How significant would a new AWB and a 10 round limit be to rifle effectiveness?
- Thread starter Habeed
- Start date
- Status
David White
member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2012
- Messages
- 117
I will not wither.... They will get nothing from me...
leadcounsel
member
One could say that Soldiers don't need 30 round magazines using the same logic. Heck, some Soldiers don't need ANY magazines because they never shot a gun in combat.
Remember, those same Soldiers in WWII with 8 rounds still had SUPERIOR weaponry than the enemy. German rifles were bolt action with 5 round magazines whereas the Garand was semi-auto with 8 rounds. Also, Soldiers have suppressive machine gun fire, and maneuver elements.
When you are home, alone, and crazed thugs kick in your door, do YOU want to be limited to 10 rounds before a reload?? Not me.
Look, 10 round mags are a red-hearing. Killings with high capacity rifles are such an anomaly that we shouldn't even worry about it. There are many more dangerous ways to be killed and die, including car accidents, heart attacks from bad diet, etc.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees contemporary weaponry to citizens. Why would we want to be limited to anything less? Just like the 1st Amendment - we aren't stuck using the Pony Express are we? Our freedom of speech is utilized using tools the framers never could have imagined. Satelite communications, text messages, TV, news, radio, internet... much of that can be used irresponsbily and dangerously. Similarly, the 2nd Amendment incorporates MODERN technology.
We live in a FREE nation. Every step to take away freedom is a step toward slavery.
Remember, those same Soldiers in WWII with 8 rounds still had SUPERIOR weaponry than the enemy. German rifles were bolt action with 5 round magazines whereas the Garand was semi-auto with 8 rounds. Also, Soldiers have suppressive machine gun fire, and maneuver elements.
When you are home, alone, and crazed thugs kick in your door, do YOU want to be limited to 10 rounds before a reload?? Not me.
Look, 10 round mags are a red-hearing. Killings with high capacity rifles are such an anomaly that we shouldn't even worry about it. There are many more dangerous ways to be killed and die, including car accidents, heart attacks from bad diet, etc.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees contemporary weaponry to citizens. Why would we want to be limited to anything less? Just like the 1st Amendment - we aren't stuck using the Pony Express are we? Our freedom of speech is utilized using tools the framers never could have imagined. Satelite communications, text messages, TV, news, radio, internet... much of that can be used irresponsbily and dangerously. Similarly, the 2nd Amendment incorporates MODERN technology.
We live in a FREE nation. Every step to take away freedom is a step toward slavery.
leadcounsel
member
I will add that guns are also a red herring. We have ruined our society through entitlements and other things that destroy and decay human-ness. Destroying religion. Creating an oppressive military-police state that imprisons people for nothing and ruins their lives. Violent movies and video games. Etc.
Think about this. If Adam Lanza took the chainsaw from his moms garage, and she was unarmed, then he could have killed her. Then he could have gone to the school and walked in and killed the teachers, locked himself in a classroom, and killed all of those same kids. The ONLY thing that would have stopped him was someone with a gun.
There's a chainsaw in nearly every garage in America, sitting on a shelf, unlocked. They are $200 at any home improvement store. No background check. Yet they can be used to murder. Shall we ban chainsaws, or require background checks. That's absurd! And it's just as absurd as the anti-gun arguments.
Think about this. If Adam Lanza took the chainsaw from his moms garage, and she was unarmed, then he could have killed her. Then he could have gone to the school and walked in and killed the teachers, locked himself in a classroom, and killed all of those same kids. The ONLY thing that would have stopped him was someone with a gun.
There's a chainsaw in nearly every garage in America, sitting on a shelf, unlocked. They are $200 at any home improvement store. No background check. Yet they can be used to murder. Shall we ban chainsaws, or require background checks. That's absurd! And it's just as absurd as the anti-gun arguments.
Inebriated
Member
Agreed, leadcounsel.
ETXhiker
Member
If you remember the intent of the 2nd Amendment, it isn't you against several bad guys breaking into your home. It is potentially free people resisting a tyrannical government armed with tanks, helicopters and lots of troops.
leadcounsel
member
Well of course it is mostly this reason. Secondarily it is personal and home(land) defense.
It's just that most Americans think it is fantasy to think that 1) the Government would be tyrannical and 2) that your AR15 is going to make any difference.
The argument about effectively defending you and your family is much more plausible and hits closer to home for most people, hence more buy in.
Pete D.
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,659
Curious.
I have had an AR15 for a couple of decades now.....Bought it during the last AWB. It doesn't have a flash hider (so what), and I never load more than eight in any case.
We have to come up with better arguments.
even make that reference).:.::none of the shooters was "a criminal" before the shooting. None was using a gun that they bought in a back alley.
If we are gong to make arguments about what we care about, we need to care about the arguments more and stop using examples that ignore the events which spark the problems.
Pete.
I have had an AR15 for a couple of decades now.....Bought it during the last AWB. It doesn't have a flash hider (so what), and I never load more than eight in any case.
More to the point....and don't mistake me, I am not arguing for an AWB....how probable is it that the situation described will happen? We have had natural disasters over the last few years. I do not recall and shootouts between looters and homeowners.
We have to come up with better arguments.
Yeah.....I have used that one myself.....but it has become a non-factor. It is not what the public sees. The public sees crazy killers with guns that were legally acquired. Take a look at the last half dozen mass shootings (and think a bit about how horrible it is that I can
even make that reference).:.::none of the shooters was "a criminal" before the shooting. None was using a gun that they bought in a back alley.
If we are gong to make arguments about what we care about, we need to care about the arguments more and stop using examples that ignore the events which spark the problems.
Pete.
Look at foreign insurgencies who resist tyrannical governments. Syria, for instance.
You don't see them parading in the streets with MAK-90's with 5 round magazines.
The point of high capacity magazines in the hands of private civilians is some targets... well, they're considerably tougher, and more armored, than others.
I remember about 20 years ago Jackboot Janet rolling the equivalent of an infantry company worth of Federal agents armed with automatic weapons against a small group of private citizens.
Maybe you remember it?
76 well armed, trained, and armored federal agents against a smallish group of religious nutjobs down in Texas.
The highly trained and well-outfitted Federal agents got their butts soundly handed to them over the course of a 45 minute firefight.
Not endorsing religious zealots here, but it does serve a point.
People with small arms and high capacity magazines can put up one hell of a fight against the government, if they are so inclined.
It took an extended siege and Abrams tanks to end that little skirmish.
You don't see them parading in the streets with MAK-90's with 5 round magazines.
The point of high capacity magazines in the hands of private civilians is some targets... well, they're considerably tougher, and more armored, than others.
I remember about 20 years ago Jackboot Janet rolling the equivalent of an infantry company worth of Federal agents armed with automatic weapons against a small group of private citizens.
Maybe you remember it?
76 well armed, trained, and armored federal agents against a smallish group of religious nutjobs down in Texas.
The highly trained and well-outfitted Federal agents got their butts soundly handed to them over the course of a 45 minute firefight.
Not endorsing religious zealots here, but it does serve a point.
People with small arms and high capacity magazines can put up one hell of a fight against the government, if they are so inclined.
It took an extended siege and Abrams tanks to end that little skirmish.
greenmtnguy
Member
Part of the challenge making this argument, I think, is that we are arguing with the same people who use their position in government to determine how many ounces of soft-drink can be purchased at a time - because they don't consider that their consituents are smart enought to decide how thirsty they are.
When you're up against that, it is hard to make a point that will stick in their brains for 30 round or 10 round, when they don't think that you can be trusted with a 30 ounce soda.
When you're up against that, it is hard to make a point that will stick in their brains for 30 round or 10 round, when they don't think that you can be trusted with a 30 ounce soda.
justice06rr
Member
A 10-round limit would only marginally decrease a rifle's lethality, if it was fully automatic. IMO a semiauto rifle would still be just as lethal with 10rds vs 30rds.
For example, if you walked into a crowded room and blocked the door/exit, your rifle with 10rd mag capacity would still be as effective. You just have to reload more. Doesn't matter anyway because the victims would be trapped if you were blocking one of the exits.
I don't know about that. There's a saying "Never say never" (which is an oxymoron in itself on purpose).
Saying nothing is gonna happen is not a guarantee nothing will. I thought after what BO did for 4years in America we will finally be tired of him and vote for another president. But obviously he is still has another term.
Can't really trust anything or anyone right now -- especially politicians. If nothing happens, great. Another wrinkle in the firearms industry we can learn from. If it does, well who knows how long we are screwed?
We cannot accurately predict the future, unless you have a magic crystal ball or a time machine. Which in case, you should also have the winning lottery tickets....
For example, if you walked into a crowded room and blocked the door/exit, your rifle with 10rd mag capacity would still be as effective. You just have to reload more. Doesn't matter anyway because the victims would be trapped if you were blocking one of the exits.
I don't know about that. There's a saying "Never say never" (which is an oxymoron in itself on purpose).
Saying nothing is gonna happen is not a guarantee nothing will. I thought after what BO did for 4years in America we will finally be tired of him and vote for another president. But obviously he is still has another term.
Can't really trust anything or anyone right now -- especially politicians. If nothing happens, great. Another wrinkle in the firearms industry we can learn from. If it does, well who knows how long we are screwed?
We cannot accurately predict the future, unless you have a magic crystal ball or a time machine. Which in case, you should also have the winning lottery tickets....
Pete D.
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,659
Arguments
I have seen the horror in Connecticut referred to as a tipping point. That is very possibly true. Of all of the last five mass shootings (VA Tech, Ft. Hood, Aurora, Clackamas, Newton), as bad as I felt about each, the Newton killings brought tears to my eyes. Could be that for many people this is the straw that.......
Thus, we have to be circumspect about the arguments that we present, otherwise we will look like jerks.
In the wake of twenty small children dying under the muzzle of a gun, making reference to AK47s in war zones or to police actions where the LEOs were under gunned, just doesn't cut it.
About the Waco, TX fiasco.....
The Feds getting their "butts handed to them" had way more to do with incompetent command and lack of a plan of attack on the part of the BATF than firepower in the hands of the Davidians.
Pete
I have seen the horror in Connecticut referred to as a tipping point. That is very possibly true. Of all of the last five mass shootings (VA Tech, Ft. Hood, Aurora, Clackamas, Newton), as bad as I felt about each, the Newton killings brought tears to my eyes. Could be that for many people this is the straw that.......
Thus, we have to be circumspect about the arguments that we present, otherwise we will look like jerks.
In the wake of twenty small children dying under the muzzle of a gun, making reference to AK47s in war zones or to police actions where the LEOs were under gunned, just doesn't cut it.
The problem with that argument is that it begins with "If"; it is subjunctive. It didn't happen. He used a gun. Despite the possibility of the argument quoted, ALL of the mass killers have used guns. You have to do better than "if".
About the Waco, TX fiasco.....
The Feds getting their "butts handed to them" had way more to do with incompetent command and lack of a plan of attack on the part of the BATF than firepower in the hands of the Davidians.
That, certainly, is open to interpretation - and this thread is not the place for that detailed discussion. One could say that the Davidians chose a fiery death for themselves and their children rather than surrender.....as opposed to the implication that they were all killed by gunfire.
Pete
Last edited:
For one shot. An AR crushes any bolt action in rate of fire. Silly arguments don't help. An AR is what it is.
Pete D. said:
They might not have been "criminals" but Hassan, Loughner, Holmes, and Lanza were all bat**** crazy, were obviously were a danger to themselves and others and should not have been roaming free. Never mind have had access to firearms. How could that have been prevented?
If you act badly, and the police take you to jail, there is a record. If you act badly, and the police take you the emergency room, I don't think there is any record that enters the FBI data base. There should be.
Chicago is closing in on 500 homicides this year. How many used rifles with high capacity magazines?
If not, is there any other common variable shared by most of the 500?
leadcounsel
member
You're missing the point. Gun control is the wrong issue. Arming more people is the correct issue. If somehow you magically could erase guns, we are no more safe because someone could use any infinite number of tools to kill mass people. Cars, chainsaws, bombs from common components, etc.
If less guns meant safer enviornments, then why are all of these gun-free zones the targets of gun violence. An Army base has armed guards, but disarms Soldiers. Many died when Hassan shot these trained but unarmed Soldiers. If less guns meant safter enviornments, why don't militaries lay down their arms? Why don't police lay down their arms? What about diplomatic and Presidential body guards. Or the body guards of the rich and famous. I bet they want to have their guns.
Is your life or my life any less valuable?
How many rounds do you want if this is you? Especially if it is just you, not you and friends?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkBGQx3HAc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkBGQx3HAc
reggie_love
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 38
OP, Feinstein has said the new law will probably be incredibly restrictive to cover the "loopholes." 20 bucks says "no semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines allowed."
That is an extreme blow to the effectiveness of self-defense rifles.
That is an extreme blow to the effectiveness of self-defense rifles.
JohnBiltz
Member
30 round magazines are a tool. An anti says, 30 round magazines make it faster and easier to shoot a lot of innocents but is useless and not needed to defend yourself. On the face of that, that is pretty stupid. Pro gun guys say it makes no difference in active shooter situations but it will hurt a man trying to defend himself against multiple attackers. Which really doesn't make sense either.
The truth is a large magazine capacity makes it easier to shoot multiple targets faster and easier. That is it. The good and bad of it doesn't enter into it, its just a tool.
The truth is a large magazine capacity makes it easier to shoot multiple targets faster and easier. That is it. The good and bad of it doesn't enter into it, its just a tool.
True. The gun is a tool, the weapon is between the ears.
David White
member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2012
- Messages
- 117
bushmaster1313
Member
deleted
deleted deleted
deleted deleted
- Status
Similar threads
