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

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe


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



I am pro-gun yet I am anti-BSL (breed specific laws) and LOVE pitbulls and bully breeds. So what does that say for your theory? No matter what you take away from the law abiding gun owners, the law breaking ones will still get the illegal weapons. How is restricting law abiders going to stop law breakers? How does that actually work in stopping crimes? Surely if a pitbull was attacking me I would want a pitbull to defend me (or a Rotty).




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by HairlessApe


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



I am pro-gun yet I am anti-BSL (breed specific laws) and LOVE pitbulls and bully breeds. So what does that say for your theory? No matter what you take away from the law abiding gun owners, the law breaking ones will still get the illegal weapons. How is restricting law abiders going to stop law breakers? How does that actually work in stopping crimes? Surely if a pitbull was attacking me I would want a pitbull to defend me (or a Rotty).


..You just proved my point, I think?

As I said, I find that standpoint utterly hilarious. If you spent half the time you spend researching on gun control on dog breeds instead, you'd find that "bad dogs" don't exist in the form of a breed of dogs, they're simply the product of neglectful owners. I'm also not worried about criminals getting guns. I understand that MOST criminals who really want them will still be able to obtain them. That's why we have law enforcement. I'm worried about irresponsible law abiding citizens. Not because they intent to harm me, but because - as I stated - they're irresponsible. I'm pro gun control. That doesn't mean I want to take away everyone's gun, I just want Federal laws that don't allow any Joe Schmoe to obtain one without going through a test. Something like a psychological evaluation and a gun safety course that has to be taken annually. It doesn't have to be those things, but what we have today isn't cutting it.

If I REALLY wanted a gun, (and I have thought on it) I'd gladly prove I'm capable of handling one responsibly.

If you can't do that, I don't think you deserve a gun. I don't mean you specifically, I mean civilians in general.

Perhaps that would work for dog owners of "potentially dangerous breeds" as well
edit on 6-1-2013 by HairlessApe because: spellcheck



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

how about answering these questions that you avoided

"How is restricting law abiders going to stop law breakers? How does that actually work in stopping crimes?"



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

how about answering these questions that you avoided

"How is restricting law abiders going to stop law breakers? How does that actually work in stopping crimes?"


I answered that question directly. Read my post.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by lolita64
 


Hold on, you think gun control will stop lunatics like the one you mentioned that wore full body armor. He wasn't alone he had another gunmen with him...yeah I've seen the footage know exactly what your talking about. Guess what stopped the armed man from killing people, a gun store where 4 cops went inside and told the owner to give them the 4 best assault rifles he had and he gave them 4 ar15's with full clips.

The cops then pulled up to the criminal in a car and they all unloaded on the guy and still didn't kill him because he was wearing really good body armor. He ended up shooting himself once he realized he wasn't getting away.
edit on 6-1-2013 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
During WW2, the US Army´s standard rifle, the M1 Garand, had only an 8 round magazine, and the standard pistol of the day, the M1911 Colt, had only 7 shots. Many police officers for decades carried revolvers with only 5 or 6 shots. Of course, such low capacity weapons basicly forced the soldier or cop to carry many extra magazines or speed loaders for revolvers, and with proper training, reloading can be carried out within seconds.
edit on 6-1-2013 by fockewulf190 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
edit on 6-1-2013 by WHYFIGHT because: cuz there was just a bit more i wanted to say...



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

how about answering these questions that you avoided

"How is restricting law abiders going to stop law breakers? How does that actually work in stopping crimes?"


I answered that question directly. Read my post.


why not post your exact quote because all I got out of your post was that you misunderstood my stance on BSLs and said something about gun safety courses, other than that I don't know wtf you're talking about.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by skepticconwatcherBelieve me when I say that in a high stress situation your aim is not going to be dead on. In a home invasion you are going to be stressed to the max and may miss at 10 feet. However, with a mag tha holds 15 rounds or more, it increases your odds of survival. I personally keep a handgun within arm's reach when I am at home. But I prefer my Mossberg Tactical 12 gauge. Don't think I'll miss with that. When out, a nine mil, in a shoulder holster and a sports coat, or a hoodie, whatever it takes to keep it concealed.
 





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join