Let's draw parallels between Tim McVeigh and the NRA

[chucky2]

I can't believe you actually posted that.

Given his postings on this topic, I can't believe you can't believe that... :whiste:

 

[Nebor]

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?

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!"

 

[ivwshane]

I get it guys, you have your priorities and the only thing that would change that is if there were something we could do that would stop 100% of all shootings from happening or keep EVERYONE safe. If it can't be 100% effective then it isn't worth doing.

You feel the same way about the budget, about voting laws, about healthcare, about taxes, you name it, it's all or nothing you are either with us or a part of the axis of evil, you are a gun loving patriot or a leftist American hating liberal.


Your arguments are rock solid!

 

[Nebor]

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

That's exactly what we're saying. Considering that the odds of someone stopping an attacker while their reloading is miniscule (can you show me anytime it's ever happened?) and the inconvenience of reloading repeatedly at the range or being at a disadvantage in a gunfight are significant, I'd say it's reasonable.

 

[ivwshane]

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!"

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

 

[Cerb]

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

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.

To take something away successfully, you need to show that it has a real chance to do some good. You (the collective, "you") have consistently failed to show how it will in any way. You should not get to take away from law-abiding people on a hope and prayer. It's that simple.

Too many innocent people have been killed with small capacity firearms to take magazine limits seriously. It's especially bad in that those crimes have generally been significantly more deadly than those using rifles.

We have good evidence that a better mental health system might have prevented several mass murders. We have very good evidence that a reciprocal show of force can and will stop a mass murderer. We have reasonably good evidence that inside-locking doors too strong to easily force can, at the last, save one room (and hey, that's all you can hope for in a classroom setting). We have good evidence that taking cover gives you better chances than running for it, if you're close to the shooter. And so on.

Unless you can show, by actual evidence or quality experimentation, that a miniscule addition to reloading time will change the shooter from being a person in absolute power to a vulnerable target, you are merely pushing for useless disarming of the law-abiding public.

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

No, apparently you lack reading comprehension skills.

"I kneeled over him. He was pulling a magazine [to reload] and I grabbed the magazine and secured that."

The shooter was close enough to other people that they did not need a good running start to rush him, and he was not brandishing a secondary weapon. Most spree shooters have kept their distance, and/or had multiple weapons, which would be a good counter to that. He had just that weapon, he was close, and he gave them a queue to act.

Being able to stop him when reloading had nothing to do with how long it takes to reload, but where he positioned himself, and that he was very close to too many adults. If you mandated that there be two average or larger sized men standing inside every classroom door, you could quickly stop most of the school mass murders, too.

 

[exdeath]

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.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

With an aftermarket high capacity magazine that jammed. He'd have had better luck with factory capacity genuine Glock mags.

Reliable high capacity magazines are hard to find.

 

[irishScott]

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

I suggest you get your ears checked.

Larger magazines make a significant difference in defensive encounters. They make negligible difference in mass shootings. There was a woman in Georgia a couple of weeks ago who shot an intruder 5 times with a 6 shot revolver, and the bad guy lived. What if there had been two bad guys?

Magazine restrictions have a greater chance of killing homeowners acting in self defense than they do of saving lives in a mass shooting.

Now before you go off on how unlikely it is to need more than 6 rounds in self defense, I said "greater", not "great."

 

[Doppel]

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

That may be what you hear but it is not what is said. What is said is that it is minutiae.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

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

So in the case of the Sandy Hook shootings, was a 5 year old going to tackle Adam Lanza when he reloaded?

 

[TallBill]

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.

 

[irishScott]

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.

But these things are so rare, come on. Obviously we shouldn't prepare to take action ourselves, we should legislate it and let the government deal with it! Because history has shown it works so well! If the government tells the criminals sternly to give us an extra second, why hell that's all we need to wipe out these shootings!

 

[ivwshane]

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.

 

[irishScott]

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.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

 

[irishScott]

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. For my part, I'm satisfied with a nation of 313 million, with 300 million guns, where only 0.0028% of the population are murdered by guns every year, and much of that violence confined to ghettos and inner-cities.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

 

[irishScott]

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.

 

[ivwshane]

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!

 

[irishScott]

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?

 

[ivwshane]

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!

 

[micrometers]

Ft. Hood I believe showed the deadliness of extended 30 round magazines in pistols.

the soldiers tried to rush the guy twice while he was reloading and they failed. More reloads = more chances to rush.

And yes, the guy was stopped by an armed guard. So that means put more armed guards. But also try to restrict the power of weaponry so that the armed guards actually have a chance in a shootout.

 

[irishScott]

No, by all means post your solutions!

All right. In a nutshell:

1. Make every gun sale go through an FFL.

2. Mandatory basic psychological background checks for all gun purchases. If the buyer isn't a danger to themselves or others, they get the gun. Buyer can re-apply with a clean slate 365 days later if turned down.

3. An 8 hour safety/legal course, including range time, required for gun ownership, much like most states already require for concealed carry. Renew every 5 years.

4. If the buyer lives with a person with a history of mental instability, require the guns to be locked up when not in use. Checks on all residents of a given household would be impractical, but make it a felony to have the guns accessible when not in use. Hammer this point home during said safety course: If a person in your family is at any time found to be mentally unstable and so much as handled one of your guns, you will have your guns taken away and be thrown in jail. A gun is considered "in use" when it occupies the same room as its owner and is not in the hands of a mentally unstable person.

5. Legalize/regulate marijuana. Consider legalizing other drugs under harsher regulation. Lessens gang violence, lessens gun crime.

6. Provide free mental healthcare to those unable to afford a private option. Proof of not being able to afford private mental healthcare would be a requirement to obtain treatment.

7. The database of gun licenses should be state-based, held to a standard of complete automation and encryption such that it cannot be universally accessed by any government official or police office. It's a black box, with the only functions being enter license, renew license, delete license, verify license. The only way to access a specific license would be via a unique ID number known only to the licensee. If this number is lost, the licensee will have to reapply from scratch.

In one sentence: Increase access to mental healthcare and hold any would-be gun owner to a basic standard of responsibility. No system's perfect, but I think the above would be orders of magnitude more effective than any flat ban of any variety.

 

[klinc]

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!"

When people hear gun shots fear takes over and they will either run or freeze like Ice statues.