HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Can anyone provide a reas...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:24 AM

Can anyone provide a reason for more than 3 rounds?

Honestly, when hunting if you miss with your first shot, then you probably won't get a second chance.

I can see no reason for magazines that hold more than 3 rounds, except for target shooting. I can see it for target shooting in a controlled environment, but in the Real World why would it ever be necessary?

I don't care what kind of weapon you have, as long as the size of your mag is restricted.

I say 3. I'll compromise at 5. Beyond that, you're just looking to kill innocents. OK, I'll accept 6 for revolvers only, but no more than 3 for shotguns.

If anyone is using their weapon for the reasons they claim they are, why would they need more?

205 replies, 11010 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 205 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can anyone provide a reason for more than 3 rounds? (Original post)
NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 OP
Brother Buzz Dec 2012 #1
LineLineReply .
NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #3
safeinOhio Dec 2012 #39
Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #110
Bucky Jan 2013 #199
Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #203
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #2
NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #5
LP2K12 Dec 2012 #43
reverend_tim Dec 2012 #107
LP2K12 Dec 2012 #109
Bandit Dec 2012 #108
beevul Dec 2012 #148
PavePusher Jan 2013 #191
Darque Wing Dec 2012 #123
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #4
NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #6
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #11
Drahthaardogs Dec 2012 #40
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #45
Drahthaardogs Dec 2012 #146
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #14
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #19
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #21
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #172
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #174
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #182
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #185
Bucky Jan 2013 #200
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #202
Recursion Dec 2012 #20
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #22
Straw Man Jan 2013 #179
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #32
Hugabear Dec 2012 #62
doc03 Dec 2012 #65
jberryhill Dec 2012 #7
krispos42 Dec 2012 #8
NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #10
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #42
99Forever Dec 2012 #84
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #153
Berserker Dec 2012 #171
99Forever Jan 2013 #176
Xithras Jan 2013 #190
99Forever Jan 2013 #194
FrodosPet Dec 2012 #13
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #15
krispos42 Dec 2012 #88
Fresh_Start Dec 2012 #104
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #157
krispos42 Dec 2012 #162
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #164
Confusious Dec 2012 #38
krispos42 Dec 2012 #140
Bake Dec 2012 #136
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #9
NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #12
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #16
Recursion Dec 2012 #18
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #23
Atomsk Dec 2012 #26
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #33
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #53
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #60
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #66
oldhippie Dec 2012 #69
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #71
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #73
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #82
jmg257 Dec 2012 #83
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #99
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #161
99Forever Dec 2012 #86
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #87
99Forever Dec 2012 #94
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #98
99Forever Dec 2012 #105
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #120
99Forever Dec 2012 #135
PavePusher Jan 2013 #192
beevul Dec 2012 #149
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2012 #27
Barack_America Dec 2012 #70
Dash87 Dec 2012 #106
Marinedem Dec 2012 #168
Recursion Dec 2012 #17
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #34
Recursion Dec 2012 #50
laundry_queen Jan 2013 #180
Atomsk Dec 2012 #24
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2012 #28
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #77
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2012 #152
Kolesar Dec 2012 #29
Robb Dec 2012 #51
SQUEE Dec 2012 #68
Robb Dec 2012 #74
SQUEE Dec 2012 #81
oldhippie Dec 2012 #119
oldhippie Dec 2012 #72
Robb Dec 2012 #75
oldhippie Dec 2012 #118
beevul Dec 2012 #150
PavePusher Jan 2013 #193
Capt. Obvious Dec 2012 #25
Kolesar Dec 2012 #30
2on2u Dec 2012 #31
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #35
bowens43 Dec 2012 #36
ileus Dec 2012 #37
safeinOhio Dec 2012 #41
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #47
safeinOhio Dec 2012 #48
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #63
morningfog Dec 2012 #44
SQUEE Dec 2012 #46
morningfog Dec 2012 #52
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #59
morningfog Dec 2012 #64
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #89
apocalypsehow Jan 2013 #177
jmg257 Dec 2012 #49
guardian Dec 2012 #54
GoneOffShore Dec 2012 #58
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #55
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #56
slackmaster Dec 2012 #57
Chisox08 Dec 2012 #156
geckosfeet Dec 2012 #61
crazyjoe Dec 2012 #67
Robb Dec 2012 #76
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #102
crazyjoe Dec 2012 #147
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #151
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #78
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #101
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #112
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #116
oldhippie Dec 2012 #121
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #125
oldhippie Dec 2012 #142
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #155
oldhippie Dec 2012 #158
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #159
oldhippie Dec 2012 #163
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #165
oldhippie Dec 2012 #167
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #169
leveymg Dec 2012 #79
Purveyor Dec 2012 #80
oldhippydude Dec 2012 #85
rrneck Dec 2012 #90
Separation Dec 2012 #91
DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #95
Hangingon Dec 2012 #113
DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #117
oldhippie Dec 2012 #122
DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #126
NickB79 Dec 2012 #130
Glassunion Dec 2012 #132
DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #138
Hangingon Jan 2013 #188
NickB79 Jan 2013 #198
DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #141
MicaelS Dec 2012 #131
DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #139
oldhippie Dec 2012 #143
DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #145
oldhippie Dec 2012 #154
Straw Man Jan 2013 #178
DrewFlorida Jan 2013 #183
Straw Man Jan 2013 #184
NickB79 Jan 2013 #197
Marinedem Dec 2012 #170
Hangingon Jan 2013 #186
PavePusher Jan 2013 #196
DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #92
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #100
Glassunion Dec 2012 #129
PavePusher Jan 2013 #195
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #93
DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #96
Glassunion Dec 2012 #128
Ter Dec 2012 #97
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #103
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #111
madrchsod Dec 2012 #114
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #115
Zax2me Dec 2012 #124
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #127
Historic NY Dec 2012 #133
Jenoch Dec 2012 #134
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #137
OmahaBlueDog Dec 2012 #144
X_Digger Dec 2012 #160
JoeyT Dec 2012 #166
oneshooter Dec 2012 #173
JoeyT Jan 2013 #175
slackmaster Jan 2013 #187
Sparky 1 Jan 2013 #181
PavePusher Jan 2013 #189
Speck Tater Jan 2013 #201
Name removed Apr 2013 #204
MrScorpio Apr 2013 #205

Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:35 AM

1. Ranchers with bum eyes and iron sights pitted against wiley coyotes might want more




Edited because I can't speil for shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:41 AM

3. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:32 AM

39. You've never taken a shot at a coyote and missed.

If you blink after that shot, you'll never see em again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:22 PM

110. Perhaps they should hunt Wiley Coyote with an Anvil or a Piano...

You only need one of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #110)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:47 PM

199. You can have my piano when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers

or knuckles, if I'm playing chopsticks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #199)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:43 PM

203. Ok, we can kill him with an anvil.

I am a post conflict kind of guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:37 AM

2. What I ask the guys around here on things like that -

one guy has a 30 round magazine for a handgun - what if 31 guys are coming at you? Or the guy who has stockpiled 2,000 rounds for his AR, for "home defense" - what if two thousand and one guys have got you hemmed in?

Its like so many things, and has little to do with reality or practicality. People want stuff just because its available, and its "more and better" than what they have already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:44 AM

5. That pretty much sums it up. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:56 AM

43. 30 round magazine...

plus 1 chambered equals 31.

Give me a 5 round magazine and I'll be able to chamber 1 and carry 6 rounds.

Give me 3 round magazine and I'll chamber 1 and carry 4.

It's stupid, but it's true. My father for example always has a round chambered in his pistol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LP2K12 (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:18 PM

107. I never have a round chambered

But then I do not do hand guns.
I am not a great shot, that is why I have a 12 gage.
I have found the sound of chambering a round can be very effective.
It may also be FOR ME more effective then blasting in your general direction.
Two more months and I get to move to a better neighborhood.
3 Tucson police cars spent most of the night before last, in the parking lot next door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reverend_tim (Reply #107)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:21 PM

109. I agree with you.

I don't keep anything chambered in my firearms. I believe the sound could be enough to scare an intruder and since killing is not an easy thing I'd rather scare an intruder if they made it past my front door and up the stairs.

Just felt the need to point out that some do chamber and it defeats a set limit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:20 PM

108. What about three rounds only for shotguns

That has been a federal Law for half a century and no one seems to find it unbearable.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #108)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:25 PM

148. What federal law? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #108)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 01:48 PM

191. Citation?

 

It sounds like your refering to the federal migratory birds hunting law mandating 3 or fewer rounds in a shotgun. But that does not affect any other shotgun application at all. Many pump-action and semi-auto shotguns hold 8-10 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:26 PM

123. Arms Race

Well, that would mean an arms race, in which people are being sold ever more deadly firearms in order to face down "bad guys" (who get their guns by stealing from the people who bought them legally, so, therefore, are using the same more deadly firearms). In order to maintain such an arms race, there would have to be someone constantly pushing it, either out of a desire to see more dead people, or perhaps for the sake of greater profits.

Like the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:41 AM

4. Four assailants?

 

It's a pretty rare occurrence, but I'm sure it's happened. More realistically, maybe one or two assailants and a missed shot or two...? Look at some of the stats on police shootings; you have three or four cops dumping like 60 round into one or two perp's. Clearly, even "highly trained" (lol) individuals miss the mark sometimes.

FYI, my new shotgun holds fifteen 12 gauge shots. Should be great for deer season.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:48 AM

6. so, if "highly trained" shooters miss that much

why would you think you can do any better?

And you are really using 15 12-gauge shots for hunting deer? Seriously? All I know is that I don't want to go hunting with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:52 AM

11. Highly trained was in quotes because cops, by most observations,

 

appear to be terrible shots. Seriously, dig up some statistics comparing civilian CCW versus cop shootings. I shoot in handgun competitions recreationally. I always place towards the front 20% of the pack, so I guess you could say I'm better than average for a normal competitor. I would say a normal competitor is WAY better than just a average-recreational shooter though. Occasionally we get some state trooper or townie cop that shows up to a weekly match with their chest all puffed up... 'gonna show them civvies how its done'. They'll have on a duty utility belt or issue weapon & holster or something. Sometimes it's a army guy home on leave or something. Nevertheless, they typically get their asses handed to them filling one the last slots by the end of the night. Always good for a laugh when the regulars go out for a drink afterwards. Are there good shooting cops? Yes... but most aren't that good. Thing is, a "gun nut" probably shoots 300-1000+ rounds a month. Most beat/patrol cops shoot a few mags through their guns to qualify once or twice per year and it collects dust the rest of the time. 90%+ of a cops job has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with learning, knowing, and enforcing legal minutiae or other skills. Some cops go their entire career never drawing their weapon - not every cop is a SWAT tactical guru.

So do I think I could do any better? Yes. I would bet serious money that I can shoot better than the average beat cop or security guard at a police station. And I'm sure they do the other 90% of their job way way better than me.


Ohio has 3 round limit on deer hunting. I'll just put a plug in the mag tube(s) to limit the gun to 3 rounds if I'm out for deer on public hunting land. Shotguns are good for more than just hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:37 AM

40. 15 round 12 gauge?

Where do you come up with this stuff? I shot trap on our high school team and bird hunted for years. I know of only one shotgun that holds 15 rounds, and I know no one who owns it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:58 AM

45. If you are thinking of a KSG,

 

you are correct, sir!

2 year waiting list... TWO YEARS. Well worth the wait. The only thing, as far as hunting goes, is whether an EOTech qualifies as a laser or light projecting sight. Can't hunt with anything that projects/emits light (law aimed at no-spotlighting). @ 24 inches, it should be a breeze carrying through brush - although a little chunky for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:46 PM

146. To be honest, I would rather spend $1000

on a nice Benelli semi-auto if I was going to drop a grand on a gun. Maybe a nice Ruger Red Label O/U.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:06 AM

14. If you manage to drill one, do you think the other 3 are going to stick around for the reload?

You can't compare home defense to what cops do. Cops aren't on defense. Cops are on offense. As such they pursue bad guys who often don't particularly like getting caught. This isn't the same situation as making it worthwhile for the bad guy to go somewhere else.

If you really want to go down the road of being realistic, the reality is that owning a gun makes you less safe, not more safe. If you want to be more safe, don't own a gun. Any argument for safety that includes a gun has failed right out of the gate.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:41 AM

19. Most of my guns are for recreation. Not really for home defense.

 

Although, over time I did start keeping one of them loaded in the nightstand. No bid deal, IMO. No young kids of my own yet and none visit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:52 AM

21. I have no issues with that

I shot skeet for many years and may again someday. I still have my Remington 3200 barrel set in the gun safe and my reloader in the garage. I'm not against the concept of owning guns, but I just don't buy the self defense argument for guns. I recognize that owning a gun makes me less safe, not more safe. If someone is truly that concerned about keeping themselves and their family safe, they shouldn't own a gun. There are far more effective ways to do it that aren't counterproductive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:11 PM

172. That study is deeply flawed.

It does not separate legal (Law abiding folks) and illegal (Criminals) gun owners into different groups, but instead treats them all as gun owners, and it includes the suicides. It is well known that criminals keep guns too, and are targeted by other criminals. Divide them into separate groups, and you will find that being a criminal is extremely dangerous. In the majority of homicides, the victim has a criminal record.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm
SNIP
In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.
SNIP

How many of those dead criminals do you think had guns? Maybe almost all of them?

To try to make a claim about gun and the law-abiding on the basis of criminals and guns is ridiculous.


Do you really believe that a gun broadcasts a mind control field that says, "Kill yourself"? If a person has decided to commit suicide, not having a gun won't stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #172)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:33 PM

174. You obviously have a very poor understanding of how case controlled studies work

Case controlled studies exclude cases that are non-homogeneous. I'm just making up numbers to explain how it works, but let's say 90% of the cases were from victims with a criminal record, yet only 20% of the general population had a criminal record, then the study would be obviously flawed as you describe. That's why they correct for those types of situations by excluding or oversampling cases. It's pretty typical for a case controlled study to exclude more than half of the cases or even the vast majority of them before any statistical analysis is determined to control for exactly the types of situations you describe.

And no, I don't believe any such ridiculous notion that you are describing. I'm simply pointing to a case controlled study derived using empirical methods that were evaluated and approved by the CDC with the results published in a peer reviewed journal. If you think you can dismiss it that easily, be my guest, but I find your arguments wholly unconvincing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #174)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:39 AM

182. I understand case control very well. I also understand bias.

Show me a study (Must be free to see online) that specifically controls for criminality. Such control must be explicit, not merely implied. You are trying to imply causation by correlation, but there can be a different cause for each. Being a viiolent criminal, and living with a violent criminal, is very dangerous.

I don't have much trust in medical types that want to play criminologist. I would rather trust criminologist in those fields.

Notice that in the CDC web page for statistics, they do not have a category for "armed self defense". They call it "undetermined intent". Even police shootings are called, "legal intervention". http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

The medical studies, and gun controllers, make no effort to count lives saved by having guns. It is as if they don't exist. Yet, from personal experience I know that such cases do exist as my own wife is one such case. She is alive because she had a gun when she needed one. (I have posted the story multiple times.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #182)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:58 AM

185. There are numerous studies which show the same thing

So you are free to do your own research and find one that suits you (or not). I'm not going to keep posting studies simply for you to poke holes in them that make absolutely no sense. Furthermore it seems as if every pro-gun person has an anecdotal account of how a gun save their life or a life of a loved one. I don't really put much stock in anecdotal evidence from anonymous sources which can in no way be verified and from a public policy standpoint they would be of no value even if they could be verified. I have yet to see one single credible study that suggests guns make anyone safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:52 PM

200. I lost track. Are you talking about criminals, coyotes, or deer with that question?

Of course you could be talking about shooting Oxford Journal writers. I'm sure they scatter when you shoot one of their pack, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #200)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:04 PM

202. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:42 AM

20. Back in the Marine Corps...

... the estimate was 2% of rounds fired hit the target, and that is from the branch of service with the highest marksmanship requirements and most thorough rifle training. *shrug*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:55 AM

22. I'll keep that in mind for the next time I go to war with the neighbors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:49 AM

179. Not exactly analogous.

Back in the Marine Corps...

... the estimate was 2% of rounds fired hit the target, and that is from the branch of service with the highest marksmanship requirements and most thorough rifle training. *shrug*

Those stats come from combat scenarios, where there is extensive use of suppressive fire. Filling the air with lead so that the enemy has to keep his head down isn't conducive to a high hit ratio, but it was never meant to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:58 AM

32. "Pumping 60 rounds into one or two perps"

From which you conclude that they missed a lot, rather than they were having a psychotic break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:15 AM

62. You just made the case for large capacity magazines

What if you have 20 assailants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:31 AM

65. That thing would weigh a ton loaded. We have a 3 round limit in Ohio for deer n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:51 AM

7. Depends on who's buyin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:18 AM

8. Because it's not enough for pretty much any self-defense scenario that I can think of.



Contrary to action movies, bullets don't blast the bad guy through a wall, or drop them immediately and permanently to the ground. Barring a head shot, it takes time for a shot bad guy to become immobile. Time where a desperate attacker can still hurt you or your family.

This assumes a solid hit. Misses and flesh wounds are also a possibility, even a probability.

And this also assumes one attacker.


Lemme ask you a counter-question. Somebody's breaking into your house. Your spouse is on the phone with 911. You grab a gun. How many rounds do you want in that gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:52 AM

10. I'm not grabbing a gun. I'm letting my dog take care of them.

A gun is discriminate, as you so well stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:47 AM

42. Yeah, because no invader has ever shot a dog...

 

Oh wait, yes they have...

Gun beats dog...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:04 PM

84. Hogwash.

1 gun hugger vs my 2 GSDs = 1 chew toy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:36 PM

153. Big loud barking targets ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #153)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:30 PM

171. Not if he has

 

bullet proof dogs. Or maybe his bad guys don't carry guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #153)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:39 AM

176. Snarling, biting, flesh...

.. ripping, VERY fast, VERY smart, VERY well trained, "moving targets" with but one mission in life.


"Are ya feeling lucky? Go ahead... "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 01:43 PM

190. My dads dobie spent half its life blind after a robbery.

Dog went after the thieves, one of them nailed the dog in the head with some kind of metal bar (we think it was the crowbar they used on the door), and the dog ceased to be a problem. It ended up losing one eye, and was half blind in the other for the rest of its life. We were just thankful that the dog survived and that my dad wasn't home at the time.

People put way too much faith in a dogs ability to protect them. Dogs are just as vulnerable to physical injury as humans are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #190)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 02:03 PM

194. Really?

I'll take my chances, thank you very much.

Some things I know for an absolute certainty, my German Shepard Dogs will NEVER harm one of our family and we don't have to keep them locked up in a safe to keep them from being a menace to innocent people.

As I understand it, a gun purchased to "protect" a household, is 20x more likely to kill or maim family or friends than it ever is to thwart a "bad guy."

Next NRA bullshit talking point, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:33 AM

13. Once, on one of those A&E Mafia shows

They had a story about a snitch, a big guy, who was shot 9 times. Apparently, after beating his two shooters to death he went home. After a while, he decided it would probably be a good idea to go to the hospital. He survived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:15 AM

15. Lemme ask you a counter-question

Do you think owning a gun makes you and your family more safe, or less safe?

There's only one right answer.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:10 PM

88. That's overall.

Since I'm not depressive, abusive, or a career criminal, I bet I'm different than 'average".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #88)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:06 PM

104. I'm sure most of the people who had guns which were used to kill family members

also thought they weren't average.

Rejecting the facts....
isn't going to help anyone

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #88)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:50 PM

157. Everyone is subject to depression

Lose your job, significant other splits, have a personal or family medical tragedy, or lots of other things can trigger depression. Nobody is immune to it. I'm sure lots of other gun owners who killed themselves or family members or had family members kill themselves or had an accident thought they were better than average also.

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #157)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:43 PM

162. True

But I'm divorced. I've had my heart ripped out by betrayal and infidelity. Never fell into depression, never considered suicide.

I think I'll be okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #162)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:53 PM

164. You probably will be

Most gun owners have the odds in their favor as well. However, from a public policy standpoint that doesn't mean we have to wait until the odds shift past the halfway point to take action. Most drivers and passengers will never be killed in an auto accident. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to make roads safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:27 AM

38. I think you need more guns and bullets

I foresee 1,342 attackers, so you need at least 44 assault rifles with 30 rounds apiece.

Better get spending!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:23 PM

140. At that point, it's time for my nuclear hand grenade!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:56 PM

136. In that scenario I want 15 + 1 in the chamber.

And a second full magazine just in case.



Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:20 AM

9. Who needs a sports car? Why not eliminate all things we don't think people need

They we will be a really happy society....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:53 AM

12. Now you're just being ridicuolus.

Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:23 AM

16. Why not let people buy RPGs, hand grenades, and cluster bombs?

If someone comes at me with a street sweeper, I'd like to have an RPG and a couple of grenades for good luck.

Then we will truly be a safe society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:41 AM

18. The RPG is just a metal tube; you can easily buy that today

The grenade itself isn't very useful against personnel, for the most part, which is probably why they've been heavily restricted since the 1930's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:58 AM

23. What do you think about claymores and flame throwers?

Tactical nukes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:27 AM

26. Those are not firearms

They are explosives/incendiary devices that by their inherent nature are relatively incapable of being "discriminately" targeted. Claymores cannot be aimed at a specific target, they will hit anyone who happens to walk by. They dont even require an active operator. You place them and then walk away. They are an anti-personnel landmine, which as you should already know are technically banned by the Ottawa Treaty. Tactical nukes level entire cities, the reasons why that is a problem and could have no possible civilian use should be extremely obvious. And flamethrowers, while not readily available for purchase, are simply a device which shoots fire out of the end, a classification which many civilian devices that ARE legal would easily fall under.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atomsk (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:59 AM

33. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say firearms

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:52 AM

53. We know it means firearms. We have the Federlist Papers and the Congressional Records...

... of the proposed bill of rights that passed Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:05 AM

60. Doesn't matter

Scalia says you have to go by the plain text.

For further reading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_meaning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:42 AM

66. Citing the Federalist Papers is an example of Originalism. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:54 AM

69. And an NRA talking point. nt

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:57 AM

71. And common throughout the legal realm, used by many groups, both liberal and conservative.

The right to privacy relies heavily on Originalism argument. Especially in modern day with our social networks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:04 AM

73. So where does it say firearms?

A complete search of the Federalist Papers yields zip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:34 AM

82. It uses arms, but the context makes it clear it was firearms.

We hadn't just fought a war with swords, pikes, and maces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:37 AM

83. Just refer to the 1st Militia act - intent is VERY easy to see.

And swords were included...and pistols, and accoutrements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #83)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:46 PM

99. Understand your point.

I realize swords are also arms, but that wasn't what was being challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #83)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:20 PM

161. Which is completely irrelevant to Scalia's argument

And even if it weren't, if swords were included, then it's pretty obvious that it wasn't just firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:07 PM

86. It also says....

... WELL REGULATED MILITIA, but you gun huggers don't seem to even notice that, do ya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #86)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:08 PM

87. Do you even know what it means?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:27 PM

94. Yes I do...

... but then I don't have a gun fetish or an insane need to think I am Rambo or Dirty Harry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #94)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:44 PM

98. I have neither of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #98)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:06 PM

105. Of course you don't.

Not a single gun hugging, fetishist will EVER admit that embarrassing, inconvenient truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #105)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:22 PM

120. Because it's not true in most cases.

Not that someone with such a radical non-Democratic view would ever acknowledge that. Hell, you sling out name calling in every post just to ensure I realize you have nothing but contempt for anyone (anyone) who owns guns.

Democratic Party Platform:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

But you can't have that honest conversation can you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #120)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:42 PM

135. Blather on.

It's all over 'cept the shouting.

The worm has turded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #135)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 01:54 PM

192. Yes. You have. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:28 PM

149. Flame throwers are classified as agricultural devices. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:29 AM

27. Just Hummers that aren't in a war zone .

Or would that impede your feelings of Freedom or Democracy .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:55 AM

70. That's a mature argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:12 PM

106. Has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

We're talking about limiting magazine size, not banning guns. Most states (if not all) already have magazine limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dash87 (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:09 PM

168. False.

 

Six do.

Mmmmmm, mmmmmm. High capacity facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:39 AM

17. Feral pigs. Plus ten rounds has been pretty standard for over 100 years

Most shotguns with internal magazines hold five, and have for a while.

A lot of target courses go in multiples of five, so I don't think five would be a big problem for target shooters.

The bigger issue is what to do about the hundreds of millions of higher-capacity magazines already out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:00 AM

34. Canada required that they all be either disposed of or modified.

Seems to have been an easy problem for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:19 AM

50. How many were disposed of or modified? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:59 AM

180. Put it this way

law-abiding gun owners probably aren't going to want to get caught with one and face federal firearms offences. So they will dispose or modify them. The ones that are in criminal hands slowly get confiscated over time. With no new ones being sold, some crazy mass-shooter wanna-be can't order one up and over time has a harder time finding one second hand, unless he knews which criminals to go buy them from. Eventually, they get weeded out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:18 AM

24. I dont follow your logic

So its ok for someone to be able to shoot 3 people, but not 4 or 5?

Guns arent used just for hunting. And yes, even trained shooters miss when filled with adrenaline. And if youre massacring unarmed people, reloading isnt an issue. Reloading is only an issue when youre under fire from someone else. So if two armed people attack you, and all you have is 3 bullets, you better hope youre the World's Best Marksman or youre probably going to be killed.

Magazine size restrictions do not, IN ANY WAY, address the issue of violent unhinged people choosing to kill in the first place. So no matter what restrictions you place on magazine sizes or barrel and stock lengths or whatever other meaningless ephemera the ATF uses (and which they have openly admitted is completely arbitrary and based on no factual or statistical evidence of any real-world effect), you are not addressing the problem, and you will still continue to have the exact same number of violent acts. Guns are used to kill, but they in no way motivate or inspire people TO kill. What motivates people to kill are mental illnesses, drugs (which creates artificially-induced mental illness), and the massive social and economic suffering caused by decades of right-wing policies, policies which im afraid will now continue unabated due to Democratic politicians yet again falling into the Gun Control trap Republicans laid of for them, squandering their election chances in 2014 and 2016, and handing what was shaping up to be a demographically-inevitable Permanent Democratic Majority right back to the GOP Tea Party. Dont forget we had an Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004. What good did it do us? Did the country get better or worse off? Did it prevent 9/11, which was allegedly done using box cutters? Did it prevent Americans from murdering millions of innocent foreigners? Did it prevent the millions of instances of economic violence visited upon the American people day after day after day?

Anyone who talks about disarming the civilian population, without also talking of disarming the police and the military, and the privately held security companies of the 1%, is nothing other than an agent of state power, seeking to create more upward asymmetry in the distribution of power. And isnt it funny how the "solutions" from those in power always involve taking away something the people already have, and never giving them more of what they need? I wonder why that is...


“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” - Karl Marx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atomsk (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:32 AM

28. Notice Stalin didn't catch that nifty quote from Marx . Welcome to DU !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orpupilofnature57 (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:09 AM

77. Indeed he didn't.

Ol' Joe was actually a pretty piss-poor communist. Dandy totalitarian dictator, though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:20 PM

152. +1000 !!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atomsk (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:38 AM

29. IIRC, you wanted a list of people you thought were "mental" so you could ghettoize them

Then sell more guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atomsk (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:29 AM

51. Oh, please. The asymmetry between civilians and the state is absolute and insurmountable.

You do not have a helicopter. More saliently, you do not have 500 helicopters.

The planet where civilians can exercise an armed response to perceived slights is hundreds of years behind us. Ballot and soap box, that's it. Ammo box is pipe dream of children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:49 AM

68. Then mere possibility of armed response by the people

is a check in the checks and balances of American government.
People really don't get how asymmetrical warfare works.
No one is going to go toe to toe with an Abrams or Apache, not at first at least, but MANPADS and ATW will be "lost" as sympathizers in the ranks leave with their kit. Syria ring a bell, how about Yugoslavia? or even Libya... If I recall we are cheering these people on. Also soldiers need to eat and tanks and aircraft are thirsty beasts. POL and Ammo depots are soft enough targets without factoring in sabotage by personal sympathetic to the "cause"..
As an aside, having been a grunt, the majority of the "tip of the spear" are conservative red staters, the possibility of mutiny, desertion and outright fratricide in the scenarios above are more likely than not.
I do not rely on the MIC for my safety, nor do I have any illusion on where the loyalties of the JCS and Pentagon lie.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:06 AM

74. Utter fantasy. And if you were a "grunt" you didn't pay attention.

This insane Hutatree fiction of soldiers breaking ranks to join your insurrection is too sad to be properly laughable; you raise arms against US troops and you will be cut down wholly, and without a moment's hesitation.

There is nothing more despicable to a soldier than a traitor. Had you served outside the Michigan Militia -- or the 101st Chairborne -- you would know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:18 AM

81. I paid attention well enough to notice a metric shit ton

Of "rebel flag" tats and hear a lot of Charlie Daniels playing in the barracks on a Saturday night. Face it, Junior ain't gonna shoot his pa and cousins, and as for my insurrection, yeah, OK. I can only talk about the people I served with and what the talk was back then.
Again you keep trusting the power interests of the .Gov and their masters on Wall Street.
Funny how many find the idea of patriotism and jingoistic nationalism juvenile and funny.. But are willing to bet their lives on it daily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:16 PM

119. I wasn't a grunt, but I paid attention .....

.... and my 40 years with the US Army tells me you are way wrong.

How many years were you in? And when?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:00 AM

72. Col. Muammar Gaddafi will be glad to hear that ....

... he had tanks, troops, helicopters, missiles, and jet fighters .

Oh, wait .........

Mr. Assad has all the same plus chemical weapons to use against those pesky civilians, too. He will be glad to hear your assessment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:07 AM

75. Because the Libyan army is just like the USMC.

I'm looking for a big enough facepalm and falling short.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #75)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:11 PM

118. You will refuse to get the point, so ......

.... Happy New Year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:33 PM

150. Those helicopters didn't seem to be of much use against the beltway snipers.

/shrug

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 02:00 PM

193. Syria did not get your memos.

 

Nor did Lybia, Viet Nam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Egypt, Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, China, Russia, Spain....

All within the last 100 years. Many quite recent...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:19 AM

25. I thought this was going to be about UFC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:39 AM

30. Or budget negotiations...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:39 AM

31. There are those times when you are accosted by 4 muggers.... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:03 AM

35. If you are a self appointed community watch guard and you see a kid who is obviously black

in your neighborhood, that could be very scary, and after you chase him down it would be a real good idea to have 15 or 30 rounds ready to shoot him with so that only you have a story to tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:11 AM

36. well suppose you have a big family or several coworkers......don't want to have to reload.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:16 AM

37. Trained officers have a 17% hit ratio.

In the real world in SD situations 3 rounds won't typically stop an attacker if it's a pistol round. The odds of getting three or 6 well placed rounds on target isn't even in the cards for trained LEO's and Military.


I'd be willing to accept a 15 round mag limit (with 30's GF'd in)

15 rounds is pretty typical mag capacity for your normal personal safety device for the home. Ten would be acceptable outside the home, but no less than 10. Shotguns I'd push the upper limit to 15 for SD units.

If anyone is using their firearm for it's intended purposes we'd not even need magazine limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:42 AM

41. Real world?

Perhaps you can cite 4 or 5 "real world" cases where a civilian used 15 rounds in a self-defense situation. Those would be out of the thousands of real world self-defense cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:38 AM

47. Beckwith fired 105 rounds defending his home & store.

 

Had an AR15, S&W M76 SMG, Shotgun and .44mag revolver.

http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:44 AM

48. That's a nice armed security story about a high volume

gun store. You own one?
Now try for a normal home invasion or street robbery. I've never been able to find one where 10 rounds were needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:15 AM

63. In the real world

Massively outgunning the opposition is the best way to avoid having to kill them.

You want them to run off. You want to be able to let loose a spray of fire that sends them running.

Three rounds may let you put a bullet through the home invader's chest or head as they round the corner of the living room, but it certainly won't let you use a spray of fire to back them out of the house.

Regardless of your apparent belief system, those who have guns for the purposes of self-defense don't actually want to have to shoot someone. It's the nutcases who go out to murder who do.

The more undergunned you are, the more likely you are going to have to actually shoot someone. Maybe that's better than letting Granny or the kids run the risk, but it still sucks to high heaven.

You've probably never known anyone who actually had to shoot and kill in a home invasion. I have. He saved the lives of the girls involved, but he killed three people to do it, and it has always haunted him. That's something I would never wish on anyone. But it was a gang of five guys and all he had was a shotgun, and yes, they were armed. When they were just robbing the kids (this was an apartment of two young students and they were having a party, so there were girls there plus another guy, I believe), he didn't do anything. But when it became clear that it was going further, he acted.

The grand jury had no doubts as to the rightness of his action. He faced no legal liability, and indeed the others involved are sure that he saved all their lives. In his hometown he is considered something of a hero.

But all that doesn't make him feel better about it.

A shotgun is a great way to kill a person who has broken into your house. And anyone who knows weapons and sees one should think twice, but you'll have to expose yourself to the criminal generally in order to do that.

Life sucks - sometimes all your options are very bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:57 AM

44. Treatment for erectile dysfunction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:33 AM

46. ..And that explains my Fiance, or my sisters

Rifle and hand gun choices how exactly. So tiresome the sexist attacks on gun owners... odd that a progressive crowd would allow such gender specific bigotry to continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:41 AM

52. Women need help sometimes, too.

My apologies for not being inclusive. I'm sick if gun fetishists obstructing gun reform and regulation, regardless of what they claim to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:04 AM

59. And what do we "claim" to be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:16 AM

64. I have no idea who you are or what you claim to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:11 PM

89. More penis obsession...

So old. So overdone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:11 AM

177. +1,000. And the bogus alert on this failed, BTW - much whining about it in Meta.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:45 AM

49. Yep - I like M1903s and they hold 5 rounds.

And M1 Garands - they hold 8 rnds. Ok - compromise at 8!

Hmmm...but a compromise at 10 rounds would allow 1941 Johnsons, and SKSs too.

Shoot - then there are M1 Carbines - their mags are typically 15.

Ok - 15 it is!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:57 AM

54. Why do I need more rounds?

 

Just because it pisses off the anti gunners. Makes me feel good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:03 AM

58. There are things that would make you feel better.

But I guess that doesn't count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:57 AM

55. Self defense, especially in the case of hand guns

I can see limiting the magazine to that which fits in the hand grip. That eliminates the extended sticks and snail drums.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:01 AM

56. And that's what I would propose as well. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:03 AM

57. Four zombies

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:45 PM

156. After you fire your 3 shots you can always use the gun as a club

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:08 AM

61. There are several reasons. Link herein.

Many plinking and target pistols use 10 round magazines. The majority of the more expensive pistols have 5 round magazines.
Bullseye (shooting competition)

This is an interesting report on firearms discharges for the NYPD. It is a pdf.


NYPD Annual Firearms Discharge report

. . a single incident can significantly skew averages. For this reason, with small samples, the mode can be most revelatory . The mode for the number of shots fired by police is one.


The chart is on page 8. In 27% of incidents 1 shot was fired. In 15% two shots were fired. But I can guarantee you - none of the officers involved in any of those incidents would have wanted to be carrying any less ammunition in their magazines. Neither would any private citizens who were forced to defend themselves.

There are some states (MA is one) that already restrict possession of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. I'd say look to those states. Evaluate the effectiveness of their firearms laws, and go from there rather than trying to get legislators to implement unproven proposals.

One of the things that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban attempted to do was ban high capacity magazines.


Federal Assault Weapons Ban

The Act also defined and banned 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices', which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than a certain number of rounds, and that up to the time of the Act were considered normal or factory magazines. Media and popular culture referred to these as 'high capacity magazines or feeding devices'. Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a 'normal' capacity and 'high' capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created higher prices in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons ban.


When the law was being written, certain manufacturers ramped up production of magazines, knowing that if they were produced BEFORE the ban went into effect (pre-ban magazines) that these items could still be sold legally. The net result was that there are still an abundance of them available, even in states that adopted the ban on higher capacity magazines.

There are some states (MA is one) that already restrict possession of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. I'd say look to those states. Evaluate the effectiveness of their firearms laws, and go from there rather than trying to get legislators to implement unproven proposals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:49 AM

67. 4 armed intruders?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazyjoe (Reply #67)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:09 AM

76. Which happens when?

If four guys enter your house with guns, they're probably police. Are you preparing to shoot at police now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #76)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:04 PM

102. What happens when?

 

If five guys enter your house and they're paramilitary Soviet anarchist Amway salesmen armed with motorized assault machetes?

Maybe we should ban motorized machetes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #76)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:23 PM

147. ya, that's what i meant........

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #76)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:45 PM

151. Generally, when four armed guys kick down your door...

You're screwed even when you're armed - you might get one or two of them, but you'll go down in a hail of bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:10 AM

78. In a debate here at DU, I was told that you need an assault weapon for herds of wild hogs.

And grackles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:03 PM

101. Which are real, and very rare

Did they tell you the state where these happens? Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #101)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:28 PM

112. In the same thread, an informed hunter...

... reminded the board that assault weapons are the same caliber as hunting rifles but have less power. As a result, they are a poor choice for hunting deer. For hunting hogs, with three times the body mass, you'd better fix your bayonettes.

Grackles, however, ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #112)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:50 PM

116. If it wasn't tragic

For the record, the AR is terrible for hogs.

And to me the whole discussion has been beyond bizarre.

Yes, some knowledge matters for policy writing and trauma teams. But the nerdiest gun talk of this round or that round or this AR platform that...is truly unnecessary. Oh and as far as policy is concerned, some rounds do not belong in civilian hands either.

But knowing the basics pegs me, according to a poster, as an NRA member, which I found beyond comedic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #116)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:23 PM

121. I'm curious, Nadin, how many hogs have you shot? ....

.... and with what cartridges? I'd like to take advantage of your experience.

One of my AR platform riflse uses the 300 AAC Blackout. Do you think that is adequate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #121)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:33 PM

125. The cartridges may be totally adequate, but...

... anyone who would justify personal ownership of assault weapons for the hunting of hogs is working out other inadequacies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #125)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:34 PM

142. I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but ....

.... I don't hunt. So that's not how I justify my rifles. (Not that I have to justify them to you.)

Just another example of the futility of an "adult conversation" with a gun-grabber.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #142)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:45 PM

155. I gotta say

Thanks for the attempted distraction.

7.5 seconds to empty a 30 round magazine don't belong in the civilian word at 300 yards

Go ahead, call me gun grabber, from you will be an honor.

For the record, no a .223 is not enough for hogs. That is, since you want to discuss minutiae, is a certain class of MILGRADE ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #155)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:03 PM

158. Actually, my dear Nadin, you know less than you think ...

... you know. The .223 Rem is NOT a Mil grade cartridge. In fact, the .222 Remington cartridge, from which it was derived, was developed as a civilian varmint cartridge. The .223 Rem is a variant that was derived around the time the original AR-15/M-16 was being developed to fit in its magazine. It is still an all time favorite varmint cartridge.

The MILITARY cartridge is the 5.56x45. Currently the US and most NATO countries use the M193 or the M855 versions. They are VERY similar to .223 Rem, but vary in pressure and the chambers have dimensional differences, primarily in the neck and throat. You shouldn't argue military minutiae with someone that has been working in the field of military weapons development (including small arms) for 40 years.


Now, enough minutiae, back to the original question. How many hogs have you killed, and with what cartridges?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #158)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:06 PM

159. What part of MILGRADE did you miss



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #159)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:53 PM

163. None. How many hogs have you killed?

You are the expert on everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #163)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:56 PM

165. Gee kettle and all that.

Sorry if you have a problem.

Have a good life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #165)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:06 PM

167. Fine. When you can't win an argument, ignore the issue ....

... and the person. Never admit defeat. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #167)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:10 PM

169. Gee...speaking off

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:16 AM

79. Bad shots and slow ducks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:17 AM

80. Shotguns for decades have been made to carry 5 rounds. There was a time when duck hunting

that you were only allowed to load 3 rounds and you had to insert a, what my dad referred to as a 'duck plug', to be legal in the field.

Don't know if that still remains the law but I still have a wooden 'duck plug' for one of my 5 shot shotguns.

It would be nearly impossible to do away with the 5-shot. To many of them out here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:07 PM

85. Can anyone provide a reason for more than 3 rounds?

not if your driving..... see Crapo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:11 PM

90. Can anyone provide a reason

we should let somebody thousands of miles away decide what we will need to defend ourselves who won't have to be responsible for that decision?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:16 PM

91. My 1st and last post on this whole gun issue

These are Koreans during the LA riots protecting their livelihood and their community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Separation (Reply #91)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:32 PM

95. Notice in your picture, no high capacity magazines, no assault rifles, no body armor

So you agree, that assault weapons with large capacity magazines and high velocity ammunition is NOT necessary for self defense!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:30 PM

113. Bottom right of pic

Weapon is a Ruger Mini 14

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #113)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:54 PM

117. From that pic, you can't tell what model Mini 14 that is, or even if it is a mini 14 for sure.

Some mini 14s come with a bolt action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #117)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:26 PM

122. Please show me a link to a bolt action Mini-14 ......

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #122)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:34 PM

126. Here is a link with a picture of a mini 14 with bolt action, plenty more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #126)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:45 PM

130. Uh, that is a Ruger 77 Scout rifle

A completely seperate beast from a Ruger Mini-14. I should know; I used to own a Ruger 77 (nice rifle BTW). What experience do you have with firearms to make that mistake?

The Ruger Mini-14 ONLY comes as a semi-automatic, and comes standard with a 10-rd magazine. It can accept up to 30-rd mags, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #130)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:49 PM

132. Actually it is the Ruger GSR

It is based on and has the same action as the 77.

The GSR however did not hit the market until 2010-11 ish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #130)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:20 PM

138. My bad, that is a 77, however Mini 14 was made with a bolt action for the UK market.

This link shows a Ruger Mini 14 straight pull bolt action, for sale.

http://www.gunstar.co.uk/Rifle/Ruger-Ranch-gun-for-sale-gs107065.aspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #138)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:29 PM

188. No bolt action. This is the same Mini 14 action as sold here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #138)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:43 PM

198. Those are collector's items in the US

They're that rare; so few were actually made for sale here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #130)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:23 PM

141. For someone who knows it all, here is your proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #126)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:48 PM

131. Hello, that's a Scout Rifle

Did you even read the first line of that post?

Gunsite sent a rifle from the Ruger Scout Rifle gunwriters' review. This was one of the rifles tested, which I bought while I was there.


A Mini-14 by definition is a semi-automatic rifle firing a 5.56 NATO OR .223 Remington round. A Mini-14 is not a bolt action rifle. http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html

Here's the rifle you're claiming to be a Mini-14. http://www.ruger.com/products/gunsiteScoutRifle/models.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #131)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:22 PM

139. Here is the Mini 14 with straight pull bolt action, for those who still think it doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #139)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:41 PM

143. That's quite a stretch, but I like it .....

That looks like merely a Mini-14 with a disabled or missing gas system. But I kinda like that. I can, according to your definition, call all my semi-autos bolt actions, since they all, in fact, have a bolt.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #143)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:44 PM

145. They were made for the UK market, but I guess you didn't know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #145)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:42 PM

154. Yeah, poor sods, ......

.... aren't allowed to have real guns. I have a friend in Jolly ol' England that really gets off on WWII bayonets. He can't have those, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #145)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:40 AM

178. UK Mini-14

They were made for the UK market, but I guess you didn't know that.

Mini-14 without a gas piston, rendering it a rather clunky straight-pull bolt action in order to conform to the UK's semi-auto ban. Introduced on the UK market in 2000. Clearly a Korean storeowner in Los Angeles in 1992 would have had access to one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #178)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 04:08 AM

183. I said they were made for the UK market, are you telling me we don't get foreign

made arms in the U.S.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #183)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 05:05 AM

184. No ...

I said they were made for the UK market, are you telling me we don't get foreign made arms in the U.S.?

I'm saying that we don't get US-made arms that were specifically modified for export to countries that have much harsher restrictions on the functioning of said arms than we do. No real demand for them here, you see.

Introduced on the UK market in 2000. Clearly a Korean storeowner in Los Angeles in 1992 would have had access to one.

Especially eight years before they were introduced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #139)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:41 PM

197. Are you under the impression straight pulls are slow to fire?

Here's someone firing a 1940's straight-pull K31 (with much more recoil than the UK-modified Mini-14). By my count they got off 5 shots in 9 seconds: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=straight+pull+rifle&view=detail&mid=7268444C3E1681528D017268444C3E1681528D01&first=0

I'd hazard a guess that someone could fire faster than that with that UK-Mini, especially considering it comes with a 20-rd magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #126)


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #117)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:22 PM

186. I can tell. And Ruger Arms lists no bolt action Mini 14s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #95)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 02:14 PM

196. The shotgun (second gun/person from right) appears to be a Mossberg 500 series....

 

which is generally an 8-round tube magazine, +1 in the chamber, also has storage for 4 additional rounds, 2 on each side of the stock (see the red streak on the stock).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:24 PM

92. Magazine capacity is a very important issue but not the only issue.

High velocity rounds, hollow point rounds, military body armor, full automatic, gun registration, nationwide background checks which include history of violence, psych evaluation, and eliminating loopholes for private sales. These are all important issues regarding gun control, I realize we can expect to get 100% of everything but let's aim for improvements on more than just magazine capacity!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #92)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:00 PM

100. You forgot smart bullets.

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #100)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:43 PM

129. And the shoulderthingthatgoesup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #92)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 02:13 PM

195. "high velocity rounds"? You mean common hunting ammo, right? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:26 PM

93. Is there a limit on the number of people invited to a home invasion?

 

What if 4 show up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #93)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:34 PM

96. You've been watching too many movies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #96)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:37 PM

128. It is not that uncommon for there to be multiple home invaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:34 PM

97. Suppose you have a shootout with an attacker

 

Hiding behind walls, peeking out, shooting, etc. Gonna need more than three man. If it were me, I would prefer 50 to 200.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:06 PM

103. Let's stick with the legal precedent

When hunting. Ten rounds is the limit in most states. Coincidentally, that is also a standard magazine.

Pistols come with up to 15, again what we have as standard magazines should be sufficient.

Look at states with some gun control, and lower dead rates, for real...see California. We could literally, ain't gonna happen, make this Federal standard. It closes the gun show loophole as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:27 PM

111. And to think some people have access to high capacity magazines and full automatic weapons.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:32 PM

114. 5 rounds is tops on any hunting rifle

if a hunter can`t kill game after 5 shots they need to see an eye doctor. here in illinois it`s shot guns or arrows for deer. if a hunter wounds a deer with either they maybe in for a long walk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:46 PM

115. Self-defense.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:27 PM

124. More than one bad guy?

 

Many home invasions around this metro area are 3-4 guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:37 PM

127. I've never hunted bear or had to defend myself against a wounded one, but

if I were to do so, I'd feel a lot better about a couple extra rounds in my '06.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:53 PM

133. Dangerous deer....



6 - 3 here in Ny I remember having a wooden plug for my shotgun

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/28182.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:27 PM

134. What does hunting have to do with

anything? There are many gun owners who have never hunted game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:59 PM

137. Simple convenience n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:42 PM

144. Deer run quickly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:09 PM

160. Where is hunting mentioned in the second amendment, again?

Like 80% of gun owners, I don't hunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:05 PM

166. Your limits are close to what I think the limits should be.

I'd go with 5 for rifles, 3-4 for shotguns, 10 or not past the grip of the gun whichever is lower for handguns, and revolvers whatever it'll hold. Revolvers usually hold six, the ones that hold more are usually very small bullets that someone looking for a body count isn't going to want. (And I think the highest cap on one of those is ten or twelve)

We'll still have to restrict the ability to change magazines quickly, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #166)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:24 PM

173. 5 for a rifle? My Grandfathers M 92 Winchester

holds 15 rounds in a tube magazine under the barrel. So if the law passes I have to cut the mag tube down on a 101 year old rifle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #173)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:16 AM

175. I meant detachable magazines,

not tubes or en bloc clips or whatever. My tube loaded .22 holds more than that, and takes forever to load.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #175)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:25 PM

187. A friend of mine came up with a clever solution to the problem of loading tube-magazine .22s

 

He had a supply of arrow shaft tubing, which turned out to be a good size to use as improvised speed loaders for his .22 rifle. He would pre-load several pieces of tubing with however many rounds his rifle held. To load, he'd simply remove the long brass magazine follower thing all the way and pour in the rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:04 AM

181. I like what Wanda Sykes said... (not exact quote) If you need 100 rounds to shoot a deer, remind me

not to let you pee in my bathroom!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 01:31 PM

189. Unless you can present some evidence to support your assertions...

 

I'll take them for the empty wind they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:58 PM

201. A pack of wolves? Four grizly bears? Hell, 2 grizzlies would take more than 3 shots. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #204)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 07:43 AM

205. In twenty years, there probably won't be anymore lions in the wild to shoot

Not to mention elephants as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread