|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 15, 2011 2:53:15 GMT -6
This idiotic dictum about why high capacity magazines should be banned just amazes me.
For starters, anyone owning a pistol does not have it just for hunting. They have it for protection (or to rob someone). So to argue that "you don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting" is just a ludicrous statement.
I'm sick of hearing this "you-don't-need-30 rounds-for hunting" claptrap circulating on the televised media.
Carrying the notion that the only purpose of firearms is for hunting to its most illogical extreme, all handguns should be banned since their purpose in not for hunting.
In addition, if you're not a professional marksman and someone or group of people are attacking you, you may well need a lot more than 10 rounds (or more than 30 for that matter.)
The notion that you don't need more than 10 for hunting--or even only 10 for self-protection is ridiculous. It assumes that one is accurate enough to hit someone in 10 rounds or less, or that the only purpose for having a weapon is hunting.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 15, 2011 10:09:05 GMT -6
I'll agree that "you don't need 30 rounds for hunting" is a bit ludicrous. But the point of the matter is you don't need 30 rounds for ANYTHING.
... well- maybe if you are lazy and want to have a few extra rounds at the shooting range before you have to change clips.
Or- if you need to shoot more targets before someone stops you.
"self defense"? going by a 1990 study (yes- outdated) people using a gun in self defense actually shot at the culprit only 28% of the time. How many bullets do you need to fire into the air as a warning shot?
As I pointed out in another thread, you are better served putting your money into an armed security service because it gives you the added bonus of protecting your house while you aren't there.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 15, 2011 10:20:24 GMT -6
Gun Control news cycle already passed this story up. Got the left and right riled up, did it's job, now onto the next manufactured crisis to get the left and right riled up; so everyone keeps voting for the same politicians.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jan 15, 2011 11:48:52 GMT -6
Agito
Did you ever hear of replacing spent clips? It takes about all of 2-3 seconds and you're ready to rock'n'roll again. Or the fact that a half skilled sheet metal worker working in a home workshop with some simple sheet metal tools and MIG welder (about $600 worth of equipment all told) can replicate any hi capacity clip out there?
So unless you want to ban all metal working shops, people especially criminals will always have access to hi-cap clips.
Armed security service? Hmmm, well I'm not wealthy like most white liberals nor is one available where I live. So having Blackwater Lite is out of the question.
Nor would they be useful for folks who live in rural areas where the response even for police is 30-60 minutes.
In terms of self-defense, more is always better. A 40. cal Glock with a 15rd clip is better than a wheel gun(just ask the police). The fact is you can't expect to stop a criminal with just one round, especially in this day and age where criminals are often loaded on drugs which gives them a very high pain threshold.
Ultimately though this whole argument about hi-capacity clips is a red herring. I'd more like to see a discussion on how the police and especially the Chief of Police ignored all the death threats made by Lougher and why the college didn't order a mental eval of the loon even after scaring the shit out students and teachers. Or why his parents let a clearly mentally ill son go untreated.
The whole incident is like a replay of the Virginia Tech massacre where another dangerous crazy man was allowed free reign until it was too late.
It seems the police and local officials never learn from these tragedies. It's a big joke to them.
|
|
twk
Contributor
Posts: 58
|
Post by twk on Jan 15, 2011 18:25:02 GMT -6
Nor would they be useful for folks who live in rural areas where the response even for police is 30-60 minutes. Make that 2 to 3 hours in the case of my neighbor. The local and state police had to debate on jurisdiction first. The state police finally won and had to bring in someone from over an hour away. Good thing the robber fled and did not kill my neighbor or us.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jan 15, 2011 22:37:40 GMT -6
2-3 hours!! damn, that's terrible. G-d help the poor soul who has baddies who don't mind shooting folks or heart problems.
Where I live, there are two nearby areas that have bad police response times but only about 1 hour for 911 calls. These areas only have like 1 police officer to cover 300 square miles(it seems to be a no political clout thing). Though the LACO Sheriffs dept, LAPD and DEA have no problem assembling 12+ men task forces to take out drug labs that dot these areas. Which never get reported in the local news rag.
I remember one general store owner who asked the sheriff what to do if someone was trying to rob them, the sheriff he'd have to deal with the robbers himself until help arrived a hour or so later. Oddly enough no one has tried rob the store. 'Deal with them' seemed to be code for shooting the buggers dead.
Of course if it was a Wal-Mart or some other big box store that dropped $50k in the mayor's campaign war chest, the constabulary's response would be markedly different.
|
|