The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Yet that is exactly what happened in the Giffords shooting.

---

That very may be true. If it is then they were very fortunate. When I play football in college I ran a 5.35 40. Now I admit I was no speed demon, I was built for comfort not speed,(offensive lineman) :p. but that was not the worst 40 time on the team. Anyway my point is that anyone that has any training at all can change a mag a lot faster than I or you can run 40 yards. That being the case how far can you cover in the 2 to 3 seconds that it takes for the bad guy to change a mag?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BULL321

That very may be true. If it is then they were very fortunate. When I play football in college I ran a 5.35 40. Now I admit I was no speed demon, I was built for comfort not speed,(offensive lineman) :p. but that was not the worst 40 time on the team. Anyway my point is that anyone that has any training at all can change a mag a lot faster than I or you can run 40 yards. That being the case how far can you cover in the 2 to 3 seconds that it takes for the bad guy to change a mag?

---

Also subtract a few seconds to recognize that the shooter is changing. Usually if youre behind cover then your first indication that is happening is when you hear them rack the slide. Which means you're too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

The Giffords shooting was very different from a home defense situation. The gunman in AZ was stopped by 6 people when he dropped the mag on the ground. Not the same thing at all.

---

Which they would have been able to do sooner if Loughner only had a 10 round magazine. I'm betting the majority of home defense incidents involve less than 10 rounds by either party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

Your premise? I thought you dealt in what actually happened. I've shown you two good examples where your premise was invalid. So I ask, where are your facts? And don't say Giffords...as I mentioned above that was stopped because the crowd jumped him when he dropped a mag on the ground. They got lucky.

---

I've shown examples where my premise was valid. What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

I had hoped you had relized your ignorance of this topic and the fact you are hopelessly outnumbered would trigger a shred of common sense in your melon and you would just go back to beating people up in the political topic.

---

Lol. I"ve substantiated my points with facts and realistic scenarios. You keep moving the goal line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Ah, now you want to be the forum cop. You still can put me on ignore if you don't like the way I do things. Otherwise shut your pie hole about how I post.

---

No. i just stated I was done cutting and pasting. Once again you respond to a point that wasn't stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

You say that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the firearms of today when writing the 2nd Ammendment. I would bet you they never envisoned the telegraph, telephone, radio, television, iPhones, iPads, computers, tablets, Kindles or any other hi-tech media commonly in use today. Maybe we should look at modifying the 1st Ammendment due to technological changes too!

---

Numerous laws have been passed that have had serious 1st Amendment implications. Some have been repealed and others have not. Not a good comparison if you're claiming the 2nd Amendment is absolute. For example, try giving classified information to someone not authorized and see what happens. Or running through an airport with a backpack yelling, "I've got a bomb."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BULL321

That very may be true. If it is then they were very fortunate. When I play football in college I ran a 5.35 40. Now I admit I was no speed demon, I was built for comfort not speed,(offensive lineman) :p. but that was not the worst 40 time on the team. Anyway my point is that anyone that has any training at all can change a mag a lot faster than I or you can run 40 yards. That being the case how far can you cover in the 2 to 3 seconds that it takes for the bad guy to change a mag?

---

You assume a scenario that has wide open spaces with clear fields of fire.

An educational institution isn't that type of setting. Those buildings have numerous rooms and hallways that would allow the victims to duck around corners and into other rooms getting away from from the direction of fire. This is very helpful until someone invents a bullet that can go around corners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Which they would have been able to do sooner if Loughner only had a 10 round magazine. I'm betting the majority of home defense incidents involve less than 10 rounds by either party.


I've shown examples where my premise was valid. What's your point?

---

My point is that the default state for something is "not limited" and it is the responsibility of those that want to limit to justify why the limit would be effective. Your example does not show that for mag limits. I've given you two specific examples where the limit would not have mattered. You have given more "what ifs" and "I bet"s.

So. Give me concrete examples. Here is a hint, look between 1994 and 2004 when the limits were previously in place. I think you'll have a hard time. Even the FBI has stated that the limit had done nothing to reduce gun violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

My point is that the default state for something is "not limited" and it is the responsibility of those that want to limit to justify why the limit would be effective. Your example does not show that for mag limits. I've given you two specific examples where the limit would not have mattered. You have given more "what ifs" and "I bet"s.

---

I've stated my beliefs several times. Feel free to reread my posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

So. Give me concrete examples. Here is a hint, look between 1994 and 2004 when the limits were previously in place. I think you'll have a hard time. Even the FBI has stated that the limit had done nothing to reduce gun violence.

---

I cited why I support magazine limitation with concrete examples several times. Feel free to reread my posts. BTW, there is enough research that shows the majority of gun battles in your type of scenario involves less than 10 rounds.

Quote:

---

I cited why I support magazine limitation with concrete examples several times. Feel free to reread my posts. BTW, there is enough research that shows the majority of gun battles in your type of scenario involves less than 10 rounds.

---

Where are those several times? You have yet to post a single link to any evidence that magazine limitations have been successful.
If there is plenty of research, link it so I can read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Where are those several times? You have yet to post a single link to any evidence that magazine limitations have been successful.
If there is plenty of research, link it so I can read it.

---

Yeahhhhh..... There won't be any links posted, because as we all know SC is spewing out of his ***** again, because he's been proven wrong multiple times by real facts....

But please, SC, go ahead and try. Post some real evidence up like the rest of us have.

Quote:

---

I only have your word for it. Unless I have documentation (as required by POST), that is your claim that is currently unsubstantiated.

---

Here, I posted the Google search for your reading and research pleasure. Just at first glance, Minnesota, California, and God forbid, Louisiana have only yearly range requal. requirements. Let me know what you find.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=o...w=1497&bih=678

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

BTW, there is enough research that shows the majority of gun battles in your type of scenario involves less than 10 rounds.

---

Ok, so post a link. If true it further shows that a magazine limit would be ineffective. If the majority of "gun battles" use less than 10 rounds then only the minority would be impacted by a limit. That limit would have no bearing on the outcome in a significant number of the remaining minority due to the ability of the shooter to quickly change magazines (ala VT and Columbine). The number is further reduced in that any law which limits magazines would also be ignored by those that intend to use them in acts which of themselves are illegal. Murder and assault is already illegal, as is possession of a firearm by a felon (in most places)..

So again, how do you justify a limit that is provable ineffective at its stated goal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

Ok, so post a link. If true it further shows that a magazine limit would be ineffective. If the majority of "gun battles" use less than 10 rounds then only the minority would be impacted by a limit. That limit would have no bearing on the outcome in a significant number of the remaining minority due to the ability of the shooter to quickly change magazines (ala VT and Columbine). The number is further reduced in that any law which limits magazines would also be ignored by those that intend to use them in acts which of themselves are illegal. Murder and assault is already illegal, as is possession of a firearm by a felon (in most places)..

So again, how do you justify a limit that is provable ineffective at its stated goal?

---

He can't. But stick around, I'm sure he will find some new way to race bait.

Perhaps he can call Feinstein.. she might know. I think it has something to do with the "Shoulder thing that goes up".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Where are those several times? You have yet to post a single link to any evidence that magazine limitations have been successful.
If there is plenty of research, link it so I can read it.

---

Successful at what? I can cite two instances where magazine capacity was successful at allowing potential victims to overwhelm the shooter. In one case they had to wait for 30 rounds to be expended. They would have been able to do it sooner had there 10 round magazines been the limit.

Please Google Jared Loughner and Kip Kinkel. I'm not doing your research for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

Ok, so post a link. If true it further shows that a magazine limit would be ineffective. If the majority of "gun battles" use less than 10 rounds then only the minority would be impacted by a limit. That limit would have no bearing on the outcome in a significant number of the remaining minority due to the ability of the shooter to quickly change magazines (ala VT and Columbine). The number is further reduced in that any law which limits magazines would also be ignored by those that intend to use them in acts which of themselves are illegal. Murder and assault is already illegal, as is possession of a firearm by a felon (in most places)..

So again, how do you justify a limit that is provable ineffective at its stated goal?

---

So then you should have no problem with limit being set at 10 rounds since you just admitted since shooters have the ability to quickly change magazines.

As far as a link, THIS one should help answer your questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

So then you should have no problem with limit being set at 10 rounds since you just admitted since shooters have the ability to quickly change magazines.

---

I have a huge problem with arbitrary limits on citizens who have committed no crime for provably no impact on their reported goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Please Google Jared Loughner and Kip Kinkel. I'm not doing your research for you.

---

Lougher was rushed when he dropped his fresh magazine on the ground. Those that rushed him got lucky. Luck does not justify a ban. Also even if he had successfully reloaded those that rushed him probably would have succeeded though probably at a cost. The fact that he was reloading was not the key factor in what stopped him. The fact that he was rushed by multiple people from multiple directions was.

Kinkle's spree occurred during the original AWB which included 10 round limits. How'd that work out? Also kinkle was subdued by multiple kids from multiple directions. The kid in front of him was shot when he switched to his handgun. This incident is more indicative of the mental health and armed resistance aspects of countering violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

As far as a link, THIS one should help answer your questions.

---

The only question is why you think that average justifies your position. It further shows that the limit would be ineffectual.

I will tell you that if I'm in a HD situation the last thing I'd rely on is statistics. If the average is 8 then there is a large percentage that needed more than 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Successful at what? I can cite two instances where magazine capacity was successful at allowing potential victims to overwhelm the shooter. In one case they had to wait for 30 rounds to be expended. They would have been able to do it sooner had there 10 round magazines been the limit.

Please Google Jared Loughner and Kip Kinkel. I'm not doing your research for you.

---

Loughner-15-20 rounds fired, dropped the clip. Out of a reported 33 round magazine. So how does this bolster your argument? 2 handguns with 10 round clips equals....well I will answer that, I don't want you to hurt yourself with any math; 20 plus 2 chambered. Difference being?

Kip Kinkel-50 rounds, he fired 50 rounds before being disarmed, and he still managed to draw a handgun and get a round off. Oh, yes, I can see where this is a poster boy argument for magazine restrictions. Let me add one of your favorites: What if. What if that 1 round stopped the person attempting the disarm? Of course this being in a school where the only ones having a gun are the bad guys...

Still waiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

I have a huge problem with arbitrary limits on citizens who have committed no crime for provably no impact on their reported goal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

Lougher was rushed when he dropped his fresh magazine on the ground. Those that rushed him got lucky. Luck does not justify a ban. Also even if he had successfully reloaded those that rushed him probably would have succeeded though probably at a cost. The fact that he was reloading was not the key factor in what stopped him. The fact that he was rushed by multiple people from multiple directions was.

Kinkle's spree occurred during the original AWB which included 10 round limits. How'd that work out? Also kinkle was subdued by multiple kids from multiple directions. The kid in front of him was shot when he switched to his handgun. This incident is more indicative of the mental health and armed resistance aspects of countering violence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

The only question is why you think that average justifies your position. It further shows that the limit would be ineffectual.

I will tell you that if I'm in a HD situation the last thing I'd rely on is statistics. If the average is 8 then there is a large percentage that needed more than 10.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Loughner-15-20 rounds fired, dropped the clip. Out of a reported 33 round magazine. So how does this bolster your argument? 2 handguns with 10 round clips equals....well I will answer that, I don't want you to hurt yourself with any math; 20 plus 2 chambered. Difference being?

Kip Kinkel-50 rounds, he fired 50 rounds before being disarmed, and he still managed to draw a handgun and get a round off. Oh, yes, I can see where this is a poster boy argument for magazine restrictions.

Still waiting.

---

In both cases those that rushed the attackers had to wait until the individual expended an amount of ammunition larger than 10 rounds.

I agree that in both cases luck was involved. I could say that about any scenario. I'm willing to accept it that as a possible outcome in every instance. Those with differing opinions claim it is not a viable scenario despite real life instances where exactly that happened.

If the belief that a small magazine won't matter because of the ability to change rapidly, then there should be no problem with setting that as a limit.