Preppers and Nutters, the party is over.

WinterBorn said:
This is because it is not about actual logic, but about knee-jerk emotional reactions.

The same reason they go crazy on high capacity magazines. It takes less than 1 second to drop an empty magazine from a gun and insert a fresh one. Limiting magazine capacity does absolutely nothing. But it is one of those areas that scare some people to death.
Click to expand...

Precisely, which is why it is extremely ironic for those demanding limits to mags to be on here telling us how the 'right' is fearful on this issue.
 
cannabis said:
they could throw something at the person, rush them if they are close....the person could fumble the reload, which i believe happened in CO.
Click to expand...
i would consider the missile a weapon. notice I didn't say gun or firearm. yes, a book, pencil, even a stapler (don't tell milton) can be a weapon when thrown hard and accurate.
 
Dungheap said:
Assuming a 10 round capacity limit, that's nine separate reloads to get off 100 shots. How many seconds does it take to reload to get off the same number of shots with a 100-round magazine? Also, too, what legitimate purpose is there for a 100-round magazine? Frankly, even assuming a spectacularly marginal benefit to limiting magazine capacity, I don't see any legitimate justification for not doing it.
Click to expand...

So you believe 9-20 seconds would have made a great difference?

Say you limited it to 10 round mags. What is to stop you from bringing three semi auto pistols? Would anyone have been any safer?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i would consider the missile a weapon. notice I didn't say gun or firearm. yes, a book, pencil, even a stapler (don't tell milton) can be a weapon when thrown hard and accurate.
Click to expand...

In this case, I doubt it would have made a difference.
The shooter probably killed the adult(s) first and then the children.
Smaller clips would have just meant a longer time the kids would have been terrified.
 
Superfreak said:
Precisely, which is why it is extremely ironic for those demanding limits to mags to be on here telling us how the 'right' is fearful on this issue.
Click to expand...

it is bizarre. the left is running around telling the horrors of guns, yet, at the same time accusing the right of being afraid.

interesting tactic.
 
cannabis said:
i'm actually on the fence about high capacity magazines. i've fired both rifles and pistols, but not in any appreciable matter so as to speak about the time it takes to reload. for me, it seems that even if it was a second, that second could save lives. i believe i've seen you talk about how even a second matters when reacting to a shooting. i don't recall if it was you though.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying that, but it is possible. The main reason people want to see limited magazine capacity is (supposedly) so in these mass shooting someone can do something while the lunatic reloads. That is simply not possible. At least not possible due to the reloading, anyway.

Plus it makes me wonder about what they want to accomplish. With a revolver you can kill 6 people. Is it only bad when the numbers get higher?
 
Dungheap said:
Assuming a 10 round capacity limit, that's nine separate reloads to get off 100 shots. How many seconds does it take to reload to get off the same number of shots with a 100-round magazine? Also, too, what legitimate purpose is there for a 100-round magazine? Frankly, even assuming a spectacularly marginal benefit to limiting magazine capacity, I don't see any legitimate justification for not doing it.
Click to expand...

The idea that someone has to provide justification seems to go against the idea of personal freedom. I must show a need before it is allowed?
 
Dixie said:
Don't you all just LOVE the way these people have become so brazen and confident lately? It's over... game changer... we're taking your guns... fuck you! Uhm, no you're not!

I have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and in order to take that away, you need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

If any of you, including the ATF or whatever government agency you think is appropriate, come on my property with the intention of removing my weapons, you best be well-armed and prepared to fight to the death. I speak for MILLIONS, perhaps TENS of MILLIONS!

All you are doing now is inciting anger and hostility. Your popping off your smart mouths which you have absolutely NO intention of backing up, because you somehow think that sounds intimidating. You can spew this shit all you like, you're free to do that just like I am free to own guns, but you're not taking my guns.
Click to expand...

As my Dad stated earlier this week: "They can have mine, hot end first"
 
Dungheap said:
Assuming a 10 round capacity limit, that's nine separate reloads to get off 100 shots. How many seconds does it take to reload to get off the same number of shots with a 100-round magazine? Also, too, what legitimate purpose is there for a 100-round magazine? Frankly, even assuming a spectacularly marginal benefit to limiting magazine capacity, I don't see any legitimate justification for not doing it.
Click to expand...
not to be hyperbolic.....but imagine a family home gets invaded by a gang of 3 or 4 armed men. they've mistaken the house for a competing drug dealers house. Each invader has a pistol that carries 30 rounds because they didn't care about following the law on magazine capacity limits. The upstanding father, a law abiding citizen, only has two mags that carry 10 rounds apiece. what happens to the family when he runs out of ammo and the bad guys still have half 15 rounds left?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
not to be hyperbolic.....but imagine a family home gets invaded by a gang of 3 or 4 armed men. they've mistaken the house for a competing drug dealers house. Each invader has a pistol that carries 30 rounds because they didn't care about following the law on magazine capacity limits. The upstanding father, a law abiding citizen, only has two mags that carry 10 rounds apiece. what happens to the family when he runs out of ammo and the bad guys still have half 15 rounds left?
Click to expand...

Desh flies in, with her magic desk, swings it, and disarms all the criminals. :palm:
 
WinterBorn said:
The idea that someone has to provide justification seems to go against the idea of personal freedom. I must show a need before it is allowed?
Click to expand...

(1) I am aware of no Constitutional right to high capacity magazines.

(2) I'm just asking a question. Maybe there is a legitimate reason for a person to require a 100-round magazine other than to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, but I'm having a hard time coming up with one.
 
Dungheap said:
(1) I am aware of no Constitutional right to high capacity magazines.

(2) I'm just asking a question. Maybe there is a legitimate reason for a person to require a 100-round magazine other than to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, but I'm having a hard time coming up with one.
Click to expand...

knocking down 100 bottles of beer on the wall?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
not to be hyperbolic.....but imagine a family home gets invaded by a gang of 3 or 4 armed men. they've mistaken the house for a competing drug dealers house. Each invader has a pistol that carries 30 rounds because they didn't care about following the law on magazine capacity limits. The upstanding father, a law abiding citizen, only has two mags that carry 10 rounds apiece. what happens to the family when he runs out of ammo and the bad guys still have half 15 rounds left?
Click to expand...


So the defense of high-capacity magazines is an extraordinarily improbable event? Not much of a defense in my view.
 
cannabis said:
knocking down 100 bottles of beer on the wall?
Click to expand...


I'm sure it'd be a fucking awesome time to fire off 100 rounds at 100 bottles without reloading, but I was looking for a need for high-capacity magazines, not a list of fun things to do without reloading.
 
Dungheap said:
(1) I am aware of no Constitutional right to high capacity magazines.

(2) I'm just asking a question. Maybe there is a legitimate reason for a person to require a 100-round magazine other than to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, but I'm having a hard time coming up with one.
Click to expand...

I don't think I am arguing with the assumptions about magazine capacity. I dislike the idea that every discussion treats shooters as if we are all one step from being a mass murderer.

When I go to the shooting range or out just plinking, reloading can be a hassle. I will go thru several hundred rounds when shooting. Having a 100 round magazine would mean more fun and less hassles. There were plenty of times my daughter would ask me to load a magazine or two for her because her thumb hurt from doing it.

It is more about convenience than about slaughtering humans.
 
WinterBorn said:
I don't think I am arguing with the assumptions about magazine capacity. I dislike the idea that every discussion treats shooters as if we are all one step from being a mass murderer.

When I go to the shooting range or out just plinking, reloading can be a hassle. I will go thru several hundred rounds when shooting. Having a 100 round magazine would mean more fun and less hassles. There were plenty of times my daughter would ask me to load a magazine or two for her because her thumb hurt from doing it.

It is more about convenience than about slaughtering humans.
Click to expand...


Where I'm sitting, the hassle involved in you reloading after 10 shots isn't worth the harm that high capacity rounds can cause in the wrong hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top