Simple SOLUTION to gun control

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone with two brain cells would know that it would take longer to load 6 magazines instead of three. You should ask someone with said common sense.

Actually, the higher capacity magazines are far more prone to jamming than 10 and 20 round mags. 100 round drums are notoriously unreliable, as the guy in Colorado learned first hand.

So, if the goal is to get 100 rounds fired as fast as possible, I'll take five 20 round mags over a 100 round drum every time. Besides, if you know what you're doing, it only takes a fraction of a second to change a magazine.

Most people - and this includes my 12-yr old son - can change a mag in less time that it takes most people to realize that he's changing a mag.

 

[candycorn]

Anyone with two brain cells would know that it would take longer to load 6 magazines instead of three. You should ask someone with said common sense.

Actually, the higher capacity magazines are far more prone to jamming than 10 and 20 round mags. 100 round drums are notoriously unreliable, as the guy in Colorado learned first hand.

So, if the goal is to get 100 rounds fired as fast as possible, I'll take five 20 round mags over a 100 round drum every time. Besides, if you know what you're doing, it only takes a fraction of a second to change a magazine.

In that case it doesn't matter. If jamming is the issue, after he's gotten off 70 rounds, the point is moot.

 

[thanatos144]

Anyone with two brain cells would know that it would take longer to load 6 magazines instead of three. You should ask someone with said common sense.

Actually, the higher capacity magazines are far more prone to jamming than 10 and 20 round mags. 100 round drums are notoriously unreliable, as the guy in Colorado learned first hand.

So, if the goal is to get 100 rounds fired as fast as possible, I'll take five 20 round mags over a 100 round drum every time. Besides, if you know what you're doing, it only takes a fraction of a second to change a magazine.

In that case it doesn't matter. If jamming is the issue, after he's gotten off 70 rounds, the point is moot.

Matter a whole hell of a lot to the guy who would have gotten bullet 71.

 

[candycorn]

So... you don't know.
If you do not know the difference in time, and thus, unable to describe the effect that your proposal might have, how can your argument have any significance?

Anyone with two brain cells would know that it would take longer to load 6 magazines instead of three. You should ask someone with said common sense.

You job is to show how much more time and how that time is significant.
Thus far, you have failed miserably.

I can't get the blind to see.

Most who arent honest enough to admit it is a ban, yes.

Or those who can't define either word. Your mileage may vary.

Yes, only an idiot would state that because magaxzine arent mentioneed in the 2nd amendment they arent protected by it, regardless of the fact that they are an intergal part of the operations of weapons that ARE protected by the Constitution.
-No- difference between the two statements

They aren't protected by it. Sorry.
[/quote]
They are every bit as protected by it as words are by the first. Sorry.[/QUOTE]

Well, hopefully that will be for a court to decide if our "leaders" can muster the stones to take on the NRA finally. I dobut it. It's another good reason to elect President Obama. He won't be hamstrung by having to run again in 4 years so he may muster the stones to take on the issue of public safety. Again, I doubt it.

As I said, nothing will be done about this until the children of some influential members of Congress are gunned down in cold blood.

 

[candycorn]

Actually, the higher capacity magazines are far more prone to jamming than 10 and 20 round mags. 100 round drums are notoriously unreliable, as the guy in Colorado learned first hand.

So, if the goal is to get 100 rounds fired as fast as possible, I'll take five 20 round mags over a 100 round drum every time. Besides, if you know what you're doing, it only takes a fraction of a second to change a magazine.

In that case it doesn't matter. If jamming is the issue, after he's gotten off 70 rounds, the point is moot.

Matter a whole hell of a lot to the guy who would have gotten bullet 71.

Yes, but if the clip jams on 11 out of 12, you have something like 50 less injuries.

Math--it's a beautiful thing.

 

[eflatminor]

Anyone with two brain cells would know that it would take longer to load 6 magazines instead of three. You should ask someone with said common sense.

Actually, the higher capacity magazines are far more prone to jamming than 10 and 20 round mags. 100 round drums are notoriously unreliable, as the guy in Colorado learned first hand.

So, if the goal is to get 100 rounds fired as fast as possible, I'll take five 20 round mags over a 100 round drum every time. Besides, if you know what you're doing, it only takes a fraction of a second to change a magazine.

In that case it doesn't matter. If jamming is the issue, after he's gotten off 70 rounds, the point is moot.

Personally, the few times I've used a 100 round magazine, I've never gotten off 70 rounds before it jammed. They often jam after just a few rounds. They're that unreliable, which is why you see so few serious shooters using them. Bottom line, the guy with five 20 round magazines is far more likely to get 100 rounds off more quickly than the guy with one 100 round magazine.

The point is, your ire towards high capacity magazines is not based in fact.

 

[candycorn]

Actually, the higher capacity magazines are far more prone to jamming than 10 and 20 round mags. 100 round drums are notoriously unreliable, as the guy in Colorado learned first hand.

So, if the goal is to get 100 rounds fired as fast as possible, I'll take five 20 round mags over a 100 round drum every time. Besides, if you know what you're doing, it only takes a fraction of a second to change a magazine.

In that case it doesn't matter. If jamming is the issue, after he's gotten off 70 rounds, the point is moot.

Personally, the few times I've used a 100 round magazine, I've never gotten off 70 rounds before it jammed. They often jam after just a few rounds. They're that unreliable, which is why you see so few serious shooters using them. Bottom line, the guy with five 20 round magazines is far more likely to get 100 rounds off more quickly than the guy with one 100 round magazine.

The point is, your ire towards high capacity magazines is not based in fact.

Glad to know that your point is so weak that you rely on a malfunction to make it.
There is a reason that they sell them. That they jam in some plot to thwart mass murderers is not one of them.

 

[eflatminor]

In that case it doesn't matter. If jamming is the issue, after he's gotten off 70 rounds, the point is moot.

Personally, the few times I've used a 100 round magazine, I've never gotten off 70 rounds before it jammed. They often jam after just a few rounds. They're that unreliable, which is why you see so few serious shooters using them. Bottom line, the guy with five 20 round magazines is far more likely to get 100 rounds off more quickly than the guy with one 100 round magazine.

The point is, your ire towards high capacity magazines is not based in fact.

Glad to know that your point is so weak that you rely on a malfunction to make it.
There is a reason that they sell them. That they jam in some plot to thwart mass murderers is not one of them.

Oh gosh, can you smell the desperation? Don't be pathetic man. You implied we should ban high capacity magazines because they allow someone to get off more rounds quicker. That is simply not the case, not in reality. 100 round drums jam all the time. The guys that buy them tend to try them once and never again. They're crap because they nearly always fail. Hey, just like you!

All the best...

 

[logical4u]

What do gun folks use those assault and semi-auto weapons for? Do you hunt with them?

Are any guns off-limits for regular folk? How about an uzi (is that even a gun)? lol

Just curious.

During the riots in LA, there were burning businesses along this street. One business was not burning. A man with a semi-automatic rifle was standing on top of his business protecting his property. That is why you need a semi-automatic rifle: in case there is more than one animal you have to shoot quickly, a pack of dog, a herd of wild hogs, etc.

 

[logical4u]

What do gun folks use those assault and semi-auto weapons for? Do you hunt with them?

Are any guns off-limits for regular folk? How about an uzi (is that even a gun)? lol

Just curious.

How about self defense and home defense? Where did it state in the Second Amendment that the "right to bear arms" was supposed to be solely for hunting?

You're reading too much into my question. I'm fine with things the way they are, was literally wondering if a big-assed weapon was used for hunting is all. Probably lions or tigers or bears but not bunnies or quail. Amiright?

Use the right tool for the right job. .22s are very small bullets, but there are semi .22s. When you get over the .3s, you are talking about larger game (or just tougher: badgers). Most proficient shooters can loose a lot of bullets from a bolt action or a pump action. The semi s allow the shooter to work less (the gas from the bullet does the work).

 

[ABikerSailor]

All you gun grabbers that are upset by the fact the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own weapons... simple solution.

Since no law that bans semi automatics will survive a court challenge and since no law banning magazine sizes will either, go for what you REALLY want.

Ask for an amendment to repel the 2nd. Or are you afraid that admitting your goal is the elimination of all firearms will not pass muster with the citizenry?

I don't care how many guns you have.

However..................you should only be able to carry 15 rounds/gun.

 

[logical4u]

@ Pheonixops: lol, that's ok. I've never even held a gun and know nothing about them ... so I ask!

That's a flaw in your education that you should work to rectify, really.

What, how to shoot or learning about guns?

not a bad idea! You probably know more about drugs than guns and drugs probably kill way more people than guns.

 

[Darkwind]

What do gun folks use those assault and semi-auto weapons for? Do you hunt with them?

Are any guns off-limits for regular folk? How about an uzi (is that even a gun)? lol

Just curious.

What they are to be used for is not germane to the fact that American Citizens have the RIGHT to own them.

There is no stipulation in the 2nd Amendment that we can own them for ONLY hunting, or for ONLY defense, or for ONLY collecting.

We are permitted to own them, without stipulation.

 

[Lakhota]

Mitt Romney: 'Many' Of Aurora Shooting Suspect's Weapons Were Illegal

Despite Mitt Romney’s Claims, Aurora Shooter’s Gun Purchases Were Legal | TPMMuckraker

 

[GuyPinestra]

All you gun grabbers that are upset by the fact the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own weapons... simple solution.

Since no law that bans semi automatics will survive a court challenge and since no law banning magazine sizes will either, go for what you REALLY want.

Ask for an amendment to repel the 2nd. Or are you afraid that admitting your goal is the elimination of all firearms will not pass muster with the citizenry?

I don't care how many guns you have.

However..................you should only be able to carry 15 rounds/gun.

It won't accomplish what you hope for, why do you refuse to see that?

 

[candycorn]

Personally, the few times I've used a 100 round magazine, I've never gotten off 70 rounds before it jammed. They often jam after just a few rounds. They're that unreliable, which is why you see so few serious shooters using them. Bottom line, the guy with five 20 round magazines is far more likely to get 100 rounds off more quickly than the guy with one 100 round magazine.

The point is, your ire towards high capacity magazines is not based in fact.

Glad to know that your point is so weak that you rely on a malfunction to make it.
There is a reason that they sell them. That they jam in some plot to thwart mass murderers is not one of them.

Oh gosh, can you smell the desperation? Don't be pathetic man. You implied we should ban high capacity magazines because they allow someone to get off more rounds quicker.

They do, if they don't jam. When they don't jam, scientists tell us that 100 round mags fire more than 6 round mags. Thus allowing the maniacs to fire 94 more rounds.

Scientists tell us that 94 is greater than 6. I tell you what, give me your address and I'll send you some flashcards so you can learn basic math. You obviously are ignorant on the subject.

That is simply not the case, not in reality. 100 round drums jam all the time.

"All the time." Arguing with anecdotes instead of debating with data never helps one's case.

PS: There is a reason gun manufacturers make them. It isn't because they don't work.

The guys that buy them tend to try them once and never again. They're crap because they nearly always fail. Hey, just like you!

All the best...

Gee, it sounds as if limiting the number of rounds in a magazine to 6 will save a lot of people a lot of money. Another good reason to do it! That, logic, common sense, etc...

All the best....

 

[logical4u]

You can ban using a 100 round magazine equipped rifle to kill people in a crowded theatre, despite the 2nd amendment.

What is the minimum acceptable kill rate number for you ?

For what? If a pack of 15 dogs is coming at me and I shoot 100 rounds and kill 14, I am okay with that.

 

[logical4u]

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

How many assualt weapons do you own?

I think we need to include assault knives, assault clubs and baseball bats, assault automobiles, etc. They only become "assault weapons" when they are used to assault someone. Otherwise, they are legally owned firearms. Well, until some feel-good asshole pol decides to make some weird kind of brownie points with his/her base by banning so-called assault weapons...

Don't people die every year from drugs, should we ban all the "strong", "addictive" drugs, so no more people die from drugs?

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

All you gun grabbers that are upset by the fact the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own weapons... simple solution.

Since no law that bans semi automatics will survive a court challenge and since no law banning magazine sizes will either, go for what you REALLY want.

Ask for an amendment to repel the 2nd. Or are you afraid that admitting your goal is the elimination of all firearms will not pass muster with the citizenry?

My most common thought on USMB has to be "You're so fucking stupid" But hey now, I'm saying thats a common thought of mine, not directing it towards anyone.

All you gun grabbers

So if you think there's a problem with being able to buy assault weapons, tear gas, 100-round magazines, and/or you dislike the gun show loophole, you're a "gun-grabber" commie huh? That's an interesting and rather ignorant perspective, don't ya think?

go for what you REALLY want.

Already are. In fact, we've been trying to reduce the number of unnesessary deaths for years now.

you afraid that admitting your goal is the elimination of all firearms will not pass muster with the citizenry

"will not pass muster with the citizenry" Dude, do you even speak english?

Typical, retarded, dumbass response. Any attempt at a conservation on gun restrictions is met with "OH MY GOD, THEY'RE TAKING OUR GUNS! NOOOOOOO!!!!!"

EVER HEARD OF THE GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE? You should probably look it up. Then, take it a step further by seeing how it relates to 50,000 dead mexicans.

 

[eflatminor]

Glad to know that your point is so weak that you rely on a malfunction to make it.
There is a reason that they sell them. That they jam in some plot to thwart mass murderers is not one of them.

Oh gosh, can you smell the desperation? Don't be pathetic man. You implied we should ban high capacity magazines because they allow someone to get off more rounds quicker.

They do, if they don't jam. When they don't jam, scientists tell us that 100 round mags fire more than 6 round mags. Thus allowing the maniacs to fire 94 more rounds.

Scientists tell us that 94 is greater than 6. I tell you what, give me your address and I'll send you some flashcards so you can learn basic math. You obviously are ignorant on the subject.

That is simply not the case, not in reality. 100 round drums jam all the time.

"All the time." Arguing with anecdotes instead of debating with data never helps one's case.

PS: There is a reason gun manufacturers make them. It isn't because they don't work.

The guys that buy them tend to try them once and never again. They're crap because they nearly always fail. Hey, just like you!

All the best...

Gee, it sounds as if limiting the number of rounds in a magazine to 6 will save a lot of people a lot of money. Another good reason to do it! That, logic, common sense, etc...

All the best....

But they do jam. That's the truth. So while your math may be correct, your assumption that a 100 round drum will result in more shots fire more quickly is simply wrong. That's reality.

Now the number is 6? Where in the fuck did you come up with that? Why not one?

Bottom line, your attempt to ban anything will not stop criminals from avoiding your rules. It's why we call them criminals.