.

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 1:35 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2013 1:31:47 AM

Quote :

"AR's and 10/22's aren't self defense guns."

an AR most certainly is. it's a great home defense weapon.

1/12/2013 8:05:32 AM

No kidding. I trust myself with my AR more than anything really. I guess what I am going to hear next is that with a shotgun you don't even have to aim or you can just rack the slide and it will instantly scare a bad guy away...

1/12/2013 9:15:49 AM

AR is one of the best home defense weapon systems you could have for two reasons: tactical control/maneuverability (short barrel, pistol grip, ect.) and its ability to hold 30 round mags.

I think tchenku was asking why you would need a 30 round mag on the last page. I would answer that question with a question(s): Do you know for certain how many rounds it will take to stop an intruder? Can you say for sure there will be only one intruder? What if you miss? Wouldn't you rather have a 30 round mag and not need it, than need it and not have it?

I'm not saying this to get into a dick measuring contest with anybody, but I have seen a lot of people killed or wounded by 5.56. I've seen people take over a dozen rounds, more than half of them fatal wounds, and then run hundreds of meters while still fighting before they were incapacitated. In my experience it often took 4-5 rounds to incapacitate (or kill) someone and even that would often take several minutes to take effect. Point being, it's helpful to be able to shoot an intruder(s) as many times as you need to stop them.

Look at it this way, if police swat teams raiding the homes and buildings of violent criminals feel they need 20-30 round mags, why wouldn't people defending their homes from these same criminals need them?

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2013 12:30:09 PM

^

"I need 30 round mags to defend myself. 10-rounds may not be enough."

*Guy goes on shooting rampage and people call for 10-rd mag limits*

"Hey wait! A mass shooter can do as much damage with 10-rd mags as he can with 30-rd mags, so the laws wouldn't change a thing."

Change it up a little; would you ever hear yourself say:
"Hey wait! I can do as much damage with 10-rd mags as I can with 30-rd mags, so I'm OK with having this law pass."
See the hypocrisy? It's one of the most widely used arguments against the mag limit, but it's complete BS.

1/12/2013 9:08:10 PM

Quote :

"Look at it this way, if police swat teams raiding the homes and buildings of violent criminals feel they need 20-30 round mags, why wouldn't people defending their homes from these same criminals need them? "

The goal of a swat team is to control a situation and stop people from escaping.

The goal of someone defending their home is to scare away or kill their intruder.

That was a pretty dumb comparison for you to make...

Going after mag capacities though is barking up the wrong tree. Limiting it is at best a symbolic gesture.

It may be a better idea to make it illegal to have a certain amount of loaded rounds on you at one point in time. This won't stop random shootings, but it would give cops authority to detain sketchy looking people about to shoot up some place.

You can swap out 5,10, x round clips really really fast, but you can't really reload them that quickly.

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 9:12 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2013 9:10:01 PM

rofl

how much ammo do you think i should be allowed to have?

1/12/2013 9:28:39 PM

as much as you want.

Just not like 10 loaded mags on you for 1 gun.

1/12/2013 9:29:41 PM

i don't even know where to begin explaining how ridiculous and ineffective such a law would be

1/12/2013 9:36:18 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Look at it this way, if police swat teams raiding the homes and buildings of violent criminals feel they need 20-30 round mags, why wouldn't people defending their homes from these same criminals need them? " The goal of a swat team is to control a situation and stop people from escaping. The goal of someone defending their home is to scare away or kill their intruder. That was a pretty dumb comparison for you to make... Going after mag capacities though is barking up the wrong tree. Limiting it is at best a symbolic gesture. It may be a better idea to make it illegal to have a certain amount of loaded rounds on you at one point in time. This won't stop random shootings, but it would give cops authority to detain sketchy looking people about to shoot up some place. You can swap out 5,10, x round clips really really fast, but you can't really reload them that quickly. [Edited on January 12, 2013 at 9:12 PM. Reason : ] "

As soon as I have to defend my home against unarmed school children, at that point your argument would be valid

1/12/2013 9:38:20 PM

^^ lol

according to gun nuts, every gun law is ridiculous and ineffective.

Doesn't really seem like a reasonable basis for a discussion does it?

1/12/2013 9:41:11 PM

when are y'all gonna learn that criminals don't obey laws? if someone is willing to face the penalties of killing folks, then they're probably willing to take the chance and load up however many mags they want, regardless of your laws.

1/12/2013 9:45:18 PM

^I know that

I just want pro-gunners to acknowledge that high cap mags are more dangerous than low cap mags

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 9:54 PM. Reason : and to quit using that argument that they're the same]

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 9:54 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2013 9:52:26 PM

Law are only broken by criminal thus ineffective!!!!!!!

1/12/2013 9:57:21 PM

and i want anti-gunners to acknowledge that a 20 or 30 rd magazine is better than a 10 round magazine in a self defense situation

1/12/2013 10:00:33 PM

In what way is a 30rd mag more dangerous than reloading 3 10rd mags?

1/12/2013 10:03:23 PM

Quote :

"It may be a better idea to make it illegal to have a certain amount of loaded rounds on you at one point in time. This won't stop random shootings, but it would give cops authority to detain sketchy looking people about to shoot up some place."

This guy pretty much walked up to a school carrying a rifle. Given that all schools are "gun free zones", the cops didn't need any more authority to detain him. The problem is, there wasn't a cop around to detain him.

1/12/2013 10:07:45 PM

I'm curious to know how pro-gunners feel about stop-and-frisk.

1/12/2013 10:19:55 PM

^^^it's the same reasons you don't give a soldier a bunch of 10-round mags to go into battle. It leaves you more open

The VT guy fired off 175 rounds all from 10-round magazines, 18 mag changes. Someone could have saved the day as he took a few seconds to get mags from his backpack (and no, I am not looking down on anyone for not trying). If those were 33-round mags then only 6 mag changes. Less downtime, less chance of being compromised, more dangerous.

Quote :

"i want anti-gunners to acknowledge that a 20 or 30 rd magazine is better than a 10 round magazine in a self defense situation"

no argument there.

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 10:26 PM. Reason : "33" because he had a Glock. No idea what 22 he used.]

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 10:27 PM. Reason : wait, i'm not anti]

1/12/2013 10:25:02 PM

But since it was against unarmed people, no one was capable of taking advantage of a mag change. Which is exactly why it's not more dangerous.

And if it was, why 10? Why not 15? Why not 5? Why not 1? 10 is an arbitrary, made up limit, it's not based on anything.

1/12/2013 10:27:18 PM

I guess in case of a malfunction (full battery), a 30rd magazine could be more dangerous...

Now, I'd rather people who want to harm me to have 10 rd mags, as long as I can still use 30rd mags.

Actually, I'd rather they use 50-100rd drum mags, since they typically jam...

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2013 10:28:04 PM

Quote :

"Someone could have saved the day as he took a few seconds to get mags from his backpack"

maybe they would've if they had a handgun of their own and some good training

1/12/2013 10:28:31 PM

Quote :

"But since it was against unarmed people, no one was capable of taking advantage of a mag change"

you could tackle him. wrestle him down. beat him with something laying around.

an unarmed robber/intruder could take you down during a mag change at home, no?

^I'm for that

I guess 10 is "not too little and not too much." Who knows

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2013 10:29:37 PM

Quote :

""i want anti-gunners to acknowledge that a 20 or 30 rd magazine is better than a 10 round magazine in a self defense situation" "

Most people wouldn't come close to needing 10 rounds, let alone 20 or 30 in a self defense situation.

1/12/2013 10:48:43 PM

do you have any data to support that claim?

is that just your opinion? if so, please state your level of firearms experience.

1/12/2013 10:50:13 PM

^

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2013 10:52:19 PM

here's the deal

the answer to "how many rounds do i need to defend myself?" is always the same: "as many as i can possibly have without inhibiting my ability to respond (speed of my response, mobility, weapon reliabilty, etc.)"

and 30 rds is pretty much spot-on. another 30 rd mag in your back pocket or a magazine coupler would also be a good idea if you're comfortable with the weight.

1/12/2013 11:00:00 PM

I'd agree, its highly unlikely I'll need more than 10 rds in a self defense situation. But, if 10 wasn't enough, I'd be happy I had a 30rd mag.

My .45 holds 13+1 rds. Thankfully I've never had to use it defensively , but it would be stupid for me to only put in 10rds in it.

1/12/2013 11:11:42 PM

Quote :

"do you have any data to support that claim? is that just your opinion? if so, please state your level of firearms experience. "

Outside of cases of police brutality, i've never read or seen a news article where more than 10 rounds were needed for a self defense situation (it's almost always 1-3 shots fired).

It's pretty intuitive concept too, how many bullets would you need to fire in your home or at the mall to resolve a situation?

also this:

Quote :

"Werner, who has been tracking statistics reported in the NRA’s Armed Citizen column and other media for many years, says that the average incident involves two rounds... The NYPD use of force report for 2010, compiling data on 52 shootings, states that 76 percent of those incidents involved five or fewer rounds, while the Los Angeles PD report for 2009 shows 65 percent of their 85 shootings involved five rounds or fewer. "

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/features/is-a-pocket-gun-enough/


^^ yeah 30 rds for a gun nut, 10 or less for a normal sane person.

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 11:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2013 11:29:27 PM

well, i guess we'll all just hope we're not in that other percentage where they needed more than 10 rds

please continue with the name-calling

1/12/2013 11:33:57 PM

2A isn't about self-defense anyway

1/12/2013 11:57:16 PM

Why don't you just admit the reason you or anyone really wants >10 rounds has nothing to do with self defense, and is just because it's more fun at a gun range?

2nd amendment isn't about anything relevant to the modern world. The only way it makes sense is to reinterpret the constitution for modern times. If the constitution were written from scratch today, would we even pick 1 product to enshrine as a right to own? And why wouldn't this product be the internet? Suppressing Internet access is what all the oppressive regimes are doing today, guns don't really even matter to foment revolution. Communication is more important.

1/13/2013 12:32:13 AM

Quote :

"Why don't you just admit the reason you or anyone really wants >10 rounds has nothing to do with self defense, and is just because it's more fun at a gun range?"

because i really want more than 10 rds for home defense

30 rd mags aren't really that much fun at the range to me. that shit gets expensive.

1/13/2013 12:40:46 AM

Quote :

"2nd amendment isn't about anything relevant to the modern world."

I'm sorry you are blind in your beliefs and fail to understand the 2nd amendement fully.

Quote :

"why wouldn't this product be the internet? "

Freedom of speech would cover this, iirc. Internet is a digital "library"/"newspaper".

Quote :

"Communication is more important."

Yes, it is. And so is protecting it. You can't and shouldn't take away people's right to properly/effectively defend themselves and things that are just as important as life itself, such as communication.

Quote :

"Why don't you just admit the reason you or anyone really wants >10 rounds has nothing to do with self defense"

The real reason is it gives me options. I'm not forced into a predicament where I need to rely on only 10 shots before I am forced to reload. If I so choose, I can have a higher capacity. Tupac took 5 shots and lived. What's to say that 2 thugs breaking into your house each take 5 shots, and one of them continues to come after you cause they're pumped on adrenaline or other drugs? This was something that many soldiers in vietnam saw; vietcong doped up high on drugs being shot multiple times yet they continued charging their attack and successfully wounding/killing soldiers before finally dying themselves from their injuries. Don't underestimate your enemy, and definitely do not underestimate criminals.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 12:45 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 12:41:02 AM

^ yeah and no one has come close to taking away anyone's right to defend themselves.

background checks, registrations, inspections, etc. don't do this.

1/13/2013 12:42:23 AM

if forced, would you rather have a gun in a gun fight or a knife in a gun fight? If you take away my gun, you're basically saying I'm legally left with using a damn blade.

Like i've said before, it's about the lack of education and training. I think a very sound compromise would be this:

Instead of pistol permits for $5, create a license for various firearm categories:
1) Pistols
2) Rifles/Shotguns

These license would be valid for 1 year. The cost for this license would be $50-$100. The $50 would cover the cost for a background check, but also pay for your class that would educate and train someone on the basics of firearm handling, operation, responsiblity, and laws pertaining to that category (ie: pistols). This would also include range time for live exercise and field training. What does this license give you after completing the training and passing tests? You now can go and purchase firearms in that category much like if it were a conceal carry permit. I don't agree with registration of firearms because they can/do lead to confiscation. Whether you believe this or not, the government simply doesn't need to be involved and micromanage every aspect of your life; that's the not the role the US Government was founded to be.

So this licensing helps with providing training/education that I would say is crucial and much needed in this country.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 12:57 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 12:46:54 AM

That's an irrelevant, contrived scenario.

It's like if I asked whether you'd want your daughter to be shot with buck shot, or stabbed with a pencil.

There are already certain arms that practically everyone agree should be banned from civilians (grenades, mortars, vulcan cannons, etc.). Gun control is merely about where is this line drawn?

In terms of self defense, it doesn't take much (i.e. hard to really infringe this right). In terms of "ensuring a free state", those rights have long been infringed.

What the law is REALLY about now is what are law enforcement officers empowered to do?

If they stop a weirdo nut job in a trench coat for speeding, and he has a bunch of legal weapons and ammo in his car, their intuition and all logic and reason might tell them he's up to no good, but if they have no legal basis to detain him, then a criminal will get away.

Sandyhook isn't really related to any of these, the only reasonable gun policy that I can see having any bearing is a rule that would have made the guns difficult or impossible for the son to acquire from the mother.

1/13/2013 12:55:18 AM

Quote :

"yeah and no one has come close to taking away anyone's right to defend themselves. background checks, registrations, inspections, etc. don't do this."

but there are folks who want to take them away. the first step is registration.

and mag capacity limits are limits on the right to self defense, a right that has been affirmed by SCOTUS multiple times in recent cases.

1/13/2013 12:55:32 AM

Quote :

"It's like if I asked whether you'd want your daughter to be shot with buck shot, or stabbed with a pencil. "

No, not it is not. Quit being a moron.

Quote :

"If they stop a weirdo nut job in a trench coat for speeding, and he has a bunch of legal weapons and ammo in his car, their intuition and all logic and reason might tell them he's up to no good, but if they have no legal basis to detain him, then a criminal will get away. "

If their intuition and logic and reason tell them he's up to no good, then that sounds like probable cause... but if he's got a valid reason, and as you say everything is legal, then what is the issue? What you are suggesting is guilty until proven innocent. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Quick to judge are we?

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 12:57:55 AM

Quote :

"Instead of pistol permits for $5, create a license for various firearm categories: 1) Pistols 2) Rifles/Shotguns These license would be valid for 1 year. The cost for this license would be $50-$100. The $50 would cover the cost for a background check, but also pay for your class that would educate and train someone on the basics of firearm handling, operation, responsiblity, and laws pertaining to that category (ie: pistols). This would also include range time for live exercise and field training. What does this license give you after completing the training and passing tests? You now can go and purchase firearms in that category much like if it were a conceal carry permit. I don't agree with registration of firearms because they can/do lead to confiscation. Whether you believe this or not, the government simply doesn't need to be involved and micromanage every aspect of your life; that's the not the role the US Government was founded to be. "

The problem with this plan is that the people in poor communities, who arguably need guns more than anyone, would be thwarted from legal gun ownsership. Do you really see the representations of west va. supporting a $100 gun permit?

1/13/2013 1:00:15 AM

Quote :

"If they stop a weirdo nut job in a trench coat for speeding, and he has a bunch of legal weapons and ammo in his car, their intuition and all logic and reason might tell them he's up to no good, but if they have no legal basis to detain him, then a criminal will get away."

profiling is a whole other can of worms

1/13/2013 1:01:49 AM

Quote :

"but there are folks who want to take them away. the first step is registration. "

This is just paranoia.

If the gov. wanted to take your guns, it would be easy to do with or without a pre-existing registration plan.

^ it's detective work, not profiling, when you make an observation that a guy has way more clips and ammo than he'd need in an everyday situation.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 1:03 AM. Reason : ]

1/13/2013 1:02:33 AM

Quote :

"The problem with this plan is that the people in poor communities, who arguably need guns more than anyone, would be thwarted from legal gun ownsership."

Always the excuse; BUT NOW YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE POOR!!!!1

Look, not everyone can have everything in this world. However, $100 is NOT a lot of money. There are ways to make $100 in a couple of days. If someone values their life or someone else's and they wish to have the proper means to protect it, they'll find a way to come up with the money. Opportunity is there. Don't play the pity card. If they can afford the $150+ cost of a firearm from a pawn shop, another $50-$100 isn't going to make that much more of a difference or desuade them.

1/13/2013 1:04:58 AM

^^yes, if they wanted to do so forcibly, they certainly could. there would be a huge revolt and a lot of bloodshed.

instead, they want to boil us like frogs.

^$100/yr is enough to prevent my elderly grandmother from protecting herself

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 1:06 AM. Reason : afd]

1/13/2013 1:05:13 AM

LOL

so we SHOULD care about the infinitesimal minority of gun users that might need to use more than 10 rounds in a self-defense situation...

... but we SHOULD NOT care about the very sizable amount of poor people that wouldn't be able to actually own a gun under your proposed plan.

nice.

^ it's a plausible theory, but very unlikely. Which is practically the definition of paranoia.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 1:07 AM. Reason : ]

1/13/2013 1:06:18 AM

Quote :

"make an observation that a guy has way more clips and ammo than he'd need in an everyday situation."

it's not up to a cop to decide how many magazines or rounds of ammo i should need

Quote :

"it's a plausible theory, but very unlikely. Which is practically the definition of paranoia."

it has happened around the globe

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 1:08 AM. Reason : afds]

1/13/2013 1:07:54 AM

Quote :

"If the gov. wanted to take your guns, it would be easy to do with or without a pre-existing registration plan."

It's a political dance. No they can't just "take our guns" without pre-exisiting registration plan. They need to take baby steps and do so legally. To make such a drastic jump that goes against the constitution and laws currently provided would be a direct attack against America's patriotism and I have no doubt people would rise up against and fight it. But if you get the people to agree to give up those rights, well, when the time comes and the government moves in the people don't have a leg to stand on.

1/13/2013 1:08:20 AM

The license idea was to replace the purchase permit (i understand no permit is needed for longrifles/shotguns). Instead of buyin a single permit, you buy a license to purchase for a year. It has nothing to do with registration of firearms or an annual upkeep as long as you own a firearm; it's simply replaces the silly 1 permit per gun rule and "forces" people to take an educational training course related specifically to the firearms they are interested in aquiring.

I'm sorry for my poor clarity and confusion on the initial discussion of this idea.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 1:12 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 1:11:24 AM

Where were these patriots when the Patriot Act was being passed?

Seems hollow when gun nuts get up in arms about the 2nd amendment, but don't put forth nearly as much effort to defending rights that actually ARE getting infringed.

And the idea of gun registration will go away, when gun nots stop comparing guns to cars.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 1:12 AM. Reason : ]

1/13/2013 1:11:38 AM

cars don't carry the same "deadly" nostalgia that firearms do. A careful look at the statistics show otherwise; more property are damaged and people injuried/killed from vehicular incidents than firearm inicidents. Yet we don't scrutinize the car.

Why do cars need more than 150 hp?
Why are they carelessly allowed to exceed greater than 85mph, the highest legal speed limit in the US?

How about some perspective on the issue here. If anti-gun people are all about saving lives, why don't we concentrate our energy, time, and resources on the problems that affect people the most first and work our ways to the lesser priorities? Answer me these.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 1:34 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 1:32:50 AM