Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

atreides1

(16,799 posts)

1. Uh huh

Reply to TRJuan (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:38 PM

Jan 2013

Perhaps you can enlighten us on why you think seven rounds is still too many?

Maybe give us an example of your personal self defense or hunting experiences, where you were able to stop a break in or bring down an animal with 1 round?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Seven bullets is still too many! [View all] TRJuan Jan 2013 OP

Uh huh atreides1 Jan 2013 #1

Sorry... TRJuan Jan 2013 #3

One bullet almost never kills someone Recursion Jan 2013 #5

But but but in the movies.... NYC_SKP Jan 2013 #7

It's actually a lot more complicated than that: petronius Jan 2013 #17

Haha - I love it. nt OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #20

Not true regjoe Jan 2013 #9

It could - with 100-round magazines - thank the FSM Cuomo banned them jpak Jan 2013 #16

That approach is a lot like saying pedestrians should not have an opinion on traffic laws HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #8

No one needs more bullets than Dirty Harry needed. FSogol Jan 2013 #2

Harry was probably a better shot than I am. Bake Jan 2013 #13

You sound like my college roommate. FSogol Jan 2013 #18

I don't pose with mine. Andit's not "beloved." Bake Jan 2013 #19

I didn't answer your question because I was just being snarky about Dirty Harry. FSogol Jan 2013 #21

And you STILL didn't address the question about how many rounds in the magazine is enough. Bake Jan 2013 #22

Aspects of Zealotry FSogol Jan 2013 #25

I'm sorry, I thought this was a serious discussion. Bake Jan 2013 #30

since he couldn't remember, he my well have needed seven cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #14

Six Is Traditional, Sir.... The Magistrate Jan 2013 #4

Six is traditional for a revolver. Bake Jan 2013 #24

Tend to agree. I'd like to see us stay with 5 or 6 shot revolvers. That would all but kill the gun Hoyt Jan 2013 #6

5 or 6 is an arbitrary number. Bake Jan 2013 #15

Traditional Numbers Are Seldom Arbitrary, Sir The Magistrate Jan 2013 #23

What is"normal" is arbitrary, sir. Bake Jan 2013 #33

Things I Remember Being Introduced, Sir, Cannot Be Traditional.... The Magistrate Jan 2013 #37

Its a matter of definitions onenote Jan 2013 #36

People do fine with 38 specials. You should be glad you are even Hoyt Jan 2013 #28

Assault pistol???? Bake Jan 2013 #38

I was field-stripping a 1911 by age 8, and grew up with a bunch of gun nuts. Hoyt Jan 2013 #39

Again, we're all thrilled that you don't get to decide who does and does not get to own a firearm. Bake Jan 2013 #40

no 7-shot .357 revolvers ? nt OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #32

My animals come pre-dead. Zero would suffice. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #10

So just ban all guns right? Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #11

Would love to ban them. TRJuan Jan 2013 #29

This is ridiculous. If you want to ban guns then ban guns cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #12

Precisely! Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #26

I will tell you why... TRJuan Jan 2013 #27

The word "reasonable" in "reasonable regulation" actually means something. cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #35

7 is a good "Holy" number (no put intended) rightsideout Jan 2013 #31

1911 .45acp has a SEVEN round mag... designed by J. MOSES Browning... O-M-G !! nt OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #34

40 is used a lot in the bible too - let's go REALLY hi-cap! Make it 8... jmg257 Jan 2013 #41