The 10-round magazine fantasy

[sylvi]

Right now there's a thread in GD bemoaning the fact that the Sandy Hook shooter was able to fire 152 rounds in 5 minutes, with folks implying that is a justification for limiting magazines to 10 rounds. Well, let's look at that closer. That's averaging roughly 30 shots per minute. That is not a high rate of fire, even for aimed shots from someone only moderately familiar with the weapon. One minute is a long time for someone to shoot at people who can't shoot back.

Take the time to view the following two videos demonstrating the negligible time differences in employing 10-round magazines vs. higher capacity magazines. The second video is particularly instructive:


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[kudzu22]

1. I think they rely on the belief that a spree shooter has to stop when his mag runs out.

Because they can't plan ahead enough to bring two magazines.

I call this the "Bloomberg theory of small containers"

[sylvi]

2. Or that the shooter would come in the door firing non-stop

as fast as they could pull the trigger, instead of there being breaks in the shooting that would allow plenty of time to reload as they moved about and searched for targets.

[rl6214]

65. And the CT murderer never let any mag run out

He employed combat reloading, dropping the mag before it emptied and inserting a fresh one.

[rdharma]

3. With a 30 round mag it would have taken 8 seconds.

Half the time of the three 10 rounders.

Keep diggin'!

[Clames]

4. Proof? Nope.

More Google "experience" from you...

[rdharma]

5. 8 or 9 seconds at the cadence he was firing

Time the cadence yourself if you dont believe me.

[Clames]

7. I did. You are wrong as usual.

Though you aren't wrong by as much as you usually are which is at least an improvement... Run along now, you have some reading to do.

[rdharma]

24. Nope.

Last edited Sat Mar 16, 2013, 01:11 AM - Edit history (1)

But I know how to calculate cadence and you obviously don't!

On the second video.....I think folks might find this facebook page of our Republican Sheriff buddy (who works for Gunsite) interesting.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Re-Elect-Ken-Campbell-Boone-County-Sheriff/114942278885?sk=info

BTW - For our hero in the first video.......time between the last shot of the first mag and the first round of the second mag was 4.3 seconds. And notice where he kept the mags?

In the second video, Chistie took 3.7 seconds between last shot of first mag round with the AR and first round of second mag. And somehow it only took here a little over 2 seconds longer for both.

Jim was actually faster with a mag change in the AR over the one 20 rounder. How's that work?

[rl6214]

66. Notice also that the gun was never truly empty

He dropped the mag with one round chambered so when the runner thought the gun was empty he still would have been able to shoot the runner while inserting a new mag.

[rdharma]

67. Little kids couldn't have tackled the murderer?

Is that the point you are trying to prove?

[rl6214]

68. With this comment I don't know what your point is.

But a runner of any size would be shot down with one still in the chamber.

[rdharma]

69. Runner is singular...... isn't it? nt

[rl6214]

70. Just keep changing the scenario

Those goalposts must be getting awfully heavy.

[rdharma]

71. Ever hear of Jerrod Laughner?

......And how he was taken down while reloading? Keep diggin'!

[rl6214]

99. I thought you were talking up thread about little kids tackling the shooter?

You've hit bedrock.

[rdharma]

100. Actually it was a 74 year old guy that took down Loughner........

......... and an old lady took away the fresh mag.

10 round mags can't deliver the uninterrupted fire power of the 30 rounders. More time spent on reloading equals more time for emergency response to arrive, more time for victims to flee, and a greater chance for survival of those being attacked.

Please...... spare us your "Kermit the frog arm flailing and screaming" in defense of your beloved hi-cap AR mags!

[ArcticFox]

104. Don't forget the good "guy with a gun"

Reloading 10 round magazines gives three times the opportunities to aim and fire at the bad guy.

[rl6214]

202. But he'd rather go on and on about reloading and mag limits,

They fit his agenda, not facts.

[GreenStormCloud]

106. He wasn't reloading. He was clearing a jam.

He fired 31 shots from a 33 round magazine. Large capacity mags are notorious for jamming on the last few rounds. That is because it is difficult to design a follower spring that will keep a constant tension on the ammunition and still be a small size. His mag was a poorly designed after-market mag that knowledgeable gun people reject. When a gun jams you are out of action until you can clear the jam and that will usually take some time, at least ten or more seconds for minor jams, or complete disassembly and working on the gun for major jams.

[Bazinga]

109. Highlighting an oft overlooked argument against mag limits

There is no more important characteristic in a weapon than reliability. The factory 15-round magazines I use to feed my Glock are extensively tested in all imaginable conditions and proven to function beyond doubt. The 10-round mags for Californians and others not quite as well vetted, and 7-round mags for New Yorkers don't even exist. Furthermore, the type of malfunction typically caused by a faulty magazine is known as a type-3 or double-feed malfunction and is the most complicated to clear. It is this type of malfunction that was likely experienced by Loughner in Tucson and Holmes in Aurora.

On a good day of practice in my basement with dummy rounds. I can clear a type-3 in about 3.5 seconds. In a simulated stress situation (ie under the clock during an IDPA competition) I've never had to, but I wouldn't count on anything less than 7. In fact, when I took my defensive handgun course, I was taught that it would be faster to go to a back-up gun than clear a type-3, and I agree.

Under a mag capacity limit, there would necessarily be more reloads and more malfunction clearances. Both of these are much more difficult to perform under duress. The criminal may or may not be under duress when he has to perform these operations, the law-abiding victim, by definition, will always be under duress. A criminal may or may not be using compliant magazines as he is a criminal, the law-abiding citizen, by definition, will always be using compliant magazines. And finally, the criminal is much more likely than the law-abiding citizen to carry a back-up weapon in case of malfunction (this was exactly the case in Aurora when Holmes's AR jammed because of his extended capacity magazine and he switched to his shotgun killing and injuring many more people).

All of this adds up to a disadvantage to victims and an advantage to criminals, and that is something that I can't support.

[Xipe Totec]

114. So you're objection is that smaller magazines might slow you down even more than anticipated? nt

[Bazinga]

116. In essence, yes.

In effect, it will hinder me (a law-abiding citizen) more than it will hinder a criminal. Primarily because of the increased likelihood of having to reload under duress, and secondarily because of increased likelihood of malfunction.

[uppityperson]

117. If you are that good, why do you need more than a single bullet? Why would you need to reload?

What with all that training and practice and all. Seems someone trying to shoot a lot of people would need the ability to have more ammo available than an expert like you trying to only kill one person.

[Bazinga]

119. I appreciate the confidence.

Unfortunately, I am neither Jason Bourne, nor Bob Lee Swagger, and I have no delusion that I will ever be a hero. For the vast majority, my practice is simply to be better at a sport I enjoy. It does have the added benefit of being useful in the extremely unlikely situation that I find myself in a critical incident, but I recognize that practicing track & field would be far more likely to help me out of that kind of pinch.

I will say this, if God forbid, I do ever have you use a firearm to defend myself or my family, I would much rather have too much ammo and too much preparation than not enough of either.

[uppityperson]

121. I see. So let you have high capacity in the off chance you need it and mass murderer shooters can

also have them because you will be under duress and they probably won't. If you ever have to use a firearm to defend your family, you want high capacity magazine. And it is ok for those doing mass shootings to also since "The criminal may or may not be under duress".

[Bazinga]

122. I know it's a bit of a nit-pick

but I don't want "high-capacity" magazines, I want standard capacity magazines, ie those that were designed for and proven to function reliably in my weapon. Like I said in my first post, reliability is above all else in regards to weapons.

Also, I don't think it's ok for criminals to have any weapons. Mostly because I don't think it's ok for them to commit crimes. The problem lies in the fact that criminals already have the advantage that they are willing to break the law. I don't support giving them any more advantages.

[uppityperson]

124. And being able to shoot more faster isn't an advantage for them, only for you. Thanks for clarifying

[Lizzie Poppet]

172. Any rate of fire that compromises accuracy is pointless, really.

Genuine experts aside, most of the time you see someone popping of an entire large magazine at a furious rate, they're basically firing in a general direction (hopefully with a safe backstop!). If they actually had to hit anything, they'd need to slow down and aim.

[Bazinga]

207. I don't recall saying that.

Being able to shoot more, faster would be an advantage for either party. But you have to recognize that an attacker and a victim are in much different situations and will, therefore, be affected differently by proposed mag capacity limits. The result is handicapping the law-abiding relative to the criminal. Again, not a situation I can support.

I hope that's a little more clear.

[sylvi]

6. I'm going to go out on a limb here

and guess that math isn't your strong suit, is it? Even the less experienced shooter in the second video only took 2 seconds to change mags. Applying that to the 30-round shooter in the first video (who actually would have been able to change mags even quicker), saving those two mag changes would have shortened his time by only 4 seconds, making it 12 seconds for a 30-round magazine vs. 16 seconds for three 10s.

Either way, an insignificant amount of time given the scenarios we see in multiple shootings.

[rdharma]

8. "an insignificant amount of time given the scenarios"

It becomes more significant when you're talking 150 rounds.

Magazine change time is counted from last round fired to the resumption of fire.

I've timed AR-15s being shot on more than one occasion.

Better check YOUR math.

Notice how they keep the mags on top of the barrels in the second video. No mag pouch to deal with and at the perfect height. How convenient, eh?

"New York reload" is NOT a reload.

And the guy's cadence was faster when he was using the smaller cap mag.

This Sheriff had no intention of conducting a "fair" test. Everything was set up to prove the point he was trying to make.

[sylvi]

12. "It becomes more significant when you're talking 150 rounds."

Not for the Sandy Hook shooter it didn't, because as I've already stated, he was still only averaging 30 shots per minute. The young lady in the video, at two seconds per reload, could have done that using 1-shot magazines. But that's not even the point. Mass shooters have all the time in the world because their victims are generally unarmed and there are intervals between the shootings, allowing the killer to reload at will.

[rdharma]

13. She wasn't moving. nt

So your point is mute.

[sylvi]

15. But mass shooters do.

They move from one room or area to another, looking for victims. They're not constantly jacking the trigger like the shooters in these vids, which means hey have even more time to reload. Thanks for proving my point.

And I'm sure you meant moot, not "mute".

This is why grab nuts usually don't fare too well in the Gungeon. Here, your arguments are examined and you're expected to actually prove your point rather than relying on bumper sticker slogans, smilies, and backslapping from other grab nuts.

But by all means, please proceed.

[rdharma]

47. mass shooters move.....

Mass "shooters"? I'm sure you meant "mass MURDERERS"! Didn't you? Or would that be too harsh of a description for recreational schoolyard shooting enthusiasts?

And that was my point...... they don't leave their magazines neatly stacked on some convenient stationary platform. They have to schlep it with them. And how many 10 round mags would they have to schlep to get the same number of rounds? How many reloads would they have to make?

I'm sorry........ I didn't get your point (unless it was to play spelling police). Do you get MY point now?

[sylvi]

50. The Brady Campaign calls them mass shootings

as does Mother Jones, The Nation, and the NYC Crime Commission to name a few. That's because not everyone shot dies. Or do the wounded not rate a place in your talking points? I'm not going to be distracted by semantic games of "gotcha", no matter how much fail is in your other "arguments".

Fifteen 10-round magazines for 5.56. You could pretty much stuff them in a large fanny pack, or the pockets of a coat and pants. We're not talking about hauling around crates of ammunition here. And besides, most mass shootings don't involve anywhere near that number of rounds, scary black rifles or not.

[rdharma]

53. What's the matter?

Are you afraid to call this horrendous criminal act for what it is......... because it might stigmatize your mass murder weapon of choice? That's sad.

And save your breath on the "10 round mags are as deadly as 30 round mags". Nobody that knows and has experience with these weapons is buying that crap.

[ManiacJoe]

19. Half the test was fair.

The woman's times were what one should expect.

[rdharma]

20. She wasn't carrying the mags on her person.

Smaller cap mags require carrying and accessing more mags between reloads.

Notice how she had them on the barrel? Perfect height for her to grab and doesn't require removal from a mag carrier or pouch.

I don't know who the good Sheriff is....... but I can easily see what his agenda is.

[ManiacJoe]

22. Barrel vs mag carrier.

How much of a difference do you think that makes, timing-wise? I am guessing a extra 1.0-1.5 seconds per mag change.

[rdharma]

23. "How much difference?"

I don't know for sure. But I know the barrel top would be faster. Look at the distance from the top of the barrel to the gun. And you have the mags arranged in front where you can see them and don't have to reach back and feel around.

And as far as the timing........ all we have is the good Sheriff's word that he's reporting the correct times.

I think folks might find this facebook page of our Republican Sheriff buddy (who works for Gunsite) interesting.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Re-Elect-Ken-Campbell-Boone-County-Sheriff/114942278885?sk=info

[gejohnston]

27. so do you, so do I

everyone has an agenda. The point is sifting through the bullshit.

[rdharma]

28. What does it tell you.......

..... when that Jim guy is faster with a mag change than just one 20 round mag?



Sheriff Ken Campbell

Office: Sheriff

State: Indiana

District: Boone County

Party: Republican

Political Views: Very Conservative

[gejohnston]

30. it tells me that either the

video is edited or he is very fast. Since Lanza did not have any empty magazines on him, because he frequently changed magazines, I fail to see the relevancy of any of this.

[rdharma]

37. "Since Lanza did not have any empty magazines on him....."

On him? Why would Lanza have kept empty mags "on him"?

[gejohnston]

41. he didn't empty any magazines apperently

he apparently switched magazines as he moved from room to room regardless of how much ammo was left.

He fired about 150 rounds in all during the classroom-to-classroom spree and rapidly changed clips, sometimes after firing only half of the magazine's rounds.
Privately, investigators wondered whether the reloading habit was influenced by the endless hours the quiet, withdrawn loner spent playing violent, first-person shooter video games, the Courant reported.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lanza-wore-earplugs-shot-cars-article-1.1234747#ixzz2NjMyTXe6

Of course, that is assuming that he acted alone.
CT authorities have not ruled out the possibility of co-conspirators so far.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/342829#ixzz2KJ4Vd8pA

I find this rather interesting.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22208636/alleged-newtown-killers-mom-got-more-than-250
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/adam_lanza_was_a_vegan/

[rdharma]

42. The Courant!

Buwhahahahaaa! I'll believe the "used only half the round in the mag stuff" when I see the official report. That "reporter for the Courant is just too full of shit to be considered credible.

Lanza wearing earplugs was also a mystery to him.

Have you ever fired a gun in close quarters. I'm not talking AF MOUT (if there is such a thing in the AF) training with blanks. I'm talking live fire in an enclosed area. It's very distracting.

Do you know why flash bangs are employed and why they work?

Think about it.

[gejohnston]

43. the official report will come out in June

But I have seen the magazine changes in a couple of places. That said, the media in general has not had a great track record for accuracy or responsible reporting in this or a number of other high profile cases.

Have you ever fired a gun in close quarters. I'm not talking AF MOUT (if there is such a thing in the AF) training with blanks. I'm talking live fire in an enclosed area. It's very distracting.

Actually the Air Force does, or did, at Ft Dix since there is more joint operations with AF Security Forces, esp dog handlers, and army. They sent Combat Camera through the training as well, which why I was there.

[rdharma]

44. "media ....has not had a great track record for accuracy"

Boy howdy, you can say that again!

Just be careful when reporters use language like "sources", "some say", etc. You know...... like FAUX News does.

Combat Camera, eh? Interesting.

[gejohnston]

45. Faux didn't invent it

they copied it from the MSM to make their propaganda sound "respectable".

[oneshooter]

57. "Brave men go to war shooting bullets, crazy men go to war shooting film" Or something like that.

[GreenStormCloud]

107. Reach back and feel around? LOL.

Spare mags are carried in mag carriers that are on the front on a belt that you wear around your waist. You just reach to your belly and grab a mag. You don't have to feel around, as you know where they are. Just a fast as being on the barrel. Here is a guy who doesn't have the mags on a barrel.

In real life, the Luby's killer reloaded and shot someone who was trying to charge him.

[rdharma]

112. You aren't Tomasie......

And he's a world class IPSC competitor and has special pistol mag carriers ........and isn't carrying 15+ 10 round AR-15 mags.

But nice try!

PS - Hug and kiss your hi-caps before you put them to bed tonight!

[GreenStormCloud]

143. Granted, I'm not him.

But I don't have to be him to wear the mag carrier up front. Why would I want to carry it in back?

Since I am not going to do any rampage shooting I only carry two extra mags - up front, under the shirt, readily accessible in case of need.

Back when I was in the Army my magazine pouches were up front, not in back.

[rdharma]

146. Why would I want to carry it in back?

No. Your mag carriers were to the side! So you had to reach back.

How do you carry 15 10 rounders?

Do you remember how many 20s you carried?

[GreenStormCloud]

153. Mine, and all the others, were in front.

My ammunition pouches were on the pistol belt, one on each side of the buckle. Sometimes two on each side of the buckle. At first we had the M-14, and we carried eight 20 rnd mags. The same pouch would hold three 20rnd mags for the M-16, which would make 12 20 rnd mags for it.

I won't carry 15 10rnd mags. I am long past my days of needing or wanting to carry that much ammo. Two extra mags for my pistol is enough for me. It's standard mag is 12 rnds. I don't like extended mags as they change the balance and feel of a pistol.

[rdharma]

156. on each side

Fast draw pouches,eh? Buwahahhahaha!

Either side you had to reach back.

[GreenStormCloud]

157. Looked like this:

[rdharma]

159. I know what they looked like!

I carried the 20s early on!

Tell me how to carry 15+ 10 rounders!

[GreenStormCloud]

162. Why? I didn't then, and don't now.

Perhaps you could ask the VT killer, if he was still alive. He carried at least 18 standard mags for his handguns.

[rdharma]

164. handguns.

Are handgun mags the size of AR mags? Keep diggin'!

Hug your hi-caps!

[GreenStormCloud]

166. The discussion isn't limited to AR mags only.

Handgun mags are also being discussed.

[rdharma]

170. 'Cause you say so?

Buwahahhahahaa!

[GreenStormCloud]

171. Yes.

DU has not given you any authority to place limits on a discussion. In numerous posts in this thread handgun mags are being discussed, and in the second video handguns are being used, including revolvers.

I have to go now. I will be back on Monday.

[rdharma]

173. Buh-bye!

[sylvi]

125. Hear that? He's got them "special pistol mag carriers"

The ones you don't have to "reach back and feel around for".

You're talking to Mr. Firearms Instructor now. Careful, or he'll post another smilie.

[GreenStormCloud]

144. Special pistol mag carriers?

Standard pistol mag carriers go up front. I carry two up front, under the shirt. I haven't posted any smilies in this thread and rarely ever use them. You are talking about the other guy that posts smilies.

[rdharma]

149. pistol mag carriers go up front

Is an AR-15 a pistol?

[GreenStormCloud]

155. No, but lots of other semi-auto guns are pistols.

In the thread we are talking about both pistols and rifles.

[sylvi]

150. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure you saw his post...

...and took it really, really seriously. Him being a sooper-dooper ex-spurt Firearms Instructor and all.

[GreenStormCloud]

158. OK.

Thanks for the clarification. Your post had me confused.

He has so many errors that I seriously doubt his claims.

[rdharma]

147. "special pistol mag carriers"

IPSC pistol mag carrier? Vs. 15+ 10 round mag carrier? Buwahahahhaha! Keep diggin', Nimrod!

[sylvi]

148. Ooooooooo, you're such an ex-spurt on weapons

LOL

[rdharma]

152. What's the matter?

You gun nut huggers gettin' "shot down"?!!!! Buwahahhahaha!!!!

[sylvi]

174. Yeah, keep shooting down those pro-RKBA arguments like you have been

You'll have yourself one of those Scary Black Rifle Bans in about 2-3 centuries, when projectile weapons are obsolete.

[rdharma]

177. I have five of them now!

I have no problem with registration of my hobby toys!

[sylvi]

179. Sure you do, pal

Sure you do.

All self respecting ex-spurt Firearms Instructors do.

[rdharma]

180. Are AKs black rifles?

If so, I'll have to adjust the number I have.

[gejohnston]

185. depends

[rdharma]

188. Gag me with a spoon!

Pink .22LR AK?

Where is the "hurl" smiley?

[sylvi]

186. Cool story, bro! nt

[sylvi]

191. Cool pic, bro!

Now post one of Disneyland! Or the space shuttle!

[hack89]

34. The Va Tech shooter reloaded a dozen times

and he still was able to kill 32 people and wound 17 others on a campus full of young, healthy, strong adults.

Are you saying he could not have done the same against a bunch of first graders at Sandy Hook?

[rdharma]

25. sylvi, do you always post rightie propaganda?

The second video. Do you know who the good Sheriff is?

I think you might find this facebook page of our Republican Sheriff buddy (who works for Gunsite) interesting.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Re-Elect-Ken-Campbell-Boone-County-Sheriff/114942278885?sk=info

Think he's got an agenda? How about YOU?

[sylvi]

35. I don't care if he's Satan incarnate.

The point is the information in the video, not some hidden or unhidden agenda or the political bent by the maker. He's quite up front in declaring his point with regard to the demonstration. Complaining, "B-b-but, he's a CONSERVATIVE!" doesn't refute the information in the video.

Again, that kind of distraction might work in the emotion-based cacophony of gun threads in GD, but not here.

[rdharma]

36. information in the video.

"Information"? That's a laugh! His rigged test was specifically designed to "prove" his gun nutter BS!

It's OBVIOUS to anybody with a slight bit of knowledge on these things.

Like I said, I was a law enforcement firearms instructor and have shot extensively in competition. I can see right through his rigged BS!

[Niceguy1]

9. And people

seem to think that their dream of a firearm prohibition will be anything different than the great prohibition of alcohol.

And they are een using similar talking points.

[rdharma]

10. "firearm prohibition"

Who's talking about prohibition?

[spin]

17. Lots of posters on DU have mention that they want ...

to prohibit, ban and confiscate all firearms. A large number have stated that the AWB would be a "good first step."

Gun owners have long memories and they remember Dianne Feinstein who co-authored the first AWB and is now pushing for the updated and improved version, when she appeared on 60 minutes:

Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[26]...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein

[Niceguy1]

31. your proposal

Would be considered an effective ban by the courts thus a violation of the 2nd.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. Any number of posters, here and elsewhere

[ManiacJoe]

11. Jim seemed to be sandbagging on the...

larger capacity magazines.

With a little practice, OK lots of practice and a race gun, Jerry shows what can be done with revolvers.

[rdharma]

14. Mickulik

Is the fastest revolver shooter in the WORLD shooting a custom gun with moon clips.

Your point?

[ManiacJoe]

16. Magazine/cylinder capacity is not all it is hyped to be.

My point: Jim seemed to be sandbagging on the larger capacity magazines. For the lower capacity mags, he used a higher rate of speed for both the handgun and rifle.

[rdharma]

18. Jim seemed to be sandbagging on the larger capacity magazines.

It was pretty obvious to me. I'm glad someone else noticed it.

Notice they always ran the larger cap mags first. In effect letting them get a practice run before using the low caps.

[Bay Boy]

77. I agree there was some sandbagging

with the thirty rounders. The rate of fire was obviously slower.

[rdharma]

21. The good Sheriff, Ken Campbell, works at GUNSITE

Ken has been teaching at Gunsite since 1991. http://www.gunsite.com/main/

So now we see why his "test" was so rigged!

[Buzz Clik]

26. No difference carrying 14 magazines rather than 3?

No difference changing that many mags rather than 3? Really?

Bullshit.

[ZombieHorde]

29. If the limit doesn't make a difference, then it shouldn't matter to gun enthusiasts. nt

[Eleanors38]

32. Did't make a diff with the VT murderer. Heard he set the record.

[DonP]

39. That's just like; "If you have nothing to hide you'll let the police search your car/house/body".

But let's face reality, aside from a state or two, and even they will have to allow grandfathering of existing magazines, there will be no magazine limits nationally and those states will face expensive court challenges.

[kudzu22]

46. Magazine size doesn't matter to a spree killer

because nobody is shooting back at him. It does matter in self defense. That's why cops carry 17 round Glocks instead of 6 shot revolvers.

[brindleboxer]

33. I can't think of a more credible source...

on the issue of operating an AR-15 than Rachel Maddow. She makes this argument, and provides nothing to substantiate her assumption that performing 14 magazine changes in the course of five minutes would be prohibitively difficult, which makes sense when you're preaching to the MSNBC choir but it's not a solid argument.

Lanza could have killed just as many people with a Glock 19 and a fanny pack full of 10 round magazines. The more and more I hear elected Dems lying to us about these things, the harder it makes it for me to identify with the political left in this country in almost any capacity. Not because I'm a single issue voter (I'm not) but because I used to think that the Democratic party was above this kind of dishonest sensationalist bullshit. And to watch the majority of other dems rallying around dishonest, self-aggrandizing turds like Dianne Feinstein and be unwilling to apply or allow any scrutiny to their rhetoric, I'm feeling increasinly alienated from my own party.

[iiibbb]

136. Actually she did key onto one strong point... she just didn't spend a lot of time on it.

... she noted that all of the people who survived or escaped Lanza, did it while he was f-ing with his weapon.

However, this is just one incident. Cho killed more people at Virginia Tech with 10-round magazines. So overall it is very difficult to generalize.

Maddow spent the least amount of time on the most important point to me. First shot to last shot was 5 minutes. If he had 10 round magazines, first shot to last shot might have been 5 1/2 or 6 1/2 minutes at MOST. What that tells me is that when something like this happens there's nothing anyone can do for you. So unless you have a good plan, or some time to get out the police are not going to swoop in and save you.

But casing out a public place for where/what you might do if someone opened fire would be paranoid... right?

[rdharma]

38. Video 1 CLOWN......

He states: "I've shot a lot of people in Vietnam, Iraq and all over......"

Do the math! The last combat ground operation involving US troops in Vietnam was in 1972. Invasion of Iraq 2003 (31 years later).

Bubba here is a big BSer!

PS - I thought he was going to do a test running a full 30 rounder for time for comparison! You gun nutters just keep on swallowing the BS these gun show commandos feed you if it suits your agenda. Smart folks don't buy it.

[Straw Man]

40. You missed the point.

The point is that it took 16 seconds to fire 30 rounds from three magazines. Multiply by 4.2 to equal the number of rounds Lanza fired and you get 67.2 seconds. A little over a minute. How long was it before police arrived on the scene at Sandy Hook?

Video Clown might be the biggest lying asshat in the world, but you cannot deny what you saw. Or maybe you can, but not with any credibility.

Never send to know at whom the ROTFLMAO smiley laughs; he laughs at thee.

[rdharma]

48. Better redo your calculations.

Seems you don't recognize that Bubba has an empty weapon after completing his first thirty rounds (which required two mag changes).

Each string of 30 from that point will require 3 mag changes with 10 round mags. At Bubba's rate...... you'll have to add 4.2 sec for each additional mag change you forgot to figure in your calculations.

Don't worry......... I know math and logical thinking is hard for some!

[Straw Man]

58. OK -- and you had better redo yours.

Seems you don't recognize that Bubba has an empty weapon after completing his first thirty rounds (which required two mag changes).

Each string of 30 from that point will require 3 mag changes with 10 round mags. At Bubba's rate...... you'll have to add 4.2 sec for each additional mag change you forgot to figure in your calculations.

You're right -- I forgot the mag changes between strings. Four additional mag changes weren't accounted for. But your estimate of 4.2 seconds per mag change is way, way off. (You weren't basing it on my 4.2 figure, were you? My 4.2 figure was the number of 30-round strings you need to get to 126 rounds.)

Bubba's magazine changes were closer to 2 seconds, so that would be an additional 8 seconds for a total of 75.2 seconds. But let's be charitable and give you your 4.2 -- what the hell, I'll even give you 5 seconds for a Bubba magazine change. That would add 20 seconds to my original total, so 87.2 seconds. Still under a minute and a half. What was the police response time?

You still don't get it, do you? He laughs at thee.

[rdharma]

59. Bubba's magazine changes were closer to 2 seconds,

Last edited Sat Mar 16, 2013, 11:49 PM - Edit history (1)

No. 4.2 seconds from last shot from mag- until continuation of fire after the mag change!

And the fugger was delivering fire on what..........

Keep diggin'!

[Straw Man]

61. C'mon now ...

There were two mag changes. You're saying they both came at 4.2 seconds? Bubba is very consistent, I must say. To the tenth of a second.

Naw, you're making it up now, especially since the second mag change is clearly faster than the first.

You're also forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the aforementioned fact that even allowing five seconds for a mag change, the total time for 125 rounds comes in under 90 seconds.

He laughs at thee.

[sylvi]

49. You continue to purposely miss the point

It isn't how fast or slow you can squeeze the trigger to empty the mag, it's how fast you can change the magazine when one is empty and resume shooting and whether or not it would have any appreciable difference in a mass shooting scenario. All of these people are changing mags within 2-4 seconds and they're not even trying hard. A mass shooter has that much time and longer as they search for victims, take time to aim, move from room to room. They're not just walking in and pulling the trigger as fast as they can until they run out of ammo and/or victims. The Sandy Hook shooter was firing an average of 30 rounds a minute. Are you honestly saying he couldn't have done that easily with 10-round magazines? You're living in a dream world where everything can be refuted with ad hominem arguments.

"The last combat ground operation involving US troops in Vietnam was in 1972. Invasion of Iraq 2003 (31 years later)."

You do know that people have active duty careers of 30 years and beyond, don't you? If he went to VN in 1972 at, say, age 18, he still would only be 49 in 2003, and at that time the mandatory retirement age was 55. Or he could have been a civilian security contractor. There were others there also who served in both wars, active duty, National Guard and contractors. You're just flailing around at this point.

[rdharma]

51. Oh, puhleese!

I don't want to hear any more of your nonsense about 10 rounders being as effective as 30 rounders in the AR-15. It just ain't so!

But I know you're a rightie who just wants to hang on to those 30 rounders "In case you have to defend yourself from a black government helicopter loaded with jack booted thugs out to "git yer' GUNS"!

Fine! Just say so! But your circular nonsensical arguments are going nowhere.

As Hermann Caine would say concerning Bubba..... "If you fall for that BS,....... BLAME YOURSELF!"

[sylvi]

52. I don't blame you

You and your BS attempts at deflection, moving goal posts, sophistry and ad hominem have been smacked around like a pinata in this forum until you've finally lost it completely, as evidenced by the above post. "Firearms instructor" my ass. You came here solely to disrupt and failed miserably. How embarrassing for you. 'Bye now.

[rdharma]

54. I don't blame you either......

You did your best to spread your right wing gun advocacy propaganda here and failed. Sad to see you heading for the high grass...... because I was really enjoying watching you spin.

PS - Come back when you're feeling better. And invite your friends to join in as well.

[Clames]

73. His facts vs your ignorance.

No wonder you are always so butthurt. Go play in your new echo chamber, mature adults have facts to discuss here..

[rdharma]

74. Facts?

Your "nuh-uhs" aren't to be confused with facts!

[Clames]

75. Still waiting for the mythical AR you "built".

Maybe even has a GI issued upper on it...

[rdharma]

76. Tell you what!

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)

You tell me about the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 upper....... and I'll post pictures of my builds.

I'm not wasting the time to post pics and then have some moron CLAIM that I just got them off the internet.

BTW - I see by your post above that you have finally realized that you're full of it!

[Clames]

85. Already did.

Even posted pictures to make it easier on you. Some morons just can't be helped enough though...

[rdharma]

86. posted pictures

No, you didn't! You aren't fibbin' there are you, boy?

[Clames]

87. I did.

You got schooled, child.

[rdharma]

89. No! You didn't!

If you did, you can search your posts and show 'em here again!

[Clames]

91. I did, several of them.

You can get off your lazy rump and go back to that thread yourself. Do your own homework, boy....

[rdharma]

94. You lie? Oh, no! Please tell me that's not the case!

Yup! That's what it is!

[Clames]

98. Nope, just keep lying to yourself.

Living in that little world of willing ignorance you've built for yourself Hilarious you have nothing left....

[4Q2u2]

105. Bush 1

You do remember we were there in 1990's.
Also depending on his rank he could have easily served at least 30 yrs. In 2003 they were stop lossing guys left and right, as well as high year tenure waivers.

[Deep13]

55. Isn't that also an argument to ban detachable magazines? nt

[Duckhunter935]

56. just tape 2 or 3 together

Magazine already at magazine well, all you have to do is reverse for a reload.

[rdharma]

60. Show me how thats done on ten round mags!

Did you say THREE MAGS?

Try that in a AR mag well!

[Straw Man]

62. You've never seen these?

Show me how thats done on ten round mags!

http://www.riflegear.com/p-351-magpul-pmag-10-round-20-body-magazine-223556mm.aspx

[sylvi]

63. LOL

Or these:

[url]http://www.midwayusa.com/product/138112/promag-magazine-ar-15-223-remington-10-round-steel-blue[/url]

Or these:

[url]http://www.midwayusa.com/product/311166/tangodown-arc-magazine-ar-15-223-remington-10-round-polymer[/url]

Mr. Firearms Instructor is the gift that keeps on giving. I breathlessly await his next bit of technical expertise on the AR-15.

[rdharma]

72. Uh...... what's your "gotcha" point?

Yes, I know they make ten round mags....... did I say they didn't?

What's your point?

Are you going to show me how you tape three of them together?

BTW - Those ten rounders use the 20 round body. "New Magpul PMAG 10 round capacity in a 20 round body."

A purpose made 10 rounder would be a bit short for taping together, eh?

Keep diggin', boys!

[Straw Man]

78. Winner of the No Shit Sherlock award ...

... is rdharma.

BTW - Those ten rounders use the 20 round body. "New Magpul PMAG 10 round capacity in a 20 round body."

Um... yeah. That's why they'd be just as easy to tape together as a 20-rounder. You wanted to know how someone could tape two ten-round magazines together.

Are you going to show me how you tape three of them together?

No -- I don't know if it's possible. Facing the middle one the other way might work, or it might not. But that's not what I was responding to, nor did I ever claim it could be done. That must have been somebody else.

A purpose made 10 rounder would be a bit short for taping together, eh?

Yeah, it would. So someone who wanted to tape two 10-round magazines together wouldn't use one of those.

BTW, I don't recall the phrase "purpose made" being part of the original challenge. Is there a jurisdiction somewhere that mandates purpose-made 10 round magazines only? No? I didn't think so.

Send not to ask ...

[rdharma]

79. Well, hey! Tape your three 20 rounders together there, Hoss!

See how that works out!

Keep diggin', y'all! Yeehawwwww!

[Straw Man]

80. You're talking to the wrong person, Chuck.

I never made that claim. If that's the only straw you've got left to cling to, I think you're done.

He laughs at thee.

[rdharma]

82. No! He laughs at thee...... who defends gun nuts, Hoss!

[Straw Man]

84. So it's down to insults and smileys.

Nothing left, huh Chuck?

[rdharma]

81. "someone who wanted to tape two 10-round magazines together wouldn't use one of those".

Purpose designed 10 rounders. No sheet, Sherlock! That's the point! Barely stick out of the mag well. That would really fug up a favorite recreational schoolyard gun.......... wouldn't it?

[Straw Man]

83. You said you wanted to see how it would be done ...

... on a ten-round magazine. You didn't say a "purpose designed" ten-round magazine. Surely someone of your vast experience knows that converted magazine are out there by the thousands in jurisdictions that have a ten-round limit. Perhaps you had forgotten?

Is there something else you wanted to know?

[rdharma]

88. Well, show me how three 20 rounders are taped together then!

Golly! You sure are fun!

[Straw Man]

90. Perhaps you aren't reading carefully.

That wasn't my claim. It was someone else's. You asked how 10-round magazines could be taped together. I showed you.

Keep beating that horse, Chuck. I don't care that it's dead, because it isn't mine.

I repeat: Is there anything else you'd like to know?

[rdharma]

92. That wasn't my claim.

Well then, why are you replying?

I thought you were trying to defend the other nimrod's claim that it could be done.

[Straw Man]

93. You're the one conflating the claims.

I'm trying to disabuse you of your misconceptions. Apparently that isn't possible.

[rdharma]

95. Just admit ........ it can't be done!

And save yourself the embarrassment!

[Straw Man]

97. Please show me where I said it could.

I have no idea whether or not it can be done. It was not my claim. It was somebody else's.

The embarrassment of what? I'm not at all embarrassed by what somebody else claimed could be done. I responded to your asking how 10-round magazines could be taped together. I showed you.

Will there be anything else?

[rdharma]

96. I've really had fun on this thread!

Busting the sacred balloons of the gun nutters!

[upaloopa]

101. Why is it so f..ing important to have 30 rounds available to you at any time?

I didn't have 30 round magazines in Vietnam and I was in a fucking war. What war are you in?

[rdharma]

102. "I didn't have 30 round magazines in Vietnam"

I wonder what "WAR" these "nutters" are NOW IN that they need 30 round mags?!!!

[GreenStormCloud]

108. America doesnt have a Dept.of Needs.

We don't have to justify our wants to anybody, except maybe our spouses.

[rdharma]

111. Do you "want" an AT-4?

I know you don't "need" one....... but is owning one a "right"?

[GreenStormCloud]

138. A loaded AT-4 is ordnance, not small arms.

They are outside of 2A.

[rdharma]

142. Does the Second Amendment specify "small arms"?

Derrp!

How about a 20mm chain gun? Errp Derrp?!!!

[jmg257]

113. America does however have a government, formed for the common good.

And so of course government interest in how your wants affect other members of society.

Since there is admittedly no NEED for 30 round mags, then there is really no good reason not to regulate them.

[hack89]

118. Once the government can articulate a rational reason to regulate them

and if it passes judicial scrutiny, then yes it has that power.

But the process does not start with me having to justify my need for something - "because" is a perfectly acceptable answer when it comes to civil liberties.

[jmg257]

120. They have articulated reasons quite often,

just a matter of getting enough legislatures to agree. As has happenned in several states already.

All they have to do is get enough votes...judicial scrutiny may come later.

And likely that is where 'justification' may come into play - for both sides.
'Your' justification and the notion there is a bit of infringement of your liberties may certainly be considered at that time, but as the poster said - since there is no 'need' & only 'want', there is really no good reason not to impose limits.

[hack89]

123. Just as long as you understand the government has no right

to make me justify my choices. For many gun controllers, the argument starts and ends with "why do you need that?".

[jmg257]

133. I agree - hence my use of the term "government interest".

The govt just has to come to a conclusion that regulations are worth it.

Seems many gun controllers, even those in govt, simply feel that is already the case; but even more confidently when an obvious 'lack of need' by users shows there are no good reasons to keep from enacting restrictions.

Of course, the SCOTUS based some of their decision in Heller exactly on the jusitfication of choice - "...an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense". Yet it is doubtful limiting magazine capacity would be considered a violation of the 2nd, as it is does nothing to reduce the ability "...for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".

[GreenStormCloud]

139. Freedom doesn't work that way.

For the government to restrict a right it has to show an overwhelming need for that restriction, and that the need can only be accomplished by the proposed regulation. We don't have to show a need for there not to be a regulation. Our position is the default position. The responsibility of showing need is upon the prohibitionists.

[jmg257]

141. I agree. Compelling interest and all that stuff.

But since there is no need to have them, then there is no reason not to restrict them IF such interest exists.

[GreenStormCloud]

145. There is no compelling interest in banning high cap magazines.

Somehow the prohibitionists seem to think that if the magazine runs out of ammo, that the shooter is done shooting, or at least will take a long time reloading. The reality is that a semi-auto is designed to be reloaded quickly and easily. Several rampage shooters have carried extra magazines and reloaded quickly.

[krispos42]

110. And the NVA did...

...and we lost that one, didn't me?





Joking, joking.


I think the real issue is the idea of having a limit, and if there is a limit, what the limit should be. What is the criteria for settling on 10 rounds, aside from the unimportant biological fact that we all have 10 fingers and 10 toes? Is it based on an analysis of the average number of shots fired in a self-defense situation?

Do we have to do a bell curve of this information, establish a standard deviation, then decide how many SDs to give for a mag limit?

That's at least based in science.

[CreekDog]

160. glad this is presenting an opportunity for you to find the humor in this issue

that's just wonderful.

[krispos42]

168. The human toll ratio was almost 50:1

I think we won that one.

[CreekDog]

176. sorry, but what are you talking about?

[krispos42]

208. I thought you were going in a certain direction

I guess not. My bad.

[JoePhilly]

127. You need a 30 round clip so you don't lose time reloading ...

but you don't need to ban 30 round clips because you can reload 10 round clips almost just as fast.

See how that works.

[upaloopa]

129. My question is reloading for what?

Need to pump 30 slugs into some unsuspecting deer? Need to pump 30 slugs into some target shaped like a human? What's the rush at a target range?
No the 30 round clip is because they want it. No real reason other than that.
Hey people in hell want ice water. Where can we draw the line, tanks, RPGs, hell fire missiles.
Screw the I wanta folks.

[Bazinga]

206. Victims and criminals are in vastly different situations.

I wouldn't need a 30-round mag because it would be extremely unlikely that I would have an AR for my defense. But I sure as heck would want to have my pistol's standard 15-round magazines so I could reload as little as possible. This is because all of my reloads would be done, by virtue of me being the victim, under duress.

An active shooter wouldn't need 30-round mags because few if any of his reloads would be done during duress, but rather while looking for more targets, as was done by Adam Lanza who didn't even use all 30-round in his magazines before reloading.

Thus, a magazine capacity limit would inhibit self-defense while doing extremely little to hinder criminals. And that is even assuming that criminals will either obey the law or be prevented from obtaining banned mags (an assumption that is wishful at best).

[iiibbb]

103. 5 Minutes

I like Rachael Maddow, but she spent a lot of time on the fact that he used 30 round magazines and fired all of his shots in 5 minutes.

...Okay...

But why did she spend so little time that the whole thing was over in only 5 minutes.

This only reinforces the NRA's position that armed security would have been the only people who had any chance to intervene in Sandy Hook... not that I endorse the NRA's position for a myriad of other reasons... but in the realm of proposals it's far more likely to have had an effect on the Sandy Hook outcome than 10-round magazines would have.

[rdharma]

115. Armed security fantasy........

A good way for a poorly armed assailant to acquire a more efficient weapon from an armed guard.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

128. Congratulations! With 125 replies, you are the first to use the magic combination of letters "NRA"

[bowens43]

126. agreed, we need to ban these weapons completely and jail anyone in possession of one.

[CreekDog]

130. 30 shots per minute is not a high rate of fire? i think you've taken leave of your senses.

but in this group, so warped is the view of reality that many people will agree with you that 152 shots in 5 minutes is not really a high rate of fire.

[sylvi]

131. No, it's not a high rate of fire

It's an average of one shot every two seconds, easily sustainable with even 10-round magazines. That's the whole point of this thread, if you bothered to read it.

[CreekDog]

132. so you're saying the Newtown Massacre did not feature a high rate of fire

the mind boggles.

we have nothing in common.

the Newtown shooting was just a theoretical math problem to you.

[sylvi]

135. No it did not feature high rate of fire

And you're right - when it comes to firearms discussion we have nothing in common. You blather purely from emotion while people who are serious about both solutions and freedom study the facts and their implications. The question is whether or not, in the case of Sandy Hook or similar shootings, would 10-round magazine restrictions have made a difference. I don't believe they would, and I think the videos and the verbal arguments of myself and others in this thread supply at least some evidence of that. But you can't climb down off your pedestal long enough to consider them.

If you want to argue the facts that's fine. But don't think you own the god damn concession on empathy and care regarding shooting victims just because you stand around shrieking, "WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!!!" without any consideration of facts or context regarding exactly what that "something" is, and whether or not it would be effective. You don't. Many if not most of we pro-RKBA Democrats have children of our own and care just as much about them and their safety as you claim to. So climb down off your "It's all a math problem to you" high horse.

[Bazinga]

204. I agree

Until we can get rid of the ridiculous "If you don't agree with me then you must not care if kids die" mentality, there will be no real solutions. And that really does apply to both sides, as the pro-RKBA side is too often guilty of accusing the pro-control side of being anti-liberty.

[Straw Man]

137. Legislation requires facts and numbers ...

... for a basis. Otherwise it's ineffectual and worthless.

In terms of the capabilities of firearms -- which is what we're talking about legislating here -- 30 rounds per minute is not a particularly high rate of fire. It can be and has been exceeded by trained shooters with bolt action rifles. Semi-auto rifles are capable of around 90 RPM sustained rate of fire. Real military assault rifles (full auto) are theoretically capable of a cyclical rate of fire of around 600 RPM, but that can't be sustained for long without damaging the weapon through overheating.

To me, the Newtown shooting was a glimpse into hell. I find it incomprehensible that a human being could even begin to contemplate such an act.

[CreekDog]

140. excuse me but what is the purpose of firing 30 rounds in one minute?

these are bullets.

the theoretical limit of shooting is not what makes something a high rate.

what makes something a high rate is the significance of what you're doing (shooting at something, potentially killing something with each shot) and how often that is.

are you telling me that killing 30 people in one minute is not a fast rate of something?

you guys are ridiculous about this.

you've lost your marbles on this issue. you argue these things like guns aren't about killing, like shooting is theoretical, like this is some clinical decision.

it isn't. it's about the ability to kill, fast, massive and indiscriminately.

a high rate is being able to do it that many times in a minute, yes.

[Lizzie Poppet]

151. In the vast majority of cases? Goofing off.

At least when discussing civilian use of high-capacity, rapid fire weapons...

"Killing 30 people in one minute" is just not something that happens when using a high-capacity semi-automatic. It might be theoretically possible - if every round hit the target (unlikely at a high rate of fire) and if every round produced a kill (also astronomically unlikely). Instead, when someone is unloading a 30-round mag in a minute or less, they're almost always shooting at paper, aluminum cans, and so forth.

[CreekDog]

154. are you telling me that they're pumping hundreds of pollutning rounds into the environment?

in just minutes?

jeez.

disaster.

[gejohnston]

161. depends on the range

many recover the lead for recycling. There are recycling companies who seem to specialize in just that.
http://www.americanscrapmetal.com/range-lead-recovery-reclamation.html
http://www.leadrecoverysystems.com/

I would like to see more RD for the commercial sector
http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/GreenBullets/GreenBullets.htm

[CreekDog]

163. so there's a good chance that they are polluting the environment

since so many ranges don't adhere to the better practices.

and also a good chance of polluting because it's a decent possibility that they aren't at a range at all.

but the apologies continue!

[gejohnston]

178. depends on the degree

speaking of pollution, how do you feel about jet skis, dirt bikes, ATVs, golf courses? I'm sure they are more harmful to the environment.
Speaking of pollution and greed:

http://grist.org/news/marijuana-growers-endanger-salmon-bears-and-even-dogs/
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/23/local/la-me-pot-enviro-20121223
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/21/4926571/medical-pot-growers-ravage-california.html
http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/marijuana-pollution/

That's before we get to the violence and greed to protect nontaxable income.
http://www.wikihow.com/Detect-Marijuana-Growers'-Booby-Traps
http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/its-a-jungle-out-there-booby-trapped-marijuana-plots/

Does my right to hike or fish safely without getting murdered by some long lost Koch brother trump your right to smoke a joint?

[CreekDog]

181. putting lead into the environment doesn't depend upon degree

unlike many pollutants there really aren't safe levels of lead exposure, especially for children.

and there are laws concerning the other pollution you refer to, so i take it you support laws with respect to guns.

unless you are a hypocrite.

[gejohnston]

183. children don't dig up bullets and eat them out of desert sand

so the whole bullet thing isn't even a valid issue. At most it is a straw Josh Sugarmann tries to grasp once in awhile when the rest of his dishonest nonsense fails.

and there are laws concerning the other pollution you refer to

which pot growers violate just like they do gun laws, laws against murder, tax evasion etc.

so i take it you support laws with respect to guns unless you are a hypocrite.

I support most current federal laws. Please explain my hypocrisy?

[CreekDog]

184. when did the entire country become a desert that children don't dig in?

are you for real?

while shameless lobbying shouldn't surprise me, i admit that the boldest examples of it still does.

[gejohnston]

187. I grew up in a desert

with lots of public land, so my frame of reference. In order for metallic lead to be a health threat, it has to be ingested.

and Brady doesn't have shameless lobbyists? Don't forget Koch Bloomberg's election buying money bombs, and sudden love for Cheney's "terror watch list" that doesn't actually contain any terrorists.

[CreekDog]

189. you just said lead shot isn't a problem because children aren't going to dig in desert sand for it

that makes less than zero sense.

the entire nation is not a desert.

your argument makes less than no sense.

you're failing. whatever cause you're supporting is being harmed by your posts on this topic. hope the bosses are watching, you need to up your game.

[gejohnston]

193. I'm doing quite fine

I think my cause is doing fine. You mean your bosses? How much does Koch Bloomberg pay per post? You haven't made a logical or valid point yet.
So, where are kids digging up and ingesting bullets?

[CreekDog]

194. what about wildlife?

what about contamination of soils and waterways?

you think people are going to believe your hastily crafted strawman?

nope.

[gejohnston]

197. do you know what a straw man is?

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man&quot , and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
what straw man is that?
AFAIK, the biggest problem was shotgun pellets in the water and lead fishing sinkers. The FWS, banned lead shot for water fowl years ago. Do you have any evidence, like a scientific consensus, that this is a real issue?

[CreekDog]

198. is that what the NRA is demanding now?

for something to be borne out by scientific study, there must be no single example that disagrees with a point.

[gejohnston]

199. don't work for the NRA, have to ask them

Does VPC and Koch Bloomberg demand only appeal to emotion without rational discussion?

[CreekDog]

200. i don't know who those are except Bloomberg

[gejohnston]

212. Violence Policy Center

who gets most if not all of its funding from the Joyce Foundation and one of two FFL holders in DC. The license number is 1-54-000-01-8C-00725. The 01 in the fourth set means they have a license to sell title one firearms.
http://www.vpc.org/ They produce more inane propaganda than sell guns.

the reason I nicknamed Mike Bloomberg Koch Bloomberg is because, like the Koch brothers, he uses his personal fortune to money bomb trying to buy out of state elections. That said, while the Kochs are archao-capitoalists Bloomberg is a garden variety authoritarian and corporatist that is liberal on some social issues, but leans to the right when it comes to unions and public education.

[Lizzie Poppet]

167. I think "disaster" is a bit of an overstatement, really.

Given escalating ammunition costs, I don't think that many people are doing a whole lot of "spray and pray" shooting these days. For those that are, with the exception of .22s and some pistol rounds, most of what gets fired through high-capacity semiautomatics is fully-jacketed (that is, there's a copper coating over the lead). This jacket can come apart under impact, but that certainly doesn't always happen when firing into dirt backstops. The amount of lead being introduced in any given locale is going to be pretty small.

Not that this means that an alternative to lead for bullet cores isn't a darned good idea. The move away from lead shot for hunting shotguns was a good move (particularly given that a lot of shotgun hunting occurs in comparatively sensitive wetlands).

[CreekDog]

195. how much ammunition can be put into the environment safely?

how can you say that it's not a problem when you don't seem to have any idea of how much it would take to be a problem?

just goes to show you that this forum has some of the most anti-environmental and anti-science posters at DU.

[Lizzie Poppet]

196. Wow...that's one hell of a stretch.

So I'm "anti-science" (LOL...I make my living at it) because I'm dubious that the amount of lead being introduced into the environment via shooting is sufficient to constitute a 'disaster?" Nice stretch...you should Audition for Plastic Man in the next superhero movie. You'd save the producers a bunch on special effects.

Serves me right for trying to have a decent conversation here these days...

[sylvi]

169. Oh FFS

Are you antis intentionally obtuse or what? Now you're conflating rate of fire per minute to number of victims per minute? Who has done that except you?

"what makes something a high rate is the significance of what you're doing"

No, it isn't. Not when you're talking about "rate of fire". Not when you're talking about magazine capacities and how they affect the ability to shoot lots of people. It's you that's lost your marbles. You guys start with mag capacities, and when it's shown how fast it is to change out a mag, you jump to how fast each magazine is being emptied. Then, when it's shown that all things being equal, the total rate of fire in a mass shooting is negligibly affected by magazine changes, you jump to some shit about "killing 30 people in one minute". When in the history of mass rifle shootings in the U.S. has that ever happened?

You guys want to place more and more restrictions on a Constitutionally-enumerated right, but when someone asks you to prove how it would help, your only answer is, "For the children!". That's not an answer, it's a slogan. When someone does try to present some facts, you handwave it away and call it a distraction or insensitivity and start going on about how empathetic you are. Well, your empathy and $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee, slick. It sure as hell won't save anyone's life. I'm more interested in eschewing feelgood bullshit that infringes upon rights and has no real-world utility, and concentrating on strategies that actually do address the problem.

[CreekDog]

175. apparently you haven't bought coffee lately

[Straw Man]

201. If a firearm exists ...

... that can fire 600 rounds per minute, then 30 rounds per minute is not a high rate of fire. It's really as simple as that.

As with any topic involving technology and human beings, there is a clinical/theoretical aspect and there is an emotional/moral aspect. Obviously you prefer to discuss the latter. That does not mean that the former doesn't exist.

Firing 30 rounds per minute is not equivalent to killing 30 people in one minute. Following your assertion that "what makes something a high rate is the significance of what you're doing," would you then agree that if one is not shooting for the purpose of killing human beings, then even 600 RPM is not a "high rate of fire"?

I can assure you that for me, "guns aren't about killing." Having the ability to do something is a very different thing from having the desire to do it. I, you, and everybody under the sun has the ability to do a lot of horrible things. This does not mean that we do them.

I know you have a hard time wrapping your head around that. I can't help you with that.

[krispos42]

210. It's a pretty good rate of fire.

There is no doubt about that.

[RedstDem]

134. magazine capacity limits is a feel good reaction

and I don't blame people, those were 1st graders that got shot up.
just because it won't amount to a hill of beans doesn't really matter.

I think background checks will help avoid similar tragedies in the future though.
not by much, but a little is better than none.

[SheilaT]

165. So if limiting the size of the magazines

won't matter, let's just ban guns altogether.

Really.

As far as I'm concerned, every gun apologist out there bears some kind of responsibility for all the gun deaths, woundings, and maimings that occur every single day.

If guns really made us safer then this would be the safest place on the planet, just after Somalia.

[gejohnston]

182. Somalia's legal gun ownership is lower than Australia's

Somalia is actually pretty, legal, gun free compared to the US, Norway, Canada, and even UK.
http://www.somalilandsun.com/index.php/world/1174-weapons-statistics-on-somalia-at-a-glance

Their legal gun ownership rate is actually lower than Australia's. Military surplus AKs in the hands of pirates, warlord goon squads is a different matter.

[Straw Man]

205. Sure.

As far as I'm concerned, every gun apologist out there bears some kind of responsibility for all the gun deaths, woundings, and maimings that occur every single day.

And casual pot smokers bear some kind of responsibility for all the murders carried out by drug cartels, and social drinkers bear some kind of responsibility for all the deaths caused by drunk drivers, and we all bear some kind of responsibility for all the deaths in all the wars launched to keep the oil flowing our way.

See how that works?

[SheilaT]

209. No. There's no comparison to what the gun cartels

who are as I understand it mostly dealing in harder drugs than pot, and all those who keep on saying we can't limit guns.

Well fine then. I don't want to see a single gun apologist get shocked, just shocked the next time someone shoots up a school or a movie theater, or the next time a three-year old finds a gun and shoots herself, or the next time some idiot shoots someone because of some dumb argument.

If guns actually made us safer then we wouldn't have 30,000 firearm deaths in this country each and every year. It's the guns. The guns and the assholes who think they have to have them. The guns and the idiots who claim everyone needs one to be "safe".

Well, I'm tired of the excuses. Let's just get rid of the guns.

Doesn't any gun advocate ever wonder why we have so many firearm deaths in this country and countries that restrict guns don't?

[Straw Man]

211. You're wrong about that.

No. There's no comparison to what the gun cartels

who are as I understand it mostly dealing in harder drugs than pot, and all those who keep on saying we can't limit guns.

Marijuana might not be their largest-volume product, but it's still good for about $20 billion a year, paid for by US "recreational" users.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-carlsen/how-legalizing-marijuana_b_777837.html

Our stoners fund their killers.

Well fine then. I don't want to see a single gun apologist get shocked, just shocked the next time someone shoots up a school or a movie theater, or the next time a three-year old finds a gun and shoots herself, or the next time some idiot shoots someone because of some dumb argument.

I'm shocked by violent criminal behavior and I'm appalled by criminal negligence. I'm not naive enough to think that idiot-proofing our public sphere by eliminating a Constitutional right will eliminate tragedy or even appreciably diminish it.

If guns actually made us safer then we wouldn't have 30,000 firearm deaths in this country each and every year. It's the guns. The guns and the assholes who think they have to have them. The guns and the idiots who claim everyone needs one to be "safe".

More than half of those gun deaths are suicides. There are many ways to commit suicide without a gun.

Since my gun ownership is by free choice and not compulsion, and since I have no desire to force gun ownership on anyone who doesn't want one, I assume I'm not one of those "assholes" and "idiots" that you describe -- thanks for that.

Doesn't any gun advocate ever wonder why we have so many firearm deaths in this country and countries that restrict guns don't?

It couldn't have anything to do with gang culture and drug wars, could it?

[Auggie]

203. @202 replies, only two recs. That should tell you something.

[Blue_Tires]

213. You're so far off the mark it isn't even funny...