Shooting at UCLA
- Thread starter Kev3188
- Start date
Kev3188
Veteran
What's curious is why people are so willing to choose more dead Americans over things like limiting clip size.
Kev3188
Veteran
Sure they do.
Kev3188
Veteran
It doesn't "guarantee" anything, good or bad; it makes them harder to get going forward. If it saves one life, it's worth it.
Zom JFK
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Messages
- 1,331
- Reaction score
- 621
Yes it does. When you pass laws limiting clip size only law abiding people (like me) will obey them. The criminals, lunatics and terrorists wont. Drugs are illegal are they any less plentiful? So it will be with high capacity clips and anything else they "ban".
Kev3188
Veteran
Do you carry an AR-15 around with you? Are you planning to get into a firefight?Zom JFK said:
No?
Tell me more why you need a clip that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Zom JFK
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Messages
- 1,331
- Reaction score
- 621
If I miss or if I have to fight off eleven guys.🙂 Hey Kev I know you mean well. You're sick of these shootings and so am I. But these people who do commit these atrocities aren't going to let "assault rifle bans" stop them from acquiring said weapons. laws only stop the people who follow them.
townpete
Corn Field
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,654
- Reaction score
- 3,634
Exactly. The misnomer "assault weapon" didn't stop the San Bernardino terrorists from acquiring said firearms. Everything about those weapons used by them on the day was banned by California state law, yet it didn't stop them from using them.Zom JFK said:
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,958
- Reaction score
- 9,374
Kev, I hope you realize "clip" probably isn't the right term for the context of your argument.
A clip simply holds ammunition. A magazine is spring loaded and used by a semi-automatic firearm to advance the next shell into the chamber safely.
I have several 10 and 30 round magazines that I use for target shooting.
Why would I use them? Mainly it's safer.
Not only can I reduce my exposure to the lead on the bullets themselves, I'm ensured that the shells are entering the chamber in the most efficient manner possible.
One of my biggest complaints about the Boy Scouts shooting sports rules is that we have to use single shot rifles, and we routinely lose ammunition because a shell gets loaded improperly, which can lead to jams and either a misfire or a squib.
We also have boys getting burned by hot shell casings when they have to eject them manually, vs. letting the rifle do the work.
It reduce the potential for an accident. When I'm having to break position and do a load/unload, my concentration is split between my target and the bench or position I'm at on the range.
It's also a matter of time. When my son and I are out shooting, we share a rifle. He's reloading his magazine while I'm shooting, and I do the same when he's shooting. Sure, that's just a convenience factor. If we were doing single shots, we'd probably just buy a second rifle, which defeats the purpose of the gun control lobby...
My suggestion to you is that if you want to have an informed discussion (vs. just repeating liberal talking points), go spend a day at a rifle range and learn about the mechanics of a firearm before you start criticizing why someone does or doesn't need a particular piece of equipment.
Lawful owners in Illinois can't buy or carry ammunition (let alone a firearm) without a firearm owners card that the State Police has to issue you, and yet there are dozens of shootings in Chicago on a weekly basis.
There's a tired meme out there along the lines of "drugs are illegal, so nobody must be using them, right?".
It's unfortunately true. You can pass all the safe space laws, gun control laws, etc. you want to, and there will still be people who manage to do bad things with weapons that were outlawed.
A clip simply holds ammunition. A magazine is spring loaded and used by a semi-automatic firearm to advance the next shell into the chamber safely.
I have several 10 and 30 round magazines that I use for target shooting.
Why would I use them? Mainly it's safer.
Not only can I reduce my exposure to the lead on the bullets themselves, I'm ensured that the shells are entering the chamber in the most efficient manner possible.
One of my biggest complaints about the Boy Scouts shooting sports rules is that we have to use single shot rifles, and we routinely lose ammunition because a shell gets loaded improperly, which can lead to jams and either a misfire or a squib.
We also have boys getting burned by hot shell casings when they have to eject them manually, vs. letting the rifle do the work.
It reduce the potential for an accident. When I'm having to break position and do a load/unload, my concentration is split between my target and the bench or position I'm at on the range.
It's also a matter of time. When my son and I are out shooting, we share a rifle. He's reloading his magazine while I'm shooting, and I do the same when he's shooting. Sure, that's just a convenience factor. If we were doing single shots, we'd probably just buy a second rifle, which defeats the purpose of the gun control lobby...
My suggestion to you is that if you want to have an informed discussion (vs. just repeating liberal talking points), go spend a day at a rifle range and learn about the mechanics of a firearm before you start criticizing why someone does or doesn't need a particular piece of equipment.
Correct. All of California's restrictive gun laws couldn't stop San Bernardino from happening.townpete said:
Lawful owners in Illinois can't buy or carry ammunition (let alone a firearm) without a firearm owners card that the State Police has to issue you, and yet there are dozens of shootings in Chicago on a weekly basis.
There's a tired meme out there along the lines of "drugs are illegal, so nobody must be using them, right?".
It's unfortunately true. You can pass all the safe space laws, gun control laws, etc. you want to, and there will still be people who manage to do bad things with weapons that were outlawed.
Kev3188
Veteran
Zom JFK said:
I know. Same story with OWI laws mentioned earlier. But they exist, and deter at least some people. We can at least again make it harder to acquire these weapons.
I do. Thought about walking that one back, but at least you understood what I was talking about.eolesen said:
All this time of (cyber) knowing each other, you should know I don't just repeat things- no matter how bad WT, and now TownPete try and claim otherwise.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,958
- Reaction score
- 9,374
Yeah, you normally don't, but bluntly, you're not exactly coming up with a lot of substance to back up your arguments on this.
"Making it harder" or pretending that it deters people is just a feel good response. There's no science to back up if that's actually happening.
If anything, there's more to oppose the deterrence/making it harder arguments when you look at the endless violence in Chicago, the unbroken streak of shootings in "gun free" safe spaces, and the fact that every firearm used in a shooting was bought by someone who passed a background check.
"Making it harder" or pretending that it deters people is just a feel good response. There's no science to back up if that's actually happening.
If anything, there's more to oppose the deterrence/making it harder arguments when you look at the endless violence in Chicago, the unbroken streak of shootings in "gun free" safe spaces, and the fact that every firearm used in a shooting was bought by someone who passed a background check.
Kev3188
Veteran
My argument is that I'm sick of seeing our fellow Americans die by the dozen. I'm open to any reasonable solution you'd suggest.
