Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[KevinWestern]

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

I don't care. I don't live in those countries.

Ignorance is bliss.

Just want to jump in and say; is it wise to refer to Japan and Germany when crafting our domestic policies given that they just tried to take over the f'ing world about a generation or two ago? Germany's gov't killed 6 million Jewish people.

Lol, not sure what this adds... just an observation.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

Makes you wonder if there is some inbetween that lowers gun deaths and keeps crime down. Maybe something like really strong background checks and magazine capacity limits.

I doubt magazine limitation will any impact at all. With a minimum amount of practice, you can change magazines on either a rifle or pistol in 2-3 seconds. With a lot of practice, you can easily shave that in half. It is not a solution, only a gesture.

I personally have no problem with background checks. I can't think of a state which currently does not have that already.

Well capacity limits won't hurt anything. If I'm being shot at i want the person reloading early and often. He might have to takes his eyes off you while he reloads, might fumble around to find next one, might even drop the next one. I've yet to hear an example of anyone successfully defending themselves and firing more than 10 shots to do it. Only people firing that many shots are murdering innocents.

If they are changing magazines then you have the time to do one of two things, if you do anything at all. You have the time to get up, thus marking yourself as the next target. Or you have the time to pull your own weapon, assuming you are carrying one. You do not have the time to get away. Try it. Lie down and time yourself to see how long it takes you to get up and than factor in the time it will take you to realize the guy is out of ammo and changing mags. You'll probably find the guy will be shooting at you before you even straighten up. Remember, if the guy is incompetent, you have three seconds tops.

I see no reason to create a limitation which will have no effect on the desired outcome. What it will hurt will be the manufacturing companies who make those magazines and the people who make their living there. It will hurt the retail stores that sell them. It will hurt the ancillary businesses that sell to the employees of the manufacturers and the suppliers of raw materials. My favorite carry weapon has a 13 round magazine, so I don't know how a 10 round limitation would effect me. But if I have to turn it in, that hurts me. All for nothing but an illusion to allow politicians to pretend they are doing something. That's a pretty hard sell from my perspective.

 

[PratchettFan]

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

I don't care. I don't live in those countries.

Ignorance is bliss.

Is it? I'll take your word for it.

 

[PratchettFan]

so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines ... It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. - public firearms, a compromise for a safe and secure society.

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.

I doubt your suggestion would stand up constitutionally. If any public entity passed such a law it would be interesting how it would be received.

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.

Amendment [I.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.


Firearms are the issue, not "Life, Liberty, etc..." that has everything to do with being a threat to the US Constitution and the reason it is a ratified document - why even have laws or a Constitution if it is presupposed that individuals have a right to settle their issues themselves by using force of "Arms" to do so.

I agree the Constitution and laws are the issue, as well as the question of firearms. The Declaration of Independence is neither the Constitution nor a law. If you don't realize where the phrase ""life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" comes from, I will be happy to refer you to some history books.

 

[Spoonman]

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

I don't care. I don't live in those countries.

Ignorance is bliss.

In that case you must be one extremely happy mother ******

 

[Spoonman]

Makes you wonder if there is some inbetween that lowers gun deaths and keeps crime down. Maybe something like really strong background checks and magazine capacity limits.

I doubt magazine limitation will any impact at all. With a minimum amount of practice, you can change magazines on either a rifle or pistol in 2-3 seconds. With a lot of practice, you can easily shave that in half. It is not a solution, only a gesture.

I personally have no problem with background checks. I can't think of a state which currently does not have that already.

Well capacity limits won't hurt anything. If I'm being shot at i want the person reloading early and often. He might have to takes his eyes off you while he reloads, might fumble around to find next one, might even drop the next one. I've yet to hear an example of anyone successfully defending themselves and firing more than 10 shots to do it. Only people firing that many shots are murdering innocents.

and with capacity limits the only people who will have the ability to get off multiple rounds are criminals. you'll be matching your single shot against their 30+ rounds. good luck with that

 

[Spoonman]

But in this case, it's not "perceived" despite what your told to think.

TSA = perceived safety

Gun Control = Very real safety issue

Perceived is precisely what it is. Now, if you started removing stop signs you would see what a "very real safety issue" actually is. Your chance of being killed by a firearm assault is about 1 in 25,000. Your chance of being killed in a car accident is 1 in 67.

I'm willing to take my chances.

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

so just how many times in your life have you been acosted with a gun?

 

[Brain357]

I doubt magazine limitation will any impact at all. With a minimum amount of practice, you can change magazines on either a rifle or pistol in 2-3 seconds. With a lot of practice, you can easily shave that in half. It is not a solution, only a gesture.

I personally have no problem with background checks. I can't think of a state which currently does not have that already.

Well capacity limits won't hurt anything. If I'm being shot at i want the person reloading early and often. He might have to takes his eyes off you while he reloads, might fumble around to find next one, might even drop the next one. I've yet to hear an example of anyone successfully defending themselves and firing more than 10 shots to do it. Only people firing that many shots are murdering innocents.

If they are changing magazines then you have the time to do one of two things, if you do anything at all. You have the time to get up, thus marking yourself as the next target. Or you have the time to pull your own weapon, assuming you are carrying one. You do not have the time to get away. Try it. Lie down and time yourself to see how long it takes you to get up and than factor in the time it will take you to realize the guy is out of ammo and changing mags. You'll probably find the guy will be shooting at you before you even straighten up. Remember, if the guy is incompetent, you have three seconds tops.

I see no reason to create a limitation which will have no effect on the desired outcome. What it will hurt will be the manufacturing companies who make those magazines and the people who make their living there. It will hurt the retail stores that sell them. It will hurt the ancillary businesses that sell to the employees of the manufacturers and the suppliers of raw materials. My favorite carry weapon has a 13 round magazine, so I don't know how a 10 round limitation would effect me. But if I have to turn it in, that hurts me. All for nothing but an illusion to allow politicians to pretend they are doing something. That's a pretty hard sell from my perspective.

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't. Your 3 seconds doesn't include dropping a magazine or having trouble grabbing the next one.

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers.

 

[Brain357]

I doubt magazine limitation will any impact at all. With a minimum amount of practice, you can change magazines on either a rifle or pistol in 2-3 seconds. With a lot of practice, you can easily shave that in half. It is not a solution, only a gesture.

I personally have no problem with background checks. I can't think of a state which currently does not have that already.

Well capacity limits won't hurt anything. If I'm being shot at i want the person reloading early and often. He might have to takes his eyes off you while he reloads, might fumble around to find next one, might even drop the next one. I've yet to hear an example of anyone successfully defending themselves and firing more than 10 shots to do it. Only people firing that many shots are murdering innocents.

and with capacity limits the only people who will have the ability to get off multiple rounds are criminals. you'll be matching your single shot against their 30+ rounds. good luck with that

Nobody said single round. Again I've never heard of anyone needing a high capacity magazine for defense.

 

[eflatminor]

Well capacity limits won't hurt anything. If I'm being shot at i want the person reloading early and often. He might have to takes his eyes off you while he reloads, might fumble around to find next one, might even drop the next one. I've yet to hear an example of anyone successfully defending themselves and firing more than 10 shots to do it. Only people firing that many shots are murdering innocents.

If they are changing magazines then you have the time to do one of two things, if you do anything at all. You have the time to get up, thus marking yourself as the next target. Or you have the time to pull your own weapon, assuming you are carrying one. You do not have the time to get away. Try it. Lie down and time yourself to see how long it takes you to get up and than factor in the time it will take you to realize the guy is out of ammo and changing mags. You'll probably find the guy will be shooting at you before you even straighten up. Remember, if the guy is incompetent, you have three seconds tops.

I see no reason to create a limitation which will have no effect on the desired outcome. What it will hurt will be the manufacturing companies who make those magazines and the people who make their living there. It will hurt the retail stores that sell them. It will hurt the ancillary businesses that sell to the employees of the manufacturers and the suppliers of raw materials. My favorite carry weapon has a 13 round magazine, so I don't know how a 10 round limitation would effect me. But if I have to turn it in, that hurts me. All for nothing but an illusion to allow politicians to pretend they are doing something. That's a pretty hard sell from my perspective.

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't.

That requires the massive assumption that the bad guy is going to follow the law and not possess a high capacity magazine. Now who would be so ridiculous to think criminals will all of a sudden begin to follow that particular law?

And please, don't come back with the idea that we'll eliminate high cap magazines! There are millions of them already out there and they're made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring! It's not rocket science to extend an low cap magazine (every one can be) or build a new one from scratch.

Your 3 seconds doesn't include dropping a magazine or having trouble grabbing the next one..

Three seconds would be the slowest magazine change I've ever seen. Only a complete incompetent, with no experience would take that long. Every guy I shoot with can change magazines in well under a second.

But again, the point is moot. The bad guy is going to have whatever size magazine he wants. It's only law abiding citizens that would be burdened. Now why would anyone want to do that?

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers

Hunting is evil? Protecting one's family and property is evil? Ensuring the last measure of protection against tyranny is evil?

Wow. That's one hell of a world view you have there.

 

[Spoonman]

Well capacity limits won't hurt anything. If I'm being shot at i want the person reloading early and often. He might have to takes his eyes off you while he reloads, might fumble around to find next one, might even drop the next one. I've yet to hear an example of anyone successfully defending themselves and firing more than 10 shots to do it. Only people firing that many shots are murdering innocents.

If they are changing magazines then you have the time to do one of two things, if you do anything at all. You have the time to get up, thus marking yourself as the next target. Or you have the time to pull your own weapon, assuming you are carrying one. You do not have the time to get away. Try it. Lie down and time yourself to see how long it takes you to get up and than factor in the time it will take you to realize the guy is out of ammo and changing mags. You'll probably find the guy will be shooting at you before you even straighten up. Remember, if the guy is incompetent, you have three seconds tops.

I see no reason to create a limitation which will have no effect on the desired outcome. What it will hurt will be the manufacturing companies who make those magazines and the people who make their living there. It will hurt the retail stores that sell them. It will hurt the ancillary businesses that sell to the employees of the manufacturers and the suppliers of raw materials. My favorite carry weapon has a 13 round magazine, so I don't know how a 10 round limitation would effect me. But if I have to turn it in, that hurts me. All for nothing but an illusion to allow politicians to pretend they are doing something. That's a pretty hard sell from my perspective.

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't. Your 3 seconds doesn't include dropping a magazine or having trouble grabbing the next one.

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers.

i'll change out a mag in less than a second. while shooting, I'll have the next one pulled out and ready to go in. a push of a button the spent mag drops and the next one goes in. you or any one of the 20 other people won't even know the change happened. if you aren't armed, it wouldn't matter if it took 10 seconds. trust me, under fire, you aren't focused on when that mag is empty. you won't even know. did he stop shooting because he is out? or is he just looking for a target? you're dealing with fear and looking to get away or take cover. and you have legislated yourself out of a competive advantage. the shooter doesn't give a rats ass about your gun control laws.

 

[eflatminor]

Again I've never heard of anyone needing a high capacity magazine for defense.

I did. When I was a young man, two armed burglars broke into our home. I had a Ruger .223 with a 30 round magazine. The bad guys had high capacity magazines as well...over twice the number of rounds I had. Having that firearm and magazine allowed me to not only prevent harm coming to me and my family, but also prevented me from shooting one of the bad guys, which I would of HAD to do with a double barrel shotgun or bolt action rifle. As it turned out, I was able to 'waste' a round by firing into the couch (scaring the shit out of both of them), while still having plenty of rounds to hold them until the police arrived.

So there you go, someone that needed a high capacity magazine.

Other examples? Look no further than the Korean store owners that defended their lives with AR riles and high cap mags against hundreds of rioters. They could not have done that with a revolver!

 

[Vandalshandle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCFmSFvIZw]NNS (Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PratchettFan]

Well capacity limits won't hurt anything. If I'm being shot at i want the person reloading early and often. He might have to takes his eyes off you while he reloads, might fumble around to find next one, might even drop the next one. I've yet to hear an example of anyone successfully defending themselves and firing more than 10 shots to do it. Only people firing that many shots are murdering innocents.

If they are changing magazines then you have the time to do one of two things, if you do anything at all. You have the time to get up, thus marking yourself as the next target. Or you have the time to pull your own weapon, assuming you are carrying one. You do not have the time to get away. Try it. Lie down and time yourself to see how long it takes you to get up and than factor in the time it will take you to realize the guy is out of ammo and changing mags. You'll probably find the guy will be shooting at you before you even straighten up. Remember, if the guy is incompetent, you have three seconds tops.

I see no reason to create a limitation which will have no effect on the desired outcome. What it will hurt will be the manufacturing companies who make those magazines and the people who make their living there. It will hurt the retail stores that sell them. It will hurt the ancillary businesses that sell to the employees of the manufacturers and the suppliers of raw materials. My favorite carry weapon has a 13 round magazine, so I don't know how a 10 round limitation would effect me. But if I have to turn it in, that hurts me. All for nothing but an illusion to allow politicians to pretend they are doing something. That's a pretty hard sell from my perspective.

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't. Your 3 seconds doesn't include dropping a magazine or having trouble grabbing the next one.

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers.

If you think it is foolish then I can only presume you have never been under fire. I must also assume you have never changed out a magazine. Before you start making judgements that affect other people you might actually try it.

 

[eflatminor]

the shooter doesn't give a rats ass about your gun control laws.

I just don't get why these guys would support that which ensues the bad guys are better armed than law abiding citizens. Amazing.

 

[Spoonman]

Well capacity limits won't hurt anything. If I'm being shot at i want the person reloading early and often. He might have to takes his eyes off you while he reloads, might fumble around to find next one, might even drop the next one. I've yet to hear an example of anyone successfully defending themselves and firing more than 10 shots to do it. Only people firing that many shots are murdering innocents.

and with capacity limits the only people who will have the ability to get off multiple rounds are criminals. you'll be matching your single shot against their 30+ rounds. good luck with that

Nobody said single round. Again I've never heard of anyone needing a high capacity magazine for defense.

so you have 7. match your seven against my thirty. or my 70, or my 100. gun laws mean nothing. I'm not a criminal intent on killing anyone and I have no intention of limiting my capacity. do you really think someone who wants to take a bunch of people out and is willing to cares what your useless laws say? get real. you have just made his task easier.

 

[BreezeWood]

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.

I doubt your suggestion would stand up constitutionally. If any public entity passed such a law it would be interesting how it would be received.

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.






I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.


Firearms are the issue, not "Life, Liberty, etc..." that has everything to do with being a threat to the US Constitution and the reason it is a ratified document - why even have laws or a Constitution if it is presupposed that individuals have a right to settle their issues themselves by using force of "Arms" to do so.

I agree the Constitution and laws are the issue, as well as the question of firearms. The Declaration of Independence is neither the Constitution nor a law. If you don't realize where the phrase ""life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" comes from, I will be happy to refer you to some history books.

I agree the Constitution and laws are the issue, as well as the question of firearms.


then you have no problem with:

It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

 

[Brain357]

If they are changing magazines then you have the time to do one of two things, if you do anything at all. You have the time to get up, thus marking yourself as the next target. Or you have the time to pull your own weapon, assuming you are carrying one. You do not have the time to get away. Try it. Lie down and time yourself to see how long it takes you to get up and than factor in the time it will take you to realize the guy is out of ammo and changing mags. You'll probably find the guy will be shooting at you before you even straighten up. Remember, if the guy is incompetent, you have three seconds tops.

I see no reason to create a limitation which will have no effect on the desired outcome. What it will hurt will be the manufacturing companies who make those magazines and the people who make their living there. It will hurt the retail stores that sell them. It will hurt the ancillary businesses that sell to the employees of the manufacturers and the suppliers of raw materials. My favorite carry weapon has a 13 round magazine, so I don't know how a 10 round limitation would effect me. But if I have to turn it in, that hurts me. All for nothing but an illusion to allow politicians to pretend they are doing something. That's a pretty hard sell from my perspective.

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't.

That requires the massive assumption that the bad guy is going to follow the law and not possess a high capacity magazine. Now who would be so ridiculous to think criminals will all of a sudden begin to follow that particular law?

And please, don't come back with the idea that we'll eliminate high cap magazines! There are millions of them already out there and they're made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring! It's not rocket science to extend an low cap magazine (every one can be) or build a new one from scratch.

Your 3 seconds doesn't include dropping a magazine or having trouble grabbing the next one..

Three seconds would be the slowest magazine change I've ever seen. Only a complete incompetent, with no experience would take that long. Every guy I shoot with can change magazines in well under a second.

But again, the point is moot. The bad guy is going to have whatever size magazine he wants. It's only law abiding citizens that would be burdened. Now why would anyone want to do that?

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers

Hunting is evil? Protecting one's family and property is evil? Ensuring the last measure of protection against tyranny is evil?

Wow. That's one hell of a world view you have there.

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

What hunter needs a hi capacity magazine? Name a real example of someone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense.

 

[Spoonman]

the shooter doesn't give a rats ass about your gun control laws.

I just don't get why these guys would support that which ensues the bad guys are better armed than law abiding citizens. Amazing.

absolutely. restrictive gun laws only impact people who are willing to follow them. just like restrictive drug laws. or any laws. in this case, they do create a distinct disadvantage for someone who is trying to protect themselves

 

[eflatminor]

It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

Wanna bet?