Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

[Dana7360]

How many people remember when NYC cops fired 41 rounds at Amadou Diallo?

A man who fired NO ROUNDS.

They hit him 19 times, less that a 50% hit rate because they were scared of a black guy with a wallet.

Now tell me if you are ever in a gunfight while police are just minutes away that 100 rounds is enough when you're faced with one or more armed thugs that don't limit their magazines or ammo because of some law.

You libturds really need to just SHUT THE **** UP when it comes to issues you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.....

Which is just about every issue....



.

Please tell all of us the last time any civilian was in a gun fight with someone.

It happens all the time, but your MSM doesn't cover such stories on a national level. They are all local and you need to find them. But here is one from my city that took place a couple of months ago.

Pizza shop employee shoots suspect after being shot in robbery

So you're saying that this happens all the time? I don't buy it. One instance doesn't mean it's a regular occurrence.

Plus, being in a small area doesn't need 100 bullets to stop the person. The person is usually right in front of the cashier. No need for 100 rounds.

Finally, when there is an active shooter, like in El Paso, those who do have weapons, don't run toward the shooter with their weapon firing. In fact, all those who did have a weapon in El Paso didn't use their weapon at all.

If you need 100 bullets to shoot someone, then you need to go the practice range to learn how to use that weapon accurately.

Trying to justify having 100 bullets or more is just pathetic. And the rationalization you're using is very lame.

 

[Dana7360]

Please tell all of us the last time any civilian was in a gun fight with someone.

How the **** should I know?

There are gunfights all the time in Chicago alone...

A minute ago? An hour ago? Yesterday? In ten seconds there will be one?

If you're in a hostile circumstance with a gun in your hand, even if you're committing an armed robbery, you're in a gunfight you freakishly stupid piece of shit.

If your weapons grade stupid question is referring to the defensive use of a gun by an innocent civilian where bullets are exchanged with a bad guy yes they are rare... THANK GOD!!!

Yet it happens often enough that there are hundreds of videos on YouTube. In almost every circumstance the presence of the weapon in the hands of a victim that was poorly selected by an aggressor, the perp runs away. Does that mean we need to shackle that civilian with some arbitrary limit set by bed wetters like you that thugs won't abide by?

How do people as stupid as you manage to survive this long?


.

I was polite with you.

You, not so much with me.

I stopped reading when you started calling me names. When someone starts the name calling they know they've lost the debate so I know it's a waste of time to continue to communicate with that person.

What's going on in Chicago isn't gun fights. Nor is it normal to the rest of the nation. Besides, Chicago doesn't have as much gun violence as New Orleans which the last time I checked it had the highest gun violence in the nation.

No one needs 100 bullets. If you need that many bullets to hit your mark then you need to go to the shooting range to practice how to use that weapon accurately.

The many in El Paso who had a weapon when that crazy trump supporter opened fire didn't run with their weapon toward the shooting. In fact, none of them pulled their weapon much less used it.

The chance of anyone who isn't a police officer in America being in a gun fight is zero to none.

You can reply to this but when I encounter someone who calls me names, I stop reading their posts so if you reply, I won't read or reply to it. Have fun ranting to no one in cyberspace.

 

[my2¢]

The difficulty the police took in assessing the situation and their hit rate of less than 50% plus my lack of faith that amateurs would do any better, makes it look silly that arming citizens is any solution to these mass shootings.

Okay, so let's say you are in a grocery store and a shooter walks in to kill anybody and everybody. You mean to tell me you would rather be with people who are all unarmed than have a few people that are?

If those responders are hitting their target at less than 50%, then I'd rather attempt to avoid 1 active shooter than that 1 plus all those who respond. Plus heaven help each of those responders as the others try to determine who is friendly and who is not.

 

[Siete]

Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

if the sob gets up after taking 3 rounds from my Model 12 , 97 more arent going to help me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

if the sob gets up after taking 3 rounds from my Model 12 , 97 more arent going to help me.

If you hit him in three rounds. Depending on the distance, you will miss most of your shots.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The difficulty the police took in assessing the situation and their hit rate of less than 50% plus my lack of faith that amateurs would do any better, makes it look silly that arming citizens is any solution to these mass shootings.

Okay, so let's say you are in a grocery store and a shooter walks in to kill anybody and everybody. You mean to tell me you would rather be with people who are all unarmed than have a few people that are?

If those responders are hitting their target at less than 50%, then I'd rather attempt to avoid 1 active shooter than that 1 plus all those who respond. Plus heaven help each of those responders as the others try to determine who is friendly and who is not.

You lost me, was your comment about the police or CCW holders, because it sure seemed to me you were referring to armed citizens.

 

[Siete]

Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

if the sob gets up after taking 3 rounds from my Model 12 , 97 more arent going to help me.

Republicans can find common ground on guns, Kellyanne Conway says
If you hit him in three rounds. Depending on the distance, you will miss most of your shots.

Home protection only

Modle 12's are SHOTGUNS -

DDDUUURRRR

and yes mine is sawed off to the legal 18 inches ..

like I said, if the sob gets up after taking 3 rounds from my Model 12 , 97 more arent going to help me.

 

[007]

Heck, 100 rounds wouldn't be enough for an afternoon of good target practice. Gotta have plenty of choices...

I've got 3 boxes of those 7.62 x 39 FMJ's for the AK, 1,000 rounds each. I get the TulAmmo from bulkammo.com. Great price, never had a misfire, very accurate. I shoot up assorted stuff I buy at gun shows though too. Got some phosphorus tipped 7.62 x 39 but haven't tried those yet. Just picked up 10 boxes, 50 rounds each, Remington .44mag, JHP's recently at an auction for $20 a box. I'll buy ammo for that price all day long...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many people remember when NYC cops fired 41 rounds at Amadou Diallo?

A man who fired NO ROUNDS.

They hit him 19 times, less that a 50% hit rate because they were scared of a black guy with a wallet.

Now tell me if you are ever in a gunfight while police are just minutes away that 100 rounds is enough when you're faced with one or more armed thugs that don't limit their magazines or ammo because of some law.

You libturds really need to just SHUT THE **** UP when it comes to issues you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.....

Which is just about every issue....



.

Please tell all of us the last time any civilian was in a gun fight with someone.

It happens all the time, but your MSM doesn't cover such stories on a national level. They are all local and you need to find them. But here is one from my city that took place a couple of months ago.

Pizza shop employee shoots suspect after being shot in robbery

So you're saying that this happens all the time? I don't buy it. One instance doesn't mean it's a regular occurrence.

Plus, being in a small area doesn't need 100 bullets to stop the person. The person is usually right in front of the cashier. No need for 100 rounds.

Finally, when there is an active shooter, like in El Paso, those who do have weapons, don't run toward the shooter with their weapon firing. In fact, all those who did have a weapon in El Paso didn't use their weapon at all.

If you need 100 bullets to shoot someone, then you need to go the practice range to learn how to use that weapon accurately.

Trying to justify having 100 bullets or more is just pathetic. And the rationalization you're using is very lame.

It has nothing do to with how many rounds you need, it has to do with how many you want. And what makes you say there were people in El Paso Walmart that were armed? Even if there were, a CCW holder has to evaluate the situation and is not obligated to respond with deadly force.

Having a license to carry a gun does not mean you are a substitute for police until they get there. It's an option of course, but not a mandate. The main reason for obtaining a license is to be legally permitted to use deadly force to save yourself from serious bodily harm or death in a public setting.

During a carry class, downrange precautions are constantly stressed. Downrange means you don't fire at a target if there are innocent people behind the target. When using a gun for self-defense, it means somebody is shooting at you. Adrenaline starts to flow, you are likely shaking from the shock, and you are going to miss your target most of the time. The further the distance between you and the shooter, the more missed shots you're going to have. So downrange is important.

If there were armed citizens there (and I didn't read any reports of that) then the licensed citizen had a reason for not shooting. They were either able to escape easily, evaluated it as too risky for innocent people, or otherwise didn't feel there was a threat of eminent death.

The only time I am armed when I go somewhere is after dark, or if I expect to return home after dark. A lot of people are the same way. This shooting took place in late-morning.

 

[beagle9]

How many people remember when NYC cops fired 41 rounds at Amadou Diallo?

A man who fired NO ROUNDS.

They hit him 19 times, less that a 50% hit rate because they were scared of a black guy with a wallet.

Now tell me if you are ever in a gunfight while police are just minutes away that 100 rounds is enough when you're faced with one or more armed thugs that don't limit their magazines or ammo because of some law.

You libturds really need to just SHUT THE **** UP when it comes to issues you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.....

Which is just about every issue....



.

Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

Definitely not a mentally disturbed person that's for sure.

Definitely not a mentally disturbed gamer that's for sure.
A gamer who dives to deep into the game, virtually shutting himself off from the outside world is a potential problem developing right up under our noses. Now this is not to stereo type all gamers, but to say rather that the area may be of some serious concern if any direct links are proven. The problem may evolve over time all due to the time one spends at the controls unrestricted. This creates a separation from the outside world, where as once this happens the human begins to totally transform. The body structure changes, the look changes, and the stress levels highten to unhealthy levels etc.

Once become entrenched in the gamer world, and the addiction forms, then the outside world begins to become non-conformative as the game takes over the entire subject.

Once this happens, there is the possibility of ridicule and corrections that are then attempted by those either close to the individual or from around the outside edges of the individual who come in contact with the individual.

Restrictions and moderation is the key to not losing our society to these things.

A healthy time period must be set for anything our children become involved in.

The idea of no lines drawn, total freedom without guidence, no parenting, no values instilled, no work ethics taught, no examples being set etc, just leaves our youth totally vulnerable to corporate greed that will justify anything going, otherwise if it means billions in sales to their bottom lines.

Maybe game rooms should be formed again outside of the home, where the gamer can only play for the length of time that his or her money holds out ? Otherwise maybe games of a certain rating should be illegal to have in the home ? Otherwise if there is no parenting in the homes, then the kids just can't sit there turning themselves into gamer zombies....

This idea creates moderation, it creates work ethic to get out and mow lawns, sell bottles, and help the elderly again in order to aquire the money to hit the game room for a few hours on the weekend.

Our homes have become saturated with stuff that is child sitting our children while the parents are out working sometimes two jobs a piece, and this they do in order to create some kind of stature that takes them above and beyond the next family that might not have the cool things that they have.... Some are just trying to keep the standards of living up that is to be kept by those wanting to stay ahead of the GAME. Pun intended.

Not sure of all the links, but something is very wrong in our society, and the corporate world isn't helping to sovle it. Maybe bipartisan review panels are needed in order to investigate all that is happening, and then a report made with recommendations added. Wasn't this always the congresses job ??

Games may be a reason some go out on a shooting spree, but if not for games, something else would eventually set them off.

Getting rid of video games thinking that will be the solution to mass shootings is like getting rid of alcohol believing it will stop people from getting drunk and crashing their car into somebody else. The closest we can get to a solution is to lock these people up before they commit the crime, however that's in violation of our Constitution and certainly would be challenged by the ACLU.

Slow down.... Not saying get rid of games as they have a place, but maybe to put them into a safer more manageable area as not to have young people in unrestricted homes being indoctronated or forming unhealthy addictions to these things, otherwise in which then leads them to surprise society out of no where, and taking the lives of our loved ones as a result of.

The question is if that's what we really want to do?

In the past when there was a violent situation, people were placing the blame at the feet of rock-n-roll, particularly heavy metal. After that, the blame was placed on rap music. In later situations, it was blamed on violent television programs and movies.

So if we went down that path, today we would have no rock-n-roll, only G rated movies and shows, no rap music, and now no video games, and likely, it wouldn't stop one mass shooter.

In the most recent shootings, the left are now blaming what politicians say. So do we also remove political content and discourse so these potential violent people are not exposed to it?

The problem with creating such laws is once they are in place and we find failure, it's nearly impossible to reverse them.

Well there is nothing wrong with changing any content within a work of art in order to clean it up, and to comply with decency standards, otherwise if the work of art is actually causing some sort of worshiping of it or addiction to it in which is then handled by a radicalized leader who leads his followers to their destruction ultimately, then that is a problem.

All things you mentioned are absolutely not a problem, yet it's always depending on the content of the work that is involved, and who is involved.

Examples are way to many to list. We could clean it all up though, and do a heck of a lot better job than what we have been doing on this stuff. I get tired of the blame game, because it's all just bullcrap. Hollyweird in my opinion has exploited children by placing them around R rated content in some movies, and no one complains or says anything today about it ?? Why should it get away with such a thing ? We have become a sickened nation that's why it gets away with it.

Sounds like you have been desensitized a little there Ray... LOL. What's wrong with G-ratings ? Better than mass shooters blasting away in Walmarts these days.

Good Lord that was probably one herendous seen that day. Very sad stuff indeed.

 

[beagle9]

How many people remember when NYC cops fired 41 rounds at Amadou Diallo?

A man who fired NO ROUNDS.

They hit him 19 times, less that a 50% hit rate because they were scared of a black guy with a wallet.

Now tell me if you are ever in a gunfight while police are just minutes away that 100 rounds is enough when you're faced with one or more armed thugs that don't limit their magazines or ammo because of some law.

You libturds really need to just SHUT THE **** UP when it comes to issues you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.....

Which is just about every issue....



.

Please tell all of us the last time any civilian was in a gun fight with someone.

It happens all the time, but your MSM doesn't cover such stories on a national level. They are all local and you need to find them. But here is one from my city that took place a couple of months ago.

Pizza shop employee shoots suspect after being shot in robbery

So you're saying that this happens all the time? I don't buy it. One instance doesn't mean it's a regular occurrence.

Plus, being in a small area doesn't need 100 bullets to stop the person. The person is usually right in front of the cashier. No need for 100 rounds.

Finally, when there is an active shooter, like in El Paso, those who do have weapons, don't run toward the shooter with their weapon firing. In fact, all those who did have a weapon in El Paso didn't use their weapon at all.

If you need 100 bullets to shoot someone, then you need to go the practice range to learn how to use that weapon accurately.

Trying to justify having 100 bullets or more is just pathetic. And the rationalization you're using is very lame.

This is simple... Of course not just anyone should be able to have enough rounds that could allow them to do such a herendous act or thing as one of these mass shootings, and for the ones that are wanting to harbor huge amounts of firepower and ammo, then they should be interviewed by their local law enforcement officials, registered as special classified citizens who are trained, and for whom has an adequate secure storage facility for his or her weapon's and ammo before a green light is given... They should become a trusted citizen by qualification of in order to carry large amounts of ammo or high caliber weaponry on site or upon one's person by a liscense to be issued after qualifying for that liscense.

Gun theft is a tragic and terrible thing for any community. Lock them guns up people. No one not qualified or has mental issues should be in possession of or an owner of an AR-15 or an AK-47 much less the ammo being above 10 rounds per gun if for some reason they do have one or the other or both.

Not for taking the guns ever, but just for cleaning up the system a bit. Organization is key to running anything decent and then good in this world. Bad people absolutely should not have guns, but what to do, what to do with liberal ideology that makes the justice system a revolving door way for criminals ? It's so wonder people cling to their Bible's and guns. We are living in some evil times.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

When I was a kid, $100 seemed like a lot of money. It's a big number, right? Sure takes a long time to count to 100 when you're a 4 year old. So $100 must be a lot of money, I thought. As an adult, I realize that 100 isn't really all that big a number. I won't be impressed by it, and I won't be afraid of it.

 

[beagle9]

When I was a kid, $100 seemed like a lot of money. It's a big number, right? Sure takes a long time to count to 100 when you're a 4 year old. So $100 must be a lot of money, I thought. As an adult, I realize that 100 isn't really all that big a number. I won't be impressed by it, and I won't be afraid of it.

Do you carry ? You probably do, and of course you should always protect that right.

100 isn't much true, but it depends upon the hands that hold the number in their possession, and what they intend to do with it. These shootings are truly mere aborations in context of the bigger picture concerning self defense rights, but we must learn how to stop these shootings quick and for good. Enough is enough.

Put these young men in the military, and ship their aces around the world if they can't join society in a rational and productive way. 2 years mandatory service required. Drill Sargent's unrestricted on the making of men out of them again.