***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[parasaurolophus]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Took my wife shooting today, had 10 rounds in her magazines, emptied 1 then popped in another, emptied that loaded another and emptied that. Had the target at 7 yards, told her to take her time and just try and hit the target anywhere and not try for a bulls eye. Took all of 57 seconds to put all 30 rounds in the target.This is a 61 year old woman shooting a 9mm. She has been shooting less than a year, once a week. This also without the laser pointer on.Now if you think 10 round magazines is the answer, think again. Again a 61 yr old grandmother who had never touched a gun in the first 60 years of her life, having no clue why I asked her to do what she did.

So in other words, you are not willing to compromise on this. You can't simply have your high capacity mags at the shooting range. You have to have them at home as well, at work, whatever. And if anyone disagrees, then they're trying to take your constitutional rights away. Do I have this right?

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Has anybody called BS yet? Women can barely drive a car, no way a 61 year old woman is unloading 30 rounds into a paper target in 57 seconds. Unless of course the paper target is the size of Otis's ego or hands.

 

[RCon]

Actually, you kind of did miss his point. His point is that limiting capacity on magazines wouldn't do any good because even an untrained 60 year old grandmother can change two clips and still shoot 30 bullets in a minutely with reasonable accuracy.

That said, I agree that limiting capacity might do some good, but certainly not unless you make it retroactive, and even then...

Yeah I read it wrong. Mea culpa. But whether I missed his point, here's what I notice: no matter what idea is brought up, no matter how much of a compromise is offered, there are people here who will always reject it. Their only solution is more guns.

Still I remain hopeful. The NRA has announced that on Friday they will have proposals of their own. Maybe they will give in to the 74% of their membership who support my ideas on this. Guess we'll see.

Is the bolded really different than every other political discussion ever?

I think so. Other than abortion, this is arguably the most polarizing issue we've had in this country since the civil rights debate.

I think a larger percentage of the country would agree to a reasonable compromise on gun control than will happily agree to compromise solutions on taxation, health care, Medicare reform, etc. Sure, there are extremists on both sides, but those exist in every political debate.

 

[timschochet]

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Yes I read this wrong. Sorry about that. Here's my response to your experiment: I don't believe that anyone needs more than 10 rounds per magazine for self-defense. I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties. I believe this because law enforcement tells me so and they want to try it. So I want to try it too. Now perhaps your grandmother is an anomaly. Or perhaps she is representative and none of this will make any difference at all. But I don't see it as too much of an infringement upon your rights, so I want to try it. I recognize, as Dvorak points out, that it's been tried before (though there may have been some loopholes, not exactly sure on this point.) But just about every mass shooting in the last several years have involved high capacity magazines. Obviously there is a reason for that. So let's make it harder for these crazies, if we can.

 

[cobalt_27]

Hi guys, I want to buy a semi-auto shooter like I play on black ops. I know there are rigorous training requirements to own a gun, must take months of courses to learn assembly, clean, shoot, safety, all that. Who provides these training programs? And what's the cost? Will I get my license to fire away at the river when I've completed my training? Seems like a long time and a lot of money, but it will be worth it in the end because I can shoot a gun for my first time.

Oh and is there separate licensure for hand grenade possession? I want a concealed weapons permit for a hand grenade. No one would #### with me with a hand grenade.

 

[moleculo]

Actually, you kind of did miss his point. His point is that limiting capacity on magazines wouldn't do any good because even an untrained 60 year old grandmother can change two clips and still shoot 30 bullets in a minutely with reasonable accuracy.That said, I agree that limiting capacity might do some good, but certainly not unless you make it retroactive, and even then...

Yeah I read it wrong. Mea culpa. But whether I missed his point, here's what I notice: no matter what idea is brought up, no matter how much of a compromise is offered, there are people here who will always reject it. Their only solution is more guns. Still I remain hopeful. The NRA has announced that on Friday they will have proposals of their own. Maybe they will give in to the 74% of their membership who support my ideas on this. Guess we'll see.

I think there are more folks here who's solution is to ban all guns than those saying we need more guns.

Link? I think there's exactly 1 person here who has posted that we need to ban all guns, and he didn't stay in the discussion very long.

here's the first post in this thread from this thread's most leading contributor:

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

there's 224 more posts that continue along that vein.

 

[Borat]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Took my wife shooting today, had 10 rounds in her magazines, emptied 1 then popped in another, emptied that loaded another and emptied that. Had the target at 7 yards, told her to take her time and just try and hit the target anywhere and not try for a bulls eye. Took all of 57 seconds to put all 30 rounds in the target.This is a 61 year old woman shooting a 9mm. She has been shooting less than a year, once a week. This also without the laser pointer on.Now if you think 10 round magazines is the answer, think again. Again a 61 yr old grandmother who had never touched a gun in the first 60 years of her life, having no clue why I asked her to do what she did.

So in other words, you are not willing to compromise on this. You can't simply have your high capacity mags at the shooting range. You have to have them at home as well, at work, whatever. And if anyone disagrees, then they're trying to take your constitutional rights away. Do I have this right?

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Has anybody called BS yet? Women can barely drive a car, no way a 61 year old woman is unloading 30 rounds into a paper target in 57 seconds. Unless of course the paper target is the size of Otis's ego or hands.

It's really not that unreasonable at all. How fast can you pull a trigger? More than once per second, easily. How long does it take to change a magazine? Not more than 5 seconds. Sorry to deflate your argument, but 30 rounds in 57 seconds is perfectly believable.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Good Samaritan argues for civilian gun use

My link

 

[RCon]

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.

I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Yes I read this wrong. Sorry about that. Here's my response to your experiment: I don't believe that anyone needs more than 10 rounds per magazine for self-defense. I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties. I believe this because law enforcement tells me so and they want to try it. So I want to try it too.

Now perhaps your grandmother is an anomaly. Or perhaps she is representative and none of this will make any difference at all. But I don't see it as too much of an infringement upon your rights, so I want to try it. I recognize, as Dvorak points out, that it's been tried before (though there may have been some loopholes, not exactly sure on this point.) But just about every mass shooting in the last several years have involved high capacity magazines. Obviously there is a reason for that. So let's make it harder for these crazies, if we can.

By the way, are you ever going to respond to the obvious problem with the bolded argument above?

 

[Schlzm]

Hi guys, I want to buy a semi-auto shooter like I play on black ops. I know there are rigorous training requirements to own a gun, must take months of courses to learn assembly, clean, shoot, safety, all that. Who provides these training programs? And what's the cost? Will I get my license to fire away at the river when I've completed my training? Seems like a long time and a lot of money, but it will be worth it in the end because I can shoot a gun for my first time.

Oh and is there separate licensure for hand grenade possession? I want a concealed weapons permit for a hand grenade. No one would #### with me with a hand grenade.

Hand grenades? You need to move out of the pee-wwe and into the big leagues my friend. Get yourself one of these! You know, for pitbulls and velociraptors on the subway or at your local tan and spa/kosher deli.Schlzm

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Like the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor, Obama's attack on Constitution and our right to self defense awakening a sleeping giant!

 

[Borat]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

 

[timschochet]

Actually, you kind of did miss his point. His point is that limiting capacity on magazines wouldn't do any good because even an untrained 60 year old grandmother can change two clips and still shoot 30 bullets in a minutely with reasonable accuracy.That said, I agree that limiting capacity might do some good, but certainly not unless you make it retroactive, and even then...

Yeah I read it wrong. Mea culpa. But whether I missed his point, here's what I notice: no matter what idea is brought up, no matter how much of a compromise is offered, there are people here who will always reject it. Their only solution is more guns. Still I remain hopeful. The NRA has announced that on Friday they will have proposals of their own. Maybe they will give in to the 74% of their membership who support my ideas on this. Guess we'll see.

I think there are more folks here who's solution is to ban all guns than those saying we need more guns.

Link? I think there's exactly 1 person here who has posted that we need to ban all guns, and he didn't stay in the discussion very long.

here's the first post in this thread from this thread's most leading contributor:

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

there's 224 more posts that continue along that vein.

Yeah, but he's one guy, he's calmed down and been in favor of specific proposals, none of which involve banning guns. In contrast, several of the pro-gun people here have seriously suggested the solution is to arm teachers, arm more people in general. Their proposals have not been an emotional diatribe like the one you linked here, but serious specific rational arguments.

 

[Sweet Feet]

Hand grenades? You need to move out of the pee-wwe and into the big leagues my friend. Get yourself one of these! You know, for pitbulls and velociraptors on the subway or at your local tan and spa/kosher deli.

Schlzm

Otis is way to petite to handle that

 

[timschochet]

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.

I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Yes I read this wrong. Sorry about that. Here's my response to your experiment: I don't believe that anyone needs more than 10 rounds per magazine for self-defense. I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties. I believe this because law enforcement tells me so and they want to try it. So I want to try it too.

Now perhaps your grandmother is an anomaly. Or perhaps she is representative and none of this will make any difference at all. But I don't see it as too much of an infringement upon your rights, so I want to try it. I recognize, as Dvorak points out, that it's been tried before (though there may have been some loopholes, not exactly sure on this point.) But just about every mass shooting in the last several years have involved high capacity magazines. Obviously there is a reason for that. So let's make it harder for these crazies, if we can.

By the way, are you ever going to respond to the obvious problem with the bolded argument above?

Can you repeat it? There's been a lot of arguments made here.

 

[Sweet Feet]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

Please no

 

[parasaurolophus]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Took my wife shooting today, had 10 rounds in her magazines, emptied 1 then popped in another, emptied that loaded another and emptied that. Had the target at 7 yards, told her to take her time and just try and hit the target anywhere and not try for a bulls eye. Took all of 57 seconds to put all 30 rounds in the target.This is a 61 year old woman shooting a 9mm. She has been shooting less than a year, once a week. This also without the laser pointer on.Now if you think 10 round magazines is the answer, think again. Again a 61 yr old grandmother who had never touched a gun in the first 60 years of her life, having no clue why I asked her to do what she did.

So in other words, you are not willing to compromise on this. You can't simply have your high capacity mags at the shooting range. You have to have them at home as well, at work, whatever. And if anyone disagrees, then they're trying to take your constitutional rights away. Do I have this right?

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Has anybody called BS yet? Women can barely drive a car, no way a 61 year old woman is unloading 30 rounds into a paper target in 57 seconds. Unless of course the paper target is the size of Otis's ego or hands.

It's really not that unreasonable at all. How fast can you pull a trigger? More than once per second, easily. How long does it take to change a magazine? Not more than 5 seconds. Sorry to deflate your argument, but 30 rounds in 57 seconds is perfectly believable.

I have no doubt she shot 30 times.Going 30 for 30 on hitting the target AND 57 seconds? I am not buying it.

 

[Apple Jack]

Like the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor, Obama's attack on Constitution and our right to self defense awakening a sleeping giant!

You're gonna spin off this planet, Busey.

 

[Borat]

Their proposals have not been an emotional diatribe like the one you linked here, but serious specific rational arguments.

Obviously, this sort of behavior is frowned upon in the FFA.

 

[Schlzm]

Like the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor, Obama's attack on Constitution and our right to self defense awakening a sleeping giant!

I'm not sure who we are supposed to end up nuking here...Schlzm

 

[timschochet]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

I don't think I need to, because I'm betting you're already familiar with the argument. Just as I already know your rebuttal.

 

[jonessed]

Actually, you kind of did miss his point. His point is that limiting capacity on magazines wouldn't do any good because even an untrained 60 year old grandmother can change two clips and still shoot 30 bullets in a minutely with reasonable accuracy.That said, I agree that limiting capacity might do some good, but certainly not unless you make it retroactive, and even then...

Yeah I read it wrong. Mea culpa. But whether I missed his point, here's what I notice: no matter what idea is brought up, no matter how much of a compromise is offered, there are people here who will always reject it. Their only solution is more guns. Still I remain hopeful. The NRA has announced that on Friday they will have proposals of their own. Maybe they will give in to the 74% of their membership who support my ideas on this. Guess we'll see.

I think there are more folks here who's solution is to ban all guns than those saying we need more guns.

Link? I think there's exactly 1 person here who has posted that we need to ban all guns, and he didn't stay in the discussion very long.

here's the first post in this thread from this thread's most leading contributor:

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

there's 224 more posts that continue along that vein.

We listed over a half a dozen a few pages back and they have mostly all come in and agreed so I have no idea where he is getting "exactly 1" from.

 

[RCon]

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.

I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Yes I read this wrong. Sorry about that. Here's my response to your experiment: I don't believe that anyone needs more than 10 rounds per magazine for self-defense. I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties. I believe this because law enforcement tells me so and they want to try it. So I want to try it too.

Now perhaps your grandmother is an anomaly. Or perhaps she is representative and none of this will make any difference at all. But I don't see it as too much of an infringement upon your rights, so I want to try it. I recognize, as Dvorak points out, that it's been tried before (though there may have been some loopholes, not exactly sure on this point.) But just about every mass shooting in the last several years have involved high capacity magazines. Obviously there is a reason for that. So let's make it harder for these crazies, if we can.

By the way, are you ever going to respond to the obvious problem with the bolded argument above?

Can you repeat it? There's been a lot of arguments made here.

Law enforcement tends to say a lot of things will help them fight crime, such as banning video recordings of law enforcement officers performing their duties. What makes this one special and more believable?That's not to say this proposal wouldn't help, but "because law enforcement says it will" is a particularly poor argument.

 

[Borat]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Took my wife shooting today, had 10 rounds in her magazines, emptied 1 then popped in another, emptied that loaded another and emptied that. Had the target at 7 yards, told her to take her time and just try and hit the target anywhere and not try for a bulls eye. Took all of 57 seconds to put all 30 rounds in the target.This is a 61 year old woman shooting a 9mm. She has been shooting less than a year, once a week. This also without the laser pointer on.Now if you think 10 round magazines is the answer, think again. Again a 61 yr old grandmother who had never touched a gun in the first 60 years of her life, having no clue why I asked her to do what she did.

So in other words, you are not willing to compromise on this. You can't simply have your high capacity mags at the shooting range. You have to have them at home as well, at work, whatever. And if anyone disagrees, then they're trying to take your constitutional rights away. Do I have this right?

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Has anybody called BS yet? Women can barely drive a car, no way a 61 year old woman is unloading 30 rounds into a paper target in 57 seconds. Unless of course the paper target is the size of Otis's ego or hands.

It's really not that unreasonable at all. How fast can you pull a trigger? More than once per second, easily. How long does it take to change a magazine? Not more than 5 seconds. Sorry to deflate your argument, but 30 rounds in 57 seconds is perfectly believable.

I have no doubt she shot 30 times.Going 30 for 30 on hitting the target AND 57 seconds? I am not buying it.

Did you miss the part where the target was 7 yards away? I'm not quite sure why this is so unbelievable to you.

 

[Apple Jack]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

I don't think I need to, because I'm betting you're already familiar with the argument. Just as I already know your rebuttal.

In mass shootings, the shooting tends to happen before law enforcement gets there.

 

[Borat]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

I don't think I need to, because I'm betting you're already familiar with the argument. Just as I already know your rebuttal.

...so what's your response to my rebuttal?

 

[Apple Jack]

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.

I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Yes I read this wrong. Sorry about that. Here's my response to your experiment: I don't believe that anyone needs more than 10 rounds per magazine for self-defense. I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties. I believe this because law enforcement tells me so and they want to try it. So I want to try it too.

Now perhaps your grandmother is an anomaly. Or perhaps she is representative and none of this will make any difference at all. But I don't see it as too much of an infringement upon your rights, so I want to try it. I recognize, as Dvorak points out, that it's been tried before (though there may have been some loopholes, not exactly sure on this point.) But just about every mass shooting in the last several years have involved high capacity magazines. Obviously there is a reason for that. So let's make it harder for these crazies, if we can.

By the way, are you ever going to respond to the obvious problem with the bolded argument above?

Can you repeat it? There's been a lot of arguments made here.

Law enforcement tends to say a lot of things will help them fight crime, such as banning video recordings of law enforcement officers performing their duties. What makes this one special and more believable?That's not to say this proposal wouldn't help, but "because law enforcement says it will" is a particularly poor argument.

That's not to help them perform their duties, that's to keep them from being accountable for not doing their duties. You don't know many cops, do you?

 

[Schlzm]

Hand grenades? You need to move out of the pee-wwe and into the big leagues my friend. Get yourself one of these! You know, for pitbulls and velociraptors on the subway or at your local tan and spa/kosher deli.

Schlzm

Otis is way to petite to handle that

True. Though he is armed with stinging one liners, zingers, and biting sarcasm. I would suggest he round out his arsenal with
though.Schlzm

 

[timschochet]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

I don't think I need to, because I'm betting you're already familiar with the argument. Just as I already know your rebuttal.

...so what's your response to my rebuttal?

That I think it's worth a try.

 

[Borat]

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.

I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Yes I read this wrong. Sorry about that. Here's my response to your experiment: I don't believe that anyone needs more than 10 rounds per magazine for self-defense. I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties. I believe this because law enforcement tells me so and they want to try it. So I want to try it too.

Now perhaps your grandmother is an anomaly. Or perhaps she is representative and none of this will make any difference at all. But I don't see it as too much of an infringement upon your rights, so I want to try it. I recognize, as Dvorak points out, that it's been tried before (though there may have been some loopholes, not exactly sure on this point.) But just about every mass shooting in the last several years have involved high capacity magazines. Obviously there is a reason for that. So let's make it harder for these crazies, if we can.

By the way, are you ever going to respond to the obvious problem with the bolded argument above?

Can you repeat it? There's been a lot of arguments made here.

Law enforcement tends to say a lot of things will help them fight crime, such as banning video recordings of law enforcement officers performing their duties. What makes this one special and more believable?That's not to say this proposal wouldn't help, but "because law enforcement says it will" is a particularly poor argument.

That's not to help them perform their duties, that's to keep them from being accountable for not doing their duties. You don't know many cops, do you?

No, that's to keep them from being accountable for doing things that they shouldn't be doing. Trust me when I tell you that they're a tab bit more worried about being caught with their hands dirty than they are about falling asleep in the squad car while working a traffic detail on the second half of a double.You don't know many cops, do you?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Took my wife shooting today, had 10 rounds in her magazines, emptied 1 then popped in another, emptied that loaded another and emptied that. Had the target at 7 yards, told her to take her time and just try and hit the target anywhere and not try for a bulls eye. Took all of 57 seconds to put all 30 rounds in the target.This is a 61 year old woman shooting a 9mm. She has been shooting less than a year, once a week. This also without the laser pointer on.Now if you think 10 round magazines is the answer, think again. Again a 61 yr old grandmother who had never touched a gun in the first 60 years of her life, having no clue why I asked her to do what she did.

So in other words, you are not willing to compromise on this. You can't simply have your high capacity mags at the shooting range. You have to have them at home as well, at work, whatever. And if anyone disagrees, then they're trying to take your constitutional rights away. Do I have this right?

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Has anybody called BS yet? Women can barely drive a car, no way a 61 year old woman is unloading 30 rounds into a paper target in 57 seconds. Unless of course the paper target is the size of Otis's ego or hands.

It's really not that unreasonable at all. How fast can you pull a trigger? More than once per second, easily. How long does it take to change a magazine? Not more than 5 seconds. Sorry to deflate your argument, but 30 rounds in 57 seconds is perfectly believable.

It's not unreasonable in a controlled range environment, shooting at a stationary target while set. Moving, aiming at mobile targets, and swapping out mags in a live fire setting is slightly different. At the very least you are looking at a few extra seconds per mag, which could easily make a difference in people getting out of a room or to safety vs. not.

 

[Dvorak]

Liberals after 9/11 never displayed anything close to the obstinacy, cotemptuousness, and undeserved arrogance that some conservatives are showing here.

The unhinged crazy posters in this thread are decidedly tilted towards the ban gun crowd. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the sheer number of Otis posts, but still, I've found a higher percentage of the gun rights posters to be level headed and reasonable.

Um no. I can't agree. But I wasn't speaking about that anyhow. I was speaking about the "We know so much more about guns than you do, you idiots don't understand anything" line that has been so prevalent.

Yes, your complete lack of knowledge about laws that were on the books all of 8 years ago makes you the level headed, reasonable expert to formulate "new" legislation.I guess it is too much to ask for those concerned to have an elementary understanding of the current state of affairs before we go about re-writing the Constitution.Tell us all again how criminals will obey these new laws of yours.

I will always own up to lack of knowledge. But your use of the phrase "re-writing the Constitution" in reference to the idea of limiting magazine capacity demonstrates your fanaticism on this issue. The idea that anyone would treat high capacity gun magazines as a constitutional right is astonishing to many of us.

Because high capacity gun magazines is the only solution being discussed. You are being purposefully obtuse at this point.

You're responding to my point, not to other people. I have made exactly TWO recommendations in this thread. Neither one would affect the Constitution one iota.

Here's where I'm coming from, Tim. High cap mag restrictions have been tried and deemed ineffective to the point where the law sunset without fanfare from the left. And the fact is, anecdotal incidents aside, gun crime has gone down since those restrictions were lifted, more states have legalized concealed carry and yes, we have more guns. So what next when these laws fail us and another lunatic goes off his meds (figuratively and literally)? Where do we draw the line? Maybe you draw the line with your two recommendations, but if you think Schumer, Bloomberg, Feinstein and the like will stop there, you need to wake up.So, I fight ineffective laws like banning guns because they have a pistol grip instead of a thumb-hole stock. Or banning 15 round magazines because 10 "is plenty". Or national registration databases which I feel will have unintended consequences far outweighing any benefits. Registration leads to confiscation, period. In other countries and right here in America. Recently.See Chicago's semi-auto rifle confiscation in the 1990s after registering them in the 80s and California's SKS snafu resulting from the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. Don't tell me it can't happen. I know how to open a history book.

 

[Borat]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

I don't think I need to, because I'm betting you're already familiar with the argument. Just as I already know your rebuttal.

...so what's your response to my rebuttal?

That I think it's worth a try.

Please explain how this experiment of yours will be measured and when this "try" will have reached its conclusion.Also a cost/benefit analysis would be nice, but I'll settle for just an answer to my first question.

 

[Borat]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Took my wife shooting today, had 10 rounds in her magazines, emptied 1 then popped in another, emptied that loaded another and emptied that. Had the target at 7 yards, told her to take her time and just try and hit the target anywhere and not try for a bulls eye. Took all of 57 seconds to put all 30 rounds in the target.This is a 61 year old woman shooting a 9mm. She has been shooting less than a year, once a week. This also without the laser pointer on.Now if you think 10 round magazines is the answer, think again. Again a 61 yr old grandmother who had never touched a gun in the first 60 years of her life, having no clue why I asked her to do what she did.

So in other words, you are not willing to compromise on this. You can't simply have your high capacity mags at the shooting range. You have to have them at home as well, at work, whatever. And if anyone disagrees, then they're trying to take your constitutional rights away. Do I have this right?

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Has anybody called BS yet? Women can barely drive a car, no way a 61 year old woman is unloading 30 rounds into a paper target in 57 seconds. Unless of course the paper target is the size of Otis's ego or hands.

It's really not that unreasonable at all. How fast can you pull a trigger? More than once per second, easily. How long does it take to change a magazine? Not more than 5 seconds. Sorry to deflate your argument, but 30 rounds in 57 seconds is perfectly believable.

It's not unreasonable in a controlled range environment, shooting at a stationary target while set. Moving, aiming at mobile targets, and swapping out mags in a live fire setting is slightly different. At the very least you are looking at a few extra seconds per mag, which could easily make a difference in people getting out of a room or to safety vs. not.

Which part of the experiment were you unclear about?

 

[timschochet]

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.

I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Yes I read this wrong. Sorry about that. Here's my response to your experiment: I don't believe that anyone needs more than 10 rounds per magazine for self-defense. I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties. I believe this because law enforcement tells me so and they want to try it. So I want to try it too.

Now perhaps your grandmother is an anomaly. Or perhaps she is representative and none of this will make any difference at all. But I don't see it as too much of an infringement upon your rights, so I want to try it. I recognize, as Dvorak points out, that it's been tried before (though there may have been some loopholes, not exactly sure on this point.) But just about every mass shooting in the last several years have involved high capacity magazines. Obviously there is a reason for that. So let's make it harder for these crazies, if we can.

By the way, are you ever going to respond to the obvious problem with the bolded argument above?

Can you repeat it? There's been a lot of arguments made here.

Law enforcement tends to say a lot of things will help them fight crime, such as banning video recordings of law enforcement officers performing their duties. What makes this one special and more believable?That's not to say this proposal wouldn't help, but "because law enforcement says it will" is a particularly poor argument.

In the same way that Obama listens to the State Department, the military, and the CIA, we should always listen to law enforcement but not necessarily take their advice. Still, we should never forget that they are experts on this subject and thus we can give their arguments in general greater weight than we might give to a guy posting on an internet web site who enjoys using high capacity magazines. In this case I find their argument compelling, at least to the point that we should give this a try.

 

[Borat]

Liberals after 9/11 never displayed anything close to the obstinacy, cotemptuousness, and undeserved arrogance that some conservatives are showing here.

The unhinged crazy posters in this thread are decidedly tilted towards the ban gun crowd. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the sheer number of Otis posts, but still, I've found a higher percentage of the gun rights posters to be level headed and reasonable.

Um no. I can't agree. But I wasn't speaking about that anyhow. I was speaking about the "We know so much more about guns than you do, you idiots don't understand anything" line that has been so prevalent.

Yes, your complete lack of knowledge about laws that were on the books all of 8 years ago makes you the level headed, reasonable expert to formulate "new" legislation.I guess it is too much to ask for those concerned to have an elementary understanding of the current state of affairs before we go about re-writing the Constitution.Tell us all again how criminals will obey these new laws of yours.

I will always own up to lack of knowledge. But your use of the phrase "re-writing the Constitution" in reference to the idea of limiting magazine capacity demonstrates your fanaticism on this issue. The idea that anyone would treat high capacity gun magazines as a constitutional right is astonishing to many of us.

Because high capacity gun magazines is the only solution being discussed. You are being purposefully obtuse at this point.

You're responding to my point, not to other people. I have made exactly TWO recommendations in this thread. Neither one would affect the Constitution one iota.

Here's where I'm coming from, Tim. High cap mag restrictions have been tried and deemed ineffective to the point where the law sunset without fanfare from the left. And the fact is, anecdotal incidents aside, gun crime has gone down since those restrictions were lifted, more states have legalized concealed carry and yes, we have more guns. So what next when these laws fail us and another lunatic goes off his meds (figuratively and literally)? Where do we draw the line? Maybe you draw the line with your two recommendations, but if you think Schumer, Bloomberg, Feinstein and the like will stop there, you need to wake up.So, I fight ineffective laws like banning guns because they have a pistol grip instead of a thumb-hole stock. Or banning 15 round magazines because 10 "is plenty". Or national registration databases which I feel will have unintended consequences far outweighing any benefits. Registration leads to confiscation, period. In other countries and right here in America. Recently.See Chicago's semi-auto rifle confiscation in the 1990s after registering them in the 80s and California's SKS snafu resulting from the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. Don't tell me it can't happen. I know how to open a history book.

You don't even have to go back that far. Guns were illegally seized in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Of course, it goes without saying that we're all "gun nuts" for believing that this could happen.

 

[RCon]

Law enforcement tends to say a lot of things will help them fight crime, such as banning video recordings of law enforcement officers performing their duties. What makes this one special and more believable?That's not to say this proposal wouldn't help, but "because law enforcement says it will" is a particularly poor argument.

In the same way that Obama listens to the State Department, the military, and the CIA, we should always listen to law enforcement but not necessarily take their advice. Still, we should never forget that they are experts on this subject and thus we can give their arguments in general greater weight than we might give to a guy posting on an internet web site who enjoys using high capacity magazines. In this case I find their argument compelling, at least to the point that we should give this a try.

I'd hope you find the argument itself compelling irrespective of who is making it, especially considering the number of ridiculous proposals law enforcement claims will help lower crime and keep us safe. Law enforcement is one of the leading forces behind the continued banning of marijuana. Similarly, banning video cameras is insane and no one could possibly buy that argument.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Took my wife shooting today, had 10 rounds in her magazines, emptied 1 then popped in another, emptied that loaded another and emptied that. Had the target at 7 yards, told her to take her time and just try and hit the target anywhere and not try for a bulls eye. Took all of 57 seconds to put all 30 rounds in the target.This is a 61 year old woman shooting a 9mm. She has been shooting less than a year, once a week. This also without the laser pointer on.Now if you think 10 round magazines is the answer, think again. Again a 61 yr old grandmother who had never touched a gun in the first 60 years of her life, having no clue why I asked her to do what she did.

So in other words, you are not willing to compromise on this. You can't simply have your high capacity mags at the shooting range. You have to have them at home as well, at work, whatever. And if anyone disagrees, then they're trying to take your constitutional rights away. Do I have this right?

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Has anybody called BS yet? Women can barely drive a car, no way a 61 year old woman is unloading 30 rounds into a paper target in 57 seconds. Unless of course the paper target is the size of Otis's ego or hands.

I did not say it was a small target, you made me go out to my car and measure one. It is 18x24 inches at 21 feet. It is really not that difficult to hit. She also has minor arthritis in her left thumb, so there. It is an ambidextrous magazine release so that not an issue. I could shoot all three magazines with 19 rounds in less time, semi accurately. You should see what 5 rounds of 4 pellet, 000 buck out of my judge does to the target.

 

[timschochet]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

I don't think I need to, because I'm betting you're already familiar with the argument. Just as I already know your rebuttal.

...so what's your response to my rebuttal?

That I think it's worth a try.

Please explain how this experiment of yours will be measured and when this "try" will have reached its conclusion.Also a cost/benefit analysis would be nice, but I'll settle for just an answer to my first question.

I don't know. That's probably not a satisfactory answer to you, and if that were my answer in terms of banning some sort of firearm, it would indeed be unsatisfactory. But what are we talking about here? These high capacity magazines are not a huge deal. They will not help you defend yourself. We could compromise on allowing them to be used at shooting ranges, so people could still have the pleasure of firing them if that's what they really want. But I want to try this because I believe that it will work. I have no idea how I would go about proving this one way or the other, no matter what the result.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Took my wife shooting today, had 10 rounds in her magazines, emptied 1 then popped in another, emptied that loaded another and emptied that. Had the target at 7 yards, told her to take her time and just try and hit the target anywhere and not try for a bulls eye. Took all of 57 seconds to put all 30 rounds in the target.This is a 61 year old woman shooting a 9mm. She has been shooting less than a year, once a week. This also without the laser pointer on.Now if you think 10 round magazines is the answer, think again. Again a 61 yr old grandmother who had never touched a gun in the first 60 years of her life, having no clue why I asked her to do what she did.

So in other words, you are not willing to compromise on this. You can't simply have your high capacity mags at the shooting range. You have to have them at home as well, at work, whatever. And if anyone disagrees, then they're trying to take your constitutional rights away. Do I have this right?

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Has anybody called BS yet? Women can barely drive a car, no way a 61 year old woman is unloading 30 rounds into a paper target in 57 seconds. Unless of course the paper target is the size of Otis's ego or hands.

It's really not that unreasonable at all. How fast can you pull a trigger? More than once per second, easily. How long does it take to change a magazine? Not more than 5 seconds. Sorry to deflate your argument, but 30 rounds in 57 seconds is perfectly believable.

It's not unreasonable in a controlled range environment, shooting at a stationary target while set. Moving, aiming at mobile targets, and swapping out mags in a live fire setting is slightly different. At the very least you are looking at a few extra seconds per mag, which could easily make a difference in people getting out of a room or to safety vs. not.

Which part of the experiment were you unclear about?

I'm not sure. Just pointing out it would be harder to work as quickly in a non-range setting while shooting live targets, and that the extra seconds swapping 10 round mags could potentially make a difference for someone trying to get away.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Did you miss the part where the target was 7 yards away? I'm not quite sure why this is so unbelievable to you.

Did you miss the part where this was a 61 year old woman that was told to take her time yet somehow she is like Rambo and leisurely fires 10 rounds, changes the magazine, fires 10 rounds, changes magazine, fires 10 rounds all of which hit the target and then she looks at her husband cluelessly wondering why she just unloaded 30 rounds and he is standing there with a stop watch and his laptop so he can update this thread?

 

[Dvorak]

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.

I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Yes I read this wrong. Sorry about that. Here's my response to your experiment: I don't believe that anyone needs more than 10 rounds per magazine for self-defense. I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties. I believe this because law enforcement tells me so and they want to try it. So I want to try it too.

Now perhaps your grandmother is an anomaly. Or perhaps she is representative and none of this will make any difference at all. But I don't see it as too much of an infringement upon your rights, so I want to try it. I recognize, as Dvorak points out, that it's been tried before (though there may have been some loopholes, not exactly sure on this point.) But just about every mass shooting in the last several years have involved high capacity magazines. Obviously there is a reason for that. So let's make it harder for these crazies, if we can.

By the way, are you ever going to respond to the obvious problem with the bolded argument above?

Can you repeat it? There's been a lot of arguments made here.

Law enforcement tends to say a lot of things will help them fight crime, such as banning video recordings of law enforcement officers performing their duties. What makes this one special and more believable?That's not to say this proposal wouldn't help, but "because law enforcement says it will" is a particularly poor argument.

In the same way that Obama listens to the State Department, the military, and the CIA, we should always listen to law enforcement but not necessarily take their advice. Still, we should never forget that they are experts on this subject and thus we can give their arguments in general greater weight than we might give to a guy posting on an internet web site who enjoys using high capacity magazines. In this case I find their argument compelling, at least to the point that we should give this a try.

Yep, let's give their ideas a try...St. Louis County Police Chief: Arm School Personnel

Sheriff renews call for armed persons in schools

Oh wait, we are only going to try the ideas of law enforcement professionals that YOU agree with?

 

[timschochet]

Liberals after 9/11 never displayed anything close to the obstinacy, cotemptuousness, and undeserved arrogance that some conservatives are showing here.

The unhinged crazy posters in this thread are decidedly tilted towards the ban gun crowd. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the sheer number of Otis posts, but still, I've found a higher percentage of the gun rights posters to be level headed and reasonable.

Um no. I can't agree. But I wasn't speaking about that anyhow. I was speaking about the "We know so much more about guns than you do, you idiots don't understand anything" line that has been so prevalent.

Yes, your complete lack of knowledge about laws that were on the books all of 8 years ago makes you the level headed, reasonable expert to formulate "new" legislation.I guess it is too much to ask for those concerned to have an elementary understanding of the current state of affairs before we go about re-writing the Constitution.Tell us all again how criminals will obey these new laws of yours.

I will always own up to lack of knowledge. But your use of the phrase "re-writing the Constitution" in reference to the idea of limiting magazine capacity demonstrates your fanaticism on this issue. The idea that anyone would treat high capacity gun magazines as a constitutional right is astonishing to many of us.

Because high capacity gun magazines is the only solution being discussed. You are being purposefully obtuse at this point.

You're responding to my point, not to other people. I have made exactly TWO recommendations in this thread. Neither one would affect the Constitution one iota.

Here's where I'm coming from, Tim. High cap mag restrictions have been tried and deemed ineffective to the point where the law sunset without fanfare from the left. And the fact is, anecdotal incidents aside, gun crime has gone down since those restrictions were lifted, more states have legalized concealed carry and yes, we have more guns. So what next when these laws fail us and another lunatic goes off his meds (figuratively and literally)? Where do we draw the line? Maybe you draw the line with your two recommendations, but if you think Schumer, Bloomberg, Feinstein and the like will stop there, you need to wake up.So, I fight ineffective laws like banning guns because they have a pistol grip instead of a thumb-hole stock. Or banning 15 round magazines because 10 "is plenty". Or national registration databases which I feel will have unintended consequences far outweighing any benefits. Registration leads to confiscation, period. In other countries and right here in America. Recently.See Chicago's semi-auto rifle confiscation in the 1990s after registering them in the 80s and California's SKS snafu resulting from the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. Don't tell me it can't happen. I know how to open a history book.

You don't even have to go back that far. Guns were illegally seized in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Of course, it goes without saying that we're all "gun nuts" for believing that this could happen.

There is a HUGE difference between certain types of guns being taken by authorities (such as assault rifles) and the possibility that the federal government is going to use a national database to seize all firearms. I read history too. The latter notion is a .paranoid fantasy.

 

[Borat]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

I don't think I need to, because I'm betting you're already familiar with the argument. Just as I already know your rebuttal.

...so what's your response to my rebuttal?

That I think it's worth a try.

Please explain how this experiment of yours will be measured and when this "try" will have reached its conclusion.Also a cost/benefit analysis would be nice, but I'll settle for just an answer to my first question.

I don't know. That's probably not a satisfactory answer to you, and if that were my answer in terms of banning some sort of firearm, it would indeed be unsatisfactory. But what are we talking about here? These high capacity magazines are not a huge deal. They will not help you defend yourself. We could compromise on allowing them to be used at shooting ranges, so people could still have the pleasure of firing them if that's what they really want. But I want to try this because I believe that it will work. I have no idea how I would go about proving this one way or the other, no matter what the result.

I can respect your argument (aside from the part where you say that more bullets in my magazine won't help me defend myself), but with all due respect, your subjective opinion (as you seem to realize) should not be enough to sway this debate one way or the other.

 

[timschochet]

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.

I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Yes I read this wrong. Sorry about that. Here's my response to your experiment: I don't believe that anyone needs more than 10 rounds per magazine for self-defense. I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties. I believe this because law enforcement tells me so and they want to try it. So I want to try it too.

Now perhaps your grandmother is an anomaly. Or perhaps she is representative and none of this will make any difference at all. But I don't see it as too much of an infringement upon your rights, so I want to try it. I recognize, as Dvorak points out, that it's been tried before (though there may have been some loopholes, not exactly sure on this point.) But just about every mass shooting in the last several years have involved high capacity magazines. Obviously there is a reason for that. So let's make it harder for these crazies, if we can.

By the way, are you ever going to respond to the obvious problem with the bolded argument above?

Can you repeat it? There's been a lot of arguments made here.

Law enforcement tends to say a lot of things will help them fight crime, such as banning video recordings of law enforcement officers performing their duties. What makes this one special and more believable?That's not to say this proposal wouldn't help, but "because law enforcement says it will" is a particularly poor argument.

In the same way that Obama listens to the State Department, the military, and the CIA, we should always listen to law enforcement but not necessarily take their advice. Still, we should never forget that they are experts on this subject and thus we can give their arguments in general greater weight than we might give to a guy posting on an internet web site who enjoys using high capacity magazines. In this case I find their argument compelling, at least to the point that we should give this a try.

Yep, let's give their ideas a try...St. Louis County Police Chief: Arm School Personnel

Sheriff renews call for armed persons in schools

Oh wait, we are only going to try the ideas of law enforcement professionals that YOU agree with?

Actually...yes.

 

[Borat]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Took my wife shooting today, had 10 rounds in her magazines, emptied 1 then popped in another, emptied that loaded another and emptied that. Had the target at 7 yards, told her to take her time and just try and hit the target anywhere and not try for a bulls eye. Took all of 57 seconds to put all 30 rounds in the target.This is a 61 year old woman shooting a 9mm. She has been shooting less than a year, once a week. This also without the laser pointer on.Now if you think 10 round magazines is the answer, think again. Again a 61 yr old grandmother who had never touched a gun in the first 60 years of her life, having no clue why I asked her to do what she did.

So in other words, you are not willing to compromise on this. You can't simply have your high capacity mags at the shooting range. You have to have them at home as well, at work, whatever. And if anyone disagrees, then they're trying to take your constitutional rights away. Do I have this right?

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Has anybody called BS yet? Women can barely drive a car, no way a 61 year old woman is unloading 30 rounds into a paper target in 57 seconds. Unless of course the paper target is the size of Otis's ego or hands.

It's really not that unreasonable at all. How fast can you pull a trigger? More than once per second, easily. How long does it take to change a magazine? Not more than 5 seconds. Sorry to deflate your argument, but 30 rounds in 57 seconds is perfectly believable.

It's not unreasonable in a controlled range environment, shooting at a stationary target while set. Moving, aiming at mobile targets, and swapping out mags in a live fire setting is slightly different. At the very least you are looking at a few extra seconds per mag, which could easily make a difference in people getting out of a room or to safety vs. not.

Which part of the experiment were you unclear about?

I'm not sure. Just pointing out it would be harder to work as quickly in a non-range setting while shooting live targets, and that the extra seconds swapping 10 round mags could potentially make a difference for someone trying to get away.

While I agree with your point, I don't think it does anything to detract from the point that was originally being made here.

 

[timschochet]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

I don't think I need to, because I'm betting you're already familiar with the argument. Just as I already know your rebuttal.

...so what's your response to my rebuttal?

That I think it's worth a try.

Please explain how this experiment of yours will be measured and when this "try" will have reached its conclusion.Also a cost/benefit analysis would be nice, but I'll settle for just an answer to my first question.

I don't know. That's probably not a satisfactory answer to you, and if that were my answer in terms of banning some sort of firearm, it would indeed be unsatisfactory. But what are we talking about here? These high capacity magazines are not a huge deal. They will not help you defend yourself. We could compromise on allowing them to be used at shooting ranges, so people could still have the pleasure of firing them if that's what they really want. But I want to try this because I believe that it will work. I have no idea how I would go about proving this one way or the other, no matter what the result.

I can respect your argument (aside from the part where you say that more bullets in my magazine won't help me defend myself), but with all due respect, your subjective opinion (as you seem to realize) should not be enough to sway this debate one way or the other.

Of course not. But 59% of the public is for it, so it may happen. We'll know shortly.

 

[RCon]

Yep, let's give their ideas a try...

St. Louis County Police Chief: Arm School Personnel

Sheriff renews call for armed persons in schools

Oh wait, we are only going to try the ideas of law enforcement professionals that YOU agree with?

Actually...yes.

Doesn't that completely undercut your theory that an argument is persuasive because it's a law enforcement recommendation?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Did you miss the part where the target was 7 yards away? I'm not quite sure why this is so unbelievable to you.

Did you miss the part where this was a 61 year old woman that was told to take her time yet somehow she is like Rambo and leisurely fires 10 rounds, changes the magazine, fires 10 rounds, changes magazine, fires 10 rounds all of which hit the target and then she looks at her husband cluelessly wondering why she just unloaded 30 rounds and he is standing there with a stop watch and his laptop so he can update this thread?

Regular watch with a second hand and it was right after work before I was able to get on my laptop. We shoot every Wednesday at the Arms Room, in League City, Tx if anyone wants to come watch. She is not cluless she just did what I asked her to do. She is not aware of this forum. She shot the Taurus Judge once and will never shoot it again because it hurt her hand. She can also shoot a 20ga shotgun, from the hip because her shoulder cannot take the recoil.Edit: We are both "Senior Citizen" members at $25 a month each. Good deal

 

[Borat]

Did you miss the part where the target was 7 yards away? I'm not quite sure why this is so unbelievable to you.

Did you miss the part where this was a 61 year old woman that was told to take her time yet somehow she is like Rambo and leisurely fires 10 rounds, changes the magazine, fires 10 rounds, changes magazine, fires 10 rounds all of which hit the target and then she looks at her husband cluelessly wondering why she just unloaded 30 rounds and he is standing there with a stop watch and his laptop so he can update this thread?

No, I didn't miss that part. But then, I've been to the range many times, and I am well aware of the fact that unloading 30 rounds from a semiautomatic pistol in less than a minute is really not a superhuman "Rambo" feat... not even for a 61 year old woman. Do you really think that he was sitting there with a stop watch and a laptop? Or are you just trying your very best to paint The Guy Who Knows What He's Talking About as some sort of lunatic?

 

[Mad Cow]

Unintended and unforseen consequences, thou art a heartless #####. I cannot wait to see what comes of whatever half-thought out idea gets shoved through. I can only hope it works out as well as Prohibition.