Dallas shooter had an SKS, with a fixed 10 round magazine...

And you are an expert that can substantiate your assertions, eh? Imagine youself in the line of fire and see if you figure between magazine changes you could close the distance to any effect and live...

[video=youtube;MCSySuemiHU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU[/video]

 

I can't understand anything Dagosa said in that post.

 

Since you are the one maintaining the position that private citizens do not need to have more than ten rounds of ammunition at any given time, board rules state that it is your obligation to explain precisely why that is the case. It is not the obligation of those who disagree with you to explain why you are incorrect, when you cannot in any way explain why you are correct. Why should anyone be expected to do the work that you will not do yourself?

As to one good reason for why someone may need more than ten rounds of ammunition, we have this story. One suspect was shot fourteen times, all his vital internal organs being perforated in the process, and he still did not die immediately.

https://www.policeone.com/police-he...ne-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

Now fulfill your obligation. Explain precisely why no private citizen has any need for a magazine that can carry eleven or more rounds of ammunition, because the amount is completely excessive for legal, lawful, and legitimate purposes. Make your case or do not participate any further. You are already in violation of forum rules by refusing to explain your position. It is time to cease your evasion.

 

I can personally attest to one case, where 18 rounds of .38 special, 158 grain RNL RP did not immediately stop a machete wielding attacker.

 

I'd love to hear that story. Do you mind telling it?

 

You are being typically insincere and going off on another tangent to support your phony conjecture. This entire discussion is about the assault rifle varient with a much more powerful round. Now you falsify the entire debate by using an article on handguns which are all woefully underpowered. Of course handguns may need more firepower for one assailant......not an assault rifle, not a shot gun, and not any higher powered weapon whose muscle energy is as much as 5 times that of a handgun. Give real next time.
You are caught in the middle of two contradictory lies and trying a third one on for size.

 

Of course you don't. You guys immedialy turn deaf dumb and blind when someone shows you how absurd you are with your contradictory arguments.

 

Total BS about the Russian M1943 round. After the Vietnam war the Russians abandoned the round toward the much more lethal 5.45. The Russkies looked at the wounding effects of the 7.62 X 39 and found it lacking. It penetrated well but was not particularly accurate and was not a real man stopper like the US 55gr 5.56 in a slow twist barrel. Once again you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

 

Muscle energy, eh? How is that calculated?

 

More BS from you ! You're saying it's no better then a pistol round and greeting with the pervious post that comparing the mags in this gun, is the same as a handgun round. I don't believe how silly you pretend experts are.

 

Wrong, YOU are saying it's no better than a pistol round. And Dagosa, one more thing. I am an expert. The one thing that is certain is that you are not.

 

Which is of no relevance to the discussion.

You are the one who introduced the argument about magazine capacity, and how private citizens have no need to carry more than ten rounds of ammunition at any given time. If there is any phony conjecture to be had, then it is purely from your own actions, and efforts at steering the discussion.

Which is of no relevance to a discussion relating to the capacity of a magazine. Are you now going to try and change the discussion yet again, to suggest that the ballistic performance of a specific round should be used in determining what the maximum legal capacity of a magazine should be?

You are the one who has stated that private citizens do not need more than ten rounds of ammunition per magazine, with no distinction regarding what firearm was being discussed. Now you are attempting to claim that the type of firearm determines the amount of ammunition that may be necessary to carry?

Which has no relevance to the discussion, and your continued insistence that only the military has need for magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Point out what the contradictions are.