In a dozen different guns, presumably? How many guns can you realistically strap on? Even then, you are limited to, say, 120 bullets. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that you can currently get that many bullets in four magazines, reducing the cost and increasing the convenience.Originally Posted by Scat
I agree they won't stop these crimes. All you can hope for is to reduce the amount of damage a perpetrator can engender.
There is no rapid fire mode. He was referring to simply pulling the trigger faster.
No, he was taking about a shooter carrying 1 gun, but having a bunch of pre loaded clips in his pocket. So when he runs out of bullets, he simply changes the clip (which took less than 1 second in that video GF posted).
I am by no means a firearms expert but I can chage a clip in under 5 seconds. I can manage around 3 seconds. So you have 3 seconds to go from hiding/cowering/running to disarming me.
Just in my house alone I have to firearms loaded with one in the chamber and a second fully loaded clip next to them. Locked up but when I grab my gun I am taking my 2nd clip. That gives me 31 bullets for one gun and 21 for the other.
Correction noted. Thank you.
Yes, that's why I mentioned the push for legislation that would require it taking more time to change clips. If you change that 1 second to 30 seconds while reducing the bullet count as well, you can reduce the amount of damage that can be done.
You also reduce the effectiveness of that weapon for self defense, the reason we have the right to firearms in the first place.
Not to mention passing legislation does nothing to change what non-law abiding citizens do anyway.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson
Aside from the assault weapon ban, guess what else happened in the early 90's? More and more states began issuing concealed carry permits. Here's a fun little history of states that put CC into action.
Interesting that violent crime rates dropped so dramatically during this same time period starting in 1992. It is also interesting that the states which still do not issue CC permits all have some of the highest rates of gun related crime.
Last edited by Scat; 01-01-2013 at 09:35 PM.
€¥€
The situations where you need more than ten bullets for self-defense are much rarer than those where such limitations would reduce damage.
Those states, containing large urban centers, have always had some of the highest rates of gun-related deaths. For example, even though it's law changed little, Illinois saw a huge drop in crime rates, including gun-related crimes rates, just like every other state.
.
Violent crimes are committed by young men, for the most part., expecially those born to women who felt they were not ready to have children. As the population has aged and women have more ways to avoid/terminate pregnancies, crime has gone down
.
Also, it's very aqmusing to hear the same group of people say that, one the one hand, criminals without guns will still be capable of massive attacks, but on the other hand, people without guns can't defend themselves.
This isn't a matter of statistics. A person has the right to defend their self and therefore the means to do so. Psychos going on killing sprees have nothing to do with my right to self defense.
Everyone agrees the right to self defense has limitations and trade-offs. It's not a trump card that wins an argument simply by pulling it out.
So according to this post, it sounds like civilians should be able to purchase tanks, stealth bombers, rocket launchers, grenades, flamethrowes, land mines..... i mean you never know what you are going to need when the time comes that you may have to protect yourself right?
And that seems to be v the main point that gun control enthusiasts just can't comprehend.
Restrictive laws only affect people that don't break the law. It's already illegal to go on a mass shooting spree, and most of the people doing it got their guns illegally.
So yes, restricting guns will absolutely limit the right of self defense for law abiding citizens. It will not necessarily hinder a criminal's ability to go on a mass killing spree. They'd have to respect and follow the law in order for it to affect them.
Sure, why not?
Sure, but to say something should be banned because it's only useful in rare situations isn't very convincing, imo. You are aware that more people are killed by lightning every year than in mass shootings, right?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
