Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky) and the magazine ban nonsense

[TurtleDude]

If ten round clips are the limit, you can carry two or three clips.

and criminals=who already violate the law by having guns will carry normal capacity magazines. In a home defense situation-often in the early hours of the morning, the criminals are well prepared. The home owner might only have time to grab a gun, and is limited to the round in it. Magazine limits handicap people who follow the law.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I heard the C of P for Dayton say that his men expended 48 rounds from 45 ACP pistols, a number of 223 rounds (Dayton cops have M4 carbines in their cars) and at least one shotgun round. I don't remember exactly how many rounds of 223 they fired.

All I did was divide 58 by 6 because I did not know more specifics but I was referring specifically to

“If 6 brave, trained, and alert police officers with professionally maintained weapons fired 58 rounds to subdue the Dayton shooter,” he explained, “I’d say my wife deserves at least that many chances to protect herself and my kids when I’m not home.”

And that would work out mathematically to nine rounds...unless he has six wives.
And it still doesn't adequately justify a one hundred round mag, but seeing as how banning them won't accomplish anything but to create a vast underground market for hundred round mags, I'd much rather devote the energy to better response to community alerts about unstable people who own guns instead.

We can take THEIR hundred round mags when we go to pick up their guns, if the investigation into their stability points to a risk to the community. The El Paso Shooter's mother warned police about her son but they blew it off.

 

[TurtleDude]

90% of these NRA obsessives have no idea how to tactful approach a threat. They never go through that kind of training and you know it.

Further, no matter how many times you blow a load at the range, you'll never come close to the real life experience that rookie police are put through, when they shadow a partner, and learn how to deal with a REAL person that is actively trying to to hurt you and the people around you.

really> I was a DOJ firearms instructor and I shot a mugger years ago. I suspect I know far more about this subject than you could dream of.

 

[Logician Man]

90% of these NRA obsessives have no idea how to tactful approach a threat. They never go through that kind of training and you know it.

Further, no matter how many times you blow a load at the range, you'll never come close to the real life experience that rookie police are put through, when they shadow a partner, and learn how to deal with a REAL person that is actively trying to to hurt you and the people around you.

I've been in that situation back in 1999. Watched a dude murder a liquor store owner, and then had to literally fight hand to hand, and wrestle the firearm away from the murderer. It was him or me....and I can attest that he wasn't standing X amount of yards away, standing like a paper statue, awaiting for me to fill him full of lead with no resistance.

 

[TurtleDude]

All I did was divide 58 by 6 because I did not know more specifics but I was referring specifically to



And that would work out mathematically to nine rounds...unless he has six wives.
And it still doesn't adequately justify a one hundred round mag, but seeing as how banning them won't accomplish anything but to create a vast underground market for hundred round mags, I'd much rather devote the energy to better response to community alerts about unstable people who own guns instead.

We can take THEIR hundred round mags when we go to pick up their guns, if the investigation into their stability points to a risk to the community. The El Paso Shooter's mother warned police about her son but they blew it off.

so you are saying that one woman in her home doesn't need more than the 9 rounds you attributed to each officer-when I see his point as this. It took 58 rounds to take out one armed criminal and it is idiotic to limit his wife to a ten round magazine

 

[TurtleDude]

I've been in that situation back in 1999. Watched a dude murder a liquor store owner, and then had to literally fight hand to hand, and wrestle the firearm away from the murderer. It was him or me....and I can attest that he wasn't standing X amount of yards away, standing like a statue, awaiting for me to fill him full of lead with no resistance.

What does that have to do with learning how to shoot accurately. I had a guy high on PCP smash windows in my home and when I went to investigate, he tried to shank me with a switchblade. I had a stick, broke his collar bone first, kicked the knife down a sewer and then broke a few more things. Shooting skills had nothing to do with that. Boxing, TKD and playing lots of tennis and other racket sports were key since I had a really strong wrist snap

 

[winston53660]

Hey TD wassup long time no see. People are emotional and kill each other we need to ban these weapons in public.

 

[PLizzy]

I've been in that situation back in 1999. Watched a dude murder a liquor store owner, and then had to literally fight hand to hand, and wrestle the firearm away from the murderer. It was him or me....and I can attest that he wasn't standing X amount of yards away, standing like a paper statue, awaiting for me to fill him full of lead with no resistance.

What? You mean he didn't just stand there and let you hit him?

Damn, I'd have never thought that.

 

[Logician Man]

What does that have to do with learning how to shoot accurately. I had a guy high on PCP smash windows in my home and when I went to investigate, he tried to shank me with a switchblade. I had a stick, broke his collar bone first, kicked the knife down a sewer and then broke a few more things. Shooting skills had nothing to do with that. Boxing, TKD and playing lots of tennis and other racket sports were key since I had a really strong wrist snap

Can't say I'm overly surprised you had a really strong wrist snap.

 

[Logician Man]

What? You mean he didn't just stand there and let you hit him?

Damn, I'd have never thought that.

I know it's shocking. No round circles or bulleyes on his clothing either. Inconsiderate bastard!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

so you are saying that one woman in her home doesn't need more than the 9 rounds you attributed to each officer-when I see his point as this. It took 58 rounds to take out one armed criminal and it is idiotic to limit his wife to a ten round magazine

I didn't say it, HE said it.
Use as many rounds as you see fit.

How do you do what you do, TD?
I quoted the guy who was talking about 58 rounds.
I did the math, and you turn it around to make it like you think I was the one talking about limiting to nine rounds.

"How can you be so obtuse, is it deliberate?"

 

[TurtleDude]

I didn't say it, HE said it.
Use as many rounds as you see fit.

How do you do what you do, TD?
I quoted the guy who was talking about 58 rounds.
I did the math, and you turn it around to make it like you think I was the one talking about limiting to nine rounds.

"How can you be so obtuse, is it deliberate?"

You seem to be taking issue with his point by saying six wives etc. I saw his point clearly-if it took 58 rounds to take out a violent killer, his wife shouldn't be limited to some arbitrary number that anti gun politicians want. Nothing more nothing less

 

[TurtleDude]

Hey TD wassup long time no see. People are emotional and kill each other we need to ban these weapons in public.

that's silly-you want honest people defenseless against armed criminals.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

so you are saying that one woman in her home doesn't need more than the 9 rounds you attributed to each officer-when I see his point as this. It took 58 rounds to take out one armed criminal and it is idiotic to limit his wife to a ten round magazine

Now I don't know about the police but here on DP many a poster in the last few days has said is that only takes 1 or 2 rounds to stop a shooter

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You seem to be taking issue with his point by saying six wives etc. I saw his point clearly-if it took 58 rounds to take out a violent killer, his wife shouldn't be limited to some arbitrary number that anti gun politicians want. Nothing more nothing less

Forget it, you're being intentionally dense and homey ain't playin.

 

[TurtleDude]

Now I don't know about the police but here on DP many a poster in the last few days has said is that only takes 1 or 2 rounds to stop a shooter

there are so many variables that such claims are speculative at best. I have read and studied hundreds of cases of shootings. One comes to mind-I believe it was in the compton area of California when the deputies carried 357 revolvers. Well known Expert Massad Ayoob discussed this matter in one of his seminars and then in a magazine article IIRC. The criminal was high on PCP I believe. HE was carrying an old browning semi auto 32 pistol and engaged in a running battle with at least three deputies who had 357 revolvers and another with a shotgun.

the mope shot at one deputy who was slightly wounded: the deputy returned fire, hitting the mope several times. The mope reloaded and shot at another deputy who also returned fire, hitting him several times as well. Another deputy hit him with a couple rounds of buckshot. The mope reloaded again, and hit one of the deputies (vest stopped the round). He was shot a couple more times-he finally dropped his weapon and said-I give up-I had enough. He died on the way to the hospital.

 

[TurtleDude]

Forget it, you're being intentionally dense and homey ain't playin.

Not at all but if it makes you feel better, go for it

 

[Logician Man]

Forget it, you're being intentionally dense and homey ain't playin.

Just like he's repeatedly claimed I'm on record as being a 'gun banner' in numerous posts. Yet when I ask him to present just 'one' of those posts, he goes into tap dance mode, then cricket mode because desperate/frustrated people do desperate/frustrating things.....like repeatedly post lies about others. I'll ask him again right now to present any post from any thread in which I've ever advocated for the banning of guns. You watch. He will either deflect, go off on a tangent, or ignore the request altogether ( again ). Reason ? I've never made a post advocating for gun banning.

 

[joko104]

Great idea

Let's have untrained people with poorly maintained weapons shoot at other shooters in a chaotic situation with lots of people I am sure 300 rounds each from say 10 other people should clear the situation

Sounds like a recipe for success to me

Name when that has happened?

What you want is to force people accept their duty to allow themselves, their children and others to be mass murdered rather than immorally and illegally have any chance to defend themselves in a Gun Free Zone.

Maybe that is why by your messages you want mass murderers to have to resort to vastly more lethal with higher kill rates like bombs and arson because there is no possible defense against those - and the mass murderer has a far better chance of living and not getting caught.

 

[joko104]

Just like he's repeatedly claimed I'm on record as being a 'gun banner' in numerous posts. Yet when I ask him to present just 'one' of those posts, he goes into tap dance mode, then cricket mode because desperate/frustrated people do desperate/frustrating things.....like repeatedly post lies about others. I'll ask him again right now to present any post from any thread in which I've ever advocated for the banning of guns. You watch. He will either deflect, go off on a tangent, or ignore the request altogether ( again ). Reason ? I've never made a post advocating for gun banning.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. There are thousands and thousands of messages by Democrats who ranted they not only oppose open borders, but brag (falsely) Obama deported more. But the theme of ever message on the topic was for open borders, and now the majority admit they support decriminalizing illegal immigrants while STILL claiming they are not for open borders, which is exactly what decriminalization is.

Your messages are the same on guns. All your messages oppose guns, while now insisting that is not your stance. I understand that if a person can find and afford a musket that was used in the American Revolutionary War, in your opinion they should be allowed to have it.

What about if it was used in the Civil War? Should I be allowed to own one of those - provided I pass a background check, wait 3 days and keep it locked in a safe at all times?

What firearms, specifically, do say I should be allowed to own and under what circumstances my I use it in your opinion. BE SPECIFIC. My Ruger semi-automatic .22 rifles and my Colt 45s - all that use a magazine - do you think I should be allowed to own those? What restrictions would you put on them as a gun? If so, what would you allow me to do with them?

 

[Logician Man]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. There are thousands and thousands of messages by Democrats who ranted they not only oppose open borders, but brag (falsely) Obama deported more. But the theme of ever message on the topic was for open borders, and now the majority admit they support decriminalizing illegal immigrants while STILL claiming they are not for open borders, which is exactly what decriminalization is.

Your messages are the same on guns. All your messages oppose guns, while now insisting that is not your stance. I understand that if a person can find and afford a musket that was used in the American Revolutionary War, in your opinion they should be allowed to have it.

What about if it was used in the Civil War? Should I be allowed to own one of those - provided I pass a background check, wait 3 days and keep it locked in a safe at all times?

What firearms, specifically, do say I should be allowed to own and under what circumstances my I use it in your opinion. BE SPECIFIC. My Ruger semi-automatic .22 rifles and my Colt 45s - all that use a magazine - do you think I should be allowed to own those? What restrictions would you put on them as a gun? If so, what would you allow me to do with them?

Irrelevant, blanket statements often make posters look foolish, desperate, and ill-informed. If the shoe fits......

 

[Lutherf]

90% of these NRA obsessives have no idea how to tactful approach a threat. They never go through that kind of training and you know it.

Further, no matter how many times you blow a load at the range, you'll never come close to the real life experience that rookie police are put through, when they shadow a partner, and learn how to deal with a REAL person that is actively trying to to hurt you and the people around you.

You want to talk reality? Most of the people with no training aren't going to respond at all. They're going to flee and only think about the fact that they have the capability of responding later on down the road.

I know LOTS of people who go out and buy a pistol then discover that carrying on a daily basis isn't a game. Most of those people stop carrying or stash the gun in the console of their car or leave it in their purse. Many don't even load the pistol they're carrying.

However, a few do take carrying seriously. They tend to be EXTREMELY situationally aware and extremely capable when things go sideways.

 

[joko104]

Irrelevant, blanket statements often make posters look foolish, desperate, and ill-informed. If the shoe fits......

We all know why you refused to answer what, if any, guns you would allow a person to own.

I asked you to name what gun you would allow. Since you named NONE, it is 100% accurate for me to claim you are taking away everyone's gun of any kind - no exceptions.

 

[Logician Man]

We all know why you refused to answer what, if any, guns you would allow a person to own.

I asked you to name what gun you would allow. Since you named NONE, it is 100% accurate for me to claim you are taking away everyone's gun of any kind - no exceptions.

And we all know why neither you or TD can pull up any post in which I have ever advocated for banning guns. Talk is cheap, especially your positive claim you can't/won't meet your Burden of Proof on in your previous post. ( guaranteed )...You've got nothing,and you know. Of course, you could prove me wrong by pulling up 'any' post in which I have advocated for gun banning. Are you up to the task, or just blowing smoke. Dollars to donuts says it's the latter. Feel free to 'prove' me wrong.. The floor is yours,opcorn:

 

[joko104]

You want to talk reality? Most of the people with no training aren't going to respond at all. They're going to flee and only think about the fact that they have the capability of responding later on down the road.

I know LOTS of people who go out and buy a pistol then discover that carrying on a daily basis isn't a game. Most of those people stop carrying or stash the gun in the console of their car or leave it in their purse. Many don't even load the pistol they're carrying.

However, a few do take carrying seriously. They tend to be EXTREMELY situationally aware and extremely capable when things go sideways.

Virtually no situations where needing a gun involves any mass shooting. But since in his messages he doesn't care about murder, rape, any assault, or any crime, he doesn't care about any victims.

The primary defensive nature of a firearm is having it. The number of violent assaults against people, the number of rapes and murders is enormous. But why is it that I do not read of those victims having a gun? Why is the victim of virtually EVERY violent crime only unarmed victims? Since there are millions of people who carry guns, a fair percentage of victims would have had a gun - since he and all anti-gunners claim they are worthless. THAT IS THEIR BIG LIE.

Every crime deterred merely by the presence of a gun produces no record.

Finally, remember, the shooter in El Paso said he was specifically looking for a "soft target", unwilling to go up against anyone with a gun even if he had body armor on and the element of surprise. He was VERY specific about that. EVERYONE shot would not have if people had been open carrying - anyone - but WalMart does prohibit open carry. That anti-gun rule was the essential element that is why this happened.

Yet anti-gunners know this. They always express such terror of guns that merely making it known if they don't back off you have a gun will send them running. 99+% of crimes prevented by a gun involve no one shot and no gunshot. HE WANTS THE GUNSHOTS because they serve his hatred of guns. In my opinion, the core of most anti-stances is cowardice or arrogantly believing they are special privileged people for which nothing can happen to them - because they grew up as spoiled, pampered and protected nice community settings.