No one needs 15 rounds

[marshallnoise]

What about a mentally ill felon on the terror watch list? Should they be able to own one?

Strawman.

But more importantly, only the classification of felon is not subject to debate or who is in political power. Who has mental illness and who is labeled a terrorist are subjective.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

If this is your argument against firearm laws, then why have any laws at all?

"Why have a law against rape if rapists will just ignore it?"
"Why have laws against robbery if robbers will just ignore it?"
"Why have laws against murder if murderers will just ignore it?"

See how illogical that is?

Those are actions not tools used to accomplish those actions. Let's make a law that restricts how penis' are used? Robbery and murder usually include a weapon of some sort, so let's go ahead an legislate the length of all knives, size of pointy rocks and baseball bats must be kept in a locked room at all baseball fields. Obviously you're so passionate about this subject you can't see past your own bullshit.

[rwh11385]

If it takes you 30 rounds to stop an intruder, you're either a) completely blind or b) mentally handicapped. In either case, you shouldn't have a gun.

Bottom line is that hi-cap mags are not needed for self defense in any case, period.

Hmmm, Darin... here with go with an ad hominem attack against a position contrary to yours because of over-simplification / assumption.

There's usually exceptions when it comes to absoutes. I think your argument would be more persuasive if you said, "In many situtations, hi capacity magazines are not needed."

One the other hand:

For a single intruder, 30 rounds would be poor marksmanship. What about multiple intruders? The arguments against magazine size, reloading and accuracy are a bit less persusaive.

There's cases of homes in some areas outside of the Portland bubble being broken in by 4-5 criminals and family members kidnapped and taken to the ATM to get cash out, raped, and/or murdered, so somehow the assumption that a 5-6 shot revolver or 10-round limited magazine for a semi-auto is pretty scary.

I'm no expert shot but try to practice at the range every other weekend and have a home defense gun with a STANDARD [not high-capacity] magazine of 17 rounds with a spare magazine also loaded with JHP, which is more than this thread seems to think is reasonable. (And then a few more just for range duty with FMJ, one of which is a 30 rounder) Now, although politicians or naive anti-gun folks might try to tell me that this is unnecessary to protect my home... but is it really in their rights to tell me what mine should be?



The guys trying to make the laws know nothing about the subject at hand!

How many should it take, based on your extensive experience?

This is such a terrible argument because it all hinges on what *you* think is reasonable and not a determination based on anything meaningful.

Keep repeating your opinion over and over and misinterpreting everyone's posts, I'm sure you'll convince someone eventually

Being naive but passionate isn't going to somehow make him right, but hopefully he someday realizes that. People like him and politicians shouldn't arbitrarily impose their determinations of reasonable on others. It is really not in the politician's understanding of what normal people might who face the threat need after-all, since a lot of the politicians are protected by security (curious how many rounds they have...)


Making laws without any understanding of the subject at hand is pretty scary, and would be equally debated by concerned parents and enthusiasts if it were cars. Wider than standard tires are unnecessary and only needed by mentally handicapped persons who cannot handle their cars as is! It leads to dangerous driving that puts at risk other people and should be outlawed so that everyone will be safer and obey the rules! [/sarcasm]

[Roysneon]

Man, I love living in Canada.

[Thizzelle]

If this is your argument against firearm laws, then why have any laws at all?

"Why have a law against rape if rapists will just ignore it?"
"Why have laws against robbery if robbers will just ignore it?"
"Why have laws against murder if murderers will just ignore it?"

See how illogical that is?

laws on a control matrix are a zero.
they are weak and reactive.
laws are to try to steer someone into doing the accepted society thing but doesn't always work.

[marshallnoise]

I will drop this right here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

[CorvallisBMW]

Strawman.

But more importantly, only the classification of felon is not subject to debate or who is in political power. Who has mental illness and who is labeled a terrorist are subjective.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

How is that strawman? You say that there should be no restrictions on firearms period, I'm just checking to make sure you really mean it. Do you truly believe we should sell missiles to terrorists and RPGs to felons?

[CorvallisBMW]

I will drop this right here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

If it makes no difference, then why are you so freaked out about them being restricted? Your position makes no sense.

[marshallnoise]

How is that strawman? You say that there should be no restrictions on firearms period, I'm just checking to make sure you really mean it. Do you truly believe we should sell missiles to terrorists and RPGs to felons?

You posited that I want to arm felons and terrorists. I never made such claim, therefore that is a strawman argument.

I believe that a white collar felon should be able to own a firearm after he/she have served their time. I also know that the definition of a terrorist is wide open to interpretation. Harry Reid believes that the folks sticking up for the Nevada Rancher are terrorists. See the problem?

[marshallnoise]

If it makes no difference, then why are you so freaked out about them being restricted? Your position makes no sense.

Quite the contrary, why are you so concerned about restricting magazine capacity if it is proven to make no difference? At least my position uses reason and logic which does make sense. Your position only uses emotion, which is mentally weak and not based in fact.

So if the facts are that it makes no difference, why would people still want restrictions on magazine capacity?

[rwh11385]

Quite the contrary, why are you so concerned about restricting magazine capacity if it is proven to make no difference? At least my position uses reason and logic which does make sense. Your position only uses emotion, which is mentally weak and not based in fact.

So if the facts are that it makes no difference, why would people still want restrictions on magazine capacity?

So that they feel like they are doing something even if they aren't in actuality? Facts aren't half as valuable to politics as feelings are.

Remember the wave of talk to ban AR-15s?

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

Another problem with liberal dreams of gun control is that the kinds of guns used in the vast majority of crimes would not fall under any plausible weapons ban.

[...]

In the vast majority of murders committed with firearms—even most mass killings—the weapon used is a handgun. Unless we outlaw and begin confiscating handguns, the weapons best suited for being carried undetected into a classroom, movie theater, restaurant, or shopping mall for the purpose of committing mass murder will remain readily available in the United States. But no one is seriously proposing that we address the problem on this level. In fact, the Supreme Court has recently ruled, twice (in 2008 and 2010), that banning handguns would be unconstitutional.

[...]

Gun-control advocates seem perversely unaware of this. As a consequence, we routinely hear the terms “semi-automatic” and “assault weapon” intoned with misplaced outrage and awe. It is true that a semi-automatic pistol allows a person to shoot and reload slightly more efficiently than a revolver does. But a revolver can be reloaded surprisingly quickly with a device known as a speed loader. (These have been in use since the 1970s.)[4] It is no exaggeration to say that if we merely had 300 million vintage revolvers in this country, we would still have a terrible problem with gun violence, with no solution in sight. And any person entering a school with a revolver for the purpose of killing kids would most likely be able to keep killing them until he ran out of ammunition, or until good people arrived with guns of their own to stop him.

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 47 percent of all murders in the U.S. are committed with handguns. Again, only 3 percent are committed with rifles (of any type). Twice as many murderers (6 percent) use nothing but their bare hands. Thirteen percent use knives.

[...]

A renewed ban on “assault weapons”—nearly the only concrete measure that anyone is talking about—will do very little to make our society safer. It is not, as many advocates seem to believe, an important “first step” in achieving a sane policy with respect to guns. It seems likely to be a symbolic step that delays real thinking about the problem of guns for another decade or more.

[...]

But when the next lunatic arrives at a school armed with legal pistols and a dozen ten-round magazines, we should be prepared to talk about how an assault weapons ban was a distraction from the real issue of gun violence.

It seems pretty dumb to take away people's rights out of a symbolic gesture that won't help the problem.

[CorvallisBMW]

I disagree, it does make a difference. Every time a shooter has to reload, he/she opens themselves up to being stopped by people nearby. Want proof?

Jared Loughner (the Tuscon, AZ shooter) was tackled by a bystander when he went to reload: http://abcnews.go.com/US/heroes-rep-...ry?id=12580345

It was successful in Littleton at Deer Creek Middle School.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...hool-shooting/

It worked at Kelly Elementary.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/ca...42530dfca.html

It worked at the law school shooting, though the shooter appeared done with shooting (captured, not stopped)...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,43254,00.html

Kip Kinkel was stopped by several students at Thurston High School....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School

...and at New York-New York Casino, stopped by off duty military reservists...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/0...s_n_55255.html

Maryville Baptist Church shooter tackled...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9ZuAwJOIfE

Another church...attempted shooting...okay it was just a BB gun but the tacklers didn't know it...

http://www.wpxi.com/news/23650725/detail.html

Knoxville, Tennessee church shooter tackled...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5463260&page=1

Hudson Valley Mall, tackled after running out of ammo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Valley_Mall

Pennsylvania mall shooter tackled from behind...
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/31/us...-on-crowd.html

Phoenix strip club shooter tackled and beaten after he ran out of ammo (captured?)...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

In every single one of those cases, the shooter was stopped when he/she paused to reload. If you have a 10-round mag and want to shoot 100 bullets, you'll be forced to reload 9 times. That's 9 opportunities for the gunmen to be stopped. If you have a 100-round drum mag, suddenly there's 0 opportunity to be stopped. So yes, it makes a huge difference.

[ParsedOut]

I disagree, it does make a difference. Every time a shooter has to reload, he/she opens themselves up to being stopped by people nearby. Want proof?

Do you really feel that having an armed responsible citizen with a 17 round magazine in their Glock wouldn't be a better way to stop an active shooter instead of "waiting for a reload"?

[marshallnoise]

So that they feel like they are doing something even if they aren't in actuality? Facts aren't half as valuable to politics as feelings are.

Its just so mentally weak. Worse, it is dishonest. It is really rather depressing that some people are so capable of self-deception. Humans are masters at lying to themselves.

Corvallis, thanks for the contributions to the community here over the years. Your work on the m30 cooling stuff will come in handy when I get mine done. I hope there are no hard feelings regarding this stuff.

[marshallnoise]

Do you really feel that having an armed responsible citizen with a 17 round magazine in their Glock wouldn't be a better way to stop an active shooter instead of "waiting for a reload"?

In the fantasy world he prescribed, no, it isn't better. Guns are icky.