A challenge to the anti-gun crowd here. - part deux

[USFREEDOM911]

Since Stone runs from facts and any information that destroys his assertions, I have decided to expose how ludicrous he really is.

Here's his "reasoning" for banning higher capacity magazines:

Changing the size of the magazine would make it harder to kill more people on a shooting spree.

Bullets are needed to kill people. A gun with less bullets can kill less people. Having to reload will literally save lives.

Now I know it's around 14 minutes in length; but that's a small price to pay, for seeing FACTS instead of assumptions.

Yes, I said shorter magazines would force the shooter to reload more times, thus giving people extra time to escape. You have yet to argue against this point, because you can't.

I offered him the following film to watch, so he could see his error; but he just can't accept being in error:

Changing the size of the magazine would make it harder to kill more people on a shooting spree.

Bullets are needed to kill people. A gun with less bullets can kill less people. Having to reload will literally save lives.

Yes, I said shorter magazines would force the shooter to reload more times, thus giving people extra time to escape. You have yet to argue against this point, because you can't.

Now I know it's around 14 minutes in length; but that's a small price to pay, for seeing FACTS instead of assumptions.

Using a semi-auto pistol and firing 30 rounds

…………………………………………………..Trained shooter...…………....Untrained shooter

15 round magazines 2@..........20.64 sec...………………………...22.9 sec
10 round magazines 3@..........18.85 sec...………………………...25.51 sec
6 round magazines 5@............21,45 sec...………………………..26.93 sec



Now lets use an AR-15 and fire 20 rounds

…………………………………………………..Trained shooter...…………....Untrained shooter

20 round magazines 1@..........12.16 sec...………………………...12.26 sec
10 round magazines 2@..........10.73 sec...………………………...14.63 sec
…………………………………………………..Train shooter...…………....Untrained shooter

Then there's a segment about someone trying to tackle the shooter, while the shooter is reloading, from 25 ft:

……………………………….Trained shooter...………....Untrained shooter
......………………………………………....9 ft...…….…………...looks like around 18 ft

But what about Revolvers (5@ / 6 shot revolvers) using the "New York Reload Method":

......……………………………..30 rounds / 18.8 seconds​

So Stone, try to defend your assertion or not.

Your decision and reputation.

 

[StoneByStone]

Since Stone runs from facts and any information that destroys his assertions, I have decided to expose how ludicrous he really is.

Lie. This is the first time you actually argued against this point. I asked you to do so before, but you refused to. Instead, you just posted a video that you probably didn't understand.

I offered him the following film to watch, so he could see his error; but he just can't accept being in error:

Another lie. I said I didn't care to watch the video, but I would listen to your argument. You just failed to present one.

So Stone, try to defend your assertion or not.

So I don't know how an AR-15 would need longer to fire with a shorter magazine. I'd say this is probably untrue, especially since this says that a trained shooter could fire faster with the 10 round than with the 20 round. You see there is an inconsistency here, right?
And either way, this doesn't disprove the theory that people would have a better chance of escaping during reloading times. If anything, it says that the AR-15 itself should be banned, which I would be fine with. But like I said, this is probably untrue, due to the inconsistency.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

1 - Lie. This is the first time you actually argued against this point. I asked you to do so before, but you refused to. Instead, you just posted a video that you probably didn't understand.

2 - Another lie. I said I didn't care to watch the video, but I would listen to your argument. You just failed to present one.

3 - So I don't know how an AR-15 would need longer to fire with a shorter magazine. I'd say this is probably untrue, especially since this says that a trained shooter could fire faster with the 10 round than with the 20 round. You see there is an inconsistency here, right?

4 - And either way, this doesn't disprove the theory that people would have a better chance of escaping during reloading times. If anything, it says that the AR-15 itself should be banned, which I would be fine with. But like I said, this is probably untrue, due to the inconsistency.

1 - You ran; because you didn't want to see a video that destroyed your entire premise.

2 - The video was the argument or are you unable to figure that out; because without the video, you would have just said that my figures offered no proof.

3 - Then PROVE IT.

4 - Did you fail to notice that 5 (6 shot) revolvers can be fired faster then 1 / 30 round AR-15 Magazine??

 

[StoneByStone]

1 - You ran; because you didn't want to see a video that destroyed your entire premise.

Actually, I told you that I didn't care to watch the video, but I would listen to your argument if you had the ability to explain it.

2 - The video was the argument or are you unable to figure that out; because without the video, you would have just said that my figures offered no proof.

A video isn't proof. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you got your figures from the video, but they're obviously wrong.

3 - Then PROVE IT.

Prove what? That a shooter needs to stop shooting to reload, thus giving people a chance to escape? Do you not follow the logic there?

4 - Did you fail to notice that 5 (6 shot) revolvers can be fired faster then 1 / 30 round AR-15 Magazine??

Not according to your numbers. Did you get them wrong?

 

[archives]

From your article.

Doesn't that skew your claims about "gun violence"?

No, because it is also consistent with homicides via guns

 

[countryboy]

No, because it is also consistent with homicides via guns

Your statement doesn't make any sense. How does lumping suicides in with homicide, paint an accurate picture concerning victims of gun violence?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

1 - Actually, I told you that I didn't care to watch the video, but I would listen to your argument if you had the ability to explain it.

2 - A video isn't proof. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you got your figures from the video, but they're obviously wrong.

3 - Prove what? That a shooter needs to stop shooting to reload, thus giving people a chance to escape? Do you not follow the logic there?

4 - Not according to your numbers. Did you get them wrong?

1 - I had already told you that the video would refute your assertion; but YOU WERE scared to view it.

2 - A video isn't proof?? You're delusional.

3 - You're said: "So I don't know how an AR-15 would need longer to fire with a shorter magazine. I'd say this is probably untrue, especially since this says that a trained shooter could fire faster with the 10 round than with the 20 round. You see there is an inconsistency here, right"?

So prove it; because you denying it, isn't proof.

4 - Show how the numbers are wrong, when firing 30 rounds!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Your statement doesn't make any sense. How does lumping suicides in with homicide, paint an accurate picture concerning victims of gun violence?

Looks like the left FEEL that they're were never any suicides committed, PRIOR to the invention of the firearm.

:facepaim:

 

[USFREEDOM911]

On another JPP thread, Stone is trying to make it look like something is true; just because HE SAID IT WAS SO.

His contention is that smaller magazines will make it possible for someone to escape, while they "reload"; but the video I provided, disproves what he FEELS.

He doesn't understand that proof is tangible and not just subjective to someone saying it is proof.

 

[archives]

Your statement doesn't make any sense. How does lumping suicides in with homicide, paint an accurate picture concerning victims of gun violence?

Because homocides, which represent approximately a third of all gun deaths, follows the same tendencies, States with stricter gun laws generally have less homicides

And please, not Chicago again, when you are surrounded by gun States, one less than twenty minutes away, you are going to be flooded with guns

 

[countryboy]

Because homocides, which represent approximately a third of all gun deaths, follows the same tendencies, States with stricter gun laws generally have less homicides

And please, not Chicago again, when you are surrounded by gun States, one less than twenty minutes away, you are going to be flooded with guns

Soooo, nothing but standard excuses, and no logical answers. Go back to sleep.

 

[CFM]

Looks like the left FEEL that they're were never any suicides committed, PRIOR to the invention of the firearm.

:facepaim:

Or that suicides will suddenly stop if people no longer owned guns.

 

[CFM]

Because homocides, which represent approximately a third of all gun deaths, follows the same tendencies, States with stricter gun laws generally have less homicides

And please, not Chicago again, when you are surrounded by gun States, one less than twenty minutes away, you are going to be flooded with guns

There you go again making excuses.

 

[Abug'smom]

This is actually what I posted elsewhere. Anyone that wants to kill will find a way. There are too many other things to use. They will, also, but them illegally no matter the laws, while those that will do so legally for protection will have more difficulty.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I never had any proof and all I had were my FEELS; because I'm a pathetic ass

Well, you've had plenty of chances to provide your proof.

 

[Legion]

Maybe, but the "common sense" comment is indisputable

Who told you that, anchovies?

 

[JPF]

Yes, I said shorter magazines would force the shooter to reload more times, thus giving people extra time to escape. You have yet to argue against this point, because you can't.

You probably have done this already but you should also point out that when the armed response arrives, someone re-loading is much easier to take down than someone who is constantly firing, that the person shooting on the range is likely an experienced marksman vs some INCEL who is there to kill someone who wouldn’t have sex with them (and is mentally deranged to start with), and that the chaos of people running, alarms going off, people screaming is likely to have some effect on the assailant.

 

[StoneByStone]

You probably have done this already but you should also point out that when the armed response arrives, someone re-loading is much easier to take down than someone who is constantly firing, that the person shooting on the range is likely an experienced marksman vs some INCEL who is there to kill someone who wouldn’t have sex with them (and is mentally deranged to start with), and that the chaos of people running, alarms going off, people screaming is likely to have some effect on the assailant.

All very good points. Though when I realized what I was talking with, I gave up trying to use logic.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You probably have done this already but you should also point out that when the armed response arrives, someone re-loading is much easier to take down than someone who is constantly firing, that the person shooting on the range is likely an experienced marksman vs some INCEL who is there to kill someone who wouldn’t have sex with them (and is mentally deranged to start with), and that the chaos of people running, alarms going off, people screaming is likely to have some effect on the assailant.

You didn't watch the video or at least the part about someone trying to rush the shooter, while reloading, did you.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

All very good points. Though when I realized what I was talking with, I gave up trying to use logic.

You never had any logic, just FEELS, and you've been unable to provide a single thing to support your ASSertion.

NOT A SINGLE THING, just in case you missed that part.

[translation]

​