The worst school killing was done with explosives in 1927.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
****'s sporting goods pulls AR's
- Thread starter Tempest
- Start date
- Status
[sarcasm] The only answer is to kill all bad people quickly with no questions asked. [/sarcasm .. or is it?] Swift justice like the old days might steer society in a different direction. Works for China and other countries.
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
I think there are 3 particular problems:
2) There needs to be a law on magazine capacity, I'd put it at 5 for a semi-auto. These killings are going to happen anyway but I think the body count could be lower if the shooters were slowed down more.
We really need to address the root problem and not simply try and govern behavior. Please do remember that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws so it's not like the bad guys will suddenly only have 5 round magazines.
Besides, there are many legitimate sporting reasons for large capacity magazines. A prime example is the sport of "3-gun" where competitors have actually gone to the point of using 60 or 90 round magazines so they cut their time out on the course and focus on accuracy and speed. The other example is wild pig hunting where you hunt to kill, not for the meat, and those animals don't go down with a few shots.
People will always cheat the law, a magazine limit is a comprimise that allows people to keep these weapons yet limit the mass killing potential. See if the proposals that come out of Washinton are as generous.
We need bigger magazines for sport is a pretty lame response after what happened last Friday.
Let's say such an action passes and in a few months you can only legally purchase and possess 5 round magazines. What do you think happened to all of the 20/30/xxx round magazines prior to then? Most were probably owned by law abiding citizens who will either toss 'em or put them away, but you can bet some were owned by criminals who will exchange them on the black market. They'll still circulate and be used to commit crimes, only this time the good guys are stuck with 5 round magazines. So in response to 26 humans being massacred in a small town, it is somehow better that 300 million people are suddenly less able to defend themselves against attackers?
The common thread I'm seeing here is that one side of this argument recognizes evil and prefers to have a fighting chance, while the other wants to turn the other cheek.
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
I think there are 3 particular problems:
2) There needs to be a law on magazine capacity, I'd put it at 5 for a semi-auto. These killings are going to happen anyway but I think the body count could be lower if the shooters were slowed down more.
We really need to address the root problem and not simply try and govern behavior. Please do remember that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws so it's not like the bad guys will suddenly only have 5 round magazines.
Besides, there are many legitimate sporting reasons for large capacity magazines. A prime example is the sport of "3-gun" where competitors have actually gone to the point of using 60 or 90 round magazines so they cut their time out on the course and focus on accuracy and speed. The other example is wild pig hunting where you hunt to kill, not for the meat, and those animals don't go down with a few shots.
People will always cheat the law, a magazine limit is a comprimise that allows people to keep these weapons yet limit the mass killing potential. See if the proposals that come out of Washinton are as generous.
We need bigger magazines for sport is a pretty lame response after what happened last Friday.
Let's say such an action passes and in a few months you can only legally purchase and possess 5 round magazines. What do you think happened to all of the 20/30/xxx round magazines prior to then? Most were probably owned by law abiding citizens who will either toss 'em or put them away, but you can bet some were owned by criminals who will exchange them on the black market. They'll still circulate and be used to commit crimes, only this time the good guys are stuck with 5 round magazines. So in response to 26 humans being massacred in a small town, it is somehow better that 300 million people are suddenly less able to defend themselves against attackers?
The common thread I'm seeing here is that one side of this argument recognizes evil and prefers to have a fighting chance, while the other wants to turn the other cheek.
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
Clearly you've never been under stress when firing a weapon. Having been there and done that, I can tell you that a 5-10 round magazine may not serve you well under stress.
If myself or my wife have to wake up from a dead sleep at 3am, even with my training, we're not going to be perfect shots. It may be a miss or a leg or an arm. Firing under stress is very different from your experience, which I can only assume is firing on a quiet range with no distractions. Anyone that suggests that you can always make a perfect shot when exhausted, suddenly awakened, or under extreme stress has never been in combat.
5-10 round magazine were very common in WW2 because that was the technology of the time. There's a reason there are no primary weapons with a 5-10 round capacity in today's conflicts. I'm not sure why you brought up WW2, since it isn't a valid point.
Frangible rounds, especially the 23-grain rounds that I load in my 5-7, WILL NOT leave the room they're fired in, and WILL NOT penetrate the target completely.
If myself or my wife have to wake up from a dead sleep at 3am, even with my training, we're not going to be perfect shots. It may be a miss or a leg or an arm. Firing under stress is very different from your experience, which I can only assume is firing on a quiet range with no distractions. Anyone that suggests that you can always make a perfect shot when exhausted, suddenly awakened, or under extreme stress has never been in combat.
5-10 round magazine were very common in WW2 because that was the technology of the time. There's a reason there are no primary weapons with a 5-10 round capacity in today's conflicts. I'm not sure why you brought up WW2, since it isn't a valid point.
Frangible rounds, especially the 23-grain rounds that I load in my 5-7, WILL NOT leave the room they're fired in, and WILL NOT penetrate the target completely.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
A life where an individual cannot defend himself isn't much of a life. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
A life where an individual cannot defend himself isn't much of a life. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Let's say such an action passes and in a few months you can only legally purchase and possess 5 round magazines. What do you think happened to all of the 20/30/xxx round magazines prior to then? Most were probably owned by law abiding citizens who will either toss 'em or put them away, but you can bet some were owned by criminals who will exchange them on the black market. They'll still circulate and be used to commit crimes, only this time the good guys are stuck with 5 round magazines. So in response to 26 humans being massacred in a small town, it is somehow better that 300 million people are suddenly less able to defend themselves against attackers?
The common thread I'm seeing here is that one side of this argument recognizes evil and prefers to have a fighting chance, while the other wants to turn the other cheek.
Does somebody need 20 or 30 rd to defend themselves?? If you cannot hit your target in a couple shots, you probably better stop shooting.
I agree that it would take some time to remove all high capacity magazines from the public should they be totally banned; i disagree that we should be living in fear of criminals/government/whatever.
Let's say such an action passes and in a few months you can only legally purchase and possess 5 round magazines. What do you think happened to all of the 20/30/xxx round magazines prior to then? Most were probably owned by law abiding citizens who will either toss 'em or put them away, but you can bet some were owned by criminals who will exchange them on the black market. They'll still circulate and be used to commit crimes, only this time the good guys are stuck with 5 round magazines. So in response to 26 humans being massacred in a small town, it is somehow better that 300 million people are suddenly less able to defend themselves against attackers?
The common thread I'm seeing here is that one side of this argument recognizes evil and prefers to have a fighting chance, while the other wants to turn the other cheek.
Does somebody need 20 or 30 rd to defend themselves?? If you cannot hit your target in a couple shots, you probably better stop shooting.
I agree that it would take some time to remove all high capacity magazines from the public should they be totally banned; i disagree that we should be living in fear of criminals/government/whatever.
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
Once you establish that the gun is the "problem" and not the person, you have opened the flood gates to a total ban.
You are assuming they will take the magazines you perceive to be the problem and then stop. History shows otherwise.
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
Once you establish that the gun is the "problem" and not the person, you have opened the flood gates to a total ban.
You are assuming they will take the magazines you perceive to be the problem and then stop. History shows otherwise.
5 rounds is a problem if someone is within spitting distance which is valid to the argument of defending your home; you should have no problem hitting them in that scenareo. If someone is 30-40 yards away, the argument that reloading is endangering yourself loses quite a bit of force.
I have been fortuneate enough that I have not had to shoot under fire. I do have 4 years in the Canadian Army and our training is one shot one kill. If you have the mentality that you need 20 or 30 shots then you will shoot like that, if you train yourself to conserve your shots to only usefull one then you dont need 20-30 shots to defend yourself from one to three attackers.
I have been fortuneate enough that I have not had to shoot under fire. I do have 4 years in the Canadian Army and our training is one shot one kill. If you have the mentality that you need 20 or 30 shots then you will shoot like that, if you train yourself to conserve your shots to only usefull one then you dont need 20-30 shots to defend yourself from one to three attackers.
Quote:
Does somebody need 20 or 30 rd to defend themselves??
Against whom are you defending yourself from?
Does somebody need 20 or 30 rd to defend themselves??
Against whom are you defending yourself from?
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
A life where an individual cannot defend himself isn't much of a life. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
Yessir, or a Dictatorship. Either way.
All my being able to purchase a firearm ensures is that I, a law abiding citizen, will be on even ground with the person wanting to harm myself, my family, or my countrymen.
Disarming the citizens of a country ensures that they will be helpless against whoever wants to take control, whether it be criminal or governmental.
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
A life where an individual cannot defend himself isn't much of a life. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
Yessir, or a Dictatorship. Either way.
All my being able to purchase a firearm ensures is that I, a law abiding citizen, will be on even ground with the person wanting to harm myself, my family, or my countrymen.
Disarming the citizens of a country ensures that they will be helpless against whoever wants to take control, whether it be criminal or governmental.
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
A life where an individual cannot defend himself isn't much of a life. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
A life where an individual is crippled with fear isn't much of a life either.
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
A life where an individual cannot defend himself isn't much of a life. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
A life where an individual is crippled with fear isn't much of a life either.
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
A life where an individual cannot defend himself isn't much of a life. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
This comment is such a joke, carrying firearms everyday is not a right in Canada, and this is everybit as good if not better country to live in than yours.
A life where an individual cannot defend himself isn't much of a life. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
This comment is such a joke, carrying firearms everyday is not a right in Canada, and this is everybit as good if not better country to live in than yours.
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
A life where an individual cannot defend himself isn't much of a life. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
A life where an individual is crippled with fear isn't much of a life either.
Fear of whom? A single crazy nut or a large bureaucracy who's entire reason for existing is to control what you do?
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The differnce between my point and what you are going to see comming out of Washington is in my scenareo you get to keep your gun with a smaller mag. If a total ban of these weapons come only the criminals are left with them. Given that we all know that criminals will always cheat, which scenareo do you want to be in?
A life where an individual cannot defend himself isn't much of a life. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
A life where an individual is crippled with fear isn't much of a life either.
Fear of whom? A single crazy nut or a large bureaucracy who's entire reason for existing is to control what you do?
A life where an individual is crippled with fear isn't much of a life either. [/quote]
Ever read 1984?
Ever read 1984?
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Yessir, or a Dictatorship. Either way.
All my being able to purchase a firearm ensures is that I, a law abiding citizen, will be on even ground with the person wanting to harm myself, my family, or my countrymen.
Disarming the citizens of a country ensures that they will be helpless against whoever wants to take control, whether it be criminal or governmental.
Well there is really no point arguing with anyone who thinks everything in life is an all or nothing proposition.
Yessir, or a Dictatorship. Either way.
All my being able to purchase a firearm ensures is that I, a law abiding citizen, will be on even ground with the person wanting to harm myself, my family, or my countrymen.
Disarming the citizens of a country ensures that they will be helpless against whoever wants to take control, whether it be criminal or governmental.
Well there is really no point arguing with anyone who thinks everything in life is an all or nothing proposition.
Last edited:
Fear of whom? A single crazy nut or a large bureaucracy who's entire reason for existing is to control what you do? [/quote]
Both. The federal government was not created to have direct control over me, as a citizen. It was created for me, as a citizen, to have direct control over it.
You tell me how it is today.
Both. The federal government was not created to have direct control over me, as a citizen. It was created for me, as a citizen, to have direct control over it.
You tell me how it is today.
Well there is really no point arguing with anyone who thinks life is an all or nothing proposition. [/quote]
If you're not living "all or nothing," then you're living a life of comfortable mediocrity.
If you're not living "all or nothing," then you're living a life of comfortable mediocrity.
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Well there is really no point arguing with anyone who thinks life is an all or nothing proposition.
Do you have a right to defend yourself or not?
Seems pretty all or nothing to me.
Well there is really no point arguing with anyone who thinks life is an all or nothing proposition.
Do you have a right to defend yourself or not?
Seems pretty all or nothing to me.
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Let's say such an action passes and in a few months you can only legally purchase and possess 5 round magazines. What do you think happened to all of the 20/30/xxx round magazines prior to then? Most were probably owned by law abiding citizens who will either toss 'em or put them away, but you can bet some were owned by criminals who will exchange them on the black market. They'll still circulate and be used to commit crimes, only this time the good guys are stuck with 5 round magazines. So in response to 26 humans being massacred in a small town, it is somehow better that 300 million people are suddenly less able to defend themselves against attackers?
The common thread I'm seeing here is that one side of this argument recognizes evil and prefers to have a fighting chance, while the other wants to turn the other cheek.
Does somebody need 20 or 30 rd to defend themselves?? If you cannot hit your target in a couple shots, you probably better stop shooting.
I agree that it would take some time to remove all high capacity magazines from the public should they be totally banned; i disagree that we should be living in fear of criminals/government/whatever.
I see it as disadvantageous to assume that I'll always confront only one attacker. There is no guarantee of such in life.
During civil unrest, expect to see people band together to loot. In this event I want as large a magazine I can have that still functions.
Case in point:
Looters in Koreatown during the LA Riots
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Let's say such an action passes and in a few months you can only legally purchase and possess 5 round magazines. What do you think happened to all of the 20/30/xxx round magazines prior to then? Most were probably owned by law abiding citizens who will either toss 'em or put them away, but you can bet some were owned by criminals who will exchange them on the black market. They'll still circulate and be used to commit crimes, only this time the good guys are stuck with 5 round magazines. So in response to 26 humans being massacred in a small town, it is somehow better that 300 million people are suddenly less able to defend themselves against attackers?
The common thread I'm seeing here is that one side of this argument recognizes evil and prefers to have a fighting chance, while the other wants to turn the other cheek.
Does somebody need 20 or 30 rd to defend themselves?? If you cannot hit your target in a couple shots, you probably better stop shooting.
I agree that it would take some time to remove all high capacity magazines from the public should they be totally banned; i disagree that we should be living in fear of criminals/government/whatever.
I see it as disadvantageous to assume that I'll always confront only one attacker. There is no guarantee of such in life.
During civil unrest, expect to see people band together to loot. In this event I want as large a magazine I can have that still functions.
Case in point:
Looters in Koreatown during the LA Riots
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Gabe
A life where an individual is crippled with fear isn't much of a life either.
Fear of whom? A single crazy nut or a large bureaucracy who's entire reason for existing is to control what you do?
I don't know; you tell me. Why do people feel the need to have military grade firearms with high capacity magazines?? Is it protection from the government, criminals, zombies, drug addicts, or something else?? I don't understand why they are so afraid.
Originally Posted By: Gabe
A life where an individual is crippled with fear isn't much of a life either.
Fear of whom? A single crazy nut or a large bureaucracy who's entire reason for existing is to control what you do?
I don't know; you tell me. Why do people feel the need to have military grade firearms with high capacity magazines?? Is it protection from the government, criminals, zombies, drug addicts, or something else?? I don't understand why they are so afraid.
- Status
