 'repubs' and 'mrguncontrol' himself want to turn gun ownership in the USA into a FAVOR Granted by 'govenment' just like its a favor granted by 'government' in 'england' , 'wales' and other places and 'governments' .

Just because you said so doesn't make it real.

Let me introduce myself. When pssmet says "Mrguncontrol" he's talking about me. I don't say one way or another. But I do go for common sense gun laws. If I wanted a gun today, I can get one....LEGALLY. Common Sense Gun laws don't prevent me from having almost any reasonable gun that is made today. Since I have no criminal record, don't beat the wife or terrorize the kids, I don't have a problem purchasing, owning and using a gun. I also don't cry my little head off that 'They are coming to take all my guns' like some do in here. If you are worried about "Them" coming to take all your guns, you are either up to no good or loony enough to maybe warrant the court to remove your right to own since you are a threat to society. Either way works for me. If you do not fit in either of those categories then you should follow your local, state and federal laws. And only after that, you have the right to own that gun.

Or you can do what pssmet does and keep screaming that the sky is falling.

 

[Rustic]

gun controllers , lefties , dems and many 'repubs' and 'mrguncontrol' himself want to turn gun ownership in the USA into a FAVOR Granted by 'govenment' just like its a favor granted by 'government' in 'england' , 'wales' and other places and 'governments' .

Just because you said so doesn't make it real.

Let me introduce myself. When pssmet says "Mrguncontrol" he's talking about me. I don't say one way or another. But I do go for common sense gun laws. If I wanted a gun today, I can get one....LEGALLY. Common Sense Gun laws don't prevent me from having almost any reasonable gun that is made today. Since I have no criminal record, don't beat the wife or terrorize the kids, I don't have a problem purchasing, owning and using a gun. I also don't cry my little head off that 'They are coming to take all my guns' like some do in here. If you are worried about "Them" coming to take all your guns, you are either up to no good or loony enough to maybe warrant the court to remove your right to own since you are a threat to society. Either way works for me. If you do not fit in either of those categories then you should follow your local, state and federal laws. And only after that, you have the right to own that gun.

Or you can do what pssmet does and keep screaming that the sky is falling.

Firearm ownership is none of the federal governments business...
That is why firearm registration is never acceptable… In fact it’s unconstitutional