So, now an "Assault" weapon is any gun holding more than 10 bullets...we told you...

[OldLady]

With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.

thats closing the barn door after the cows got out,,,

there are millions already in the public domain

and it doesnt work anywhere in the world,,,every country has people killing other people

Are you talking about larger mags? They exist so they will always be around? For awhile they will, but if they're so necessary for defending ourselves against all those roving bands of bad guys, I can only imagine they will quickly be used up.

You know the magazines can be reused right? I mean, you fire all the ammo out of them, and then you, this is hard to believe, you put more ammunition into them.

Oh. Yeah, I HAD heard that somewhere, but I forgot--thanks.

makes us wonder what else you forgot,,,

YOUR HUMANITY maybe???

your common sense for sure

I've lost my "humanity" because I would prefer people not be shooting each other dead. Yeah, right.

 

[OldLady]

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?

Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.

]

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

What is always curious to me is a trend we Americans have. Perhaps you can help me. Six gangsters use Thompson Submachine Guns to kill other people. None of the other million or so people with automatic weapons which were legal up until then did anything, so we outlaw the weapon the six gangsters used.

Less than one percent of the people buying Sudafed cook it into Crystal Meth. So we limit and prosecute people for buying Sudafed. This has had a huge effect on the production of Crystal Meth, it is up over 1,000%.

One percent of the people who are proscribed Opiods for chronic pain are abusing them. So we restrict Opiods, and cause tens of thousands of people to commit suicide to escape the agonizing pain they are enduring.

Example after example, it is always the same. Less than one percent and instead of focusing on the behavior of those who are breaking the existing rules, we pass laws to punish the other 99% who aren’t. Why? Because morons want to blame the inanimate object, Teddy Roosevelt took two machine guns with him during the Spanish American Wars, both were privately owned, purchased and donated to the unit, by a citizen in New Jersey.

Guns have no soul, nor any mind. They are inanimate objects. Like the cars that are used by Drunk Drivers to kill many. Only you want to blame Ford for making the car, instead of the idiot who got behind the wheel. You want to blame Porsche for making a car that went so fast, instead of the driver who lost control and killed himself, and Paul Walker.

The tool never committed the crime, and banning or restricting never ends the problem. Death by overdoses of Opiods has remained about the same. Why? The people overdosing are using Heroine, Fentinol, and other illegal drugs. The people suffering indescribable pain are the ones suffering to the point where they can’t take it anymore. Because of people like you, who operate under the idea that you know what is best for everyone.

Yes. I have a Magnum. You should be glad that not many of us have them. You see, as I pointed out more than once, the Magnum has twice the kinetic energy of a 9MM or even a .45ACP. What that means is that the wound from a Magnum is much, much worse. It tends to be through and through, instead of stopping inside the body. That means there are two holes to let the blood out, and many more destroyed blood vessels to leak from. The speed of the projectile also creates hydrostatic damage to the tissues. What that means is more of the tissue is torn and shredded, causing even faster loss of blood.

The bullet once it passes through a person, and it is highly likely that it will pass through, tends to continue on its merry way, possibly striking and killing a second person.

You see, if you limit the magazine size, then people will go for a much bigger, more powerful bullet instead. Right now, you have better than seventy percent probability of survival if you get shot. If everyone switches to Magnum rounds, that drops to just above fifty percent probability. In other words, you are going to see a lot more dead people, instead of wounded people. If as you say, your goal is to see people live, why are you setting up the scenario where more of them will die?

Thousands more will die every year, and will you blame your own actions? Your pathological hatred of the inanimate object known as a gun? Your knee jerk response of ban it? No. You’ll blame the gun again, just as idiots are right now blaming Opiods for the increase in Suicides.

I on the other hands, encourage you, and everyone, to live you lives your way, so long as you don’t harm another. When you do harm another, I believe you should be punished by law. We already have laws on the books for using a weapon in a criminal manner, what those laws have not done is end gun violence, because you can’t end anything with words on paper. Ask anyone who has been watching the Drug War, now entering it’s fiftieth successful year.

It is not a knee jerk reaction to guns. Most of the people I know, including my own son and granddaughter, own a gun or guns. I am not losing any sleep over it because they are reasonable, law abiding people. I have always chosen not to own a gun because it is a killing machine.
What I DO rely on is actual facts. Look at the gun homicide rate in European countries like Great Britain and France and compare it to the United States. It is very obvious that stricter gun control causes far fewer gun deaths.
There is no getting around it and that is all I am basing it on.
I imagine this will trigger several page long articles from 2AGuy showing that somehow gun control in other countries doesn't work, but it DOES. I want to get us down to 130 gun homicides per year, which is the equiv. of Great Britain's rate.

Then I'll be happy.

26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually

yeah but GB's violent crime,robbery and rape rates have skyrocketed


again you are ignoring the tens of thousands times a yr guns stop crimes

crime rates are down across the board thanks to armed citizens

Yes, they're having a gang problem there, too, I hear.

of course they are, so a well armed populace is the best defense

They don't think so, cowboy.

 

[OldLady]

Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.

Yeah, that's what the Germans said.

Yep. Right after hitler started taking guns and took govt control.
We could do this all day

We're not going to talk about gun control anymore, you and I.
For others reading these posts, they should read this--read the historical FACTS about gun restriction in Nazi Germany.
Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

but gun control is what you want,,,and ben needs to stick to the medical field

It certainly isn't only Ben--a lot of posters here have believed that codswallop, too. TN actually likes reading real history, so I thought he might find it interesting to learn the truth about the Nazi's and gun control.

 

[Anathema]

What I DO rely on is actual facts. Look at the gun homicide rate in European countries like Great Britain and France and compare it to the United States. It is very obvious that stricter gun control causes far fewer gun deaths.
There is no getting around it and that is all I am basing it on.
I imagine this will trigger several page long articles from 2AGuy showing that somehow gun control in other countries doesn't work, but it DOES. I want to get us down to 130 gun homicides per year, which is the equiv. of Great Britain's rate

That’s an unrealistic expectation. These European nations never had gun ownership like we do in the USA. They did have a far more docile population. Even if you put in place the same laws here, no -compliance would be rampant. Even among law abiding citizens, never mind criminals.

Even if it would work for law abiding citizens, all that would do is create an even more victimizable society for the criminaks who will never put down their arms.

 

[progressive hunter]

thats closing the barn door after the cows got out,,,

there are millions already in the public domain

and it doesnt work anywhere in the world,,,every country has people killing other people

Are you talking about larger mags? They exist so they will always be around? For awhile they will, but if they're so necessary for defending ourselves against all those roving bands of bad guys, I can only imagine they will quickly be used up.

You know the magazines can be reused right? I mean, you fire all the ammo out of them, and then you, this is hard to believe, you put more ammunition into them.

Oh. Yeah, I HAD heard that somewhere, but I forgot--thanks.

makes us wonder what else you forgot,,,

YOUR HUMANITY maybe???

your common sense for sure

I've lost my "humanity" because I would prefer people not be shooting each other dead. Yeah, right.

again you are ignoring the thousands of times they are used to save people,,,your number would be far higher if not for guns

look up the rate of rapes, assaults, home invasions and robbery in those countrys,,,keep in mind there numbers are put out by the government and only reflect a portion of whats really happening

and what about the deaths by knives and clubs????they far outnumber guns???

 

[progressive hunter]

Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?

Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.

]

What is always curious to me is a trend we Americans have. Perhaps you can help me. Six gangsters use Thompson Submachine Guns to kill other people. None of the other million or so people with automatic weapons which were legal up until then did anything, so we outlaw the weapon the six gangsters used.

Less than one percent of the people buying Sudafed cook it into Crystal Meth. So we limit and prosecute people for buying Sudafed. This has had a huge effect on the production of Crystal Meth, it is up over 1,000%.

One percent of the people who are proscribed Opiods for chronic pain are abusing them. So we restrict Opiods, and cause tens of thousands of people to commit suicide to escape the agonizing pain they are enduring.

Example after example, it is always the same. Less than one percent and instead of focusing on the behavior of those who are breaking the existing rules, we pass laws to punish the other 99% who aren’t. Why? Because morons want to blame the inanimate object, Teddy Roosevelt took two machine guns with him during the Spanish American Wars, both were privately owned, purchased and donated to the unit, by a citizen in New Jersey.

Guns have no soul, nor any mind. They are inanimate objects. Like the cars that are used by Drunk Drivers to kill many. Only you want to blame Ford for making the car, instead of the idiot who got behind the wheel. You want to blame Porsche for making a car that went so fast, instead of the driver who lost control and killed himself, and Paul Walker.

The tool never committed the crime, and banning or restricting never ends the problem. Death by overdoses of Opiods has remained about the same. Why? The people overdosing are using Heroine, Fentinol, and other illegal drugs. The people suffering indescribable pain are the ones suffering to the point where they can’t take it anymore. Because of people like you, who operate under the idea that you know what is best for everyone.

Yes. I have a Magnum. You should be glad that not many of us have them. You see, as I pointed out more than once, the Magnum has twice the kinetic energy of a 9MM or even a .45ACP. What that means is that the wound from a Magnum is much, much worse. It tends to be through and through, instead of stopping inside the body. That means there are two holes to let the blood out, and many more destroyed blood vessels to leak from. The speed of the projectile also creates hydrostatic damage to the tissues. What that means is more of the tissue is torn and shredded, causing even faster loss of blood.

The bullet once it passes through a person, and it is highly likely that it will pass through, tends to continue on its merry way, possibly striking and killing a second person.

You see, if you limit the magazine size, then people will go for a much bigger, more powerful bullet instead. Right now, you have better than seventy percent probability of survival if you get shot. If everyone switches to Magnum rounds, that drops to just above fifty percent probability. In other words, you are going to see a lot more dead people, instead of wounded people. If as you say, your goal is to see people live, why are you setting up the scenario where more of them will die?

Thousands more will die every year, and will you blame your own actions? Your pathological hatred of the inanimate object known as a gun? Your knee jerk response of ban it? No. You’ll blame the gun again, just as idiots are right now blaming Opiods for the increase in Suicides.

I on the other hands, encourage you, and everyone, to live you lives your way, so long as you don’t harm another. When you do harm another, I believe you should be punished by law. We already have laws on the books for using a weapon in a criminal manner, what those laws have not done is end gun violence, because you can’t end anything with words on paper. Ask anyone who has been watching the Drug War, now entering it’s fiftieth successful year.

It is not a knee jerk reaction to guns. Most of the people I know, including my own son and granddaughter, own a gun or guns. I am not losing any sleep over it because they are reasonable, law abiding people. I have always chosen not to own a gun because it is a killing machine.
What I DO rely on is actual facts. Look at the gun homicide rate in European countries like Great Britain and France and compare it to the United States. It is very obvious that stricter gun control causes far fewer gun deaths.
There is no getting around it and that is all I am basing it on.
I imagine this will trigger several page long articles from 2AGuy showing that somehow gun control in other countries doesn't work, but it DOES. I want to get us down to 130 gun homicides per year, which is the equiv. of Great Britain's rate.

Then I'll be happy.

26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually

yeah but GB's violent crime,robbery and rape rates have skyrocketed


again you are ignoring the tens of thousands times a yr guns stop crimes

crime rates are down across the board thanks to armed citizens

Yes, they're having a gang problem there, too, I hear.

of course they are, so a well armed populace is the best defense

They don't think so, cowboy.

cows are girls and bulls are boys

 

[progressive hunter]

Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.

Yeah, that's what the Germans said.

Yep. Right after hitler started taking guns and took govt control.
We could do this all day

We're not going to talk about gun control anymore, you and I.
For others reading these posts, they should read this--read the historical FACTS about gun restriction in Nazi Germany.
Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

but gun control is what you want,,,and ben needs to stick to the medical field

It certainly isn't only Ben--a lot of posters here have believed that codswallop, too. TN actually likes reading real history, so I thought he might find it interesting to learn the truth about the Nazi's and gun control.

Man stabbed in the face and another slashed in separate knife attacks in Barking


Man stabbed in the face and another slashed in separate knife attacks in Barking

 

[progressive hunter]

Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.

Yeah, that's what the Germans said.

Yep. Right after hitler started taking guns and took govt control.
We could do this all day

We're not going to talk about gun control anymore, you and I.
For others reading these posts, they should read this--read the historical FACTS about gun restriction in Nazi Germany.
Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

but gun control is what you want,,,and ben needs to stick to the medical field

It certainly isn't only Ben--a lot of posters here have believed that codswallop, too. TN actually likes reading real history, so I thought he might find it interesting to learn the truth about the Nazi's and gun control.

Mother in her 30s is left fighting for her life 'after being knifed in front of her children in triple stabbing that also left their father injured' hours after man, 26, was critically wounded in another knife attack three miles away in London


Woman is fighting for her life and two men are left with slash wounds after triple London | Daily Mail Online

 

[progressive hunter]

Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.

Yeah, that's what the Germans said.

Yep. Right after hitler started taking guns and took govt control.
We could do this all day

We're not going to talk about gun control anymore, you and I.
For others reading these posts, they should read this--read the historical FACTS about gun restriction in Nazi Germany.
Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

but gun control is what you want,,,and ben needs to stick to the medical field

It certainly isn't only Ben--a lot of posters here have believed that codswallop, too. TN actually likes reading real history, so I thought he might find it interesting to learn the truth about the Nazi's and gun control.

Police in London have seen a weekend of violence, with several knife attack victims fighting for their lives while officers opened a murder probe after a woman was found strangled to death in an apartment in the capital’s east.
On Friday evening, officers in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham were called out to two separate, and apparently unrelated, knife attacks within the space of just 20 minutes in which both victims were stabbed in the face, local media reports.

A triple stabbing in Leyton, east London, on Saturday saw three people assaulted in broad daylight, with eyewitnesses reporting that the children of two of the victims witnessed the attack.

Khan’s London: ‘Kids See Parents Knifed’, ‘Woman Strangled to Death’

 

[progressive hunter]

Yeah, that's what the Germans said.

Yep. Right after hitler started taking guns and took govt control.
We could do this all day

We're not going to talk about gun control anymore, you and I.
For others reading these posts, they should read this--read the historical FACTS about gun restriction in Nazi Germany.
Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

but gun control is what you want,,,and ben needs to stick to the medical field

It certainly isn't only Ben--a lot of posters here have believed that codswallop, too. TN actually likes reading real history, so I thought he might find it interesting to learn the truth about the Nazi's and gun control.

Police in London have seen a weekend of violence, with several knife attack victims fighting for their lives while officers opened a murder probe after a woman was found strangled to death in an apartment in the capital’s east.
On Friday evening, officers in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham were called out to two separate, and apparently unrelated, knife attacks within the space of just 20 minutes in which both victims were stabbed in the face, local media reports.

A triple stabbing in Leyton, east London, on Saturday saw three people assaulted in broad daylight, with eyewitnesses reporting that the children of two of the victims witnessed the attack.

Khan’s London: ‘Kids See Parents Knifed’, ‘Woman Strangled to Death’

sorry but the UK is a great example of how gun control doesnt work

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

Because when 4 robbers are breaking into your house, 10 bullets suddenly doesn't seem like much.

 

[Rustic]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

She’s a clueless kunt, like all progressives... The silly fuckers think sporting rifles are assault weapons...

 

[Rustic]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

lol
You’re a foolish old hag, You have no idea what reality is

 

[2aguy]

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?

Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.

]

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?

Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job

The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.

There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.

This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.

As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.



Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.

Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.

Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?

I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.

If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

What is always curious to me is a trend we Americans have. Perhaps you can help me. Six gangsters use Thompson Submachine Guns to kill other people. None of the other million or so people with automatic weapons which were legal up until then did anything, so we outlaw the weapon the six gangsters used.

Less than one percent of the people buying Sudafed cook it into Crystal Meth. So we limit and prosecute people for buying Sudafed. This has had a huge effect on the production of Crystal Meth, it is up over 1,000%.

One percent of the people who are proscribed Opiods for chronic pain are abusing them. So we restrict Opiods, and cause tens of thousands of people to commit suicide to escape the agonizing pain they are enduring.

Example after example, it is always the same. Less than one percent and instead of focusing on the behavior of those who are breaking the existing rules, we pass laws to punish the other 99% who aren’t. Why? Because morons want to blame the inanimate object, Teddy Roosevelt took two machine guns with him during the Spanish American Wars, both were privately owned, purchased and donated to the unit, by a citizen in New Jersey.

Guns have no soul, nor any mind. They are inanimate objects. Like the cars that are used by Drunk Drivers to kill many. Only you want to blame Ford for making the car, instead of the idiot who got behind the wheel. You want to blame Porsche for making a car that went so fast, instead of the driver who lost control and killed himself, and Paul Walker.

The tool never committed the crime, and banning or restricting never ends the problem. Death by overdoses of Opiods has remained about the same. Why? The people overdosing are using Heroine, Fentinol, and other illegal drugs. The people suffering indescribable pain are the ones suffering to the point where they can’t take it anymore. Because of people like you, who operate under the idea that you know what is best for everyone.

Yes. I have a Magnum. You should be glad that not many of us have them. You see, as I pointed out more than once, the Magnum has twice the kinetic energy of a 9MM or even a .45ACP. What that means is that the wound from a Magnum is much, much worse. It tends to be through and through, instead of stopping inside the body. That means there are two holes to let the blood out, and many more destroyed blood vessels to leak from. The speed of the projectile also creates hydrostatic damage to the tissues. What that means is more of the tissue is torn and shredded, causing even faster loss of blood.

The bullet once it passes through a person, and it is highly likely that it will pass through, tends to continue on its merry way, possibly striking and killing a second person.

You see, if you limit the magazine size, then people will go for a much bigger, more powerful bullet instead. Right now, you have better than seventy percent probability of survival if you get shot. If everyone switches to Magnum rounds, that drops to just above fifty percent probability. In other words, you are going to see a lot more dead people, instead of wounded people. If as you say, your goal is to see people live, why are you setting up the scenario where more of them will die?

Thousands more will die every year, and will you blame your own actions? Your pathological hatred of the inanimate object known as a gun? Your knee jerk response of ban it? No. You’ll blame the gun again, just as idiots are right now blaming Opiods for the increase in Suicides.

I on the other hands, encourage you, and everyone, to live you lives your way, so long as you don’t harm another. When you do harm another, I believe you should be punished by law. We already have laws on the books for using a weapon in a criminal manner, what those laws have not done is end gun violence, because you can’t end anything with words on paper. Ask anyone who has been watching the Drug War, now entering it’s fiftieth successful year.

It is not a knee jerk reaction to guns. Most of the people I know, including my own son and granddaughter, own a gun or guns. I am not losing any sleep over it because they are reasonable, law abiding people. I have always chosen not to own a gun because it is a killing machine.
What I DO rely on is actual facts. Look at the gun homicide rate in European countries like Great Britain and France and compare it to the United States. It is very obvious that stricter gun control causes far fewer gun deaths.
There is no getting around it and that is all I am basing it on.
I imagine this will trigger several page long articles from 2AGuy showing that somehow gun control in other countries doesn't work, but it DOES. I want to get us down to 130 gun homicides per year, which is the equiv. of Great Britain's rate.

Then I'll be happy.

26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually

And you are wrong......gun have nothing to do with the intent to commit murder....that is all on the one who holds the gun as 26 years of American history show.....more Americans now own and actually carry guns, and our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, showing that your theory is wrong....also showing your theory is wrong is the fact that British police just reported they can't stop the massive influx of illegal guns into Britain...and yet their gun murder rate has stayed very low......

You don't know what you are talking about.

Gun control means you prevent criminals from getting guns.....that isn't working in Britain no matter how much you pretend it is...

Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK


Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.

“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”

The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.

And as I keep pointing out to the anti gunners here.....

Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.

Handguns are the next biggest category, most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:

“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.

 

[2aguy]

Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.

Yeah, that's what the Germans said.

Yep. Right after hitler started taking guns and took govt control.
We could do this all day

We're not going to talk about gun control anymore, you and I.
For others reading these posts, they should read this--read the historical FACTS about gun restriction in Nazi Germany.
Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

That old piece? Really? Where they lie...and state that the nazis allowed more people to have guns....but....then write that they banned them for the very groups they sent to the death camps?

And had the German people, and Jews, been allowed to have guns....had the rest of Europe had the ability to own guns, the Germans could never have taken and held all the territory they held.......

 

[2aguy]

Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.

Yeah, that's what the Germans said.

Yep. Right after hitler started taking guns and took govt control.
We could do this all day

We're not going to talk about gun control anymore, you and I.
For others reading these posts, they should read this--read the historical FACTS about gun restriction in Nazi Germany.
Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

The part you guys never pay attention too....

The regulations to implement this law, rather than the law itself, did impose new limits on one group: Jews.

On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons."

 

[Vastator]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

Then the military, and police should be the first to turn in their weapons...
US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Yeah... 250,000 rounds per kill. Let that soak in while you find your way back to your lane...
The stats aren’t much better for police. Try sticking to topics you have some knowledge about.

 

[blackhawk]

What if you need more than ten bullets ? Despite what they show you on cop shows criminals don’t always get hit with one shot and die immediately. What if your being attacked by more than one person or a group of more than one is trying to break into your home?

 

[Pilot1]

Criminals, especially those on drugs often don't succumb to multiple gunshot wounds. It often does not incapacitate them, and they still harm, or kill their victims before the succumb to their wounds later, or not at all.

 

[Godboy]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

Why? How many bullets would it take for you? Let me guess... just one, right?