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

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by lolita64

 

This argument is utter nonsense in my opinion.

edit on 4-1-2013 by skepticconwatcher because: added a word

How? How is it "utter nonsense"?

Be specific.

Originally posted by kingking
You need more then ten bullets of you are fixing to kill eleven people or more

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

Or when facing an opposition of two or more with magazines with more than 10 rounds.

Originally posted by SubTruth
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.

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

Exactly! And, the Jeffersonian/Madisonian model called for an extremely limited and restricted federal government, that were not overlords but served the people by the consent of the people.

Sadly, most Americans have forgotten the very first branch of government, "We the People of the United States of America".

Big Brother Government now views us as "human resource units".

this argument boils down to this

oh my god !

it's comin' right for us !!!!!!

Here's another example. A mother, hiding in her home with her children as an intruder breaks into the house. She fires 6 shots (hitting him 5 times) and then he leaves. She gets the police involved. He is found later after being shot 5 times, driving his SUV trying to escape.

So, for those who get their knowledge of guns from Hollywood, are you surprised that being shot 5 times he was still able to escape and DRIVE away in his SUV?

Mother hiding with kids shoots intruder

How about this: no one gets to decide what I "need" and don't need. My business.

It's irrelevant what capacity magazine you have. It's simply another empty argument for gun control.

"If the insane criminal with the banned "assault rifle" only had a ten-round magazine, some of those people might be alive today."

Utter horsesh*t.

Originally posted by SubTruth
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.

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

It's all for freedom or supposed to be, freedom that was fought for by everyday people


I believe your fore fathers were not wrong... not at all, this by the way is coming from an Englishman.
I truely support the american cause and all that it stood for and I find it a shame that I say that in the past tense

quote from the Gettysburg address :

and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Why do I get tearful everytime I read or hear this quote? I'll tell you why.
Because America was an idea of true freedom that had rights and laws created for the freedom of ALL man, so that man regardless can protect his freedom.

Double standards happened from the start though, the native american plea President Washington made pacts with the "red man" that were destroyed by others. These "red men" never had the same rights as the rest nor the ability to defend such rights. This in it's own right was a red flag on US policy and an absolute joke upon which it stood.


I know I have no right to say this as a non-american but I wish you guys could re-introduce your constitution and all it stands for.... I really do

I believe my love for the US was my first post on ATS too lol go figures, I have been accused of hating America

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

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.............................

You're going to go Rambo on them?
It doesn't matter what type of gun you have in that scenario. You're going down.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
It's irrelevant what capacity magazine you have. It's simply another empty argument for gun control.

"If the insane criminal with the banned "assault rifle" only had a ten-round magazine, some of those people might be alive today."

Utter horsesh*t.

I certainly agree. In fact, I'll go one further to say if the Aurora Shooter had himself 10rd magazines instead of a Drum, he might well have done more damage than he did. The drum jammed...and it sounds like he did what most inexperienced people do when loaded with what they imagine is all the ammo in the world. He just bounced the trigger till it didn't click right anymore.

10rd magazines might have caused him to aim a bit and almost certainly wouldn't have failed him. How many shooters here have had 10's and 20's have feed failures with any kind of frequency? In a fact of shooting that is almost counter-intuitive, I'll say smaller is actually better, not worse, when 100% reliable feed and function is absolutely critical. BIG magazines are handy for the range.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Except that, if you or I were in that theater (and not carrying mind you), were rather close to the attack, and noticed him attempt to load a fresh clip....That would be the opportune time to try to overpower him. If he has a drum magazine and it doesn't jam, there's not really an opportune time to jump up and try to overpower him.

As for safety-conscious gun owners needing extended mags.... if you're an experienced gun owner, I'm quite sure you're likely to 1) Have multiple magazines and 2) Know how to quickly load a new magazine. You think it's worth allowing -anyone- to have a magazine with 30+ rounds in it, just so you don't have to reload if, and that's a HUGE if, you need to use more than 10 rounds to take down an attacker(s).

reply to post by Ghost375


Can you predict the future? No. Can I? No.

Who are you to predict with certainty that 8-10 (or more) individuals would stop a trained shooter, or even an individual with decent hunting or gun background? Who is to predict that a single-mother, young child, or father protecting their children would take down multiple home invaders to protect members of their family?

Like others have said, however, the type of magazine, gun or style of shooting means nothing in this discussion for one reason, and one reason only:

The Second Amendment

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,shall not be infringed..

Rights are not up for discussion, and were never meant to be up for discussion until specific requirements were met through various checks and balances (which have slowly been eroded over time). Wants, needs, thoughts, ideas, etc... people can express these however they choose, and debate until they turn blue in the face. The "Bill of Rights" was put in place to protect people from an overreaching ("taxation without representation"), and potentially violent towards their own people (Kent State, Occupy assasination lists, etc) federal government. It was never meant to be up for debate whether, or not, our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness could be interfered with.

reply to post by TrueSuperman


Is there somewhere in the 2nd Amendment that mentions having the right to carry "Arms" loaded with more than 10 rounds? No, it protects your right to bear arms, meaning guns..... If you're going to interpret the 2nd Amendment to include your right to an extended magazine, then I'm going to interpret it to allow me to have a rocket launcher. It is an "Armament" after all no?

I will vote for introducing only single-shot 40mm HE grenade launchers.

This way everyone is pleased. The anti-gun lobby will see the high-capacity magazines removed and the NRA will no longer have the need for more than one shot.

No body shoud have a gun than you have not to pretect youreself against one. I live in the Netherlands, Here is even a knife illegal!!!!!! And I AM HAPPY THAT WAY. Im happy that my son of five has a teacher without a gun. Its a #ing stupid idee that you need a gun to protect your self. If you break in in my house and you carry a gun i open the door at the back and leaf my house. I someone the street makes you angry and threatens you, is that also a reason to shoot him to death. And why the hell you need more than one bullit, that means that everyone who thinks he need more than 1 bullit is shooting to kill. Nobody deserves to get killed. If you rape a child than you have to be killed but for the rest there is no reasen to kill some one. If it here come's to a fight i need 2 bullits my right and left hand. I just get sick of the idea that everyone wood have a gun around me.

Originally posted by smitje87
No body shoud have a gun than you have not to pretect youreself against one. I live in the Netherlands, Here is even a knife illegal!!!!!!

Believe it or not, I actually do envy you folks over there at times. America has absolutely nothing in common with a nation like yours that has never known guns as a standard part of daily life at all levels. For that reason, we never will either. Sourced estimates put firearms in civilian hands here at around 270 Million. New sales in 2012 alone probably kicked that up closer to 280 or 290 million guns. In our nation? Getting rid of them would take many generations and far more years than we, our children or their children will live to see it...if it started now.

If you break in in my house and you carry a gun i open the door at the back and leaf my house.

I think I can safely say the countless victims of violent crime in America, including brutal home invasion robbery and often murder would flee if they could. Just one of many reasons might be other family in the home ..and not willing to run and leave them to the mercy of the guys kicking through a door.

If you rape a child than you have to be killed

That was really what prompted me to reply, actually. Executing a child killer is foolish unless you're a private citizen catching them in the act. Outside that? A citizen is going to prison for it (poor "misguided" baby raper deserved his rights too, the cry is heard among too many) and a state Death Penalty just makes the murder of the child a freebie with the "bonus" of getting away with the whole thing if not caught by some other means. Punishments the same either way, so why leave a witness? err... The Death Penalty should be strictly and exclusively held for crimes where the victim was already killed......lest we insure they will be, IMO.

Originally posted by smitje87
No body shoud have a gun than you have not to pretect youreself against one. I live in the Netherlands, Here is even a knife illegal!!!!!! And I AM HAPPY THAT WAY. Im happy that my son of five has a teacher without a gun. Its a #ing stupid idee that you need a gun to protect your self. If you break in in my house and you carry a gun i open the door at the back and leaf my house. I someone the street makes you angry and threatens you, is that also a reason to shoot him to death. And why the hell you need more than one bullit, that means that everyone who thinks he need more than 1 bullit is shooting to kill. Nobody deserves to get killed. If you rape a child than you have to be killed but for the rest there is no reasen to kill some one. If it here come's to a fight i need 2 bullits my right and left hand. I just get sick of the idea that everyone wood have a gun around me.

You shoot to stop the person from doing what they're doing. If they happen to die from the gun shot wound, well # happens. I have never heard of someone shooting someone because the verbally threaten them. There are strict laws when it comes to shooting a person. It's not the wild wild west like people paint it out to be. You are happy being disarmed, being unable to defend yourself with anything other than your fists. That is fine by me, if you wish to only arm yourself what you have physically attached to yourself then so be it. However don't you try to tell me how #ing bullets I need because you don't like guns. Go up to people who defended their homes in the LA riots that they don't need more than 1 bullet. Go to tell anyone who has been in a defensive fire fight and used more than 1 bullet that they didn't need more than 1 bullet. You don't always hit your target on the first shot, nor does it kill them on the first shot all the time. If it takes me 10 bullets to stop someone from trying to harm myself, or my family, etc then I will use 10 bullets. If it takes me 20, I will use 20, if it takes 100 then I will 100. I will use what is necessary to protect myself, my family, and those in my community. You can not predict how many bullets you'll need so saying you should only have 1 or less is just irritating.


Edit, I'd like to add the majority of the time the mere sight of a weapon scares of the perpetrator off.

Originally posted by smitje87
No body shoud have a gun than you have not to pretect youreself against one. I live in the Netherlands, Here is even a knife illegal!!!!!! And I AM HAPPY THAT WAY. Im happy that my son of five has a teacher without a gun. Its a #ing stupid idee that you need a gun to protect your self. If you break in in my house and you carry a gun i open the door at the back and leaf my house. I someone the street makes you angry and threatens you, is that also a reason to shoot him to death. And why the hell you need more than one bullit, that means that everyone who thinks he need more than 1 bullit is shooting to kill. Nobody deserves to get killed. If you rape a child than you have to be killed but for the rest there is no reasen to kill some one. If it here come's to a fight i need 2 bullits my right and left hand. I just get sick of the idea that everyone wood have a gun around me.

There are people that agree with you ,Often you'll find they ride in limousines, step out onto red carpet, dress very well, sit behind a desk, hold public office, appear often on magazine covers, have ...personal bodyguards.... for themselves and their families, and live in very nice neighborhoods where violent crime is rare.
Our civil rights are all individual rights, and only the individual can choose not to exercise one or more of them.
Let's recognize Owning a Gun for what it is - a personal choice and not a crime.
Its your personal choice to live in the Netherlands & be Happy,It's okay if you toss your gun rights aside, but I caution you not to interfere with the rights of others.
The only way to stop the flow of Guns is to stop the demand, and that is a personal choice.

reply to post by madenusa


We may only shoot at clubs. And if we own one we have to store it seperated in parts in at least 2 safes.
Where i live is the place with highest crime of my country and ther has been shootings. But that were 3 in 7 years or so. I like shooting to but i dont have a gun. And when i would buy one it would be a revolver without the bullits at home. I dont say that nobody has to own a gun. But the excuses that many people are yousing are stupid. You dont own a gun fur shooting some one. If you own one you have to be in a club or something like that shooting is a sport. How many shildren have shot them selfs playing whit there dads gun. Or shot a boyfrind by accedent whit again the gun of his father. I dont have anything against USA if i had the possibillety i would move to new york. When i had a loaded gun in my house and my son would be home i would be nerves the hole day.

Does the right to bear arms cover swords? I'm pretty sure it does, but almost everywhere carrying a bladed weapon longer than 6 inches can land you in trouble or at the very least that blade confiscated. How come no one fought that one?

Personally, I think a lot of problems in the US could be solved by bringing back the duel. Think about it, how much more exciting would election time be if members were legally allowed to duel one another. Of course both sides would have to agree, but I'm willing to bet the election results would be much different if Obama, and Romney could have just dueled at dawn with pistols.

Heck, it'd be a great reason to have high capacity magazines think of the excitement! 18 rounds each side from a 9mm. It'd be a pissing contest of the ultimate level. I'd watch that.