Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30
  1. #16

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames



    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    You think all those shots are just the suspect(s) missing?
    i think it was a shootout. which is the exact scenario that less than 10 shots would help the police. Also very unlikely for a civilian to be in at the same time. Whenever the Mag convo is talked about, it doesnt apply to police, so 2:1 ratio roughly (9:16), who has the better chance of winning that? Thats the whole argument for minimizing mag size which in theory is relevant. Im saying its an argument/debate whether you agree or not is your prerogative.

    i said in the past i dont really see the point in 10+, but again personally i dont really care if you do as long as youre qualified and responsible.
    -JAB




  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    i think it was a shootout. which is the exact scenario that less than 10 shots would help the police. Also very unlikely for a civilian to be in at the same time. Whenever the Mag convo is talked about, it doesnt apply to police, so 2:1 ratio roughly (9:16), who has the better chance of winning that? Thats the whole argument for minimizing mag size which in theory is relevant. Im saying its an argument/debate whether you agree or not is your prerogative.

    i said in the past i dont really see the point in 10+, but again personally i dont really care if you do as long as youre qualified and responsible.
    You've essentially made my case for me. Right here
    if they didnt have large capacity mags the cops wouldnt have been shot at as much and could have moved in when they were reloading
    If I (or whoever) is in a situation where they need to shoot and when they run out they will need to reload, giving the person or people they are shooting at a chance to move in on them.

    Not every shooting happens between the police and bad guys. I used this clip to show even the most trained people (Cops) miss too. So if they miss then the average citizen will miss too, needing more than 10.

    I watch the show "THe Following" while they've draged it on, it's a good show. But it cracks me up, every time a someone gets shot, the person who shoots them aims, pulls the trigger once, hits them and they die instantly upon the bullet touching their body. Now I have never been involved in a shooting, but I have friends and family in law enforcement and the military and I didn't need them to tell me, but how "The Following" and other shows/movies portray it, isn't how it happens. Not only do people miss but often times people get shot multiple times and still live. You need more than 10. And lets not forget banning the sale of them won't stop people who shouldn't have the guns that hold them from getting them either.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  3. #18

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    You've essentially made my case for me. Right here


    If I (or whoever) is in a situation where they need to shoot and when they run out they will need to reload, giving the person or people they are shooting at a chance to move in on them.

    Not every shooting happens between the police and bad guys. I used this clip to show even the most trained people (Cops) miss too. So if they miss then the average citizen will miss too, needing more than 10.

    I watch the show "THe Following" while they've draged it on, it's a good show. But it cracks me up, every time a someone gets shot, the person who shoots them aims, pulls the trigger once, hits them and they die instantly upon the bullet touching their body. Now I have never been involved in a shooting, but I have friends and family in law enforcement and the military and I didn't need them to tell me, but how "The Following" and other shows/movies portray it, isn't how it happens. Not only do people miss but often times people get shot multiple times and still live. You need more than 10. And lets not forget banning the sale of them won't stop people who shouldn't have the guns that hold them from getting them either.
    you said theres no argument, thats opinion, and the exact scenario youre referencing is an ideal topic for it. Bad guys will still get them most likely, which probably piggy backs other laws about sales of firearms but regardless, its still a valid argument even if you dont agree. I dont think this is a defining point of a civilian needing more shots, because a civilian wasnt even involved. find me the story of a civilian running out while trying to defend themselves and came in harms way and id say thats good evidence to why we need them, not this.

    TV shows are always fun because they also never reload. which with the fire fights they typically portray, they do. Even in that video, which im not sure of the specifics (number of guns), but there seems to be a lull and then a final fire fight. Could have been reloading, which just would have happened that much sooner if they didnt have a larger magazine. I honestly have no idea even what they had.
    -JAB




  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    you said theres no argument, thats opinion, and the exact scenario youre referencing is an ideal topic for it. Bad guys will still get them most likely, which probably piggy backs other laws about sales of firearms but regardless, its still a valid argument even if you dont agree. I dont think this is a defining point of a civilian needing more shots, because a civilian wasnt even involved. find me the story of a civilian running out while trying to defend themselves and came in harms way and id say thats good evidence to why we need them, not this.
    You're taking my example to literal. It was not the scenario I was pointing out, it was that even the most trained miss. Is there a story out there of a civilian needing more than 10, I'm sure there is, but I don't think there needs to be a limit on mag capacity so I don't care to look for it.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    sure there is. if they didnt have large capacity mags the cops wouldnt have been shot at as much and could have moved in when they were reloading. thats pretty much the whole argument for restricting mag size, which police (or FBI in this case) dont fall under. whether you agree or disagree is another issue but theres certainly an argument.
    Two problems here.

    One, that's just a fundamental lack of knowledge about guns. Changing a mag on an AR 15 is incredibly simple and does not offer any significant amount of time for someone to seek cover -- at most, a second or two.

    Second, as it's been played out many times when their was a mag ban in the 90's, it wont make a lick of difference with criminals getting them. A mag, as it was shown during the 90's, will simply limit them to law abiding people. Do you really think these asshats would have not obtained them if their were a ban in effect?

    If banning something worked, we'd have no drug problem in this country.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Posts
    8,263

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    I don't think a complete ban on larger mag sizes is right.

    That being said, I don't understand the logic sometimes used. I mean how often is a civilian engaged in an all out fire fight, where the precious seconds to reload are key to survival. While this is a good argument to make, I think it loses impact because of today's world.

    We don't exactly live in the wild west anymore. Major shootouts like the one in Boston, are between criminals and police.

    This is just one example of many points those who are anti gun control have been saying for years. I think the rhetoric needs to be updated.




  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by Dade View Post
    I don't think a complete ban on larger mag sizes is right.

    That being said, I don't understand the logic sometimes used. I mean how often is a civilian engaged in an all out fire fight, where the precious seconds to reload are key to survival. While this is a good argument to make, I think it loses impact because of today's world.

    We don't exactly live in the wild west anymore. Major shootouts like the one in Boston, are between criminals and police.

    This is just one example of many points those who are anti gun control have been saying for years. I think the rhetoric needs to be updated.
    Here's the thing, and this applies to the when someone says the 2nd amendment isn't for hunting. "It's for you to be able to protect yourself from everything up to a tyrannical government" and inevitably the next question is "do you think you're government is going to be come tyrannical?" ( are you a tin foil hat black helicopter guy?) While everyone may have a different definition of that, say my answer is no, does that mean we should do away with the second amendment and if or when our government becomes tyrannical we bring the second amendment back?

    Same goes for a magazine ban on 10 or more, just because the rare occurrences of if or when someone may need 10 or more rounds are so few and far between, does that mean we should ban them, and then bring them back when there might be a need for them?

    Fact is the overwhelming majority of people who own guns will never use them in a defense situation, and an even larger majority who own guns with magazines that hold 5, 10, 50 or 100 will never go on a mass shooting but lets go ahead and say screw you to every law-abiding citizen because there may never be a need for more than 10, and there may be some nut job who uses a gun with a high capacity magazine in a shooting, who would have gotten it illegally anyway.

    BTW - The largest number of deaths in a mass shooting in the US was Virginia Tech, the guy used two handguns.. without high capacity magazines.

    Sorry for the rant, just tired of the argument of affecting the rights of law abiding citizens when it won;t do shit to stop the people who are already breaking current laws.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,474
    The vast majority of cops don't get in fire fights either. They shoot a few rounds, occasionally more than 5 rounds and rarely empty their mags. So we should do away with theirs too, right?

    This notion of what is, in essence, bullet rationing is silly and, like many gun restrictions, will only impact lawful gun owners, not bad people out to hurt someone. Do people really think bad guys will follow a magazine restriction?!

    The logic behind a cop carrying multiple rounds with higher capacity magazine is the exact same reason why I, as a home owner, am interested interested in doing the same -- on the off chance I confront a bad guy, overwhelming force gives me the best chance to survive and protect my family.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Posts
    8,263

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Good points HR and NCRaven, and I largely agree with you both. I'm currently reading Language Intelligence. Has me thinking about how rhetoric is used. Like I said maybe the rhetoric needs to be changed (not the overall point) to reach and/or convince others to your side.

    Personally I'm very conflicted on gun control. While I want it harder for criminals, radicals, and the mental deranged to get their hands on weapons, I also believe in the 2nd amendment and every citizen's right to own fire arms (ust maybe not for the same reasons as you).




  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Dade View Post
    While I want it harder for criminals, radicals, and the mental deranged to get their hands on weapons, I also believe in the 2nd amendment and every citizen's right to own fire arms (ust maybe not for the same reasons as you).
    The NRA has been calling for the exact same things for years.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #26

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    The NRA has been calling for the exact same things for years.
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Two problems here.

    One, that's just a fundamental lack of knowledge about guns. Changing a mag on an AR 15 is incredibly simple and does not offer any significant amount of time for someone to seek cover -- at most, a second or two.

    Second, as it's been played out many times when their was a mag ban in the 90's, it wont make a lick of difference with criminals getting them. A mag, as it was shown during the 90's, will simply limit them to law abiding people. Do you really think these asshats would have not obtained them if their were a ban in effect?

    If banning something worked, we'd have no drug problem in this country.
    Separate question, but is it confirmed they were using ARs, havent heard that yet.

    As far as reload time thats still time not shooting. Thats the point even if minimal with an AR. Sandy Hook they say benefitted because he had to reload giving people time to get away/react. Havent you argued on this board you could have made a difference at aurora by waiting for him to reload or react to a jam? It may not be much but that fraction is an argument that maybe saves one life if not more and one inocent life is worth the burden.

    Criminals still getting them is 100% true. And like weve debated numerous times laws arent for the law abiding and they arent for the criminal aspect, its more like the ametuer criminal. The guy that wants to do harm but still goes to a store to buy his weapons, aka aurora, SH, etc. It is a very small sample and it is a "burden" for law abiding for that small percentage but i still think some laws make sense that dont infringe on the 2nd. Background checks dont which is why i support them so strongly. <10 i may see reasoning for but im actually apathetic about it. My whole point with this was that there is an argument, that clearly two avid gun owners disagree with but i think there is reasoning there for it.
    -JAB




  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,474
    Aurora, IIRC, his AR jammed on him right away and he switched to a shotgun. Could be wrong though.

    Its under that circumstance I said wait for him to reload. It's time consuming to reload a shotgun, thus you have a chance to return fire and / or escape.

    Now if he used an AR the whole time, that 1-2 seconds is nothing and changes the whole dynamic.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  13. #28

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Aurora, IIRC, his AR jammed on him right away and he switched to a shotgun. Could be wrong though.

    Its under that circumstance I said wait for him to reload. It's time consuming to reload a shotgun, thus you have a chance to return fire and / or escape.

    Now if he used an AR the whole time, that 1-2 seconds is nothing and changes the whole dynamic.
    Of course assuming he has pre=loaded spare mags... reloading a mag is time consuming no matter what gun it is... They are makign it so difficult to ge ta mag right now that that is a potntial angup.

    The last time I went to my local gun store, they sad it was easier to get a full glock then a mag... and they didn't have any idea when complete glocks were coming in. they didn'tthink that they would be able to get spare mags in the next YEAR, or MORE.




  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Instead of starting another thread, I'll just post this here.

    Report: Suspects not licensed to own guns

    Two guys who were hell bent on killing people didn't own their handguns legally, so lets make it tougher for the people who already follow the current laws to own guns
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  15. #30

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Two guys who were hell bent on killing people didn't own their handguns legally, so lets make it tougher for the people who already follow the current laws to own guns
    That is not the issue....the issue is whether they legally owned the pressure-cookers?




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland