Here's why gun owners need more than 10 bullets in a magazine

From KD :

market-ticker.org...

[,,,]People still want to argue about high-capacity magazines and "assault rifles", but the fact of the matter is that I'm reasonably sure that the paper's hired security firm isn't using single-shot derringers for their security. No, they are almost-certainly using modern high-capacity pistols -- all of which can accept magazines with more than 10 rounds in them.

And frankly, if you could conceal one, I suspect you'd rather carry an AR-15 than any of those. It's hard to conceal something like that, however, when you're walking through WalMart.

....

If you want to know why anyone would "need" a 30 round magazine, here's one example (out of thousands.) This was a jackass who killed two police officers in this area and ultimately was stopped by the police. He took 15 verified rounds according to the autopsy report from police fire before shooting himself in the head, and the police fired many more that missed.

Gun control advocates need to get a brain and study the issue instead of basing all their thinking on emotions and emotions only.

reply to post by lolita64


Riiiiight. And Zombies too, huh ?

This argument is utter nonsense in my opinion.

Your example is just one guy - what if your home is being invaded by a gang of 8 or 10? Do the math.............................

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Your example is just one guy - what if your home is being invaded by a gang of 8 or 10? Do the math.............................

Exactly.

Tell the black guy in front of a mob who wants to lynch him that he only gets 10 bullets. Or the gay guy... I bet he'll be happy to follow the law and die so congress can feel more powerful.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher

Well a few guys on PCP are literally like zombies. Only shooting them in the brain will put them down.

Maybe they should make marksmanship classes mandatory when purchasing a rifle?

IMO you should pass a marksmanship course every 2 years when you own a rifle

Excellent example and follow on examples from other posters.There are far to many potential targets than you could ever have bullets enough to shoot back at when you think about it. When you are under armed attack by multiple trained, armored, and heavily armed target.

Originally posted by muse7
Maybe they should make marksmanship classes mandatory when purchasing a rifle?

IMO you should pass a marksmanship course every 2 years when you own a rifle

And people should do written exams every 2 years or else they lose their free speech.

I get where you're coming from but giving the state any power for mandatory things like that ain't the good way to do it.

But yeah, responsable gun owners should train often.

Originally posted by muse7
Maybe they should make marksmanship classes mandatory when purchasing a rifle?

IMO you should pass a marksmanship course every 2 years when you own a rifle

But, what people fail to realize is that, when it comes to a right (vs. a privilege) you don't have to be compelled to do anything, and you don't have to make excuses for why a right is yours to exercise in the first place.

I don't have to jump through hurdles to exercise my right to free speech. I don't need a permit to follow a religion.

Originally posted by muse7
Maybe they should make marksmanship classes mandatory when purchasing a rifle?

IMO you should pass a marksmanship course every 2 years when you own a rifle

And a drivers exam every 2 years if you own a car.
and a safety course every 2 years if you use any sort of tools.
and an IQ test if you plan on breeding

reply to post by okiecowboy


Agree with all those

First they stick they hands in my wallet and tell me how much money I can have
Then they stick their hands in my closet and tell me what kind of gun I can own
Then they stick their hands yet again and tell me how many rounds my gun can hold.

Nothing but a bunch of fascists who call themselves liberals.

Competence counts more than bullets .

In Waco in 1921 a Texas Ranger named Red Burton faced down 15,000 ku klux klan all by his lonesome . In an earlier altercation had killed a few of them when he rescued his friend from their clutches . His friend was the sheriff and was badly wounded , this made Red the only competent lawman around . He decided to stay and hold down the fort even though he was badly wounded himself .

The word went out , the klan came pouring into Waco for the sole purpose of stringing up this man who had the nerve to kill a couple of them . The doors of the courthouse opened up and Red stepped out , put his hands on his guns , and walked right through them .

The point to all this is that he already proved he could shoot ( and he didn't shoot to wound either) and every one of those idiots knew that the first 12 of them to do something stupid were going to die , he broke their spirit and they just went away .

Look it up if you don't believe me .

reply to post by okiecowboy


This made me laugh

But yeah why not?

If your still capable of driving or shooting a few hours refresher course as proof your still capable is a good idea.

And as for idiots breeding another good idea people do have a right to breed but the child also has a right to a good upbringing.


On topic though, I suppose there is many situations certian people need a large capacity magazine.
Proper use of the tool is a major priority though IMO, here in the UK gun control is very strict you just don't get a gun if you can't control or use the tool properly and effectively; especially when hunting.

A weapon (gun) afterall is just a tool just like for instance a hand held drill, I would not trust someone to use a drill without the knowledge that should be used when using a drill too much of a chance they will injure themselves or someone else and possibly cause some damage.
Health and Safety gets crazy these days because of idiots with tools thats just a simple fact

You need more then ten bullets of you are fixing to kill eleven people or more

reply to post by thudpuddy


Fascinating story

I'll be looking up that one to read, thanks for that

Accuracy is key with guns hitting the spinal column or brain/nervous system area will put anyone down instantly unless the victim is extremely lucky.

I suppose a lot of it will have to do with the bullet's size, weight and design and the power it's shot at. A high powered round designed to "explode" so far into the body would render your organs useless if shot in the chest, I guess that would pretty much put someone down relatively instantly

reply to post by RAY1990


I just went back and looked myself . apparently I had the year wrong and only place I could find the story I told was in a pbs site called Texas Rangers , Six brave men . I'm sure it's true though , I lived in Waco for a while and the tale is still told .

reply to post by lolita64


At the end of the day the founding fathers of America understood the need for a armed nation just in case the government lost control.



It had nothing to do with hunting or protecting yourself from criminals. The farther we stray from what these great men died and fought for the worse off we are.




At the end of the day you have to ask yourself if Jefferson,Adams,Washington.....etc were wrong? Study what these men wanted and find the truth inside of yourself.

reply to post by thudpuddy


I just done a bit of searching and found this :

Marvin "Red" Burton

So he did exist and wasn't just folk law and I also found this :

Two courageous cop's take on a klan

It's the story of what happened that day and I must say it's a good one

We didn't learn our lesson with Katrina when the feds & cops were confiscating guns from law abiding citizens. Been half a dozen years since then and gun owners haven't done a thing to keep their rights. Now they're coming for magazines. And soon after the bullets too. Good luck with that gun cuz you ain't shooting anybody anymore... Bye bye 2nd.

Originally posted by lolita64
From KD :

market-ticker.org...

[,,,]People still want to argue about high-capacity magazines and "assault rifles", but the fact of the matter is that I'm reasonably sure that the paper's hired security firm isn't using single-shot derringers for their security. No, they are almost-certainly using modern high-capacity pistols -- all of which can accept magazines with more than 10 rounds in them.

And frankly, if you could conceal one, I suspect you'd rather carry an AR-15 than any of those. It's hard to conceal something like that, however, when you're walking through WalMart.

For those who say that "good guys don't need such a weapon" can you please explain the fact that all the cops seem to have those "evil black .223 rifles" in their patrol cars? And as for them being "overpowered" and the incessant questions as to "why you need all those rounds" go ask a cop about the jacked-on-drugs asshole who absorbs a half-dozen rounds and does not stop attacking.

See, the point of shooting someone (if you have to) is to stop them from doing whatever felonious thing led you to shoot them in the first place. And unlike the movies where people instantly die when they're shot it is rather common for you to have to shoot a bad guy lots of times before he ceases whatever he was doing that led you to shoot the first time, especially if he's jacked up on drugs. The only thing that frequently stops those assailants is when they run out of blood pressure -- and that either takes a lot of holes or a lot of time. Further, under the stress of an actual situation where you need to use that weapon in self-defense you're rather likely to miss at least some of the time.

If you want to know why anyone would "need" a 30 round magazine, here's one example (out of thousands.) This was a jackass who killed two police officers in this area and ultimately was stopped by the police. He took 15 verified rounds according to the autopsy report from police fire before shooting himself in the head, and the police fired many more that missed.

That's right -- after absorbing 15 rounds he still had enough fight left in him to commit suicide.

The real world is not as depicted in the movies.

Yes, the first shot (that hits) is often lethal -- eventually. Unfortunately "eventually" means 2, 3, 5 or 10 minutes later a good part of the time and the guy assaulting you can kill you several times over in those 2, 3 5 or 10 minutes.

The entire point of shooting a bad guy in the first place was to stop his attempt to make you dead. If you can't shoot him enough times to accomplish that then your attempt at self-defense has failed, irrespective of whether the guy assaulting you dies as well.

So if you ask me "how many rounds do you need?" my answer is "One more than it takes to stop, at this instant, however many felons are assaulting me."

And since I cannot predict how many bad guys are going to come at one time nor can I predict how many of them will be on PCP, crack, meth or god-knows-what-else it's none of your damn business how many rounds someone chooses to carry around and whether they're in one magazine or three.

The point here is rather simple: The logical and indeed God-given correct response to a perceived threat to your safety by a superior force is to acquire the means of equalizing that force and if that perceived threat turns into an actual assault you then use the means of equalizing that force as many times as are necessary until the assault ceases. The more-capable you are in that regard the less-likely the assault will succeed.

The device known to assist you in this matter with the highest degree of reliability is called A Gun.[,,,]

Gun control advocates need to get a brain and study the issue instead of basing all their thinking on emotions and emotions only.

edit on 4-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)

I suggest that the "gun control advocates" are well aware of the facts stated in the article above.

I further suggest that it is not about "gun control", but control of the people.