Questions for those that would ban 'assault weapons'

[WinterBorn]

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.

And if your accuracy is the same as the improved score of the trained law enfocrement officers in NYC, you will score 1.5 hits. Which means if 3 bad guys break in and don't run, you will end up dead. Oh, and so will your family.

Yes, the study you seem so fond of shows 2 shots fired on average out of less than 500 incidents in which someone used a firearm to defend themselves.

Oh, and since you insist that you don't need a hit for defense, why was the second shot fired in all those instances? Or was only one shot fired in hundreds of cases, and 12 fired in a handful? Your study does not show that, does it?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

May I ask what caliber revolver you have for your home defense?

 

[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?

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

No I'm saying you don't need a hi cap magazine for defense. Lots of missing just endangers innocent people. I'm pretty sure in most cases just having a gun sends the criminal running.

 

[Brain357]

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.

And if your accuracy is the same as the improved score of the trained law enfocrement officers in NYC, you will score 1.5 hits. Which means if 3 bad guys break in and don't run, you will end up dead. Oh, and so will your family.

Yes, the study you seem so fond of shows 2 shots fired on average out of less than 500 incidents in which someone used a firearm to defend themselves.

Oh, and since you insist that you don't need a hit for defense, why was the second shot fired in all those instances? Or was only one shot fired in hundreds of cases, and 12 fired in a handful? Your study does not show that, does it?

You shared a video in a thread where a woman defended against 3 thugs without a hit. I'm quite safe.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No I'm saying you don't need a hi cap magazine for defense. Lots of missing just endangers innocent people. I'm pretty sure in most cases just having a gun sends the criminal running.

Oh I have no doubt the SIGHT of a gun will convince some criminals to leave. The sound of a single shot will convince even more of them to leave. But there are those who will not hesitate to kill, and I am not risking my life or my family's life on only being robbed by the first group.

 

[Brain357]

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.

May I ask what caliber revolver you have for your home defense?

That should be obvious, .357. I use .38 with it though.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

And if your accuracy is the same as the improved score of the trained law enfocrement officers in NYC, you will score 1.5 hits. Which means if 3 bad guys break in and don't run, you will end up dead. Oh, and so will your family.

Yes, the study you seem so fond of shows 2 shots fired on average out of less than 500 incidents in which someone used a firearm to defend themselves.

Oh, and since you insist that you don't need a hit for defense, why was the second shot fired in all those instances? Or was only one shot fired in hundreds of cases, and 12 fired in a handful? Your study does not show that, does it?

You shared a video in a thread where a woman defended against 3 thugs without a hit. I'm quite safe.

Yes, I showed an example of those criminals who would run when they heard gunfire.

Are you confident that all criminals will behave the same way?

 

[Brain357]

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

No I'm saying you don't need a hi cap magazine for defense. Lots of missing just endangers innocent people. I'm pretty sure in most cases just having a gun sends the criminal running.

Oh I have no doubt the SIGHT of a gun will convince some criminals to leave. The sound of a single shot will convince even more of them to leave. But there are those who will not hesitate to kill, and I am not risking my life or my family's life on only being robbed by the first group.

So you have never heard of anyone needing a hi cap magazine, yet your still paranoid?

 

[Brain357]

And if your accuracy is the same as the improved score of the trained law enfocrement officers in NYC, you will score 1.5 hits. Which means if 3 bad guys break in and don't run, you will end up dead. Oh, and so will your family.

Yes, the study you seem so fond of shows 2 shots fired on average out of less than 500 incidents in which someone used a firearm to defend themselves.

Oh, and since you insist that you don't need a hit for defense, why was the second shot fired in all those instances? Or was only one shot fired in hundreds of cases, and 12 fired in a handful? Your study does not show that, does it?

You shared a video in a thread where a woman defended against 3 thugs without a hit. I'm quite safe.

Yes, I showed an example of those criminals who would run when they heard gunfire.

Are you confident that all criminals will behave the same way?

I'm confident that none of them want to get shot yes.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

May I ask what caliber revolver you have for your home defense?

That should be obvious, .357. I use .38 with it though.

I thought so, but gave up assuming anything about people on these forums years ago.

I would recommend looking into MagSafe ammunition, and use the .357 magnum rounds. Mag Safe Ammo - Pre-Fragmented Saftey Ammunition Handcrafted In The USA

We have 2 revolvers loaded with 5 rounds of it each. (I also have MagSafe in my M1911 .45ACP) The first round for each revolver is a .38 Special shotshell. Across a room you won't miss if you are pointing it at them. That reduces the chance that you miss and they get a shot.

 

[zeke]

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. I get to agree with you. The drop in murder rates is a good thing.

Of course we have some differences in the how and why.

I would expect that you believe the increase in CCW permits and the increase in weapon ownership in general is the reason?

Unfortunately the numbers of gun shot victims has not declined, according to statistics reported by ER's all over the country.

What has gotten MUCH better is the emergency room doctors ability to keep a gun shot victim alive. It is amazing and a result of the experience that many ER doctors got in Iraq and Afghanistan. And technology. And quick response. And helicopters.

I guess that's a good thing. You ever look at the dollar cost to treat these wounds and put some of these gun shot victims on full disability for the rest of their lives? These people don't have any money mostly. Or insurance. Most are men, late teens, young twenties. Amazing money we spend to support these gun shot victims.

Or in the cities random people get caught in the crossfire and shot. We pay them a lot of money to.

Then we put the shooters in jail for as long as we can and spend a lot of money on them too. If the shooter got shot while getting arrested, we spent a few million to keep him alive to put him in jail and spend even more money.

See a pattern yet? Somebodies making a lot of money off this cycle of violence. And it ain't me. And it ain't good.

It's like a warped business cycle. Gun companies make and want to sell as many guns as they can. COTUS basically now permits guns all over the place. Guaranteeing that criminals and other degenerates can get their hands on guns. And fear is generated (fear sells, fact) by the NRA over a variety of issues.. So now the rest of us need guns. And then the crazies and the criminals start shooting each other and other people, proving the NRA correct and we need more guns.

And the gun manufacturers add a third shift and profits go crazy. It's an arms race to where?

 

[WinterBorn]

No I'm saying you don't need a hi cap magazine for defense. Lots of missing just endangers innocent people. I'm pretty sure in most cases just having a gun sends the criminal running.

Oh I have no doubt the SIGHT of a gun will convince some criminals to leave. The sound of a single shot will convince even more of them to leave. But there are those who will not hesitate to kill, and I am not risking my life or my family's life on only being robbed by the first group.

So you have never heard of anyone needing a hi cap magazine, yet your still paranoid?

Why do you say that I am paranoid? I have said several times that my only semi-auto suitable for self defense has a capacity of 8 rounds.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Oh I have no doubt the SIGHT of a gun will convince some criminals to leave. The sound of a single shot will convince even more of them to leave. But there are those who will not hesitate to kill, and I am not risking my life or my family's life on only being robbed by the first group.

So you have never heard of anyone needing a hi cap magazine, yet your still paranoid?

Why do you say that I am paranoid? I have said several times that my only semi-auto suitable for self defense has a capacity of 8 rounds.

My favorite for home defense.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fnx...QKfGgyQGKwYCYDA&ved=0CGkQsAQ&biw=1536&bih=765

Thing is freaken amazing!!!

 

[WinterBorn]

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. I get to agree with you. The drop in murder rates is a good thing.

Of course we have some differences in the how and why.

I would expect that you believe the increase in CCW permits and the increase in weapon ownership in general is the reason?

Unfortunately the numbers of gun shot victims has not declined, according to statistics reported by ER's all over the country.

What has gotten MUCH better is the emergency room doctors ability to keep a gun shot victim alive. It is amazing and a result of the experience that many ER doctors got in Iraq and Afghanistan. And technology. And quick response. And helicopters.

I guess that's a good thing. You ever look at the dollar cost to treat these wounds and put some of these gun shot victims on full disability for the rest of their lives? These people don't have any money mostly. Or insurance. Most are men, late teens, young twenties. Amazing money we spend to support these gun shot victims.

Or in the cities random people get caught in the crossfire and shot. We pay them a lot of money to.

Then we put the shooters in jail for as long as we can and spend a lot of money on them too. If the shooter got shot while getting arrested, we spent a few million to keep him alive to put him in jail and spend even more money.

See a pattern yet? Somebodies making a lot of money off this cycle of violence. And it ain't me. And it ain't good.

It's like a warped business cycle. Gun companies make and want to sell as many guns as they can. COTUS basically now permits guns all over the place. Guaranteeing that criminals and other degenerates can get their hands on guns. And fear is generated (fear sells, fact) by the NRA over a variety of issues.. So now the rest of us need guns. And then the crazies and the criminals start shooting each other and other people, proving the NRA correct and we need more guns.

And the gun manufacturers add a third shift and profits go crazy. It's an arms race to where?

The advances in medical care may have had an effect on the rates.

But crimes rates across the board are down. The rates for robbery in 2011 & 2012 were 113.9 & 112.9, respectively. Those are the lowest rates per 100k pop since 1967.

Rapes per 100k population are at their lowest rate in 40 years.

Prompt and well trained medical care did not change either of those.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you have never heard of anyone needing a hi cap magazine, yet your still paranoid?

Why do you say that I am paranoid? I have said several times that my only semi-auto suitable for self defense has a capacity of 8 rounds.

My favorite for home defense.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fnx...QKfGgyQGKwYCYDA&ved=0CGkQsAQ&biw=1536&bih=765

Thing is freaken amazing!!!

FNH does not play. lol And I like that they have them in .45ACP.

 

[WinterBorn]

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. I get to agree with you. The drop in murder rates is a good thing.

Of course we have some differences in the how and why.

I would expect that you believe the increase in CCW permits and the increase in weapon ownership in general is the reason?

Unfortunately the numbers of gun shot victims has not declined, according to statistics reported by ER's all over the country.

What has gotten MUCH better is the emergency room doctors ability to keep a gun shot victim alive. It is amazing and a result of the experience that many ER doctors got in Iraq and Afghanistan. And technology. And quick response. And helicopters.

I guess that's a good thing. You ever look at the dollar cost to treat these wounds and put some of these gun shot victims on full disability for the rest of their lives? These people don't have any money mostly. Or insurance. Most are men, late teens, young twenties. Amazing money we spend to support these gun shot victims.

Or in the cities random people get caught in the crossfire and shot. We pay them a lot of money to.

Then we put the shooters in jail for as long as we can and spend a lot of money on them too. If the shooter got shot while getting arrested, we spent a few million to keep him alive to put him in jail and spend even more money.

See a pattern yet? Somebodies making a lot of money off this cycle of violence. And it ain't me. And it ain't good.

It's like a warped business cycle. Gun companies make and want to sell as many guns as they can. COTUS basically now permits guns all over the place. Guaranteeing that criminals and other degenerates can get their hands on guns. And fear is generated (fear sells, fact) by the NRA over a variety of issues.. So now the rest of us need guns. And then the crazies and the criminals start shooting each other and other people, proving the NRA correct and we need more guns.

And the gun manufacturers add a third shift and profits go crazy. It's an arms race to where?

Do you have any links for your statement, "Unfortunately the numbers of gun shot victims has not declined, according to statistics reported by ER's all over the country"?

 

[Brain357]

Oh I have no doubt the SIGHT of a gun will convince some criminals to leave. The sound of a single shot will convince even more of them to leave. But there are those who will not hesitate to kill, and I am not risking my life or my family's life on only being robbed by the first group.

So you have never heard of anyone needing a hi cap magazine, yet your still paranoid?

Why do you say that I am paranoid? I have said several times that my only semi-auto suitable for self defense has a capacity of 8 rounds.

Given the facts, one would have to be paranoid to think they need a hi cap magazine for defense.

I ment a more general statement like that, sorry.

 

[g5000]

Those of you who are working hard to convince anti-gun nuts that you need your gun have already lost the argument, because by defending your need, you are conceding our rights are only valid when you can prove your need to exercise them.

You have every RIGHT to WANT your guns. You don't have to prove you need them for your defense. You have a RIGHT to own private property for the sheer pleasure of it. It is up to the anti-gun nuts to prove you do not have a RIGHT to own them.

That is the approach you should be taking. Stop buying into the "need" argument. It is completely bogus!

 

[WinterBorn]

So you have never heard of anyone needing a hi cap magazine, yet your still paranoid?

Why do you say that I am paranoid? I have said several times that my only semi-auto suitable for self defense has a capacity of 8 rounds.

Given the facts, one would have to be paranoid to think they need a hi cap magazine for defense.

I ment a more general statement like that, sorry.

No, I am not paranoid. I simply do not agree with creating more laws to be placed on the law abiding citizen, since the criminals will not obey them anyway.

 

[WinterBorn]

Those of you who are working hard to convince anti-gun nuts that you need your gun have already lost the argument, because by defending your need, you are conceding our rights are only valid when you can prove your need to exercise them.

You have every RIGHT to WANT your guns. You don't have to prove you need them for your defense. You have a RIGHT to own private property for the sheer pleasure of it. It is up to the anti-gun nuts to prove you do not have a RIGHT to own them.

That is the approach you should be taking. Stop buying into the "need" argument. It is completely bogus!

I am neither defending the "need" or spending much time arguing against it. Those who base their entire argument on the idea that no one "needs guns" are basically ridiculed in my posts.

But some have presented have presented solid arguments for certain restrictions. I am arguing, just as solidly, that the laws will not effect the criminals or that the logic of their argument (or the facts) are not accurate.

My arguments have also educated a few that came into the discussion completely ignorant about guns.

KingNosmo has learned a lot about firearms, whether he admits it or not.