Only 1 shooting this week so far

[BSmith1068]

Heh, fair to say! I wasn't suggesting I want to be hit by either, mind you. It's just that he really picked the wrong comparison, imho, if he was trying to suggest the round on the right was definitely the worse/more dangerous.

I guess it does look like a hollow point round for the .22. oops. Not my intention. And yeah a faster round would be more likely to cleanly exit me. But it would also be more likely to hit something else after the fact, and would have a longer range, etc...

 

[kochman]

I know. But the people who have access to the case are controlled. Not so here in the good ‘ole US of A.

We're also talking about fully automatic weapons here.
Anyhow, they have enough access that if they wanted to do mass killings, they could.

I don’t think the answer lies in simply restricting the caliber of bullet available. A .50 caliber muzzle-loader is A-OK with me. But a .223 AR-15 with a bullet less than half the diameter of the .50 is not.

True, I agree.

No, they have problems orders of magnitude greater than we do. So much so that trying to make a similarity on this point is useless.

Still stuck on this are you?

The picture is a .22 and a .223

I am completely aware... I brought up 9mm because it has even a larger diameter.

But yes, grain count is a big factor, as is type of shell (armor piercing, fragmentation, etc). But grain count is not the end-all be all either. If I’m going moose hunting I certainly want a big shell with a lot of punch. But I don’t need to shoot several hundred shells a minute at the moose. One should do just fine if I know how to aim. (and if I don’t I probably shouldn’t be hunting).

Nor do you want armor piercing, however, hunting is not the only function of firearms.

Any gun is deadly. I have been saying that since the beginning. That is not a point to debate. Some guns can be more deadly to more people in a shorter amount of time than others. It is these that we don’t need on the streets.

Ok, so your stance is, anything with semi-auto capability should be illegal, basically?

 

[BSmith1068]

Ok, so your stance is, anything with semi-auto capability should be illegal, basically?

I think I am close to that. Honestly before Friday I really didn’t have a fully thought out perspective on the issue, and am still forming exactly what I think is acceptable and what is not.

I think the biggest thing that I am against is semi-auto with the ability to quickly change magazines. If I had 10 rounds, but it took me a minute to reload, that is less troublesome than basically being able to instantly re-load for as long as I have full magazines.

 

[Farm Boy]

I guess it does look like a hollow point round for the .22. oops. Not my intention. And yeah a faster round would be more likely to cleanly exit me. But it would also be more likely to hit something else after the fact, and would have a longer range, etc...

We seem to be largely concerned more with mass shooters at close range than snipers usually. Slower, more lethal rounds would seem to be of more import in that situation rather than a highly accurate, longer ranged round with high velocity.

 

[BSmith1068]

We seem to be largely concerned more with mass shooters at close range than snipers usually. Slower, more lethal rounds would seem to be of more import in that situation rather than a highly accurate, longer ranged round with high velocity.

But they are also less likely to go through things like doors and walls and still be deadly on the other side. There is no silver bullet (pardon the pun) to this problem.

Any bullet type in the hands of a killer is not a good thing. But minimizing the access to weapons that can rapidly fire endless streams of rounds is the right way to go.

 

[MobBoss]

I think I am close to that. Honestly before Friday I really didn’t have a fully thought out perspective on the issue, and am still forming exactly what I think is acceptable and what is not.

I think the biggest thing that I am against is semi-auto with the ability to quickly change magazines. If I had 10 rounds, but it took me a minute to reload, that is less troublesome than basically being able to instantly re-load for as long as I have full magazines.

This would be just about any modern pistol on the market. Even if it doesnt have a clip.

 

[BSmith1068]

Which part? Taking a minute to load, or endless instant re-load ability? Not sure how to respond to this...

 

[kochman]

I think I am close to that. Honestly before Friday I really didn’t have a fully thought out perspective on the issue, and am still forming exactly what I think is acceptable and what is not.

I think the biggest thing that I am against is semi-auto with the ability to quickly change magazines. If I had 10 rounds, but it took me a minute to reload, that is less troublesome than basically being able to instantly re-load for as long as I have full magazines.

So, if someone's house is getting broken into, you'd tell them they'd better be able to stop the assailant in 10 shots or less, no matter if it is one guy or four guys?

 

[MobBoss]

Which part? Taking a minute to load, or endless instant re-load ability? Not sure how to respond to this...

Actually, it only takes seconds to load a pistol, in almost any configuration.

And fwiw, if a pistol is for home defense, thats what I want in one.

 

[JollyRoger]

So, if someone's house is getting broken into, you'd tell them they'd better be able to stop the assailant in 10 shots or less, no matter if it is one guy or four guys?

What's this 10 shot thing? You have endorsed giving some citizens 0 shots.

 

[kochman]

What's this 10 shot thing? You have endorsed giving some citizens 0 shots.

BS used the figure of 10.
I'm not sure why you are confused.

 

[JollyRoger]

BS used the figure of 10.
I'm not sure why you are confused.

And you have endorsed 0. I do not understand why you are getting so emotional over a number that is 10 higher than you are ok with.

 

[kochman]

And you have endorsed 0. I do not understand why you are getting so emotional over a number that is 10 higher than you are ok with.

I'm not going to respond further to this innane line of questioning... have fun with it.
It's not fun, nor does it make any sense.

 

[BSmith1068]

So, if someone's house is getting broken into, you'd tell them they'd better be able to stop the assailant in 10 shots or less, no matter if it is one guy or four guys?

If you are that worried about getting broken into, install a monitored alarm system. Most robbers are probably not packing. 99% of robbers don’t want any resistance. Alarm goes off, they are out the door. You never a need to even pull your gun out from under your bed.

Even if they keep coming, announce that you are packing. Robbers don’t want to face resistance. Chances are they will flee.

If they keep coming – drop one. Robbers don’t want to face resistance. Chances are the rest will flee.

So many things have to go horribly wrong in your home break-in scenario for you to even get to the point of needing more than 10 rounds. Many things that can be prevented in the first place with alarm systems, good lighting and other methods to make your home less of a target in the first place.

You have a higher chance of mistakenly shooting a family member than you do of shooting an intruder.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm not going to respond further to this innane line of questioning... have fun with it.
It's not fun, nor does it make any sense.

It's not inane. You are on record to being ok with denying the privilege to keep and bear arms to those that don't jump through a number of hoops. That is 0 legal shots in response to a home invasion.

 

[kochman]

If you are that worried about getting broken into, install a monitored alarm system.

1) You are the one who declared you were scared, I am not, because I have security in my house...
2) Alarm systems, because when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

Most robbers are probably not packing.

Oh, ok... you know what, I'm not willing to take those odds.

99% of robbers don’t want any resistance.

Source?

Alarm goes off, they are out the door.

Most robbers are skilled in disabling alarms.

You never a need to even pull your gun out from under your bed.

And if you do?

Even if they keep coming, announce that you are packing. Robbers don’t want to face resistance. Chances are they will flee.

Here you are with the odds thing again... source?

If they keep coming – drop one. Robbers don’t want to face resistance . Chances are the rest will flee.

Well, if they know you only allowed to have 10 rounds, and you spent 10 on the first guy... chances are, they won't flee.

So many things have to go horribly wrong in your home break-in scenario for you to even get to the point of needing more than 10 rounds.

Have you ever been in a real life threatening, fast moving event?
Things go horribly wrong a lot.

Many things that can be prevented in the first place with alarm systems, good lighting and other methods to make your home less of a target in the first place.

I'm aware.
It's also way cheaper just to have gun, over the years... and it works all the time.

You have a higher chance of mistakenly shooting a family member than you do of shooting an intruder.

No, I don't, untrained people do.
Not to mention, I don't have any live in family members, so I have a 0% chance of shooting them personally.

Anyhow, it is up to a person to decide if they want to defend their house/family, or depend on police to do it... not you. 2nd Amendment makes that clear.

 

[JollyRoger]

Anyhow, it is up to a person to decide if they want to defend their house/family,

Except when they don't they don't pass your precious background checks.

 

[kochman]

Except when they don't they don't pass your precious background checks.

Yes, JR, if they have a history of harming people, I don't think they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Do you?

 

[JollyRoger]

Yes, JR, if they have a history of harming people, I don't think they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Do you?

Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves from home invasion.

But is that where you would draw the line? Currently, most right wing states deprive people of the so-called right for even for relatively minor, non-violent offenses and also deprives law-abiding household members of the so-called right.

 

[kochman]

Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves from home invasion.

When you start harming and violating the rights of others, you start losing your own rights.
This isn't a new concept...