Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

[timmy4]

Timmy - no single bullet from either a handgun or rifle is guaranteed to stop an assailant. Police have put more that twenty bullets into an individual before stopping him. There was one marine sniper, Carlos Hathcock, who shot three big bore 30 caliber bullets into individual before he dropped. When faced with multiple assailants, it stands to reason that more than ten rounds are desired. Someone else linked to a home invasion where the homeowner wished she had more than ten rounds to repel the three assailants.

OK. You've touched on something that I know my response is going to upset a lot of people here, but here goes-

Just because the police have access to a weapon doesn't mean a private citizen should. Police have a different set of responsibilities than private citizens do. Any argument you make to me giving police as examples aren't going to fly, because their use of weapons have nothing to do with private ownership of said weapons.

 

[timmy4]

"The article does NOT demonstrate, at least to my satisfaction, any evidence that high caliber magazines are necessary."

Then you didn't read the whole article...or you read as fast as you type.

Didn't you read where she ran out of bullets and the bad guy came back and put the shotgun to her head? And the magazine in her gun only held 10 rounds?

Sure. But my understanding is that the 10 rounds weren't effective because she was new to the gun. But I'll read it again to make sure.

 

[Deanimator]

Just because the police have access to a weapon doesn't mean a private citizen should. Police have a different set of responsibilities than private citizens do

1. What ARE those "responsibilities"?
2. On what basis do they take priority over any reason a citizen might have?

I could just as "reasonably" argue that standing police forces are a BAD thing and that not only should they not have thirty round magazines, but that they should not even EXIST.

And again, your "argument" is going to crash upon the shoals of ignorance, because the odds are you won't know anything about the subject. Instead, you will wave your hands and dismiss your ignorance of the subject at hand as inconsequential.

 

[Alaska444]

What can I say? I disagree with just about every aspect of your post, except for the last two sentences.

Whatever Yamamoto's quote was or meant, I'm sure there are plenty of military experts in this forum who know exactly what I'm talking about. If you want proof, please note that the United States did not invade Europe until we had complete control of the air, and then we invaded it at the closest possible point to England. And when we invaded Germany, the German people were privately well-armed (ever hear of the "People's Army"?) Somehow that didn't stop us, because their rifles and lugars were helpless against our artillery and planes. It's just not a good argument.

The German people were demoralized but still mounted an impressive counter attack at the battle of the bulge.

Now, you are conflating two types of warfare, outright large movements and high firepower which is what America excells vs. the longer term insurgency where small arms are the operative battle implement. If you want to see how effective small arms are, then go to the Gulf War II in Irag where in one battle the opposing forces shot down a couple of our Apache attack helicopters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...is-hail-peasant-who-shot-down-helicopter.html

You are spouting that this and that is impossible when in fact they are not. If you study warfare at all, you come to understand that if you are going to invade a country, you have to have BOOTS on the ground. In other words, we don't invade nations without someone with an M16 in their hands, not even today. Don't underestimate the power of a well trained man with a ready and capable rifle.

 

[Solo]

Sure. But my understanding is that the 10 rounds weren't effective because she was new to the gun. But I'll read it again to make sure.

When you are engaged in a high-stress activity such as defending yourself, co-ordination and higher motor skills decrease drastically. Thus, it is beneficial to have more bullets rather than less.

Don't believe me? Try bouncing a ping-pong ball repeatedly on the paddle. Then try it again while someone is throwing fruit at you. Compare the results.

 

[skeeziks]

"Sure. But my understanding is that the 10 rounds weren't effective because she was new to the gun. But I'll read it again to make sure."

No...the 10 rnds. weren't effective enough because she was up against 2 guys with guns trying to kill her!
Timmy...there were 47 bullet holes in the walls of their home! Do the math!

 

[BullfrogKen]

Just because the police have access to a weapon doesn't mean a private citizen should. Police have a different set of responsibilities than private citizens do. Any argument you make to me giving police as examples aren't going to fly, because their use of weapons have nothing to do with private ownership of said weapons.

But in the case of the magazine limitations, we're not talking a weapon. We're talking about how many rounds that weapon can hold.


We face the same threats the police do.

If fact, by the time we call them, we've already faced it. They come out to deal with someone - or a group of someones - that we called them out for a police response.

 

[NickEllis]

Police have a different set of responsibilities than private citizens do.

Indeed. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police can not be held legally obligated or responsible for intervening in situations that might place their lives in danger. Ultimately, only YOU are ultimately responsible to defend yourself, and those under your protection. I would argue that most police have LESS need for high-end weapons than the private citizen.

 

[bikerdoc]

Police have a different set of responsibilities than private citizens do.

Yep they do, they take the report after the crime.
The citizen is his own first line of defense in a crime.

You gave up your vehicle in a carjacking, me I put a 45 in his face and he soiled his draws.

The police took a report in both cases.

 

[timmy4]

The German people were demoralized but still mounted an impressive counter attack at the battle of the bulge.

Now, you are conflating two types of warfare, outright large movements and high firepower which is what America excells vs. the longer term insurgency where small arms are the operative battle implement. If you want to see how effective small arms are, then go to the Gulf War II in Irag where in one battle the opposing forces shot down a couple of our Apache attack helicopters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...is-hail-peasant-who-shot-down-helicopter.html

You are spouting that this and that is impossible when in fact they are not. If you study warfare at all, you come to understand that if you are going to invade a country, you have to have BOOTS on the ground. In other words, we don't invade nations without someone with an M16 in their hands, not even today. Don't underestimate the power of a well trained man with a ready and capable rifle.

I wasn't referring to the Battle of the Bulge, which took place in France. I was referring ot the invasion of Germany itself. The German people were well-armed, due to the fact that private ownership of firearms increased during the Nazi regime. But it did not help them.

 

[Ironman]

I've been watching this thread grow from a far and now that I have a minute ill leave you with this Timmy.

Shall not be infringed means exactly that. Why waste time even discussing pros and cons of magazines that hold more than 10rds and AR15 rifles? As its written the Bill of Rights forbids any infringement on anything firearm related pertaining to the people owning them. Murder is illegal and infringing on arms is illegal. Pretty simple.

I suggest you go to a range and try a 22 and then move up to a larger caliber. You never know, you just might like it. The smooth mechanics, the style, engineering, physics, etc how the slide on a beretta 92fs just glides on the frame like its on ball bearings. The feeling of pride you get when you shoot that perfect grouping or the warm feeling you get knowing your firearm is at your side and is providing protection for you and your family.

Some get it, and some don't. I really hope you get it Timmy, I really do.

 

[Deanimator]

Don't believe me? Try bouncing a ping-pong ball repeatedly on the paddle while someone is throwing fruit at you.

Not fruit, jagged shards of broken glass.

Fruit stains aren't stressful.

Your own blood stains are.

 

[timmy4]

But in the case of the magazine limitations, we're not talking a weapon. We're talking about how many rounds that weapon can hold.


We face the same threats the police do.

If fact, by the time we call them, we've already faced it. They come out to deal with someone - or a group of someones - that we called them out for a police response.

Fundamentally disagree that you face the same threats the police do. Police are asked to go to not just home invasions, but robberies, violent situations, any altercation, etc.

 

[cambeul41]

Timmy4 --

I think you are confused. You (plural) want to put restrictions on us, so it is up to you to prove there is sufficient reason for you to be allowed to do so.

Why on earth do you imagine that we need to prove that you shouldn't?

Police have a different set of responsibilities than private citizens do.

Right. They get to prepare for the situation they are going into, work in teams, and often wait for back up before going into action. We rarely have those advantages, so we need to be even better prepared and equipped.

 

[NickEllis]

Police are asked to go to not just home invasions, but robberies, violent situations, any altercation, etc.

And none of those involve private citizens? Citizens who probably haven't had prep/partners/backup/training.

 

[larryh1108]

Timmy, You are adamant that we prove to you why we need "hi-cap" mags for home defense. For discussion. Ok, there have been several links giving you what you asked but there are so many post you may have missed them.

On the same vein, tell us why you don't think we need "hi-cap" mags to support your view. Other than you don't think it's necessary you haven't given any hard facts either. Just an opinion (yours). So, to support your opinion, how many rounds should we be allowed to have in a magazine for home defense to satisfy your "desires"? How many is enough? And then explain why that number works for you and more does not.

 

[timmy4]

I have two questions for those of you who seem to hold what I would regard as an absolutist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment:

1. Currently it is extremely difficult for a private citizen to possess a fully automatic weapon. Do you believe that any American citizen should be able to possess such a weapon without restriction?

2. In the first part of the 2nd Amendment, what does the term "well-regulated" mean?

 

[BullfrogKen]

I think we've about reached an impass timmy.


You continue to cordon off areas of discussion, like this last one with the police issue.


And when we give you facts - backed up with statistics and studies - backed up by anecdotal evidence - your response is, "I don't believe it. I feel differently."

You are entitled to your feelings.

But how are we to debate something because you feel that way, in spite of evidence to the contrary?


You should consider that there is a much bigger world out there than your personal experiences. And when it comes to firearms, how many rounds it takes to stop a threat, and what everyone - including the police teaches to ensure you can stop it - that you really know very little about this.


You're asking us persuade your feelings on a matter now. A number of pages ago we got away from talking about facts.


What more do you really think we can do?

 

[jcwit]

It was a totally different argument back then, but I met many, many people with the same mindset as Timmy back in the 60's & 70's when I was in Uniform.

Their attitude and views will never be forgotten.

 

[timmy4]

Timmy, You are adamant that we prove to you why we need "hi-cap" mags for home defense. For discussion. Ok, there have been several links giving you what you asked but there are so many post you may have missed them.

On the same vein, tell us why you don't think we need "hi-cap" mags to support your view. Other than you don't think it's necessary you haven't given any hard facts either. Just an opinion (yours). So, to support your opinion, how many rounds should we be allowed to have in a magazine for home defense to satisfy your "desires"? How many is enough? And then explain why that number works for you and more does not.

I've tried to read every example (may have missed one or two) but I haven't found them convincing.

As to your question, I have no idea. 30 seems too high, in terms of NECESSITY. I might be able to accept the argument that 10 is too low.

 

[Deanimator]

The German people were well-armed, due to the fact that private ownership of firearms increased during the Nazi regime. But it did not help them.

See, this is another one of those instances where nobody's going to let you make things up when you don't have a meaningful response.

The "German people" organized into the Volksturm were:

• BADLY organized and led by inept NSDAP party functionaries with little military training and less sense.
• BADLY armed, mostly with Mannlicher-Carcanos. Most of them had no meaningful marksmanship, much less combat training.
• Most of the German civilians were interested in:
  • avoiding SS patrols.
  • escaping West to SURRENDER to the Americans or British.

Ignorance of the subject you're discussing doesn't lend credibility to your "argument".

 

[MovedWest]

3. I have made the point that it is not up to me to prove that a 30 round magazine is not a necessity for home defense- it is up to you to prove that it is. Not for legal purposes, but only for the purpose of this discussion.

Ok, I live in California, same as you. I already have to incorporate 10 round limitations into my defense plan. How do I manage? I use 44 magnum revolvers loaded with hot 44 spl loads. Yes, revolvers - plural. I have four. I compete with them and have gotten to the point where I can fire, unload, and reload them at nearly the same speed of a novice with a semiauto. Competing allows me to maintain my muscle memory and retain my reflexes and speed. I have magnum loads handy in the event I need more stopping power.

In the event an intruder gets past me, my wife has her 9mm (with 10 rounds) and the 12 ga shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot.

We're prepared to knock superman back to Krypton.

Do I mind being limited to 10 rounds? Hell yeah, I do! If I were to be broken into, what would the assailants have? Probably 15+ round magazines. I'm already outgunned even with what I've described above.

Imagine being limited to only 10 squares of toilet paper. That's fine unless you pigged out at Taco Bell for lunch. I don't think it's anyone's place to tell anyone how prepared they should be.

-MW

 

[Alaska444]

Sure. But my understanding is that the 10 rounds weren't effective because she was new to the gun. But I'll read it again to make sure.

OK, Timmy, you didn't answer the bulk of my question, but so be it. Here is your quote where you did accuse "anecdotes" of being essentially "assumptions."

I've asked you to back it up, and you really haven't done that- you've provided anecdotes, (like the one just provided about the woman who was anti-gun until faced with 3 intruders) but none of them, IMO, really apply to this specific issue. I have asked for an example in which someone who had a 10 round magazine ran out of bullets and was killed by a home invader. Someone called that a ludicrous request- to the contrary, I believe it is the ONLY type of example that would prove your point. Without it, I have to regard it as an unwarranted assumption.

Now, if we cannot find the exact example you have set out specifically, if that example does not exist, then by default you win the argument??? Are you serious, that is a false dichotomy my friend.

Sorry, I won't go searching for the pot of gold that does not exist my friend.

Now, please address what I wrote above. Your argument is that we MUST ban the 30 round magazines because they can kill too many people too quickly. Please, apply this to the self defense argument you are putting upon us. Don't you get it, that increases the chances of defending against multiple attackers which is known to occur with home invasions.

My friend, you cannot argue that they are too dangerous on one hand and not on the other.

 

[Deanimator]

I've tried to read every example (may have missed one or two) but I haven't found them convincing.

That's hardly surprising.

You've already come to a "conclusion" utterly absent meaningful factual information. That makes your "decision" an emotional and ideological one, NOT one based in reason. It is not unlike the "conclusion" by some that the earth is in fact only a few thousand years old.

You get to have your own opinions.

You don't get to have your own facts.

 

[timmy4]

I think we've about reached an impass timmy.


You continue to cordon off areas of discussion, like this last one with the police issue.


And when we give you facts - backed up with statistics and studies - backed up by anecdotal evidence - your response is, "I don't believe it. I feel differently."

You are entitled to your feelings.

But how are we to debate something because you feel that way, in spite of evidence to the contrary?


You should consider that there is a much bigger world out there than your personal experiences. And when it comes to firearms, how many rounds it takes to stop a threat, and what everyone - including the police teaches to ensure you can stop it - that you really know very little about this.


You're asking us persuade your feelings on a matter now. A number of pages ago we got away from talking about facts.


What more do you really think we can do?

First, I don't know what you mean by "cordon off" areas of discussion. I haven't refused to discuss anything in this thread.

Second, you really haven't provided any statistics or facts regarding the necessity argument. Earlier, many of you provided statistics and facts regarding the argument that banning high caliber magazines would be ineffective in saving lives, which was my main goal for arguing for such a ban. Those statistics and facts were eye opening for me, and as I wrote, I've been reconsidering my position. But you can't put these anecdotes about what MIGHT have happened in certain home defense situations in the same vein as statistics and facts. So I simply don't accept that your arguments are as self-evident and absolute as you claim they are.

I do want to continue to discuss this and other aspects of gun control. I've learned a lot- maybe some of you have too. I consider this a positive experience. But you're the moderator- if you truly feel it's useless, shut it down.