I can't believe you actually posted that.
Given his postings on this topic, I can't believe you can't believe that... :whiste:
I can't believe you actually posted that.
I'm not implying anything. The claim was made that a smaller magazine requires reloading more which opens up an opportunity to stop the attacker, you guys claim that someone can reload and fire just as fast as someone who doesn't have to reload.
So far all I see are claims that you can train to reload quickly but it's not the same as not having to reload.
Are you claiming someone with three 10 round clips can fire off as many shots as someone with a 30 round clip in the same amount of time?
So what I hear is that the possibility of stopping an attacker who has to reload more to kill people isn't worth the inconvenience to responsible gun owners?
Your priorities are clear. Thanks
IIRC the shooter at Columbime was using 10 round magazines in a high-point carbine and reloaded like 9 times. No one took the opportunity to stop him. Like most gun control advocates, you get all your "knowledge" about guns from the media\movies. So far we've had: "Just shoot the gun out of his hand!" "Just shoot him in the leg to stop him!" "Rush him while he's reloading!"
If reloading took 10 seconds, you might have a point. Since 5 seconds is on the very long side, meaning that reloading does not change the power dynamics of the situation, no, it's not worth it.So what I hear is that the possibility of stopping an attacker who has to reload more to kill people isn't worth the inconvenience to responsible gun owners?
Your priorities are clear. Thanks
No, apparently you lack reading comprehension skills.Apparently no one has ever heard of this incident:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=12...+reload&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
Of course you don't mention laughner being rushed when he dropped a clip trying to reload but that's ok I get (see my previous post).
Apparently no one has ever heard of this incident:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=12...+reload&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
With an aftermarket high capacity magazine that jammed. He'd have had better luck with factory capacity genuine Glock mags.
So what I hear is that the possibility of stopping an attacker who has to reload more to kill people isn't worth the inconvenience to responsible gun owners?
Your priorities are clear. Thanks
So what I hear is that the possibility of stopping an attacker who has to reload more to kill people isn't worth the inconvenience to responsible gun owners?
Your priorities are clear. Thanks
Of course you don't mention laughner being rushed when he dropped a clip trying to reload but that's ok I get (see my previous post).
Apparently no one has ever heard of this incident:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=12...+reload&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
Anyone suggesting that a shooter should be rushed would be suggesting that action should be taken. Being armed would be the best action to take.
Yep, one life isn't worth the inconvenience, your point is clear and I stand by my original assessment (all or nothing).
I showed you an instance where reloading had a negative affect on the shooter and instead of acknowledging you change your argument and move the goal post.
Enjoy your fantasy world where your "what if there were two intruders" trumps my real world scenario.
I'm changing the goal posts? You've failed to establish how a magazine ban would be effective. You're making a huge assumption that a committed, premeditated killer isn't going to go to what would be the very large black market... because that's just too hard? Because you don't know how so you can't imagine someone else doing it?
Not to mention, your magazine limit would partially disarm tens of millions to... *drum roll* stop mass shooters who are too dumb to keep their distance! Wow, isn't that just the most awesome and effective legislation in our nation's history?
I'm pretty sure general arguments with a singular support that only works in very specific circumstances stopped flying in 6th grade history papers.
And even if it would be effective: no, it's not worth partially disarming tens of millions for one life, anymore than it's worth putting breathalyzers in every car due to drunk drivers. If we did everything we could because "it might save one life when the stars are perfectly aligned", we'd be a police state. If the founding fathers had had that mentality we wouldn't have a country.
Here's a question, handguns kill far more than any other firearm per year, most of them involved in shootings of less than 10 rounds. Why not ban all handguns? I mean, you've established that you're arguing under the assumption that:
1. A ban on a given firearm component would be effective.
2. Determined criminals would not, for whatever reason, make use of a readily available black market.
If you're going to assume that, we could just ban all guns and be done with it.
That's a good suggestion now see if you can get enough support to get it passed.
It's a horrible suggestion. But it's obvious I'm not going to convince you of that.
It wasn't my idea to begin with. But it's the only idea you have...so.
Check your sarcasm meter.
And actually I have a lot of ideas on how to lessen gun deaths; ideas which are largely irrelevant to a discussion on the efficacy of a magazine capacity limit.
Well shit keep your ideas to yourself! Because you sure do a damn good job at criticizing everyone else's ideas!
Yes, because criticism has no place in debate.
Do you have a point, or are you taking a page out of Karmy's book?
No, by all means post your solutions!
IIRC the shooter at Columbime was using 10 round magazines in a high-point carbine and reloaded like 9 times. No one took the opportunity to stop him. Like most gun control advocates, you get all your "knowledge" about guns from the media\movies. So far we've had: "Just shoot the gun out of his hand!" "Just shoot him in the leg to stop him!" "Rush him while he's reloading!"