General Discussion

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)

8. Yeah, there are some guns,

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:34 AM

Dec 2012

that hold more than 12 that aren't military guns. Mostly tube loaded .22s. Not really a mass murderer's gun of choice. (The bullet is only slightly larger than the pellet a BB gun shoots) You can also measure the reload time for one in minutes.

You're being more generous than I would. 5 is the most a person would ever need for hunting. 5 in the magazine, one in the chamber. If they need more than six shots, they either need to practice or sight in their scope better. Everything I can think of that you can hunt with a rifle has a bag limit of one anyway. (Maybe pigs? I dunno.)

And quick change mags need to be a thing of the past. Just making the magazine smaller by itself won't help much.

So I'm not saying it's horrible, I'm saying I'd like it to be much more horrible. It might give some people a sad, but they'll get over it.

Edited for clarity.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

there seems to be a semantics issue here concerning guns.new words might help.Offensive Weapons Ban [View all] farminator3000 Dec 2012 OP

farminator3000, you rock! tblue Dec 2012 #1

thanks! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #2

There are many pistols ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #3

why? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #17

Home defense, concealed carry, target shooting ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #19

great! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #26

Wow, that's a lot of questions. ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #29

thanks for the answers farminator3000 Dec 2012 #30

Better To Just Outlaw All Weapons And Then The Various Scenarios Become Irrelevant cantbeserious Dec 2012 #4

Because if they were outlawed, no one would have them. Kinda like weed. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #32

This may well be the stupidest post on the Internet today. PavePusher Dec 2012 #5

Tell us more Lordquinton Dec 2012 #6

For the life of me, I can't recall ever claiming expertise on the subject. PavePusher Dec 2012 #7

Then could you perhaps address the ideas proposed in the OP? Orrex Dec 2012 #9

Any weapon that can be used in defense can be used in offense, and vice versa. PavePusher Dec 2012 #13

The intent of a weapon is in the design Orrex Dec 2012 #14

and any gun that can commit mass murder in 30 sec or less farminator3000 Dec 2012 #22

no, but you said you were smarter than a post on the internet farminator3000 Dec 2012 #21

Haha, pulled that right out of your ass! xoom Dec 2012 #15

Thank you for warning us what was to come in your post... quakerboy Dec 2012 #10

ha! that's totally aweome! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #23

i doubt it why don't you keep looking farminator3000 Dec 2012 #18

do you expect me to agree with you? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #20

Yeah, there are some guns, JoeyT Dec 2012 #8

"people who aren't fighting a war (the public) don't need to have the same guns as soldiers." beevul Dec 2012 #11

That's a common Libertarian mantra, by the way Orrex Dec 2012 #12

What a great example billh58 Dec 2012 #24

Then by definition, the OP is selling a half truth as well. beevul Dec 2012 #27

The public has access to offensive weapons. Ron Green Dec 2012 #25

i figured it out for myself. try it sometime farminator3000 Dec 2012 #28

Kicking and recommending this because Ron Green Dec 2012 #16

thanks farminator3000 Dec 2012 #31