20
   

Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

 
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 10:56 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You don't understand "social density"?

I think JoeN was quite clear in his comment. He was also correct.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 10:56 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:



Of course, I also realize that had the killer in Arizona wanted a high death count, limiting him to a 10 round clip would have done little good. He could easily have carried several weapons. And popping in a new clip would not take all that long either.


You just proved liberals wanting to limit capacity to 10 rounds is a total waste of time.



CoastalRat
 
  2  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 11:00 am
@H2O MAN,
I think it is a waste of time. My point, simply put, is that I wouldn't argue or fight over a 10 round limit to clips. I totally agree it is kinda pointless, but I have no problem with it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 11:25 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:
Of course, I also realize that had the killer in Arizona wanted a high death count, limiting him to a 10 round clip would have done little good. He could easily have carried several weapons. And popping in a new clip would not take all that long either.


So you weren't watching the news this week, huh? The shooter had at least three magazines. One of the women he had already shot took his second clip away from him as he attempted to reload. As he pulled out yet another clip, the two men who didn't run away, but ran toward the shooter, tackled him. If he had only had a ten-round clip, it's likely he would never have done so much damage.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 11:27 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

This is where many of my fellow conservatives and I diverge on our views on firearms. I have no problem with limiting clips to 10 rounds. I don't see how this infringes on anyone's right to own a firearm or to use it to defend one's person or family. If it takes me more than 10 rounds to hit an intruder, then maybe I shouldn't have had the gun in the first place.

Of course, I also realize that had the killer in Arizona wanted a high death count, limiting him to a 10 round clip would have done little good. He could easily have carried several weapons. And popping in a new clip would not take all that long either.

Now if one or two others in the crowd had been carrying, then maybe he would never have gotten off so many rounds before someone pulled out their own weapon and popped him and saved us the expense of a trial. But I guess that is an argument for another thread.


Yer 100% wrong on your assessment in the second paragraph. It was exactly the requirement to change chips which led to the guy getting captured.

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 11:42 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
Of course, I also realize that had the killer in Arizona wanted a high death count, limiting him to a 10 round clip would have done little good. He could easily have carried several weapons. And popping in a new clip would not take all that long either.


So you weren't watching the news this week, huh? The shooter had at least three magazines. One of the women he had already shot took his second clip away from him as he attempted to reload. As he pulled out yet another clip, the two men who didn't run away, but ran toward the shooter, tackled him. If he had only had a ten-round clip, it's likely he would never have done so much damage.
U 'd have been HAPPIER if he'd just made a bomb ?
Like Tim McV. ??????





David
Rockhead
 
  6  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 11:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
unlikely, dave.

fertilizer is much more regulated than guns in Arizona...
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 11:59 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
You don't understand "social density"?
Yes, I don 't.
That is Y I asked him to explain his reasoning.




Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think JoeN was quite clear in his comment.
Well, then Y don 't U explain it???????
Please don 't be vague; I request specificity.

If it were possible,
for what reason shoud I restrain myself
from putting a loaded gun into her husband's hands
when he needed it on the LIRR ??? I wanna hear this.





David
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 12:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You have attributed words to me that I did not write.

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 12:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You have attributed words to me that I did not write.

Cycloptichorn
My apologies; your name remained in my clipboard.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 12:53 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
unlikely, dave.

fertilizer is much more regulated than guns in Arizona...
That 's good, but there are 1000s of ways to make boms from commonly available substances.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 12:55 pm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dense

Quote:
2. stupid; slow-witted; dull.
3. intense; extreme: dense ignorance.

OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 01:06 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dense

Quote:
2. stupid; slow-witted; dull.
3. intense; extreme: dense ignorance.


I re-iterate the QUESTION:
If it were possible,
for what reason shoud I restrain myself
from putting a loaded gun into her husband's hands
when he needed it on the LIRR ???





David
Rockhead
 
  3  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 01:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
your arrogance is topped only by your ignorance, dave...
CoastalRat
 
  2  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 01:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Granted Cy, changing clips did help lead to stopping him. So in this case we had a guy who had a single weapon and changed clips. My point was the even IF there had been a 10 round limit to clips, he could easily have carried several weapons with him, thus avoiding having to reload until he had exhausted each clip. Trust me, people bent on killing others will find a way around laws such as a 10 round per clip law. But again, while I think the law would be mostly a waste of time, I certainly would not lose any sleep over it being passed. It would not in the least hinder my ability to protect my family unless I was faced with more than 10 assailants at one time.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 01:50 pm
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

Granted Cy, changing clips did help lead to stopping him. So in this case we had a guy who had a single weapon and changed clips. My point was the even IF there had been a 10 round limit to clips, he could easily have carried several weapons with him, thus avoiding having to reload until he had exhausted each clip. Trust me, people bent on killing others will find a way around laws such as a 10 round per clip law. But again, while I think the law would be mostly a waste of time, I certainly would not lose any sleep over it being passed. It would not in the least hinder my ability to protect my family unless I was faced with more than 10 assailants at one time.



One shot one kill eh? You must be a better shot than me.

He could have built a bomb, or rammed a pickup truck into a lot of people. The dude could have done a lot of things to kill people. But that sort of speculation isn't material to the question.

I agree that the clip law wouldn't prevent determined people, but it certainly would make it tougher for people like this to kill lots of folks.

Cycloptichorn
CoastalRat
 
  2  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 02:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yep, one shot, one kill. Of course, it would help if they were to stand still. Out in the open. With a bullseye painted on their chest.

Actually, after dropping one or two of them, I would expect the others to turn tail and run thus saving me from having to reload. But I digress.

And yes, Cy, carrying clips for reloading is easier than carrying multiple weapons and thus a law such as suggested would make things tougher. But as you say, someone determined to kill as many as possible will find a way. As an aside, though not germane to this discussion, is that had there been others at the event carrying weapons, he may well have been dropped before emptying his first clip, which also would have limited the killing. Just saying, ya know.
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 02:05 pm
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:
As an aside, though not germane to this discussion, is that had there been others at the event carrying weapons, he may well have been dropped before emptying his first clip, which also would have limited the killing. Just saying, ya know.


Jesus Christ . . . you and David . . . it could well have resulted in more injuries and fatalities, and what would have happened when the police had arrived to see multiple shooters? This is the most witless argument in the arsenal of stupidity upon which the gun crew rely.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 02:06 pm
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

Yep, one shot, one kill. Of course, it would help if they were to stand still. Out in the open. With a bullseye painted on their chest.

Actually, after dropping one or two of them, I would expect the others to turn tail and run thus saving me from having to reload. But I digress.


Lol, maybe. Unless they had guns too, in which case, you'd go down in a blaze of glory. B/c that's how things like this tend to end up.

Quote:
And yes, Cy, carrying clips for reloading is easier than carrying multiple weapons and thus a law such as suggested would make things tougher. But as you say, someone determined to kill as many as possible will find a way. As an aside, though not germane to this discussion, is that had there been others at the event carrying weapons, he may well have been dropped before emptying his first clip, which also would have limited the killing. Just saying, ya know.


I find this to be extremely difficult to believe. He gave no indication of violent behavior until the Congresswoman was shot in the skull, and then proceeded to shoot over a dozen other people within ten seconds. The idea that someone with a concealed carry license would have whipped their gun out and killed him before any of that happened is a joke.

You should also take into account that he was standing in the middle of a crowd. People are panicky, nobody knows what's happening. I think it's FAR more likely that some good-Samaritan type with their own pistol would have ended up hurting others, than they would have stopping this guy before he did his damage.

Cycloptichorn
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Tue 11 Jan, 2011 02:13 pm
@Setanta,
Problem with your thinking here Set, is that those who legally carry have firearms training. And guess what? We would not be shooting wildly into a crowd of people as this guy was. We would have targeted only him and been sure of the target before firing. It is called responsible gun ownership. Could there be the possibility of missing the target and hitting someone else? Of course, only a fool would claim that could never happen. But I still bet the odds would have been much better for everyone involved had there been someone there with a firearm.

And for the sake of honesty here, I do not carry my firearm with me. For me, it is strictly for use at home to protect my family and our property. Frankly, I don't carry it for a number of reasons which I won't go into here.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 06:05:35