I never questioned that. I have a permit. I’m talking about people in general and increasingly, those in constitutional carry states. I know many who don’t have permits and buy weapons like they were preparing for a siege. AAMOF, some of these people are more gun crazed then any permit holder I know. They are much more of a problem then permit holders.
why do you want to limit honest people to a certain round count? all of what you post is irrelevant to this issue.
that's really silly., are you saying that lives of the police are more valuable than the lives of other civilians.
that's elitist nonsense. and you are moving the goal posts. I am a professional level shooter with credentials well beyond most cops. So why should I be limited to an arbitrary number.
I don't see much rational thinking when you try to argue for magazine limits. that sounds like parroting the brain dead propaganda of the gun banning movement.
another inane comment-suggesting that a normal capacity handgun is the tool of a mass shooter. My son carries a Glock 19=one that I won in a match. He also has a sig 365 that has a 15 round magazine as well. are you suggesting that he does that -instead of carrying a G42 because he intends mass murder?
Interesting, and likely well-intentioned, argument but it's completely wrong. Never, ever, use a deadly weapon to injure a person or animal. If you're using deadly force you must accept that deadly force is warranted. To use deadly force when unwarranted could, and should, get you in deep trouble. When deadly force is warranted, use deadly force. When someone is threatening your life, your goal is not to injure them; it's to save your life by stopping the attack absolutely.
Such nonsense has been stated by numerous dictators and their supporters around the world. Believing that private individuals do not need firearms for their own defense as such is not a legitimate interest of the state, and those who do wish to have access to firearms should join the military to further the interests of the state.
Owning a gun does not make anyone anymore responsible then owning a car. It’s the licensing process that makes them more responsible. Nope, I’m saying that a G42 or an SW442 are not the preferred tools of mass murderers. At some point there will be elected proponents of gun laws trying to pass restrictions on mag cap. I’m supporting them.
It does not. Meaningless and irrelevant nonsense with no basic in fact. The Cumbria shooting in the nation of England shows that a mass shooting can be committed with any firearm available. Twelve individuals were murdered and another eleven injured, all committed with a bolt-action rifle, and a double-barreled shotgun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings And mass murders will still continue unabated, because such magazines exist in the hundreds of millions, and will always be available to anyone who wishes to own them.
Ha ha There are thousands of full auto weapons out there, all highly regulated. How many have been used by civilian mass shooters......let’s count them.
Meaningless and irrelevant hyperbole. Only individuals who cannot otherwise justify their positions resort to comparing firearms to destructive devices such as nuclear weaponry.
Such does not change the fact that the retort, weak as it may be, is factually correct. Licensing requirements have absolutely nothing to do with individuals engaging in basic responsibility when either operating a firearm or a motor vehicle. The number of individuals who engage in the impaired operation of a motor vehicle are evidence of such. Responsibility is a character trait, not something that can be learned by force or coercion. No amount of license training can prevent an individual from deciding to engage in reckless, criminal behavior.
First, exactly what is serving to prevent an individual who owns a fully-automatic firearm from using it to commit a mass murder? They have the means and opportunity, they have the appropriate firearm and a sufficient amount of ammunition to do so. So what is ultimately serving to physically stop such from occurring? Second, the number of mass shootings committed with fully-automatic firearms is infinitesimal in comparison to the number of mass shootings committed with handguns, thus demonstrating the overall size of the firearm is what is more important than the ballistic potential of the ammunition that is used. Third, exactly how many of the untold hundred of millions of detachable box magazines possess individual and unique serial numbers that would allow for authorities to identify which manufacturer produced them, which seller sold them, when they were purchased, and who presently owns them? Inconvenient as it may be, the restrictions on fully-automatic firearms cannot be applied to detachable box magazines, as they are not comparable goods.
Who said I oppose gun ownership the government includes you in the Militia Laws and the Congress in the core powers is calling forth funding and arranging training of and deployment of these volunteers and States can form home guards and militias under their control. And self-defense, hunting and other lawful uses are fine but does a hunting person NEED a 10 round clip I hunt with a modern slingshot, crossbow and rifle based on the game if I can't kill a larger animal with one shot I shouldn't hunt with the rifle I put it down if needed with my knife. In home defense I have a shotgun the two break in attempts or break in I just needed to load it people RAN because at short range I hit you then would die. But for national defense and invasion ask any career soldier if they want armed untrained civilians helping them most would say no. I'm not talking trained state units or veterans here some hunter with a gun you would likely be in the way. Now if CONGRESS as an act of desperation did under law call you up and said go to the nearest officer nco or higher in command and volunteer "say aliens were invading" and special forces moved into mountains you could go there then and be given organizational standing then fine. But you think an armed mob would be welcome? Now for home defense or hunting do you need ten rounds assuming your well trained in your weapon yes or no?
You need to do some real research. Any federally outlaw devise, regardless of the number out there , drops dramatically in use. Take the millions of cars that could not pass inspection for air pollution. People, including criminals dumped them. A criminal who is a non felon, is not going to carry around many things they could be charged with a federal crime for with up to five years in jail. First, their so called friends would turn them in and get thousands in reward money, often no questions asked.
My statements ? You don’t seem to know the differences between pistols ( which we were discussing) , shot guns and hunting rifles. You’re bringing in extraneous weapons like a hunting rifle or shot gun, either of which can critically injure as many as three people in a crowded room with one round. Why don’t you just compare pistols to nuking everyone and be done with the silly example.
the reality is, if an ex-felon needs zero bullets to keep their homes and family safe, then no one really needs any bullets but we have a right to own guns, personally I think the right even applies to ex-felons as they have done their time but if we can take the right away from some people, then it's no longer a right, it's a privalage
Have you served in the military ? Other then shooting other military people, they aren’t left alone with full autos to walk the country side or even in the city, looking for an opportunity to commit mass civilian murders with full autos. So no, they don’t have the opportunity. . Military people who commit war time crimes, do it often with their own personal weapons.
