• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

School shooting this morning . . .

Only in part why I don't see it.

So? What does that have to do with what another separate individual with different thoughts, experiences and beliefs, believing that he or she does need more than 7 rounds?
 
Your suspicions mean nothing and prove nothing. You are doing nothing more than TD. You are expressing your opinions which are no more or less valid than his.

True it a degree, but I have found other statistics. Odd that they would leave this ones out. But I said he could just admit he can't show it.
 
So? What does that have to do with what another separate individual with different thoughts, experiences and beliefs, believing that he or she does need more than 7 rounds?

TD gave his experience. I listened. He stated clearly he only needed one shot.
 
True it a degree, but I have found other statistics. Odd that they would leave this ones out. But I said he could just admit he can't show it.

Didn't he already show that the police DO on average use more than 7 rounds when in a shoot out with a suspect?
 
Didn't he already show that the police DO on average use more than 7 rounds when in a shoot out with a suspect?

They are police doing different job, facing dangers the public doesn't face, and that I did link support for.
 
They are police doing different job, facing dangers the public doesn't face, and that I did link support for.

That is bogus. There are MORE police at a call than when a person is attacked in his/her own home. You don't make any sense.
 
You are pulling the oldest anti gun trick in the book by going to extremes of regular citizens with machine guns. Tanks and nukes will be next.

Am I hearing this correctly? You are telling an FFL with a huge personal collection of sidearms and long rifles, including a dozen Class III weapons that he is anti-gun? That's the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. Good job with that.

But yes, I dont see a problem with law abiding citizens owning full auto guns as long as they are meeting all the requirements. And I have 10 round Chip McCormick mags for my full size 1911s as well as 2 Mec Car 15 rounders.
So what. My Glock 19C had extended mags as well with Peirce extenders. And of course the obligatory 33 rounders that fetched a pretty profit during the frenzy.
And guess what, when I was on. I carried a SW 686 4" with two extra speed loaders. A whopping 18 rounds with alittle 5 round J frame in the boot.
Then the North Hollywood shoot out happened. Little game changer for the big city boys.

North Hollywood was a game changer but not for the reasons you probably think. The issue isn't that the cops were highly underpowered in that conflict. The issue is that the FFL that gave the cops the weapons that saved their lives was charged for selling weapons before doing the proper Class III transfers on a Form 3 or Form 4.

But you are changing the subject. I can't even remember the idiocy you used to troll or attack me originally; but I certainly think the US Government has every right to make laws and regulations pertaining to firearms as long as it does not violate my ability to be part of the unorganized militia as per the US Constitution and the Militia Act of 1792. I think if you are demanding that you need large capacity magazines for hunting, target shooting / sport shooting, hobby shooting, or even home protection; that your position is bound to fail. The only valid argument you could possibly have for owning modern high capacity detach magazines to support sidearms and long rifles is to repel an invasion or to fight the tyranny of the internal government. Your magazine size won't mean a lick of difference going up against the Air National Guard and National Guard. So fighting tyranny cannot happen using small arms. And repelling an invasion this day and age requires an organized militia; and the National Guard has it's own armory and does not need to constrict citizens with their individual choices of hobby weapons.
 
Didn't he already show that the police DO on average use more than 7 rounds when in a shoot out with a suspect?

What is the average for amount of rounds expended by a homeowner during a home invasion? I can't imagine anyone questions that cops need high cap weapons to do their job, but I am not sure we Americans have a valid argument for civilians needing the firepower cops need. And clearly NY, Colorado, and some other States are taking a hard look at bullet capacities and passing laws to restrict them. Other than the cool factor and that I enjoy going to machine gun shoots; I have no valid reason for owning a 1919A4. I cannot hunt with it, competition shoot with it, or even defend my home with it. I just like having a belt fed, crew served machine gun. Would not having this violate my rights as an American?

i-ZrrmMxc-M.jpg
 
the silly evasions continue

Last question of the night

DO YOU DENY that there are ANY circumstances where a citizen has needed more than 7 rounds to save his life from criminal attack?

Takes me a second or two at the absolute most to swap spent cartridges for fresh rounds in my Raging Bull or my S&W 29 using speed loaders. Takes me the same second or two to swap an empty mag for a fresh mag in any of my semi-auto pistols. And I only have one high cap weapon that even comes close to my Kimber Target Stainless II 1911 for low MOA accuracy. That's an XD with a Fire Dragon match barrel, custom trigger work, and TFO sights. And in a shootout, I would much rather have one of my 1911's. Probably my S&W 1911SC with Novaks sights. And that's only an 8 round capacity. So in summation, I am saying there is a profound difference between total rounds discharged, and round capacity per magazine. I don't think I need my four Uzi's with 32 round magazines for a home invasion (or my MAC11A1 with 50 round magazines).

i-8rgD3ds-M.jpg

i-wWft9Wg-M.jpg



In fact, only a few weapons stay out of my safe. This is my go-to if (god forbid) I ever have to protect my family from home invasion and heaven help the person I target. I don't miss.

i-cLVpzsD-M.jpg
 
I will help you. You say people will see it as an infringement. How so?

OK - at least now you are finally saying what the hell you are talking about. I think a lot of parents will view National Guardsmen with M4's as infringing on their children's rights to be in a low stress environment while in school. Most kids are afraid of guns, and afraid of being hurt. If they see folks in camo carrying light machine guns they will think they are in an unsafe environment and may develop general anxiety disorder or panic disorder.

Personally, I would feel safer in that environment. When I travel internationally, I often see military with light machine guns. Amsterdam Airport, Tel Aviv Airport, Frankfort Airport, even DaVinci Airport had military personnel when I traveled around Europe last year. I have never seen much more than a fat donut eating machine with a Glock when at JFK or Atlanta. And I do about 150 Delta flights a year and see a LOT of USA airports. Most Americans are the exact opposite to me - they want to see less cops and less guns.
 
OK - at least now you are finally saying what the hell you are talking about. I think a lot of parents will view National Guardsmen with M4's as infringing on their children's rights to be in a low stress environment while in school. Most kids are afraid of guns, and afraid of being hurt. If they see folks in camo carrying light machine guns they will think they are in an unsafe environment and may develop general anxiety disorder or panic disorder.

Personally, I would feel safer in that environment. When I travel internationally, I often see military with light machine guns. Amsterdam Airport, Tel Aviv Airport, Frankfort Airport, even DaVinci Airport had military personnel when I traveled around Europe last year. I have never seen much more than a fat donut eating machine with a Glock when at JFK or Atlanta. And I do about 150 Delta flights a year and see a LOT of USA airports. Most Americans are the exact opposite to me - they want to see less cops and less guns.
I think you are making alot of assumptions.
 
Am I hearing this correctly? You are telling an FFL with a huge personal collection of sidearms and long rifles, including a dozen Class III weapons that he is anti-gun? That's the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. Good job with that.

By reading what you have posted here, I feel you have issue with regular citizens owning certain firearms and magazines. That to me is anti gun.
All I said was a duty officer now a days may carry as much as 52 rounds plus back up, and that an average citizen should have the same level of protection if he so chooses. You are the one that went off the deep end from there about taking over DC repelling invasions machine guns and all the other extremes.
 
Takes me a second or two at the absolute most to swap spent cartridges for fresh rounds in my Raging Bull or my S&W 29 using speed loaders. Takes me the same second or two to swap an empty mag for a fresh mag in any of my semi-auto pistols. And I only have one high cap weapon that even comes close to my Kimber Target Stainless II 1911 for low MOA accuracy. That's an XD with a Fire Dragon match barrel, custom trigger work, and TFO sights. And in a shootout, I would much rather have one of my 1911's. Probably my S&W 1911SC with Novaks sights. And that's only an 8 round capacity. So in summation, I am saying there is a profound difference between total rounds discharged, and round capacity per magazine. I don't think I need my four Uzi's with 32 round magazines for a home invasion (or my MAC11A1 with 50 round magazines).

i-8rgD3ds-M.jpg

i-wWft9Wg-M.jpg



In fact, only a few weapons stay out of my safe. This is my go-to if (god forbid) I ever have to protect my family from home invasion and heaven help the person I target. I don't miss.

i-cLVpzsD-M.jpg

you know that is great you can do it. I was a pro level Pin and USPSA shooter. I shot at USPSA nationals, major pin tournaments etc. I have 3000 dollar race guns (Currently shooting a CZ Chechmate-back in the 90s I shot for EAA (similar to the pistol Eric Graufel won 5 world IPSC titles with) in open and a Fred Craig Para 1911 in limited. Before that, a Wilson LE Accu-Comp. And yes people have pictures of me shooting where the empty magazine has yet to hit the ground nor the last shells from that magazine while I am firing with the new magazine. But I trained all the time which is why i had national class times in speed events. And guess what, I shoot in a league ever week and I watch GM level shooters miss a reload, fumble a mag and I realize if people who train all the time and shoot on the clock 40-50 times a year miss reloads merely when trying to shoot at a bunch of steel plates, then the chance of an average to good shooter blowing a reload in the middle of the night when its dark and someone is trying to shoot them and they don't have a gun with a huge magwell as My IPSC or steel guns do is far more likely than what I see in competition

I love 1911s. Made Class A back when that was the top rating. Set the Ohio pin records which have never been broken with a Gold Cup I built up into an unlimited pin gun. I am 54 and have been shooting one since I was ten when I inherited my grandfather's 1911 he carried in France in 1917-1918. But for the average person, a 17 shot glock is a better choice for most people which is why almost every police department including the USMS and FBI use them or the similar SW MP

Free choice-you choose what you want, me I choose what I want etc. And I won't tell you you have made a wrong choice since you know your own limitations and skills better than I do. BUt I sure tire of people who have no clue about this subject and admit they don't "need" a gun telling people like me what we "need" or don't "need"
 
What is the average for amount of rounds expended by a homeowner during a home invasion? I can't imagine anyone questions that cops need high cap weapons to do their job, but I am not sure we Americans have a valid argument for civilians needing the firepower cops need. And clearly NY, Colorado, and some other States are taking a hard look at bullet capacities and passing laws to restrict them. Other than the cool factor and that I enjoy going to machine gun shoots; I have no valid reason for owning a 1919A4. I cannot hunt with it, competition shoot with it, or even defend my home with it. I just like having a belt fed, crew served machine gun. Would not having this violate my rights as an American?

i-ZrrmMxc-M.jpg

average means nothing. What matters is what is a possibility. The incident I cited in April 2013, Fayettville NC involved one homeowner, four home invaders. He was wounded, he killed two, drove the others off. The news story do not report the number of rounds but if he had a hit probability of 50%-which is pretty high that would have required 8 rounds. You seem to denigrate what your rights should be. Cops are worse shots than your average police officers. MOST POLICE OFFICERS are not assigned to tasks that make them any more likely to engage in firefights than other civilians.

You are buying into the nonsense that Boo and others spew. Part of my duties as an attorney for much of my career was dealing with police shootings. Nothing I have seen justifies claims that cops need more rounds than homeowners or business owners in light of the fact that other civilians ALMOST NEVER choose when a firefight hapens. YOur postings indicate to me someone who thinks having an FFL makes you somehow qualified to tell others what they need. I reject that and having represented Class III makers, major league retailers of weapons, LE agencies and a major NRA organization I have seen just about every bit of evidence useful in this discussion.
 
They are police doing different job, facing dangers the public doesn't face, and that I did link support for.

that's complete crap because even administrative desk officers are issued 17 shot Glocks and SW pistols. The SWAT team guys have machine guns. The guy writing traffic tickets or running speed traps or sitting in mayor's court have 17 shot pistols. Most cops don't face any more danger than judges and prosecutors and Courtroom bailiffs or attorneys. And less danger than some other civilian professions or jobs.
and You haven't figured out that Cops have far more advantages when they confront armed criminals than other civilians do.
 
TD gave his experience. I listened. He stated clearly he only needed one shot.

and you continue to pretend that there are no situations where people need more. You ignored the April 2013 incident I discussed and cited where a homeowner engaged in an extended gun fight with FOUR perps The homeowner was injured, two perps killed, the others repelled. you think that was a case where 7 shots would have been always sufficient? get back to me when you actually have trained with a pistol in such scenarios
 
That is bogus. There are MORE police at a call than when a person is attacked in his/her own home. You don't make any sense.

You assume that is the only threat. Again, I linked this and encouraged all to read it.
 
that's complete crap because even administrative desk officers are issued 17 shot Glocks and SW pistols. The SWAT team guys have machine guns. The guy writing traffic tickets or running speed traps or sitting in mayor's court have 17 shot pistols. Most cops don't face any more danger than judges and prosecutors and Courtroom bailiffs or attorneys. And less danger than some other civilian professions or jobs.
and You haven't figured out that Cops have far more advantages when they confront armed criminals than other civilians do.

No it isn't. Again, I gave you links.
 
and you continue to pretend that there are no situations where people need more. You ignored the April 2013 incident I discussed and cited where a homeowner engaged in an extended gun fight with FOUR perps The homeowner was injured, two perps killed, the others repelled. you think that was a case where 7 shots would have been always sufficient? get back to me when you actually have trained with a pistol in such scenarios

If there are, show me. That's all you have to do.
 
If there are, show me. That's all you have to do.

NOt playing your stupid game-the issue is there a possibility of more than 7 rounds needed. nothing more. That is all I have to suggest to prove your argument wrong. and you haven't suggested it is not a possibility. that means ONE incident. There is your incident. game over-you lost
 
NOt playing your stupid game-the issue is there a possibility of more than 7 rounds needed. nothing more. That is all I have to suggest to prove your argument wrong. and you haven't suggested it is not a possibility. that means ONE incident. There is your incident. game over-you lost

You are wrong about that as well. Just making up a belief that something might happen is not enough. Sorry.
 
You are wrong about that as well. Just making up a belief that something might happen is not enough. Sorry.
Do you have a spare tire in your car? Probably. Why?
How about fire extingushers in your home?
Many things might happen. Nothing wrong with being prepared for that worse case scenario. I would rather have and never need than need and not have.
 
Back
Top Bottom