RolandTheHeadlessGunner.
Member
A great take on a difficult situation. Don't want to come across as crazy.
Kalel33, the point is not where you can be effective with 6 rounds. Shooting a piece of paper is very different from shooting at another human being, who is armed and plan on doing untold harm to you and to your family.
You can argue all you want for not banning higher capacity magazines, but not being able to defend your household is a very very weak argument. It would be different if you were protecting land but a house doesn't "need" it. I definitely don't want anyone taking mine, but even at 11 year study on NY police gun shootings show the average amount of shots were 3.6 per incident.
We, on the civilian side are not "professionals" And 3.6 per incident?
How many police officers use a revolver these days as standard issue? I mean after all by that logic you state they should need nothing more than a five shot revolver standard issue. (Okay generally speaking it was a six shot)
Again its hard to see where this information comes from with out the study
I am very much against high capacity magazines being banned, but the argument that you cannot protect your home without them is ludicrous. The guy who stated earlier than he'd wouldn't stand a chance without them is either blowing things out of proportion to make the case or is just a horrible shot/tactician.
What you seem to be incapable of grasping is that the arguments that I posted first do, in fact, make you look like a moron to someone who isn't already a part of the gun culture. If you have proof that those sorts of arguments actually change the minds of people who are currently in favor of stricter gun control, please post it.
.
I am very much against high capacity magazines being banned, but the argument that you cannot protect your home without them is ludicrous. The guy who stated earlier than he'd wouldn't stand a chance without them is either blowing things out of proportion to make the case or is just a horrible shot/tactician.
So, 30 percent of the shots were hit. And assuming by this (It does not appear to be stated) that 6 out of every one of those 19 incidents in that year states that there was more than one police officer shooting. This incidentally appears to be a very close of a percentage to the 30% mark. Other than bit of irony there, how often is a home invasion going to have more than one person defending with a firearm? How often is it going to involve more than one person breaking in?By contrast, in 2006, 30 percent of the shots fired during gunfights were hits, an unusually high percentage. That year, a total of 19 officers fired their weapons in 13 separate gunfights.
Justin, the point of the Second Amendment is that we need not give cause or reason to any masters about what kinds of guns we own and how we may legally use them. Like the First Amendment, we dare not dissect the second into who likes what said, when, whew, or why. People must simply be made to realize that protecting each part of the Constitution is protecting the whole. But you are right in that we must not be arrogant or demand, but state it in a calm, cool, and concrete manner.
Need" is irrelevant. Nobody "needs" a sports car, backyard swimming pool, steak knives over 2", a big flat screen TV, a German Shepherd Dog, or the book "1984." Yet all have the potential to do harm to others when misused (or ignored in the case of literature). We - rightly - take great pains to protect minority groups' civil rights, even when their representatives do terrible things (hint: 9/11); yet for guns, some people want to critically infringe on the civil rights of the majority when a sick criminal uses a gun instead of any other device or tool to inflict damage.
Trying to keep this on topic here with explaining things to someone that may not own a fire arm or understand the need for a standard capacity magazine.
I would like to have a fair and reasonable chance to defend my life and the life of my wife and children. I can’t do that with a 10 round magazine".
Quote:
Trying to keep this on topic here with explaining things to someone that may not own a fire arm or understand the need for a standard capacity magazine.
I have a Sig Sauer SP2022 and S&W 19-24 .357, which was passed down from my father, but nice to see you're stooping to such low points.
Again, can you find me a 5 forum threads, 3 even, where the individual shot more than 6 times. I'll even take news reports, barring gun fights between drug dealers.
After all again regarding the freedom of speech surely it could be curtailed because no one needs to know how to construct a device that can cause destruction. There fore all items that are judged to be written about something too destructive is banned.
Well trying to not make assumptions but if you think you can take someone with a revolver or less than ten shots, again that is great. What I also stated and what is a very real situation is that its very common for there to be multiple people breaking in to a house, robbing a store or waylaying someone on the street.My point was to the person that stated they could not have a "fair and reasonable chance" to defend their house. I disagreed completely and home invasions with the owner shooting seems to follow that same logic. I'm just saying that you need a better argument than not being able to defend your home unless you have more than 10 rounds in a magazine.
Remember, at the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: to stop or reduce the number of rampage killings, especially those targeting children.