The Moment Sandy Hook Parents start cashing in their kids..

[turtledude]

Here's another.

This is a good story. Glad it worked out for him. The other story is the one that sounds a bit fictional...

He fired 11 shots. It's a little bit questionable whether he needed to fire 11 or if 10 would have worked. It sounds like the criminals were mostly done after 4 shots. The bad guys never fired a shot and the bad guy with the gun seemed to have been in retreat when he fired the rest of his shots. Very interesting find though. It doesn't change my mind that more lives would be saved with a capacity limitation, but I'd say it counts for you.

Hey pus brain? if a criminal has a gun he has already violated at least one and often several laws, so tell me how the laws that didn't keep him from getting a gun are going to keep him from having a normal capacity magazine given there are 50 normal capacity magazines for just about every gun that can accept one in the USA

Yes, and the nitpicking about 10 or 11 shots!! Jeez! The point is, you never know. If there are multiple attackers, a person might need more than 10, and I don't think the actions of criminals should be a consideration when it comes to one of our rights. There are always going to be members of society who abuse others in one way or another, regardless of the laws.

he is a slow witted dullard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cops need to apprehend criminals. That is completely different from defense.:

That distinction is lost when you or your family is being threatened. Besides, the great majority of apprehensions are made without a shot being fired. The police don't have the need for high capacity magazines anymore than the average citizen in a crisis situation. Most police never fire a shot in their career. i know because I am firearms instructor and teach police.

I think it is pretty dangerous and a threat to freedom when the government and the bad guys are the only ones with the means to shoot multiple rounds, Why give up that freedom? It is not like law abiding citizens turning in their high capacity magazines will ever prevent a mass shooting. The bad guys will still continue to do it.

You are not thinking clearly.

It seems you are not thinking clearly. Lets look at the facts. Hi cap magazines are used in lots of mass shootings as well as gang shootings. Nobody has needed a hi cap magazine for defense. The Giffords shooter was stopped at reload. Children escaped while the Newtown shooter reloaded. See we could save lives without any negative effect. I see no reason not to.

So your big plan to save lives is "Let's force mass murderers to reload between deaths, on the off-chance that someone can stop him then"?

 

[2aguy]

Here is a look at magazines and how stupid it is to think that active shooters will be slowed down by magazine restrictions....it is more fantasy from people who know nothing about active shooters loose in a gun free zone...

Question of the Day Do Magazine Capacity Limits Limit Lethality - The Truth About Guns

“I’ve had a train of thought that the magazine capacity of the weapons used in a mass shooting makes little/no difference in the actual lethality of the event. While I’m no statistician, I started to use open source information to determine how long these maniacs are actively shooting, the number of shots fired and the overall lethality of the shots.

The events I looked into: Columbine, VT, the Wisconsin Sikh Temple, Giffords, Aurora and Sandy Hook. The data is quite interesting and opens up a substantial line of argument against high capacity magazine bans.

Average Time a Shooter is Active: 10.3 Minutes
Average Total Shots Fired: 89.8
Shooting Tempo: 8.7 Rounds/Min
Wound to Kill Ratio: 1 : 2.86

Given that anyone, with minimal practice, can do a magazine change in roughly three seconds, the data indicates that magazine capacity actually has almost no impact on the overall lethality of an active shooter.

Other data points bolster the case; the wounded : killed ratio is far higher than defensive shootings or police shootings, indicative of the fact that active shooters are not rushed and are (unfortunately) in complete control of the situation.

With the exception of the Giffords shooting (which is an exceptional case for a number of reasons, more of an open air political assassination than a typical mass shooting), the ONLY thing that has ever stopped a mass shooter is armed confrontation (more accurately, the notion that armed confrontation is close by).”

I enjoy how the anti gunners first say that law abiding citizens....armed with their own gun will simply lose control and start shooting...that is why they doubt the numbers shown in 19 different studies on crimes stopped and lives saved with guns....they say the victims should be killing more bad guys because they can't control themselves....

And then......in the face of an armed attacker....they expect unarmed people to count bullets fired....and then to charge the shooter as he changes his magazines........they have no clue as to what an active shooter event entails.......

 

[2aguy]

Keep in mind....what if the guy has a shotgun......he doesn't have to change a magazine....he can shoot and feed shells into the shotgun as he shoots.....literally no time that the gun is empty and no chance for anyone to charge....

Of course...they won't want to address that issue....since shotguns are way down on their list to ban and confiscate.....they will get to them after they get rifles and hand guns....and then the hunters will learn that their hunting shotgun is "just made to kill" and that hunting is so 18th century and no longer needed....

 

[ChrisL]

Keep in mind....what if the guy has a shotgun......he doesn't have to change a magazine....he can shoot and feed shells into the shotgun as he shoots.....literally no time that the gun is empty and no chance for anyone to charge....

Of course...they won't want to address that issue....since shotguns are way down on their list to ban and confiscate.....they will get to them after they get rifles and hand guns....and then the hunters will learn that their hunting shotgun is "just made to kill" and that hunting is so 18th century and no longer needed....

Good point.

 

[2aguy]

Here is another article about how stupid magazine limits are....

Busting the You Only Need Ten Rounds Myth - The Truth About Guns


Quote

They’d like you to believe that because reduced capacity magazines force a shooter to reload in order to continue his killing spree, it means an inevitable lull in the shooting (which is sure to take place in dramatic, Michael Bay-style slow motion, just like in the movies), giving a hypothetical Good Samaritan the opportunity to tackle and disarm him. Do you see a problem with this theory?

Picture yourself in the midst of a mass shooting, hiding under a desk wearing noticeably wet pants. (Don’t worry; your secret is safe with me.) You hear a brief pause and the click of the magazine release, followed by the empty mag hitting the floor. Do you A) jump from your hiding position and run towards the shooter while replaying scenes from The Expendables in your head, or B) grab your family and get the hell out of there?

If you’re still unsure, I’ll give you a hint: your membership at the local YMCA gym and all the action movies from Netflix are not going to turn you into Jason Statham.

It’s an epically bad idea, even from a distorted Hollywood perspective of what’s possible. It’s a still worse idea when you realize that even an untrained shooter can change magazines in a little less than one second. Do you really think you have the physical prowess to burst from hiding, cover the distance from you to the shooter, and successfully disarm him in less than one second?

I’m a very well-trained veteran Marine and in excellent physical shape, but unless the armed bad guy was blocking me from the exit, I would not physically engage him in hand to hand combat. I’d either draw my own weapon and eliminate the threat, or grab my family and get them out of there. I recommend you do the same.

What makes ten the “magic” number, anyway? Is the eleventh person somehow more valuable than the tenth? But I digress.

The anti-gun activists believe that the police, unlike citizens, need magazines holding more than ten rounds because they’re often placed in harm’s way. Common sense dictates that everyone — not just the police — needs access to enough ammunition to adequately protect themselves. It’s undoubtedly true that the police are far more likely to encounter a violent situation that must be neutralized with a gun. But when someone does find themselves in that situation, as millions of people do, should their ability to effectively defend themselves depend on whether they are a police officer or a citizen?

Think about it like this; I used to live in an area where flooding was relatively frequent, so I was required by law to purchase flood insurance which would pay off my entire mortgage in the event that a flood destroyed my home. I recently moved to an area where flooding is very infrequent, but still possible. Because I’m now less likely to experience a flood, should my insurance now only pay off half of my mortgage in the event that a flood destroys my home? Of course not, the damage would have the same impact regardless of how statistically likely it was to occur.

Your self-defense is no different. You may not be as likely to be forced to defend yourself with a gun, but if that time comes, is it any less important for you to have the necessary tools than it is for a police officer? In fact, 15 minutes on Google will turn up a plethora of home invasions, robberies, and assaults involving multiple assailants—would you want to face two, three, or even more violent criminals with only 10 rounds?

Some people have claimed, “a few more bullets won’t help you” or “if you can’t do the job with one or two bullets, you shouldn’t have a gun in the first place” but if that were true, why do the police routinely fire hundreds of bullets at a single suspect? Why even after being hit multiple times does the suspect often get up and run away or worse yet, continue attacking the officers? This isn’t a video game. This is real life and it rarely goes according to plan. I will continue shooting the bad guy until he is no longer moving and that might take more than ten rounds—especially if there are multiple bad guys.

If, as the anti-gun crowd claim, a few more bullets won’t increase my safety, then it’s only logical that a few more bullets won’t increase their danger either. In which case, what possible reason could they have for wanting to prevent you and I from owning magazines holding more than ten rounds? It’s not about “gun control,” it’s simply about control.

End Quote

 

[2aguy]

Keep in mind....what if the guy has a shotgun......he doesn't have to change a magazine....he can shoot and feed shells into the shotgun as he shoots.....literally no time that the gun is empty and no chance for anyone to charge....

Of course...they won't want to address that issue....since shotguns are way down on their list to ban and confiscate.....they will get to them after they get rifles and hand guns....and then the hunters will learn that their hunting shotgun is "just made to kill" and that hunting is so 18th century and no longer needed....

Good point.

I have a relative who is a cop....he went to some Officer Survival School and he showed me how they are trained to reload their shotguns while they are up and pointed toward a threat....he just fed rounds into it......so the shotgun never has to be empty...and anyone trying to run, or charge a killer is doing so against a loaded, and ready shooter.....

I hate to put that out there.....but killers follow the media....and the media has created the myth of the AR-15 as has their video games they play......the shotgun will be way down on the killers "cool gun" list.....

 

[2aguy]

As anti gunner arguments are just stupid and make no real sense...here is more info. on magazine limits....

Gun Control Facts Why a High Capacity Magazine Ban Would Not Prevent Mass Shootings - Mic

QUOTE

Would so-called “high capacity” magazine bans prevent mass shootings?

It doesn't seem likely such a ban would prevent mass shootings. Consider that one of the Columbineshooters used a Hi-Point 995 carbine rifle, which uses 10 round magazines. He just carried 13 of them. Similarly, the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and 17 magazines – mostly of 10-round (but also some 15-round). Two of the highest profile mass shootings in recent history and shooters used 10-round magazines; they just brought a lot of them. These magazines would not have been affected at all by the proposed ban.

How long does it take to change a magazine?

Magazine changes can be very, very rapid, taking just seconds. The Columbine shooters had all the time in the world to reload and reload. They shot in the cafeteria, they entered the library, the went back to the cafeteria, then they went back to the library, and finally the science area. The shooting started at 11:19am and they continued their carnage until they committed suicide at approximately 12:08pm - or nearly an hour.

How many magazine changes could these guys do in an hour?


Homicide victims are usually shot at less than 10 times

A Department of Justice report from 2004 about the previous Federal Assault Weapons Ban – a report which Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the creator of that ban, links on her official website – says that most studies say the information they can obtain shows fewer than 10 shots are used to kill most murder victims, meaning that a 10-round limit isn't likely to have a measurable effect on murder rates. “Specific data ... suggest that relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired.”

The report went on to say: “Gun murder victims are shot two to three times on average according to a number of sources, and a study at a Washington, DC trauma center reported that only 8% of all gunshot victims treated from 1988 through 1990 had five or more wounds,” though they note that number of gunshots may not be representative of the total number of shots fired.

However, the report also states: “the few available studies on shots fired show that assailants fire less than four shots on average, a number well within the 10-round magazine limit” adding “it is usually unclear how many cases, if any, involved more than 10 shots."

Why should average citizens have more than 10-round magazines?

For one thing, some law enforcement officials support it. The County Sheffifs of Colorado (CSOC) is a joint association of Colorado’s 62 sheriffs. A position paper released by the CSOC states law rnforcement officers carry magazines with more than 10 rounds because sometimes more than 10 is needed to neutralize a threat. For this reason, the CSOC believes law-abidding citizens should also have the right to higher capacity than 10-round magazines, noting that in high-stress situations it may take several rounds to stop an attacker. The CSOC cites instances (like the recent Georgia mother who defended against a home invader) in which, if there had been more than one attacker law enforcement would be attempting to solve a crime (the murder of a family), rather than arresting a criminal stopped during a crime.

The CSOC further calls the proposed 10-round limiit "arbitrary," stating: "When seconds matter, County Sherrifs of Colorado do not want to deny a law-abiding citizen the ability to defend himself and his family based on an arbitrary limit on how bullets should be in one magazine."

END QUOTE

 

[2aguy]

Did anyone else know the columbine killers used a weapon with a 10 round magaziine.....? Kind of shows how stupid that argument is then....considering the santa barbara killer did the same thing......

 

[2aguy]

This is how fast someone can change a magazine...and if you study these killers...and as they adapt and learn from the killers who go before them....youtube becomes their teacher....like this....



Okay......how many people escaped...how many people could rush this guy.....and if the killer is planning to kill and spends months planning it.......

you anti gunners are crazy and do not live in the real world......

This is just one video on how to change a magazine quickly........

magazine limits will do nothing to save lives....fools.....

 

[Brain357]

Did anyone else know the columbine killers used a weapon with a 10 round magaziine.....? Kind of shows how stupid that argument is then....considering the santa barbara killer did the same thing......

And how many people escaped because they used 10 rd magazines? We know children escaped at Newtown while he reloaded. I've posted several other examples of people escaping during reload for you in the past. People have escaped from almost every mass shooting and reloading certainly helped some of them. The Giffords shooter was stopped at reload. I have posted several examples of shooters stopped at reload in the past. I have also posted an example for you of a shooter stopped after reload by a concealed carry owner. The shooter stopping to reload helps the armed and unarmed all the same. You can't deny that magazine capacity limits wouldn't help when so many lives have been saved already when a shooter has reloaded.

 

[Brain357]

This is how fast someone can change a magazine...and if you study these killers...and as they adapt and learn from the killers who go before them....youtube becomes their teacher....like this....



Okay......how many people escaped...how many people could rush this guy.....and if the killer is planning to kill and spends months planning it.......

you anti gunners are crazy and do not live in the real world......

This is just one video on how to change a magazine quickly........

magazine limits will do nothing to save lives....fools.....

And this is what can happen just at the range with targets that aren't moving and no stress:

 

[jon_berzerk]

Did anyone else know the columbine killers used a weapon with a 10 round magaziine.....? Kind of shows how stupid that argument is then....considering the santa barbara killer did the same thing......

And how many people escaped because they used 10 rd magazines? We know children escaped at Newtown while he reloaded. I've posted several other examples of people escaping during reload for you in the past. People have escaped from almost every mass shooting and reloading certainly helped some of them. The Giffords shooter was stopped at reload. I have posted several examples of shooters stopped at reload in the past. I have also posted an example for you of a shooter stopped after reload by a concealed carry owner. The shooter stopping to reload helps the armed and unarmed all the same. You can't deny that magazine capacity limits wouldn't help when so many lives have been saved already when a shooter has reloaded.

the firearm jammed according to the news

 

[Brain357]

Did anyone else know the columbine killers used a weapon with a 10 round magaziine.....? Kind of shows how stupid that argument is then....considering the santa barbara killer did the same thing......

And how many people escaped because they used 10 rd magazines? We know children escaped at Newtown while he reloaded. I've posted several other examples of people escaping during reload for you in the past. People have escaped from almost every mass shooting and reloading certainly helped some of them. The Giffords shooter was stopped at reload. I have posted several examples of shooters stopped at reload in the past. I have also posted an example for you of a shooter stopped after reload by a concealed carry owner. The shooter stopping to reload helps the armed and unarmed all the same. You can't deny that magazine capacity limits wouldn't help when so many lives have been saved already when a shooter has reloaded.

the firearm jammed according to the news

In which one? One thing that is nice about semi-auto's is that they will do that especially when the shooter has shot it enough. That is something to certainly weigh in the argument. Everyone could have revolvers, but then there is no chance of a jam.

 

[2aguy]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines.

No, they use regular magazines that go with the weapon.....and restricting them would do nothing.....it didn't save anyone in columbine or Santa Barbara...or Virginia tech or the other 8-9,000 murders in our inner cities.....

 

[2aguy]

In which one? One thing that is nice about semi-auto's is that they will do that especially when the shooter has shot it enough.

That's why the smart shooters use glocks....they don't jam.......

 

[2aguy]

Give examples of the law-abiding needing magazines bigger than 10 rounds. I don't think they would be effected at all.

Anytime you are threatened by a criminal you need as much ammunition as you can carry because you do not know how the fight will go....and to carry less is foolish...your life or the life of your loved ones will depend on those extra bullets.....

It is like telling firemen that they can only use so much water to put out a fire based on the calculations of averge amounts of water needed....

 

[2aguy]

Except that the product isn't out of their control. They made the decision to take a weapon that was designed for the military and market it to people like Nancy Lanza and Joker Holmes.

Any weapon the U.S. infantry has is necessary for the general population to have....it keeps the balance of power in the hands of the civilians........like I always say...for the libs, history begins when they wake up in the morning and resets at night when they go to sleep....

 

[2aguy]

"I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know."

I do too. Seriously. He has a case of the super stupids.

Why do you bother posting? You don't offer anything. I give you examples and that is all you have? Pathetic.

Give examples of how the law abiding would be negatively effected.

It would be restricting their rights to determine their own needs. It is not up to you to determine what another person might need. YOU are nothing.

Then give us some examples showing that anyone would ever need a hi cap magazine. If nobody has ever needed one, then the only ones being restricted are criminals. Are you against that?

I already gave you several instances. One was a looting instances where hundreds of looters were converging on a store, and the owners fought them off.

Yes hundreds of looters and nobody was shot and killed. Sorry that doesn't show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was actually shot I think they had plenty of time to reload. As the pro gunners so often say, it's only 3 seconds to reload. Try again.

As one article pointed out....the looters know that there are a lot of rounds in the magazine....it keeps them from challenging the defenders...if they knew the defenders had fewer rounds, a riot maddened crowd just might charge....and then people would die....a lot of them...including the innocent defenders...

And the most basic point.....any magazine the military has...the civilians need to have as well....it keeps the balance of power in the hands of civilians.....and that keeps the death camps away....

 

[2aguy]

I was arguing with you about your wish to put restrictions on ammunition. I am curious to know what other restrictions you would like to put on our rights.

I see that you still have not done so. That's curious.

You have already admitted you had no idea what you were arguing. Should I bump that one?

No I didn't. I said I wanted to know your exact position on the second amendment. Now . . . stop playing silly games and state your positions.

1) What other restrictions, besides ammo (which you already stated) would you like to see?
2) Please outline how you think it would stop or slow down crime/criminals.

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

Sure and every time

I was arguing with you about your wish to put restrictions on ammunition. I am curious to know what other restrictions you would like to put on our rights.

I see that you still have not done so. That's curious.

You have already admitted you had no idea what you were arguing. Should I bump that one?

No I didn't. I said I wanted to know your exact position on the second amendment. Now . . . stop playing silly games and state your positions.

1) What other restrictions, besides ammo (which you already stated) would you like to see?
2) Please outline how you think it would stop or slow down crime/criminals.

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

Well since nobody can give an example of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for defense I guess that won't be happening. Maybe every time a killer uses a hi cap magazine to kill innocent people we should kill anyone who supports them? Now that is something we know will happen.

As I found out....the Columbine killer used 10 round magazines and had no problem killing innocent people...while he reloaded........there was no one at sandy hook who could take advantage of any 1 second magazine change...he did combat reloads.....