No one needs 15 rounds

[IronmanE30]

After what happened in Santa Barbara I think we should ban black BMW's ;)

Cheers,

Jim

[einhander]

And how exactly does limiting mag capacity prevent nut jobs from getting too many guns and causing too much destruction? Enlighten me as to what this exactly does about that problem. What is to stop a shooter from obtaining more than one mag? Wouldn't it be faster to just drop and load a new mag?

Well, I suppose they'd have to change mags more often. Ideally, the only guns available should be revolvers.

In any event, I said it sounded reasonable - I never said it was a panacea.

[z31maniac]

there is simply a momentary pause between mag changes. Ask any LE or military individual, the brief period while changing mags is only a moment of opportunity in Hollywood.

Ask Gabriel Gifford.

It was that "Hollywood" moment that allowed bystanders to subdue her shooter.

[ParsedOut]

Ideally, the only guns available should be revolvers.

Ideally guns should have never been invented. Yes, this gun loving hillbilly just said that. I 100% agree that guns are a serious force multiplier and the world would be a better place if they were never brought into existence. Reality is...they are here, good guys have them and bad guys have them. Good guys have 30 round magazines and so do bad guys. Pandora's box has been opened (in a sense) and it's foolish to think we can just start stuffing it back and and pretending it'll reverse the "advancements" we've made in the field. I for one don't feel there is a good solution to the situation we're in. We can talk about mental health this and magazine restriction that, it all sounds reasonable until you start limiting my ability to defend my home and family from bad guys with 30 round magazines and illegally obtained "assault" rifles. It's all a slippery slope whichever side of the debate you fall on, which is the reason why nothing has been done in Washington.

[blue plates]

People don't use TVs to kill people. Mentally disturbed people don't assault people with watches.

Nice try.

Ban knives, bars, pipes, rocks, ect then.


Nice try.

[Exodus_2pt0]

Well, I suppose they'd have to change mags more often. Ideally, the only guns available should be revolvers.

In any event, I said it sounded reasonable - I never said it was a panacea.

I love revolvers. In fact my next firearm will be one for a CC piece.

That said, what's the logic in only allowing revolvers? Revolvers may have a lower capacity and slightly more difficult to reload (speed loaders make it a snap with training). However, they also generally pack much more of a punch than their repeater counterparts.

[Cha Ching]

Anyway, if you can't hit your target with 10 rounds, then you shouldn't be allowed near a gun anyway. Crossfire is a bitch.

You've obviously never been in a stress fire situation, have you?

FBI statistics tell us that over 85% of all gunfights happen within 7'. On top of that, over 80% of shots fired are misses.

In a CA-legal magazine, statistically speaking, you're only gonna hit your target twice. By the way, those statistics include law enforcement personnel. Which means those numbers includes trained officers.

I really wanted to resist jumping in your thread because it's so fucking ridiculous. But this comment is typical of media-deluded dimwits.

Referring specifically to Elliot Rodgers, that ass-hat would have used his car (which he did, btw), a bat, a knife (again, he did) or anything else he could lay his hands on in order to inflict damage on people.

A magazine limit or ban does nothing to stop a motivated individual.

All you do by limiting or banning magazines/firearms is that decent, law-abiding citizens will find themselves at a continued disadvantage to criminals.

[blue plates]

You've obviously never been in a stress fire situation, have you?

FBI statistics tell us that over 85% of all gunfights happen within 7'. On top of that, over 80% of shots fired are misses.

In a CA-legal magazine, statistically speaking, you're only gonna hit your target twice. By the way, those statistics include law enforcement personnel. Which means those numbers includes trained officers.

I really wanted to resist jumping in your thread because it's so fucking ridiculous. But this comment is typical of media-deluded dimwits.

Referring specifically to Elliot Rodgers, that ass-hat would have used his car (which he did, btw), a bat, a knife (again, he did) or anything else he could lay his hands on in order to inflict damage on people.

A magazine limit or ban does nothing to stop a motivated individual.

All you do by limiting or banning magazines/firearms is that decent, law-abiding citizens will find themselves at a continued disadvantage to criminals.

Agreed.
Einhander just likes to stir the pot, he has no real factual information to back his wild opinions/assumptions.

[marshallnoise]

Will, not, comply.

[marshallnoise]

That's not what he meant, and most historians doubt he ever actually said it, but good quote either way.

Proof?

[Thizzelle]

I'm a criminal and I follow the laws, have a nice day :)

[einhander]

You've obviously never been in a stress fire situation, have you?

FBI statistics tell us that over 85% of all gunfights happen within 7'. On top of that, over 80% of shots fired are misses.

So you want more rounds?

I've been shot at on Route Irish, had car bombs go off at my office in Kirkuk, and had AKs brandished at me at a compound in Qandahar. That's actual stress, with actually bad people. You know what SoP was? To leave.

You can fantasize all you want about how dangerous and scary the world is, with criminals coming at you and Mexico invading, but you're never going to do anything with 100 bullets that you're not going to be able to do with 10. Try getting out of the same 10 miles from where you were born, look at what other places do to handle gun crime, and maybe you'll see that the US is assbackwards on gun ownership.

As for you blue plates, I never said this would be a cure. The gun debate is dead, but you can't look at mass shootings and say that no need for some type of new thinking. The bill is under debate in one of the wealthiest and most educated states in the country, so I'm not the only one who thinks it might have some value.

But that's dimwit NRA-delusion for you...

[einhander]

Proof?

Show me proof he said it.

[marshallnoise]

Show me proof he said it.

But you claimed first that he didn't say it and then in same breath state that it was taken out of context. Seems to me you are conflicted. You prove it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[einhander]

But you claimed first that he didn't say it and then in same breath state that it was taken out of context. Seems to me you are conflicted. You prove it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I didn't say that, slick.

Google it.