I want to marry Ann Coulter

[child of wonder]

Ann Coulter is no different than Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, etc. They're political entertainers who know how to rile up people's emotions for their own personal gain through book sales, radio contracts, movie deals, etc.

 

[bignateyk]

So this doesn't do anything for you huh?

*shudders* And her looks aren't even her worst feature. It's that damn voice.

I hate her with a passion, but she's got a point with this one.

 

[Perknose]

So this doesn't do anything for you huh?

Only if she promised not to speak. She opens her mouth for all the wrong reasons.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Is this a troll? (wait, it's Ann Coulter, of course it is)

The gun I own, a Glock 19, has the dubious distinction of being the weapon of choice in both the Arizona and Virginia Tech shootings. The standard magazine size is 15 rounds, and it's not long or unwieldy at all. Double stacked 9mm magazines can hold a lot of ammo in a small space. A larger 9mm pistol like the Glock 17 or Beretta 92 can hold 17 rounds. The only unwieldy magazine available for Glocks is that ridiculous 33-round one that's like a foot long. That one would be a disadvantage for a spree killer, but a 15- or 17-round one would not.

And the Columbine shootings? Um, one of their guns was a semiautomatic Tec-9 and they had at least one 52-round mag for it.

I do agree that conceal carry laws are a good thing. But come on, what is her magazine size argument about? It's just a crock of made-up shit.

 

[rudeguy]

The guy with the CCW said he had already been taken down when he got there. He just piled on top.

I found the Foxnews interview.

The guy was in a store at the time of the shooting, so not really RIGHT THERE. I'm sure if he would have been at the right place, he would have taken the guy out. He 100% did the right thing. The only criticism that I have is that he didn't hit Geraldo in the face with a chair.

 

[Thebobo]

So this doesn't do anything for you huh?

Someone feed her. Her skin is hanging off her bones.

 

[bignateyk]

Is this a troll? (wait, it's Ann Coulter, of course it is)

The gun I own, a Glock 19, has the dubious distinction of being the weapon of choice in both the Arizona and Virginia Tech shootings. The standard magazine size is 15 rounds, and it's not long or unwieldy at all. Double stacked 9mm magazines can hold a lot of ammo in a small space. A larger 9mm pistol like the Glock 17 or Beretta 92 can hold 17 rounds. The only unwieldy magazine available for Glocks is that ridiculous 33-round one that's like a foot long. That one would be a disadvantage for a spree killer, but a 15- or 17-round one would not.

And the Columbine shootings? Um, one of their guns was a semiautomatic Tec-9 and they had at least one 52-round mag for it.

I do agree that conceal carry laws are a good thing. But come on, what is her magazine size argument about? It's just a crock of made-up shit.

And so is the argument that banning large mags will somehow prevent shooting sprees.

 

[AstroManLuca]

And so is the argument that banning large mags will somehow prevent shooting sprees.

I agree, but why not back that up with actual evidence? Is it because the people who normally listen to Ann Coulter don't like facts and well-supported claims?

It seems what she's trying to do is use reverse psychology or something; she thinks large magazines should stay legal, so she makes up bullshit arguments as to why small magazines are somehow more conducive to killing sprees. When a rational person would try to come up with an actual reason to keep large magazines legal (such as saying that it gives responsible gun owners an advantage in self-defense situations).

 

[Skitzer]

Someone feed her. Her skin is hanging off her bones.

You don't like to hear the bones crunching when you do the horizontal bop?

 

[rudeguy]

I agree, but why not back that up with actual evidence? Is it because the people who normally listen to Ann Coulter don't like facts and well-supported claims?

It seems what she's trying to do is use reverse psychology or something; she thinks large magazines should stay legal, so she makes up bullshit arguments as to why small magazines are somehow more conducive to killing sprees. When a rational person would try to come up with an actual reason to keep large magazines legal (such as saying that it gives responsible gun owners an advantage in self-defense situations).

I'm a gun advocate and I personally see no need for high capacity mags. But that's my decision, not the government's.

I've yet to hear this chick make sense. She talks with that stupid accent that makes you want to club her with the nearest large seal.

 

[alkemyst]

I don't believe in limiting magazines...but it's shaky ground saying a homeowner that's a bad shot needs them.

All those misses go somewhere.

One of the more interesting statistics is the 1911 guys. They are limited by capacity just due to the size of the .45 caliber bullet. They have double stack options, but most prefer and carry the single stack.

A modern handgun is extremely easy and quick to reload.

 

[Minjin]

Is this a troll? (wait, it's Ann Coulter, of course it is)

The gun I own, a Glock 19, has the dubious distinction of being the weapon of choice in both the Arizona and Virginia Tech shootings. The standard magazine size is 15 rounds, and it's not long or unwieldy at all. Double stacked 9mm magazines can hold a lot of ammo in a small space. A larger 9mm pistol like the Glock 17 or Beretta 92 can hold 17 rounds. The only unwieldy magazine available for Glocks is that ridiculous 33-round one that's like a foot long. That one would be a disadvantage for a spree killer, but a 15- or 17-round one would not.

And the Columbine shootings? Um, one of their guns was a semiautomatic Tec-9 and they had at least one 52-round mag for it.

I do agree that conceal carry laws are a good thing. But come on, what is her magazine size argument about? It's just a crock of made-up shit.

So what you are saying is that her argument would only make sense if a spree killer used the 33-round magazine in their Glock 19? Oh wait, that's exactly what happened in Tuscon.

 

[Nik]

Sorry. Same-sex marriage isn't allowed in most states...

ZING

 

[Ninjahedge]

And so is the argument that banning large mags will somehow prevent shooting sprees.

Who said it would prevent them?

Making the magazine size smaller makes it harder to shoot willy-nilly.

If you have to reload every 9, there is a small, but significant gap in the firing that allows others to act. Unless you are in a war, or a TV drama series, this is an important distinction.


I did not even bother reading Ann's crap. She is just a fire starter. Unfortunately she uses things like baby seals and orphans as kindling.

 

[zinfamous]

LOL at the progressives who, barring any response of substance, attack the source regarding her looks. It was a really witty response back in the 4th grade.

lol at your lack of irony.

 

[zinfamous]

*shudders* And her looks aren't even her worst feature. It's that damn voice.

I hate her with a passion, but she's got a point with this one.

her point is that high-capacity magazines are necessary b/c far too many responsible gun owners are poor shots and need the extra capacity to remove all doubt that the intruder has been pacified...

To her, "responsible gun owner" does not preclude proper training and use of said gun, but more a "let it fly and damn the consequences" sort of attitude.

no, she has no point. she continues to be a raving lunatic.

 

[AstroManLuca]

her point is that high-capacity magazines are necessary b/c far too many responsible gun owners are poor shots and need the extra capacity to remove all doubt that the intruder has been pacified...

To her, "responsible gun owner" does not preclude proper training and use of said gun, but more a "let it fly and damn the consequences" sort of attitude.

no, she has no point. she continues to be a raving lunatic.

This makes me sick because I'm going to come out and defend her. At least in part.

I wasn't aware that the shooter had used a 33-round magazine until Minjin told me. That made what she said make a lot more sense. She listed a bunch of examples of other shooting sprees, and in most of them, the shooters had used regular magazines and reloaded more frequently.

The leap of logic she made was that because high capacity magazines haven't been used much, they must not be that dangerous. Not sure I agree with that; they have upsides and downsides.

It is, however, a valid criticism of attempts to ban high capacity magazines in light of this shooting. Obviously, large magazines are not a factor in most shooting sprees. Banning them wouldn't have a meaningful effect.

I can't think of a good reason to actually have a huge magazine except that it might be fun if you're out target shooting. I doubt it's much of an advantage in home defense situations. The only other reason I can think of not to ban large magazines is that there is no reason to. It won't prevent shooting rampages and it unnecessarily curtails our freedoms. There are a lot of things in the world that are unnecessary but we don't ban them just because we can.

So I agree with her position but she made stuff up to support that position and I don't like that. But hey you don't get to be a conservative pundit by telling only the truth do you?

 

[zinfamous]

This makes me sick because I'm going to come out and defend her.

I wasn't aware that the shooter had used a 33-round magazine until Minjin told me. That made what she said make a lot more sense. She listed a bunch of examples of other shooting sprees, and in most of them, the shooters had used regular magazines and reloaded more frequently.

The leap of logic she made was that because high capacity magazines haven't been used much, they must not be that dangerous. Not sure I agree with that; they have upsides and downsides.

It is, however, a valid criticism of attempts to ban high capacity magazines in light of this shooting. Obviously, large magazines are not a factor in most shooting sprees. Banning them wouldn't have a meaningful effect.

I can't think of a good reason to actually have a huge magazine except that it might be fun if you're out target shooting. I doubt it's much of an advantage in home defense situations. The only other reason I can think of not to ban large magazines is that there is no reason to. It won't prevent shooting rampages and it unnecessarily curtails our freedoms. There are a lot of things in the world that are unnecessary but we don't ban them just because we can.

I have no problem with that argument...she just doesn't seem to care about the "responsible" part in "responsible gun ownership."

To me, it's a huge flaw in logic that shows her logical center overall is completely faulty.

 

[Minjin]

I have no problem with that argument...she just doesn't seem to care about the "responsible" part in "responsible gun ownership."

To me, it's a huge flaw in logic that shows her logical center overall is completely faulty.

Let's take it the opposite direction then for debate sake. You seem to think that responsible gun owners shouldn't need many shots. How about we ban all magazine and clip fed guns? Every gun can only be single shot. If you're a responsible gun owner, you only need one shot right?

 

[goobernoodles]

Unrelated. Or is it?

 

[preslove]

She would have failed an ENC 1101 composition course with that piece of shit article.

Here is her argument:

1). Lib'ruls want to ban high capacity magazines like the one used in Tucson.
2). "for a homeowner who is a poor marksman, a large-capacity clip could be a lifesaver." She provides no backing for this.
3). She then switches to concealed carry, listing a bunch of anecdotes without any sources or links (she has repeatedly been found to fudge sources). The thing is, NONE of those involve high capacity magazines. Many of them actually don't include the armed citizen firing. They point the gun and the perp stops. This actually undermines her point that these magazines serve a useful purpose.

Only an idiot could think this is a coherent argument.

 

[Minjin]

Only an idiot could think this is a coherent argument.

Did they teach this style of argument in your ENC 1101 class, too?