Questions for those that would ban 'assault weapons'

[M14 Shooter]

So civilians armed with assault weapons will make the streets safer? Why? How can spraying around more bullets make a situation safer?

If there was an armed civilian in the theater in Aurora, would their ability to shoot 20, 30, 40 rounds make the other patrons safe? A civilian with an assault weapon at Virginia Tech would make the students, faculty and staff safer after shooting and missing their target?

The prescription you offer to stop gun violence is to shoot more. After you said even trained law enforcement officers are poor shots in stressful situations.

Do you subscribe to the old notion "kill them all and let God sort it out"?

Why aren't you embrassed by the fact that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty?

Why aren't you ashamed of gun violence?

Thank you for continuing to prove me correct.

 

[Brain357]

We all know that anti-gun loons can only argue from emtion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; NK does nothing but prove this true.

Bullshit. I gave my reasons. If those reasons are too sensible for you to refute, you crawl into your well worn shell claiming emotion and ignorance. I do not see the constitution as a suicide note. I read "well regulated militia" and BELIEVE IT rather than dismiss it out of hand. I see carnage wrought by guns made more powerful than necessary and wielded by those with a Rambo complex. No one is assaulted by both the Bloods and the Cryps and the entire Sioux Nation and the Corleone family all at once. Therefore, the fantasies held by those lusting for military weapons are merely childish desires to play the hero.

No, you have not given reasons for anything. You have rambled on about no one being attacked by the Bloods and the Crips and the entire Souix Nation. That is not an actual reason.

Had you actually read the links posted in the other thread, you would have seen one I posted (at least twice) that showed trained police officers, when faced with a stressful situation (like being shot at), had very poor accuracy in many cases. One test of the NYPD had a hit rate of about 18%. The next year they were much improved and hit about 25% of the time. The LAPD did much better with a 40% hit rate.

And this is for trained law enforcement officers, not civilians.

If the civilian has only hits 25% of the time (in such a stressful situation as defending his home), a 15 round magazine yields less than 4 rounds hitting the bad guys. Perhaps you WISH that 4 hits could stop every defensive situation.

But you claim a semi-auto with a magazine capacity of more than 10 cannot be used defensively. I guess you would prefer everyone armed with a revolver? A 25 hit rate with 6 rounds yields only 1.5 hits.

You don't need a hit for a successful defense. You recently shared a video of a woman successfully fending off 3 thugs with 4 missed shots. I have still never heard an example of someone needing that many shots for defense. If you shoot that many times and miss you're endangering people around you.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why aren't you embrassed by the fact that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty?

Why aren't you ashamed of gun violence?

Thank you for continuing to prove me correct.

You claim I argue from ignorance, dishonesty and emotion. You equivocate gun violence as if you expect the rest of us to accept it as the cost of your gun lust. There MUST be some common ground where those who want to make our nation safer from gun violence and those who want to arm the nation as a prophylactic method of safety.

More guns makes as much sense as charging fire extinguishers with gasoline. Civilians are not trained to respond with gun fire safely. Hell! The best trained, best armed cadre of security personnel the world has ever known could not prevent a bad guy with a gun from shooting four, including the President of the United States. How can an average citizen be expected to quash a violent situation without harming innocent bystanders?

Answer honestly.

 

[WinterBorn]

Bullshit. I gave my reasons. If those reasons are too sensible for you to refute, you crawl into your well worn shell claiming emotion and ignorance. I do not see the constitution as a suicide note. I read "well regulated militia" and BELIEVE IT rather than dismiss it out of hand. I see carnage wrought by guns made more powerful than necessary and wielded by those with a Rambo complex. No one is assaulted by both the Bloods and the Cryps and the entire Sioux Nation and the Corleone family all at once. Therefore, the fantasies held by those lusting for military weapons are merely childish desires to play the hero.

No, you have not given reasons for anything. You have rambled on about no one being attacked by the Bloods and the Crips and the entire Souix Nation. That is not an actual reason.

Had you actually read the links posted in the other thread, you would have seen one I posted (at least twice) that showed trained police officers, when faced with a stressful situation (like being shot at), had very poor accuracy in many cases. One test of the NYPD had a hit rate of about 18%. The next year they were much improved and hit about 25% of the time. The LAPD did much better with a 40% hit rate.

And this is for trained law enforcement officers, not civilians.

If the civilian has only hits 25% of the time (in such a stressful situation as defending his home), a 15 round magazine yields less than 4 rounds hitting the bad guys. Perhaps you WISH that 4 hits could stop every defensive situation.

But you claim a semi-auto with a magazine capacity of more than 10 cannot be used defensively. I guess you would prefer everyone armed with a revolver? A 25 hit rate with 6 rounds yields only 1.5 hits.

So civilians armed with assault weapons will make the streets safer? Why? How can spraying around more bullets make a situation safer?

If there was an armed civilian in the theater in Aurora, would their ability to shoot 20, 30, 40 rounds make the other patrons safe? A civilian with an assault weapon at Virginia Tech would make the students, faculty and staff safer after shooting and missing their target?

The prescription you offer to stop gun violence is to shoot more. After you said even trained law enforcement officers are poor shots in stressful situations.

Do you subscribe to the old notion "kill them all and let God sort it out"?

I did not say that anything makes the streets safer except to keep the violent criminals locked up, be more aggressive concerning those who are mentally ill, and store firearms safely.

Its funny though, that you want the magazines limited to 10 rounds, but make wild statements concerning people with 20, 30 or 40 round magazines.

Also, please show where I have said "shoot more"? Or is that just more made-up bullshit?

You have a real flair for the dramatic, but little knowledge on the subject.

 

[WinterBorn]

So civilians armed with assault weapons will make the streets safer? Why? How can spraying around more bullets make a situation safer?

If there was an armed civilian in the theater in Aurora, would their ability to shoot 20, 30, 40 rounds make the other patrons safe? A civilian with an assault weapon at Virginia Tech would make the students, faculty and staff safer after shooting and missing their target?

The prescription you offer to stop gun violence is to shoot more. After you said even trained law enforcement officers are poor shots in stressful situations.

Do you subscribe to the old notion "kill them all and let God sort it out"?

Why aren't you embrassed by the fact that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty?

Why aren't you ashamed of gun violence?

I loathe gun violence. But I am not ashamed of it. I have never once been violent using a firearm. In fact, I have been prepared, on numerous occasions, to stop violence with or without a firearm. But the gun violence is not my fault. It is the fault of the person committing the violent act.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why aren't you embrassed by the fact that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty?

Why aren't you ashamed of gun violence?

I loathe gun violence. But I am not ashamed of it. I have never once been violent using a firearm. In fact, I have been prepared, on numerous occasions, to stop violence with or without a firearm. But the gun violence is not my fault. It is the fault of the person committing the violent act.

Do you see a co-relation between escalated gun violence and the availability of cheap powerful weapons not available fifty years ago at the price or quantity? If criminals had access to assault weapons in the early 1960s at today's price and diverse design and quantity, do you think gun violence, mass shootings, drive by shootings and assaults on the innocent in public places would be a problem? Is there a connection between the tool and the work? Criminals surely have been around forever. But the availability of assault weapons has rendered them more deadly than ever. Certainly it isn't a change in criminality. Some blame must be put on the gun itself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why aren't you ashamed of gun violence?

Thank you for continuing to prove me correct.

You claim I argue from ignorance, dishonesty and emotion.

I gave you three examples of exactly that.
There are innumerable more.

You equivocate gun violence as if you expect the rest of us to accept it as the cost of your gun lust.

See? Right there.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Nosmo King]

Thank you for continuing to prove me correct.

You claim I argue from ignorance, dishonesty and emotion.

I gave you three examples of exactly that.
There are innumerable more.

You equivocate gun violence as if you expect the rest of us to accept it as the cost of your gun lust.

See? Right there.

Keep up the good work.

You cleverly edited my post. Why? Can you honestly and without emotion address the salient points? Here it is again. Give it another try.

You claim I argue from ignorance, dishonesty and emotion. You equivocate gun violence as if you expect the rest of us to accept it as the cost of your gun lust. There MUST be some common ground where those who want to make our nation safer from gun violence and those who want to arm the nation as a prophylactic method of safety.

More guns makes as much sense as charging fire extinguishers with gasoline. Civilians are not trained to respond with gun fire safely. Hell! The best trained, best armed cadre of security personnel the world has ever known could not prevent a bad guy with a gun from shooting four, including the President of the United States. How can an average citizen be expected to quash a violent situation without harming innocent bystanders?

Answer honestly.

 

[WinterBorn]

Bullshit. I gave my reasons. If those reasons are too sensible for you to refute, you crawl into your well worn shell claiming emotion and ignorance. I do not see the constitution as a suicide note. I read "well regulated militia" and BELIEVE IT rather than dismiss it out of hand. I see carnage wrought by guns made more powerful than necessary and wielded by those with a Rambo complex. No one is assaulted by both the Bloods and the Cryps and the entire Sioux Nation and the Corleone family all at once. Therefore, the fantasies held by those lusting for military weapons are merely childish desires to play the hero.

No, you have not given reasons for anything. You have rambled on about no one being attacked by the Bloods and the Crips and the entire Souix Nation. That is not an actual reason.

Had you actually read the links posted in the other thread, you would have seen one I posted (at least twice) that showed trained police officers, when faced with a stressful situation (like being shot at), had very poor accuracy in many cases. One test of the NYPD had a hit rate of about 18%. The next year they were much improved and hit about 25% of the time. The LAPD did much better with a 40% hit rate.

And this is for trained law enforcement officers, not civilians.

If the civilian has only hits 25% of the time (in such a stressful situation as defending his home), a 15 round magazine yields less than 4 rounds hitting the bad guys. Perhaps you WISH that 4 hits could stop every defensive situation.

But you claim a semi-auto with a magazine capacity of more than 10 cannot be used defensively. I guess you would prefer everyone armed with a revolver? A 25 hit rate with 6 rounds yields only 1.5 hits.

You don't need a hit for a successful defense. You recently shared a video of a woman successfully fending off 3 thugs with 4 missed shots. I have still never heard an example of someone needing that many shots for defense. If you shoot that many times and miss you're endangering people around you.

Whether I am endangering the people around me is determined by where they are. If they are in front of me, yes, my shots would endanger them and I would not fire. But if they are beside me or behind me, they are not in danger.

I just did a little experiment in my dining room. It is 10x20 feet. From one end (shooting over the divider between the dining room and kitchen) moving the mark (where the barrel would be) only one inch means the point of impact at the other end of the room is over 2 feet. I am a pretty large guy. I'm 6'2" and weight around 250lbs. But by moving the barrel only one inch, you could miss me to my right and then to my left. So this idea that you have to spray all over to miss is pure nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You claim I argue from ignorance, dishonesty and emotion.

I gave you three examples of exactly that.
There are innumerable more.


See? Right there.

Keep up the good work.

You cleverly edited my post. Why?

Because nothing else was necessary to show that you were, yet again, arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

It's all you do because its all you CAN do, something you continue to prove with each and every post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh...

Still no answers to the questions posed in the OP.

As expected.

 

[Nosmo King]

I gave you three examples of exactly that.
There are innumerable more.


See? Right there.

Keep up the good work.

You cleverly edited my post. Why?

Because nothing else was necessary to show that you were, yet again, arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

It's all you do because its all you CAN do, something you continue to prove with each and every post.

Yet another sidestep. Yet another equivocation. No response, no responsibility, right?

 

[Brain357]

No, you have not given reasons for anything. You have rambled on about no one being attacked by the Bloods and the Crips and the entire Souix Nation. That is not an actual reason.

Had you actually read the links posted in the other thread, you would have seen one I posted (at least twice) that showed trained police officers, when faced with a stressful situation (like being shot at), had very poor accuracy in many cases. One test of the NYPD had a hit rate of about 18%. The next year they were much improved and hit about 25% of the time. The LAPD did much better with a 40% hit rate.

And this is for trained law enforcement officers, not civilians.

If the civilian has only hits 25% of the time (in such a stressful situation as defending his home), a 15 round magazine yields less than 4 rounds hitting the bad guys. Perhaps you WISH that 4 hits could stop every defensive situation.

But you claim a semi-auto with a magazine capacity of more than 10 cannot be used defensively. I guess you would prefer everyone armed with a revolver? A 25 hit rate with 6 rounds yields only 1.5 hits.

You don't need a hit for a successful defense. You recently shared a video of a woman successfully fending off 3 thugs with 4 missed shots. I have still never heard an example of someone needing that many shots for defense. If you shoot that many times and miss you're endangering people around you.

Whether I am endangering the people around me is determined by where they are. If they are in front of me, yes, my shots would endanger them and I would not fire. But if they are beside me or behind me, they are not in danger.

I just did a little experiment in my dining room. It is 10x20 feet. From one end (shooting over the divider between the dining room and kitchen) moving the mark (where the barrel would be) only one inch means the point of impact at the other end of the room is over 2 feet. I am a pretty large guy. I'm 6'2" and weight around 250lbs. But by moving the barrel only one inch, you could miss me to my right and then to my left. So this idea that you have to spray all over to miss is pure nonsense.

You don't need a hit for defense, that fact ruins your whole argument.

You're aware bullets go really far? What happens when you're out on the street and miss? Think that bullet just stops? What if you're home and it goes through a window?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You cleverly edited my post. Why?

Because nothing else was necessary to show that you were, yet again, arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

It's all you do because its all you CAN do, something you continue to prove with each and every post.

Yet another sidestep. Yet another equivocation.

Irony so thick you need a continental engineer to cut it.


I know you hate the fact that I am right -- but that's all on you.
You can choose to stop arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, if you want.
Well, maybe.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why aren't you ashamed of gun violence?

I loathe gun violence. But I am not ashamed of it. I have never once been violent using a firearm. In fact, I have been prepared, on numerous occasions, to stop violence with or without a firearm. But the gun violence is not my fault. It is the fault of the person committing the violent act.

Do you see a co-relation between escalated gun violence and the availability of cheap powerful weapons not available fifty years ago at the price or quantity? If criminals had access to assault weapons in the early 1960s at today's price and diverse design and quantity, do you think gun violence, mass shootings, drive by shootings and assaults on the innocent in public places would be a problem? Is there a connection between the tool and the work? Criminals surely have been around forever. But the availability of assault weapons has rendered them more deadly than ever. Certainly it isn't a change in criminality. Some blame must be put on the gun itself.

One thing you should really consider is that gun violence has been on the decline over the last 20 years. So the idea that more guns, less expensive guns, and easier access (since there are more gun shows and far more states with Shall Issue laws for CWPs) has caused an increase in gun violence is absolute nonsense.

In 2012 & 2011, the murder rate (not separated by method) was 4.7 per 100k population.

In 2010, the rate was 4.8 per 100K.

The murder rate had not been below 5.0 per 100 prior to that since 1964.

Since the turn of the century, the highest rate was 5.7 in 2003. Other than 1999 having a rate of 5.7, there was not a single year with a murder rate of lower than 6.0 per 100k since 1966. And most of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s had rates that hovered between 9.0 and 10.0 per 100k population.

So your entire premise that things are getting worse is nonsense.

Although, you are not alone. 56% of Americans think the gun violence is getting worse every year. That is because so many refuse to look at the actual facts.

I got the rates from: Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they were gathered from: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and FBI ? Table 1

 

[WinterBorn]

You don't need a hit for a successful defense. You recently shared a video of a woman successfully fending off 3 thugs with 4 missed shots. I have still never heard an example of someone needing that many shots for defense. If you shoot that many times and miss you're endangering people around you.

Whether I am endangering the people around me is determined by where they are. If they are in front of me, yes, my shots would endanger them and I would not fire. But if they are beside me or behind me, they are not in danger.

I just did a little experiment in my dining room. It is 10x20 feet. From one end (shooting over the divider between the dining room and kitchen) moving the mark (where the barrel would be) only one inch means the point of impact at the other end of the room is over 2 feet. I am a pretty large guy. I'm 6'2" and weight around 250lbs. But by moving the barrel only one inch, you could miss me to my right and then to my left. So this idea that you have to spray all over to miss is pure nonsense.

You don't need a hit for defense, that fact ruins your whole argument.

You're aware bullets go really far? What happens when you're out on the street and miss? Think that bullet just stops? What if you're home and it goes through a window?

Yes, criminals often flee when they hear a gun fired. But not always. Are you willing to risk your life and the lives of your family on the hope that they will leave?

Yes, I am aware that bullets go really far. That is why I select bullets that are designed NOT to over-penetrate. We have MagSafe or Glaser Safety Slugs in our guns. A window might not stop them, but even drywall will.

None of the arguments you are presenting here have anything to do with magazine capacity. The first shot will be as likely to go thru a window as the 15th shot will.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So your entire premise that things are getting worse is nonsense.

Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, igorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Brain357]

Whether I am endangering the people around me is determined by where they are. If they are in front of me, yes, my shots would endanger them and I would not fire. But if they are beside me or behind me, they are not in danger.

I just did a little experiment in my dining room. It is 10x20 feet. From one end (shooting over the divider between the dining room and kitchen) moving the mark (where the barrel would be) only one inch means the point of impact at the other end of the room is over 2 feet. I am a pretty large guy. I'm 6'2" and weight around 250lbs. But by moving the barrel only one inch, you could miss me to my right and then to my left. So this idea that you have to spray all over to miss is pure nonsense.

You don't need a hit for defense, that fact ruins your whole argument.

You're aware bullets go really far? What happens when you're out on the street and miss? Think that bullet just stops? What if you're home and it goes through a window?

Yes, criminals often flee when they hear a gun fired. But not always. Are you willing to risk your life and the lives of your family on the hope that they will leave?

Yes, I am aware that bullets go really far. That is why I select bullets that are designed NOT to over-penetrate. We have MagSafe or Glaser Safety Slugs in our guns. A window might not stop them, but even drywall will.

None of the arguments you are presenting here have anything to do with magazine capacity. The first shot will be as likely to go thru a window as the 15th shot will.

I have a revolver for defense so yes. A very well done study shows defense on average is 2 shots.

So should we make your ammo mandatory? Some of the guns people use will go through a car and still kill somebody. Sorry but the more shots fired the more likely an innocent person gets hit by a stray.

 

[WinterBorn]

You don't need a hit for a successful defense. You recently shared a video of a woman successfully fending off 3 thugs with 4 missed shots. I have still never heard an example of someone needing that many shots for defense. If you shoot that many times and miss you're endangering people around you.

Whether I am endangering the people around me is determined by where they are. If they are in front of me, yes, my shots would endanger them and I would not fire. But if they are beside me or behind me, they are not in danger.

I just did a little experiment in my dining room. It is 10x20 feet. From one end (shooting over the divider between the dining room and kitchen) moving the mark (where the barrel would be) only one inch means the point of impact at the other end of the room is over 2 feet. I am a pretty large guy. I'm 6'2" and weight around 250lbs. But by moving the barrel only one inch, you could miss me to my right and then to my left. So this idea that you have to spray all over to miss is pure nonsense.

You don't need a hit for defense, that fact ruins your whole argument.

You're aware bullets go really far? What happens when you're out on the street and miss? Think that bullet just stops? What if you're home and it goes through a window?

The only thing what you said would be an argument for is not using a gun to defend my home, myself or my family.

 

[g5000]

Homicide rates by year:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6227a1.htm