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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Conflicting ideas... [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)71. why not?
Suppressive fire the only reason for saws? Really? So a hundred round drum is only for suppressive fire? I still maintain and challenge anyone to dispute that more rounds on target is more leathal than fewer be they semi or full auto.
SAWs are belt fed and that is the purpose of any machine gun.
Mini gun vs one big round we seem to agree on lending credibility to large mags being more lethal.
No. A Ruger 10/22 with a 25 round mag is less lethal than a double barreled .45-70.
That eleven kids escape Lanz was relayed by one of the children who made it out of the room. I anticipate your next move to be impugning the testimony of the child. The rest of that response was akin to the God of the Gaps: We don't know so I don't have to acknowledge that point of argument.
I wasn't aware that the kids said any such thing, since I didn't see the interview. it's not like the media did an excellent job of covering it.
Loghner and reloading is at least a bit of honesty; Probably would have saved lives but then back to the God of the Gaps argument (which is no argument).
Finally I postulate a scenario similar to the Giffords shooting (30 round Glock or 6 shot S&W) and you pull a Komoroshi Moru by changing the proposition. "Well if this and if that and if I get to change the scenario . . ."
Well, why Glock and S and W? Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
107 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So why is it that we are supposed to expect somebody to rush in and bodily tackle an active shooter
flamin lib
May 2013
#1
If you say so. Almost never happens fut it feeds the fantasy. And that's all it is, a fantasy. nt
flamin lib
May 2013
#7
No one ever said that responding to an active shooter with a gun is a magic talisman that prevents
AtheistCrusader
May 2013
#52
Introducing another gun into a shootout cannot, under any conceivable circumstance,
flamin lib
May 2013
#29
That's not an answer, it's a capitulation. Explain how the only limiting factor to lethality
flamin lib
May 2013
#37
Because since the mid '70s 4000 people have been killed by terrorists on US soil
flamin lib
May 2013
#43
Okay, nothing will ever work every single time so lets just ignore something
flamin lib
May 2013
#68
It's bullshit because the only way the the "field of fire" could be clear enough to not
flamin lib
May 2013
#41
Naaaa, not chaseing that red herring. It was you who postulated an empty field of
flamin lib
May 2013
#45
*sigh* Another red herring. My example pointed out the differences in hi cap
flamin lib
May 2013
#54
Sorry but the laws of physics, logic and reason say limiting magazine capacity
flamin lib
May 2013
#59