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

Originally posted by smitje87
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.

The reason these kids accidentally shot themselves is because the parents don't bother teaching them about the gun. They don't teach them how it operates, they don't teach them anything about them. If you don't feel at ease with having a gun at home while your child is there alone lock it up.

All this and the only thing that stopped him was that he shot himself. Yes, he would have eventually died, but how many more rounds would he have gotten off? One shot one kill doesn't always work.

The autopsy revealed fifteen gunshot entry wounds to Cartwright’s body. One wound to the left chest area traveled front to back and upward clipping the left lung upper lobe. One wound struck the sternum traveled front to back and slightly upward. One wound entered the scrotum at the base of the penis, traveled front to back and upward with no exit. One wound struck the left upper arm traveled left to right front to back and slightly upward before exiting. One wound to the left lateral hip traveled left to right front to back and upward with no exit. One wound entered the left buttocks lower center, traveled left to right and downward. One wound entered the left posterior thigh, traveled back to front and downward with no exit. One wound to the left anterior lateral thigh, traveled left to right and downward with no exit. One wound to the left posterior traveling right to left and downward with on exit. There were numerous grazes to the legs. One wound to the right arm traveled slightly left to right, front to back upward and exited. One wound struck the right posterior thigh traveled back to front and sharply upward with no exit. One wound to right knee, traveled front to back with no exit. One wound to the right posterior leg traveled back to front with no exit. One wound to the right heel back traveled front to back, left to right and slightly upward and exited right heel. Injuries sustained from the vehicle accident consisted of abrasions, contusions, lacerations to the torso, scrotum, buttock and lower exterior. Broken bones consisted of the right tibia and fibular, left fibular and right upper femur. The sixteenth and seventeen wounds were in the right ear region of the head. One wound grazed the right ear traveled from front to back right to left with stippling. One wound in the right ear entered the skull traveled right to left front to back upward and exited the left scalp. Based on the preliminary autopsy results, supported by FDLE investigation information, Dr. Minyard concluded that the cause of death was a single self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

reply to post by Preacher76


Kids stay kids. They wanne try everything my son is five now and if i say he may not touch something he find that he need to try it him self. I have a son of five he does not have to now how a gun operates tath is the most stuped thing i hearth. Saying that when a kid grabs a fathers gun an shoot it, it happend because the parents diddent told how it operates . Guess what if he shoots it he now how it works. If you say it is the fold of the parents because they did not lock the gun away properly, you have a point.

Originally posted by smitje87
reply to post by Preacher76

 

Kids stay kids. They wanne try everything my son is five now and if i say he may not touch something he find that he need to try it him self. I have a son of five he does not have to now how a gun operates tath is the most stuped thing i hearth. Saying that when a kid grabs a fathers gun an shoot it, it happend because the parents diddent told how it operates

. Guess what if he shoots it he now how it works. If you say it is the fold of the parents because they did not lock the gun away properly, you have a point.

Your kid is 5, today kids that age know how to operate electronics that are far more complicated than a firearm. Saying that a kid should acquire information on an item in the household is stupid? Seriously? Then you bring in the what if factor. That kid could take the gun and shoot it if the parent hadn't taught him about it, either way he can take it and shoot it. It's only natural for humans to want to touch something that they are told not to. That's not just because he's a child.

American civilians aren't responsible enough to own military grade weapons OR clips over 10 rounds. You keep proving that fact to the world day after day after day.

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

If your home is being invaded by 8-10 people then you're probably a drug dealer or a terrorist that's being raided by SWAT.

Originally posted by Preacher76

Originally posted by smitje87
reply to post by Preacher76

 

Kids stay kids. They wanne try everything my son is five now and if i say he may not touch something he find that he need to try it him self. I have a son of five he does not have to now how a gun operates tath is the most stuped thing i hearth. Saying that when a kid grabs a fathers gun an shoot it, it happend because the parents diddent told how it operates

. Guess what if he shoots it he now how it works. If you say it is the fold of the parents because they did not lock the gun away properly, you have a point.

Your kid is 5, today kids that age know how to operate electronics that are far more complicated than a firearm. Saying that a kid should acquire information on an item in the household is stupid? Seriously? Then you bring in the what if factor. That kid could take the gun and shoot it if the parent hadn't taught him about it, either way he can take it and shoot it. It's only natural for humans to want to touch something that they are told not to. That's not just because he's a child.

I absolutely agree with you. Kids are smart enough to understand what a gun does and they should get the basic training/explaining especially if the household has guns.

I'm amazed how liberals are constantly bringing up accidents involving firearms but they never speak about the lives saved whenever parents shoot an intruder and avoid their family being assaulted or killed.

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

twelve gauge double 0 buckshot. like firing 9 X 9mm rounds all at once. great for hallways or close quarters. five of those shells should do the trick. then a 357 or 38 revolver to clean up anyone still screaming

reply to post by kingking
Or a bacup weapon like a .380.

reply to post by smitje87


My son was taught to about guns at 5. He was also made well aware that they are not toys and they do not work like he sees on t.v. or video games. All it took for us to demonstrate how serious they could be was to tell him that "if" he chose to disobey and handle a gun without us being present - he would most likely kill/injure himself or someone he cares about. By 7 he shot his first gun and knew when I went to the range he could come and bring one of the .22s to use himself. Now at 10, he has no fear of guns. He asks why everyone is mad at the guns and not the "idiot" who didn't know how to be safe with one. He also is not "mezmerized" by guns and often turns down the chance to go shooting, in order to play with his lego sets. When he gets older and his HS buddies are clamoring for guns because they think it makes them "cool" or "tough" . . . he will not get sucked in to the fantasy (so I'm not really worried about him harming anyone).

You are right. Kids love or have a fascination with things that are restricted to them. However, they lose interest quick when you give them the green light to be around or with that same thing. Seems pretty obvious to me which tact to take.

Something no one mentions when the capacity issue comes up . . . probably because it doesn't fit this facist agenda.

Most "gun battles" between citizens happen at a space of 10ft (3m) or less. They last for an average of 5 seconds and average getting off 5 shots. Of those 5 shots, only 1 hits. Don't forget this is not a paper target that stands straight up at a constant distance!

That's a 20 percent hit ratio. With a 10 magazine, that's 2 hits. IF the shooter is accurate to center mass or head, they MAY stop their attacker cold. However, if this person is desperate, filled with rage, or on drugs even a shot to the head will not stop someone, until they lose enough blood to deprive the brain of oxygen. This doesn't even take into account misfire/loads . . . just in dealing with the nerves and movement they are not trained for.

This isn't the movies where bullets always go right where you want them and you can kill "bad guys" with one shot, one handed, while driving a fast moving car. Bullets do not have guidence systems in them.

I really would like to take an anti-gun person to a combat or close quarters course . . . and then after we have gone through 500 rds. and the person sees how hard it is to hit stationary targets that don't shoot (or throw things) back at them. Give them one 10 rd mag for their gun and say. . . here you go. Good luck. BTW - you can also only practice once a week for about 2hrs (since you have no need in your occupation to even own a gun or more than one magic bullet). I'm willing to bet they change their tune real quick . . . however, knowing the agenda is to eliminate all forms of private defense they would probably just make up some other strawman to argue against.

Originally posted by canucks555
American civilians aren't responsible enough to own military grade weapons OR clips over 10 rounds. You keep proving that fact to the world day after day after day.

edit on 5-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

There are roughly 120 million Americans who own firearms (as I number I can source in more than one place). There are a couple million in the criminal justice system for crimes against others...and not all have anything to do with a gun. I'd say the numbers clearly demonstrate that those incapable of properly controlling themselves are in the extreme minority. I'd agree with those who say more can and should be done to identify and reach out to ...or put away (whichever is necessary) those who DO show clear signs of being a threat. Not all do by any means, but some do and get missed. 1 is too many.

However, you don't use the barbaric concept of collective punishment against 120+ Million to address the evil of a handful, in my humble opinion.

I find a silly way to explain it is; If someone is coming after me, I want them to to have a single shot pistol.
If I'm going after someone, I want a 100 round magazine.......

Originally posted by DarkSecret

I'm amazed how liberals are constantly bringing up accidents involving firearms but they never speak about the lives saved whenever parents shoot an intruder and avoid their family being assaulted or killed.

Because liberals really don't care about lives being saved at all.

That's not what it's about.

It's all about their wet dream of a world utopia with no guns, weapons, and everyone living in harmony. With a few select dictators keeping the peace.

That's what it's really about. And they don't care how much blood is spilled to get there. Don't let them make you believe their anti-gun crusade is to save lives.

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

If your home is being invaded by 8 - 10 people and they aren't running away after hearing the first few gunshots then a large magazine isn't going to save you. Period. Show me a single instance where it has. You can't, because it doesn't exist.

It boggles my mind how you can formulate such a disgustingly delusional opinion.

Originally posted by WP4YT

Originally posted by DarkSecret

I'm amazed how liberals are constantly bringing up accidents involving firearms but they never speak about the lives saved whenever parents shoot an intruder and avoid their family being assaulted or killed.

Because liberals really don't care about lives being saved at all.

That's not what it's about.

It's all about their wet dream of a world utopia with no guns, weapons, and everyone living in harmony. With a few select dictators keeping the peace.

That's what it's really about. And they don't care how much blood is spilled to get there. Don't let them make you believe their anti-gun crusade is to save lives.

It is to save lives.

I know this is a little off-topic, but it's just one example of gun toting people's hypocrisy:

I find it hilarious that pro-gun folk are almost always anti-pitbull folk.

Both are possessions that can only cause harm because of mishandling by a careless owner. It doesn't matter that one is living and can act on it's own, it doesn't belong in your possession if you can't keep it properly under control. Just like guns. They both kill, and the blood is always on the owner's hands. Yet guns annually kill far many people in "accidents" and are far more difficult to defend yourself against. And yet you'd kill a living creature because it can cause you bodily harm if mishandled, yet you refuse to turn in or dismantle a hunk of metal because it can do the exact same thing.

If you pretend that you can't see these parallels I have to believe that you're being intellectually dishonest just to get your way.

reply to post by HairlessApe


And that's a fact. If things ever got that far out of hand, where your home was being attacked by more than a few people, then you would need unlimited weapons and unlimited ammunition, because they would keep coming back. What kind of a world would it be anyway? You could not step outside your door, no food, no water, no medical, a slow inevitable death. Put things in proper perspective. If you need more than a rifle and a handgun, then be prepared to fight off bombs and rockets.

Originally posted by charlyv
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

And that's a fact. If things ever got that far out of hand, where your home was being attacked by more than a few people, then you would need unlimited weapons and unlimited ammunition, because they would keep coming back. What kind of a world would it be anyway? You could not step outside your door, no food, no water, no medical, a slow inevitable death. Put things in proper perspective. If you need more than a rifle and a handgun, then be prepared to fight off bombs and rockets.

Sometimes I think people believe they become Jason Statham when they're under attack.
And they're not.

Originally posted by thudpuddy
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 .

You are the one who needs to look it up...
www.yourhoustonnews.com...
People need high cap magazines so they dont have to reload so frequently.
Stop imagining things.

Originally posted by smashdem

Originally posted by thudpuddy
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 .

You are the one who needs to look it up...
www.yourhoustonnews.com...
People need high cap magazines so they dont have to reload so frequently.
Stop imagining things.

edit on 6-1-2013 by smashdem because: (no reason given)

Besides that, even if this BS folk tale isn't fabricated or completely exaggerated the man was a ranger. Law enforcement. I'm not going to explain why that creates an exception to the rule, because if you don't already realize that you're probably too thick to reach.