lets see how the gun control dems handle this

[2aguy]

Name one law that will stop mass shootings?

That's your problem. You act like making it harder for one person to kill so many in such a short time is not worth while. You're an idiot.

There are millions upon millions of ARs in this country... And a handful of them are used in crimes percentage wise - like a tiny percentage of a percentage of a percentage...
The thinking of gun control as a necessarily need is delusional at best. There are much bigger fish to fry
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

It's not about doing away with guns dumbass. It's about trying to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and reducing the number of shots that can be fired before stopping to reload. Of course, like I said before, you think laws are useless, so you are just fine with how many people can be killed in a very short time.

What you ignore is people have very legitimate uses for those weapons with high capacity magazines. I don't have one right now, but I'm seriously considering buying one next week with a night vision scope. Wild hogs are devastating my property. Imagine trying run a lawn mower though a plowed field, that's what you get with hogs.

You don't need that many shots before reloading for hogs.My 870 has a three round plug, and I do just fine.

No...but in the middle of the night, if 3 thugs break into your house and you get hit first...and because you are injured your small motor skills are trashed......15 rounds in your pistol means you don't have to try to reload the magazine....you have a better chance of survival....

And if you are a rancher on an isolated ranch on the border....and you run into drug cartel smugglers...and they start to shoot at you...and the cops are an hour away...you have 30 round magazines to help you survive and escape.....

But you keep telling your self that magazine limits are anything but a way to ban guns......

 

[Wilbur Right]

Most of the mass shootings done lately have been done by progressive fuck ups… That's what happens when you have far too much socialism in your government.

Fuck you asshole. Most of the mass shootings are committed by young men under 30 who bought their weapons at a gun store.

Stupid fuck, you gun nutters should know this shit. But you gun nutters are pretty fucking stupid.......so WTF.

 

[2aguy]

It is proof that those who don't support gun rights have never been in a situation where they wish they had one.

You realize that wanting reasonable restrictions isn't the same as wanting to do away with all guns don't you?

We have reasonable restriction as a nation, some states have gone batshit crazy though. Funny how they're all blue states.

Universal background checks and magazine limits. Don't bother with your silly excuses why you don't want them. I've already heard that crap a hundred times. It doesn't hold up.

Explain how you enforce universal background checks.

How do we enforce any other law?

When it is broken and the criminal is caught.......we can already do that for gun crimes. We don't need magazine limits or universal background checks...when you catch the felon with the illegal gun that he can't buy, own or carry, you can already arrest him....and if you hold up a liquor store with a gun....you can already be arrested for that...

See how easy that is...we don't need to pass any new laws to arrest those criminals....

 

[2aguy]

Most of the mass shootings done lately have been done by progressive fuck ups… That's what happens when you have far too much socialism in your government.

Fuck you asshole. Most of the mass shootings are committed by young men under 30 who bought their weapons at a gun store.

Stupid fuck, you gun nutters should know this shit. But you gun nutters are pretty fucking stupid.......so WTF.

Yes....they passed federal background checks.....and would pass a background check for a private sale too....making universal background checks pointless.......

As well as magazine limits...since actual research shows that the rate of fire of actual mass shooters in actual mass shootings is not affected by changing magazines........

 

[2aguy]

Just leave our rights be, leftists. Once you allow the government to step all over one right, what's to stop them from doing the same to other rights? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Also, since 70% of criminals and murderers obtain their weapons through ILLEGAL means (big surprise for some of you, I suppose), then your banning things and restricting things doesn't do anything. MURDER is already against the law!

Then background checks would limit those legal purchases. Why do you want to make it easier for a thug to get a gun?

Background checks limit nothing ...France has all the gun laws you want and has banned all the rifles you want banned....and criminals and terrorists on government watch lists get fully automatic rifles, grenades, explosives and pistols easily.....

 

[2aguy]

Just leave our rights be, leftists. Once you allow the government to step all over one right, what's to stop them from doing the same to other rights? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Also, since 70% of criminals and murderers obtain their weapons through ILLEGAL means (big surprise for some of you, I suppose), then your banning things and restricting things doesn't do anything. MURDER is already against the law!

Then background checks would limit those legal purchases. Why do you want to make it easier for a thug to get a gun?

Thugs are normally prohibited from legal gun purchases, or are you labeling innocent people as thugs?

No Thugs are thugs. An individual has no obligation to find out or even care if the person they are selling to is a thug. Without that obligation, lots of innocent people will sell guns to more thugs. As you know, they don't care about the law, but I suggest those innocent people would follow the law forcing the thug to find another source.

Wrong....please, do research before you post.....actual criminals do not like private sales because they don't know the seller......there is too much risk the seller is an undercover cop....they prefer friends and family with clean records buying their guns for them at gun stores.......

But if they wanted a gun from a private seller, those same friends and family would pass that background check too....making your call for universal background checks just stupid....

 

[Wilbur Right]

What is the demographic of mass shooters?
Of straw buyers?
Of gang bangers?
Of domestic violence perpetrators?
Of parents of young kids who find a gun?

Young men under 30 make up the vast majority of those buyers and users/abusers of guns.

Making it not possible for them to easily buy weapons is something that gun nutters can't imagine. That would make too much sense.

Fucking gun nutters can't imagine anything that would reduce needless gun violence and deaths.

Pitiful fucks.

 

[Wilbur Right]

they prefer friends and family with clean records buying their guns for them at gun stores.......

What is the typical age of those straw buyers? Do you even know?

 

[2aguy]

Name one law that will stop mass shootings? And how? Be specific

Change the age a young man can buy a gun to age 30.
Simple, effective and no harm to anyone.


If that isn't acceptable, how about limiting the types of guns young men under 30 can buy to revolvers and single shot .22 rifles?

While this would not be 100% effective, it would seriously cut down the types of mass shootings we have seen lately. As well as helping curb straw buyers, kids finding dads gun, domestic violence with a gun involved etc.

There ya go. A real solution.

Hey moron....the gang bangers shooting people in democrat voting districts are usually under 21 and they have multiple felony convictions....that means they are legally barred from buying, owning and carrying guns already.......both because of their age...and oh...their multiple felony convictions............

Normal people are not shooting other people so your post is just stupid...and pointless......

Nothing in your post would stop mass shooters or criminals or straw buyers from getting guns......

you guys should just say you want to sprinkle pixie dust on guns to make them safe.....that would be as effective as what you morons are actually proposing.....

 

[2aguy]

they prefer friends and family with clean records buying their guns for them at gun stores.......

What is the typical age of those straw buyers? Do you even know?

yes....21 asshole......the legal age you can buy hand guns......

 

[2aguy]

LGBT turnout for free course surprises local shooting range

I enjoy this kind of political cross pressure.

I wish more straights would take gun training courses

it should be taught in the schools

Wherever

You should prove you are trained before you can buy a gun

And people like you said that blacks should have to pass a Literacy Test before they could vote......I see you guys haven't changed your tactics on preventing people from exercising their Rights........

 

[Wilbur Right]

Nothing in your post would stop mass shooters or criminals or straw buyers from getting guns......

You are a fucking liar punk.
By you own words, criminals are buying guns in a gun store. They, by you own words are mostly under 30. If you can't buy a gun because you are under 30, guess fucking what you damned idiot. They won't have that gun.


Is the best idea you have to reduce needless gun violence to buy more guns? Fuck you.

 

[2aguy]

Name one law that will stop mass shootings?

That's your problem. You act like making it harder for one person to kill so many in such a short time is not worth while. You're an idiot.

There are millions upon millions of ARs in this country... And a handful of them are used in crimes percentage wise - like a tiny percentage of a percentage of a percentage...
The thinking of gun control as a necessarily need is delusional at best. There are much bigger fish to fry
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

It's not about doing away with guns dumbass. It's about trying to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and reducing the number of shots that can be fired before stopping to reload. Of course, like I said before, you think laws are useless, so you are just fine with how many people can be killed in a very short time.

Reloading takes milliseconds with just a little practice you stupid dolt.
Anything the anti-gun nutters come up with is going to be frivolous at best…

the shooter who killed one student and injured several others at Seattle Pacific University was pepper sprayed and held down when he stopped to reload his gun. In the Tuscon, Ariz. shooting, Jared Loughner killed six and injured 13 others using a handgun with a 31-round clip. But he was ultimately stopped when he went to change magazines. And during the Sandy Hook Massacre, several kids reportedly escaped while shooter Adam Lanza was reloading his gun.

Wrong on both cases......

the guy with the shotgun could have been loading rounds into the shotgun as he moved.....and it didn't have a magazine to change moron......

And the Giffords shooting....it wansn't a magazine change that allowed them to tackle him.......it was dumb luck...

1) the magazine misfed...it was full....he was only changing magazines because of a misfeed, not because it ran out...

2) he shot a guy in the head...and thinking he was dead he continued to close the distance on the guy...the guy was grazed by the bullet....not killed...had the shooter actually shot the guy in the head and killed him, he would have cleared the weapon and kept firing....as it was he allowed himself to get too close to the guy he thought was dead.......pure dumb luck...



3) the woman on the ground...did not rush him and grab the magazine...she saw him coming and laid on the ground, hoping he would ignore her...when the shooter was tackled, he fell right in front of her where she just had to reach out her hand and grab his magazine..as he was wrestiling with the other guy already......had he killed the first guy, he would have simply killed her....

again, pure, dumb luck, not a magazine change...

The Tucson Atrocity: Joe Zamudio’s StoryAmerican Handgunner | American Handgunner

He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

Killer Restrained

-------- Patricia had been on the ground when she grabbed the loaded magazine away from him, and she shimmied over his legs. Loughner began to struggle, and Patricia asked me to take her place.



----Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.

So you are wrong on both cases......neither one was stopped because of a magazine change.......

Here ...the account from the woman on the ground...how it actually happened...she didn't rush the guy...she tried to play dead...

And the guy who tackled him...in the interview on ABC news...he says that after he was shot in the head, he looked up and the shooter was right next to him...he didn't have to even charge the guy........dumb luck...

Woman Stopped Tucson Shooter From Reloading

She considered trying to run away, she said, but thought that would make her more of a target, so she laid down on the ground. But then something unexpected happened.

"Then he was next to me on the ground," she said. "The gentleman knocked him down.

"I kneeled over him. He was pulling a magazine [to reload] and I grabbed the magazine and secured that. I think the men got the gun, and I was able to get the magazine," she said.

Please...do some research before you post.....anti-gun sites lie .....and then you repeat those lies...

 

[2aguy]

Nothing in your post would stop mass shooters or criminals or straw buyers from getting guns......

You are a fucking liar punk.
By you own words, criminals are buying guns in a gun store. They, by you own words are mostly under 30. If you can't buy a gun because you are under 30, guess fucking what you damned idiot. They won't have that gun.


Is the best idea you have to reduce needless gun violence to buy more guns? Fuck you.

Asswipe......criminals will just get straw buyers who are 30......did you fall on your head moron...because you post like you did......they get their grandmothers to buy their guns for them.....moron....

 

[2aguy]

And here you go.......the actual research on magazine limits and mass shootings...

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?
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.

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
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

-----

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.

 

[2aguy]

Name one law that will stop mass shootings?

That's your problem. You act like making it harder for one person to kill so many in such a short time is not worth while. You're an idiot.

There are millions upon millions of ARs in this country... And a handful of them are used in crimes percentage wise - like a tiny percentage of a percentage of a percentage...
The thinking of gun control as a necessarily need is delusional at best. There are much bigger fish to fry
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

It's not about doing away with guns dumbass. It's about trying to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and reducing the number of shots that can be fired before stopping to reload. Of course, like I said before, you think laws are useless, so you are just fine with how many people can be killed in a very short time.

Reloading takes milliseconds with just a little practice you stupid dolt.
Anything the anti-gun nutters come up with is going to be frivolous at best…

the shooter who killed one student and injured several others at Seattle Pacific University was pepper sprayed and held down when he stopped to reload his gun. In the Tuscon, Ariz. shooting, Jared Loughner killed six and injured 13 others using a handgun with a 31-round clip. But he was ultimately stopped when he went to change magazines. And during the Sandy Hook Massacre, several kids reportedly escaped while shooter Adam Lanza was reloading his gun.

And the myth that kids at Sandy Hook escaped...is just that ....a myth.....from the actual research on Sandy Hook and other mass shootings as they concern magazine changes....

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


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.


-----

 

[2aguy]

LGBT turnout for free course surprises local shooting range

I enjoy this kind of political cross pressure.

I totally support "responsible" gun ownership and usage. Why doesn't the NRA?

They do.....you guys just lie about the NRA.......and make up crap they don't believe and have never said....

 

[2aguy]

It is proof that those who don't support gun rights have never been in a situation where they wish they had one.

You realize that wanting reasonable restrictions isn't the same as wanting to do away with all guns don't you?

We already have reasonable restrictions

Correct, just not enough.

We have enough we just don't enforce them properly

One more gun law added to the 20,000 or so already one the books will not be the panacea you think it will

Nobody expects it will be a panacea.

Saying it won't be a panacea means there might be even a tiny benefit....and that is the lie.....the criminals using guns today don't undergo background checks and will get any magazines they want......

 

[2aguy]

There are millions upon millions of ARs in this country... And a handful of them are used in crimes percentage wise - like a tiny percentage of a percentage of a percentage...
The thinking of gun control as a necessarily need is delusional at best. There are much bigger fish to fry
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

It's not about doing away with guns dumbass. It's about trying to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and reducing the number of shots that can be fired before stopping to reload. Of course, like I said before, you think laws are useless, so you are just fine with how many people can be killed in a very short time.

Reloading takes milliseconds with just a little practice you stupid dolt.
Anything the anti-gun nutters come up with is going to be frivolous at best…

the shooter who killed one student and injured several others at Seattle Pacific University was pepper sprayed and held down when he stopped to reload his gun. In the Tuscon, Ariz. shooting, Jared Loughner killed six and injured 13 others using a handgun with a 31-round clip. But he was ultimately stopped when he went to change magazines. And during the Sandy Hook Massacre, several kids reportedly escaped while shooter Adam Lanza was reloading his gun.

Big deal. He's really fast. I know a guy who can grab a quarter out of your palm. Doesn't mean everybody can do that. It still doesn't explain how the previously mentioned shooters were disabled while they changed magazines.

They weren't disabled while changing magazines...those are myths by anti-gunners.....I have posted why they are lies and myths...

 

[2aguy]

I don't know why they were surprised by the turn out, them dems loves thay free stuff.

It is proof that those who don't support gun rights have never been in a situation where they wish they had one.

You realize that wanting reasonable restrictions isn't the same as wanting to do away with all guns don't you?

We have plenty of reasonable restrictions now.
And there are plenty of people that do in fact want to disarm the people.claiming otherwise is willfull ignorance.

I never said there weren't some fringe people who have dumb ideas on both sides. I only said wanting reasonable restrictions is not the same as wanting to ban all guns. Universal background checks would be perfectly reasonable.

No, they wouldn't.....they require average citizens to be cops....they require normal gun owners to pay extra to sell private, legal property, and will make it harder for poor people to exercise their 2nd Amendment right...and that is against the 14th Amendment....

We can arrest any felon that buys a gun....we can arrest anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime.....

Tell us...which mass shooting, including Orlando, would have been stopped by a universal background check....

Which criminals can't get guns because of current background checks.....