And of course, no one can get shot without some mention of gun control...

[feralkid]

If he was having problems because his gun jammed, and he had to clear the jam, and reload, and that's what gave them enough time to take him down, than they aren't asinine, and I really don't see the leap to insensitive. How is pointing out that a mechanical failure created the opportunity to stop the shooter insensitive?

Spidey was talking out of his ass; that's not how it happened.

His gun did not jam, he had emptied the clip, got tackled and then attempted to reload while wrestling on the ground. As he pulled a fresh clip from his pocket, an elderly woman snatched it away.

 

[xj0hnx]

Spidey was talking out of his ass; that's not how it happened.

His gun did not jam, he had emptied the clip, got tackled and then attempted to reload while wrestling on the ground. As he pulled a fresh clip from his pocket, an elderly woman snatched it away.

That doesn't sound right, did he just stand there till someone jumped on him when he ran out of ammo, then decided to reload?

 

[spidey07]

Spidey was talking out of his ass; that's not how it happened.

His gun did not jam, he had emptied the clip, got tackled and then attempted to reload while wrestling on the ground. As he pulled a fresh clip from his pocket, an elderly woman snatched it away.

Then the story has changed since I posted. It was originally reported as a jam on the 2nd magazine, which is frequent on 33 rd magazines especially if you don't handle it properly, as in struggling with another or exerting any pressure on the mag.

 

[feralkid]

That doesn't sound right, did he just stand there till someone jumped on him when he ran out of ammo, then decided to reload?

He was running away, still firing until he ran out of ammo. Tackled on the run by two men; he attempted to reload while on the ground, lady intercepts mag as he pulls it out of his pocket attempting to reload.


edit: Yes there were reports that the mag was defective, regardless he never got to fully load it thanks to the heroic person who took it away.

 

[bfdd]

Wrong. He was stopped while attempting to reload.

Hint: that's a good time to disarm an assassin; when he's not in the act of firing his weapon.

If he wasn't lugging around 30+ round magazines for his pistol, he probably could have easily reloaded a 15/16 round magazine in no time. Really they aren't that comparable. 30 rnd magazines are ridiculously stupid and awkward.

 

[spidey07]

If he wasn't lugging around 30+ round magazines for his pistol, he probably could have easily reloaded a 15/16 round magazine in no time. Really they aren't that comparable. 30 rnd magazines are ridiculously stupid and awkward.

I'll go ahead and get the libtard response out of the way.

See! You said they are stupid and have no need for them! Therefore they should be illegal, anything you don't need or used for something I don't understand should be illegal.

 

[bfdd]

I'll go ahead and get the libtard response out of the way.

See! You said they are stupid and have no need for them! Therefore they should be illegal, anything you don't need or used for something I don't understand should be illegal.

Shit we better make a whole lot of things illegal then. Spoons and forks? Don't need them, we have sporks!

 

[feralkid]

If he wasn't lugging around 30+ round magazines for his pistol, he probably could have easily reloaded a 15/16 round magazine in no time. Really they aren't that comparable. 30 rnd magazines are ridiculously stupid and awkward.

I completely agree.

However I would never be so crass as to suggest that 30+ mags "saved lives" as spidey so douchedly inferred..

 

[Darwin333]

No, spidey it did not save lives. It allowed him to shoot 20 people after firing 31 rounds before attempting to reload.

If he wasn't a nutjob he would have known that "combat reloading" is much easier, quicker, and more effective with standard magazines (14-18 rounds or so for a full sized pistol). Furthermore most of the big ass mags like that are cheap aftermarket junk and nowhere near the quality of standard mags made by the gun manufacturer.

I guarantee that I can get off 64 rounds quicker and more accurately using 4 standard mags then I could with 2 aftermarket 30 round mags and the chances of them not properly feeding , as it appears happened to the nutjob, is significantly less.

 

[Darwin333]

Wrong. He was stopped while attempting to reload.

Hint: that's a good time to disarm an assassin; when he's not in the act of firing his weapon.

The fact that it took him much longer to reload and potentially had an issue with the bullets feeding had nothing whatsoever to do with it eh?

As has been stated many times, I can reload a standard mag in about a second. At the range I can even count rounds, have a fresh mag in my off hand, drop the empty mag with a round still in the chamber (my gun will fire if a round is in the chamber but has no magazine, some won't) and insert the fresh mag that is literally right next to the gun when the empty dropped. The time between stopping and starting to put rounds down range is nowhere near enough time for someone to notice that I stopped firing and attempt to tackle me and if it was I still have a round ready to go.

Oh, and btw, I am not that good nor am I what any reasonable person would consider a "gun nut". Just some guy that goes to the range once or sometimes twice a month to keep/hone my skills with my carry weapon.

You have no clue about the subject you are attempting to argue.

 

[Darwin333]

You've never been in a gun fight have you? When bullets are flying it takes much longer to recognize that the shooting has stopped, decide on a course of action, and act, than it does to reload, so either he was completely incompetent, was having issues with his gun (which is what I have heard a couple times, gun jammed, and he was messing with it trying to reload, which gave people enough time to take him down), or was standing in a crowd of people not running for their lives, and waiting for him to reload so they could jump on him. Of those three the only plausible two are the first two.

Regardless, if he had a 15 round mag, but had killed 10 people would that be better than a 30 round and killing 9? No, this magic number of bullets that a gun can hold is asinine, and people that believe that if he had only had standard mags the situation would have somehow been better are delusional to say the least.

Not to mention that it sounds like he was using FMJ ammunition which is basically range ammo. Had he had a 15 rounders with self defense ammo it, if my assumption is correct, would have been much much worse.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Watch it in action.

Is that a Repub quote from 2001?

 

[nonlnear]

No, just further proof that the answer to crime is not punishing the entire population as if they are a classrooom of unruly schoolchildren.

Teacher's solution: Some chew gum loudly and destroy property with it, thus you ban gum entirely.

Adult solution: You target only those individuals who abuse their freedom, and leave everyone else the hell alone.

Michel Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" has some interesting things to say about that.

 

[Triumph]

This is a pretty smart guy, this Peter King. Yet more politicians taking advantage of a tragedy to further their agenda.

Peter King's proposed bill would ban guns near lawmakers

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), one of the few pro-gun control Republicans in the House, wants to make it illegal for someone to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of certain high-ranking federal officials, including members of Congress.

Right, Mr. King. This looks like it would be very effective! In fact, I think if we had this rule, it might've prevented the Tucson shootings! Obviously this nutbag would never have murdered 6 people and attempted to murder another 15 if he knew that it was illegal to bring his gun within 1,000 feet of Gifford! Your piece of brilliant legislation would have foiled his otherwise flawless plans to create mayhem.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47428.html

 

[JD50]

This is a pretty smart guy, this Peter King. Yet more politicians taking advantage of a tragedy to further their agenda.



Right, Mr. King. This looks like it would be very effective! In fact, I think if we had this rule, it might've prevented the Tucson shootings! Obviously this nutbag would never have murdered 6 people and attempted to murder another 15 if he knew that it was illegal to bring his gun within 1,000 feet of Gifford! Your piece of brilliant legislation would have foiled his otherwise flawless plans to create mayhem.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47428.html

I'm fine with that, as long as police officers, secret service, private bodyguards, etc... aren't excluded from that law. What's good for the goose right?

 

[xj0hnx]

This is a pretty smart guy, this Peter King. Yet more politicians taking advantage of a tragedy to further their agenda.



Right, Mr. King. This looks like it would be very effective! In fact, I think if we had this rule, it might've prevented the Tucson shootings! Obviously this nutbag would never have murdered 6 people and attempted to murder another 15 if he knew that it was illegal to bring his gun within 1,000 feet of Gifford! Your piece of brilliant legislation would have foiled his otherwise flawless plans to create mayhem.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47428.html

I see what you did there.

 

[JohnnyGage]

I see what you did there.

Hey come on now, the 1000ft rule works for schools! Oh wait....

 

[Muse]

And of course, no one can get shot without some mention of gun control...

And why not? If people didn't have these guns these people wouldn't be getting shot. Yeah, I know, it all depends on your paradigm. There's no arguing with a sick mind. Jared Loughner asked Gabrielle Giffords at a public event "what's the meaning of political discourse when politician's words have no meaning?" That's not an exact quote (well, maybe it is, it's from memory), but it's essentially what he said. Giffords was literally speechless. Like I said, there's no arguing with a sick mind. However if she'd said something, anything, maybe he wouldn't have stewed in his mind and shot her and the others. Count me among those who think you should not be able to buy a gun legally. It would take decades, but in 50 years the incidence of gun violence in the USA would be a fraction of what it's been in the last 50 years.

 

[PrinceofWands]

And of course, no one can get shot without some mention of gun control...

And why not? If people didn't have these guns these people wouldn't be getting shot. Yeah, I know, it all depends on your paradigm. There's no arguing with a sick mind. Jared Loughner asked Gabrielle Giffords at a public event "what's the meaning of political discourse when politician's words have no meaning?" That's not an exact quote (well, maybe it is, it's from memory), but it's essentially what he said. Giffords was literally speechless. Like I said, there's no arguing with a sick mind. However if she'd said something, anything, maybe he wouldn't have stewed in his mind and shot her and the others. Count me among those who think you should not be able to buy a gun legally. It would take decades, but in 50 years the incidence of gun violence in the USA would be a fraction of what it's been in the last 50 years.

Except for that part where the populace raises in total revolution, crashes the world economy, destroys huge sections of the US, suffers 30+ million casualties, and plunges us into a century of open assassination and martial law. But other than that sure, it would be so much better.

 

[hal2kilo]

Except for that part where the populace raises in total revolution, crashes the world economy, destroys huge sections of the US, suffers 30+ million casualties, and plunges us into a century of open assassination and martial law. But other than that sure, it would be so much better.

Keep dreaming with that tight grip on your gun.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Except for that part where the populace raises in total revolution, crashes the world economy, destroys huge sections of the US, suffers 30+ million casualties, and plunges us into a century of open assassination and martial law. But other than that sure, it would be so much better.

LOL, what would you do, shoot your little plinkers at the tanks, take out choppers with your glock?

The US would either have the military on the side of the revolutionaries (very unlikely, the military leaders always see a chance to take over and enrich themselves when something like that happens) and your little plinkers wouldn't matter OR they would be on the side of the government and your little plinkers would go plink, plink, plink until you were out of bullets or shot dead.

Don't think for a second that Afghanistan or Iraq is an example of what the US military could do if it was the actual leaders of the US in jeopardy.

At the end of the day, you can have your dreams of world domination with your plinkers, it's just a dream of a madman.

 

[xj0hnx]

LOL, what would you do, shoot your little plinkers at the tanks, take out choppers with your glock?

The US would either have the military on the side of the revolutionaries (very unlikely, the military leaders always see a chance to take over and enrich themselves when something like that happens) and your little plinkers wouldn't matter OR they would be on the side of the government and your little plinkers would go plink, plink, plink until you were out of bullets or shot dead.

Don't think for a second that Afghanistan or Iraq is an example of what the US military could do if it was the actual leaders of the US in jeopardy.

At the end of the day, you can have your dreams of world domination with your plinkers, it's just a dream of a madman.

If you think the all volunteer military would destroy it's own people and cities for our garbage leaders you're out of your mind.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If you think the all volunteer military would destroy it's own people and cities for our garbage leaders you're out of your mind.

Yeah, it's not like it's happened ever before, but in that case, you still wouldn't need guns, you would have the force of the US military backing you and your plinkers would not be needed for anything.

Either way, the populace having guns isn't going to matter, that was my point.

 

[irishScott]

Yeah, it's not like it's happened ever before, but in that case, you still wouldn't need guns, you would have the force of the US military backing you and your plinkers would not be needed for anything.

Either way, the populace having guns isn't going to matter, that was my point.

So say there is a civil war and one side invades. Take the French Maquis in WWII. They operated with considerable success despite the Germans employing some of the most brutal counter-tactics known. Obviously their plinkers were useless against the might of the German panz... oh wait they were smart enough to not directly take on tanks...

The point is if you think a heavily armed and determined population isn't at least a partial deterrent you're dreaming. British military arrogance I guess.

 

[irishScott]

And of course, no one can get shot without some mention of gun control...

And why not? If people didn't have these guns these people wouldn't be getting shot. Yeah, I know, it all depends on your paradigm. There's no arguing with a sick mind. Jared Loughner asked Gabrielle Giffords at a public event "what's the meaning of political discourse when politician's words have no meaning?" That's not an exact quote (well, maybe it is, it's from memory), but it's essentially what he said. Giffords was literally speechless. Like I said, there's no arguing with a sick mind. However if she'd said something, anything, maybe he wouldn't have stewed in his mind and shot her and the others. Count me among those who think you should not be able to buy a gun legally. It would take decades, but in 50 years the incidence of gun violence in the USA would be a fraction of what it's been in the last 50 years.

At the cost of being able to defend myself or family effectively from an armed criminal. Obviously we should all be forced to go hand-to-hand with an assailant as opposed to shooting them. I'm glad you've never had the experience of having to or almost having to defend yourself in the moment. If and when you do I imagine you'll be one of the many converts who see the need for a gun after being caught helpless with no chance to even get to a phone.