Balta,

 

Here is your answer:

 

Who are You to judge what I NEED? Seriously, it is none of your business. YOU are not the arbiter of nuclear or chemical weapons, or of what I need, or want.

 

I have no problem with people taking that position. As long as they are consistent, that if no one can tell them what to do, they agree that they can not tell anyone else what to do. Otherwise its just hypocrite talk.

No, it figures into this directly.

 

Because 99% of the mostly BS excuses for why people need guns have been as "Protection", neglecting the additional risk that having it puts the owner in completely.

 

But if people can't envision a situation where having more than 10 shots available prior to reloading is necessary, even from the "pro gun side", then you've made the case expertly for why they're unnecessary.

Considering that when the gangbangers were out front of my house looking around, there were at least 7 of them that I could see, perhaps a few more on the other side of the cards, I would think that more than 10 shots would have been nice had they made it to my house. I am a good shot but with that much excitement, I may not hit center mass on the first shot. So I was almost in one for real, not imagined.

And Id venture to say that there is almost no such thing as a "law abiding citizen". I have personally never met a person who has not broken 1 law (speeding, parking meter, whatever). What you really are saying is that you have made an imaginary line in the sand for what you consider to be "criminal."

I'll agree with you on this part. Everyone does it.

that time where your guns made no difference, were never used and they never knew you had them?

 

do you really think you would have rambo'd down 7+ of them?

Alpha,

 

This is an honest question. Have you ever broken any law? Speeding, parking illegally, driving while intoxicated? Because if you have, you are not a law abiding citizen, and by your very argument, you are the type of person the govt should prevent from having weapons.

 

(edit)

 

Damn you answered this already.

 

But your answer is what presents the problem. Everyone bends the rules, its hard to tell which person is going to push it to far. That is the ultimate problem with guns, drugs etc. You just dont know which guy is going to be the dick that ruins it for everyone.

 

It pains me to make these arguments, because I prefer a world where the govt has less power. The problem is that normal people constantly f*** this up and cause the rest of us to suffer.

 

Its ultimately why I believe that the law should be more about punishing bad behavior, as opposed to just punishing something that could end in bad behavior.

 

Edited February 4, 201313 yr by Soxbadger

No, it figures into this directly.

 

Because 99% of the mostly BS excuses for why people need guns have been as "Protection", neglecting the additional risk that having it puts the owner in completely.

 

But if people can't envision a situation where having more than 10 shots available prior to reloading is necessary, even from the "pro gun side", then you've made the case expertly for why they're unnecessary.

 

Help me out. What difference am I missing that makes this argument inapplicable to abortion?

 

Does anyone, except in cases of danger toward the life of the mother, NEED an abortion?

 

You're pro-choice, aren't you? Why does that choice go away when it comes to what kind of guns I want to own?

More like criminals don't follow the laws already, so why make more laws that only serve to f*** with the law abiding people even more and do nothing to actually help the situation that you are so SURE the government needs to fix to begin with. Gun magazine restrictions will do NOTHING to prevent crime or murders. All they will do is now make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people who don't want to give theirs up. My Glock came with a 17 round clip. That is not 'high capacity', that is standard capacity.

 

Again, the logic is flawed. Don't write laws that criminals won't follow. Only write laws that criminals will follow.

 

Then, as Balta is pointing out, gun owners talk about how they need guns for protection, to protect us from tyranny, etc. Then say it isn't about what is needed.

 

I rarely shoot off more than a few shots at one time anymore. It was fun to practice fast firing, the challenge was exciting. But I could easily be restricted to ten and not 17. We've seen where killers have been stopped when they have to reload. Settling on ten instead of six or two would be fine.

Who are You to judge what I NEED? Seriously, it is none of your business. YOU are not the arbiter of magazine size, or of what I need, or want.

 

He wouldn't be a statist if he didn't feel uniquely qualified to determine what you are and are not allowed to own. Don't you dare question his authority. He's better'n you.

I get a kick out of a guy in the military talking about "statists"

that time where your guns made no difference, were never used and they never knew you had them?

 

do you really think you would have rambo'd down 7+ of them?

I would have done my best to make sure none of them got anywhere near me or my family. Just because it wasn't needed at that time doesn't mean it would never be needed. Balta asked if I could imagine a situation where I would need it. I didn't have to imagine it, I was almost in it.

I would have done my best to make sure none of them got anywhere near me or my family. Just because it wasn't needed at that time doesn't mean it would never be needed. Balta asked if I could imagine a situation where I would need it. I didn't have to imagine it, I was almost in it.

No, I did not ask if you could imagine it.

 

I asked if you'd actually had to do so.

Again, the logic is flawed. Don't write laws that criminals won't follow. Only write laws that criminals will follow.

 

Then, as Balta is pointing out, gun owners talk about how they need guns for protection, to protect us from tyranny, etc. Then say it isn't about what is needed.

 

I rarely shoot off more than a few shots at one time anymore. It was fun to practice fast firing, the challenge was exciting. But I could easily be restricted to ten and not 17. We've seen where killers have been stopped when they have to reload. Settling on ten instead of six or two would be fine.

Nobody says don't write laws. Don't write laws that won't fix the damn problem.

but you weren't in a situation where you needed it and if 7+ armed guys were trying to get into your house, having an extra 7 bullets between reloads wouldn't actually matter.

do you really think you would have rambo'd down 7+ of them?

 

I never understand this argument.

 

So if I'm being attacked by 10 men who intend to hurt me, it makes sense to take away the one hope I have because its doubtful I have the skill and expertise to take out all ten? What's the alternative? That I simply have no weapon and am overran and slaughtered immediately.

 

I don't know. Seems like a weak attack point. Maybe I can't get them all and will die anyway but the alternative isn't much better.

but you weren't in a situation where you needed it and if 7+ armed guys were trying to get into your house, having an extra 7 bullets between reloads wouldn't actually matter.

Nice that you are so certain of things. Why have you not won the lottery yet? You should be an actuary since you can predict these things with such clarity.

I never understand this argument.

 

So if I'm being attacked by 10 men who intend to hurt me, it makes sense to take away the one hope I have because its doubtful I have the skill and expertise to take out all ten? What's the alternative? That I simply have no weapon and am overran and slaughtered immediately.

 

I don't know. Seems like a weak attack point. Maybe I can't get them all and will die anyway but the alternative isn't much better.

Of course, as usual...the thing that actually happened...surviving because you didn't pull a gun, rather than dying in a firefight...is not considered at all.

I never understand this argument.

 

So if I'm being attacked by 10 men who intend to hurt me, it makes sense to take away the one hope I have because its doubtful I have the skill and expertise to take out all ten? What's the alternative? That I simply have no weapon and am overran and slaughtered immediately.

 

I don't know. Seems like a weak attack point. Maybe I can't get them all and will die anyway but the alternative isn't much better.

 

See, that's why you need to think beyond your one incredibly-unlikely-never-going-to-happen-full-frontal-gang-assault situation and to what your ability to legally and easily get weapons x, y and z means. It means there's a lot more of them out there, that the likelihood of them "falling into the wrong hands" increases, that the likelihood of an otherwise perfectly normal "law abiding citizen" making bad decisions or having an emotional issue with a gun increases, that the need to defend yourself from other people with guns increases.

Of course, as usual...the thing that actually happened...surviving because you didn't pull a gun, rather than dying in a firefight...is not considered at all.

Well in your world simply because I HAD the gun I should have turned all Rambo and jumped out there guns ablazin' trying to take them all out with my movie-style never-ending clip. The gun was my last resort, which I take seriously. otherwise I could have shot first, probably got 2 or 3 before they started running and firing back. guess that eeeevil gun didn't manage to take me over that day.

Nice that you are so certain of things. Why have you not won the lottery yet? You should be an actuary since you can predict these things with such clarity.

I'm certain that you did not use your gun, did not brandish your gun and that you and your family lived unharmed. I'm reasonably certain that one guy with a handgun isn't going to take down 7+ guys, and I'm 99.9% certain that had you decided to challenge that group, things would have ended up much worse than they did.

I'm certain that you did not use your gun, did not brandish your gun and that you and your family lived unharmed. I'm reasonably certain that one guy with a handgun isn't going to take down 7+ guys, and I'm 99.9% certain that had you decided to challenge that group, things would have ended up much worse than they did.

Read my above answer to Balta. it fits your gun-world view.

Well in your world simply because I HAD the gun I should have turned all Rambo and jumped out there guns ablazin' trying to take them all out with my movie-style never-ending clip. The gun was my last resort, which I take seriously. otherwise I could have shot first, probably got 2 or 3 before they started running and firing back. guess that eeeevil gun didn't manage to take me over that day.

Just to note again...this entire topic came up because I asked if you'd had any situation where you used 10+ shots.

Just to note again...this entire topic came up because I asked if you'd had any situation where you used 10+ shots.

So because I have yet to need 10 shots, I don't need 10 shots. That seems to be what you are saying there. Guess you can also predict the future.

I get a kick out of a guy in the military talking about "statists"

 

You're full of juvenile arguments. I get a kick out of that.

 

This is about patriotism. I'm not here for the government or for the president. I signed up to defend America because I felt it was my absolute duty.

 

If you think that's statist, then whatever. I don't really give a s*** what someone thinks who also thinks its bigoted to not want a gay son.

Nobody says don't write laws. Don't write laws that won't fix the damn problem.

 

This presupposes people actually want to fix problems, as opposed to writing laws to make money.

 

No one cares about fixing problems.

I wonder if there are statistics on the outcomes of homeowners/residents defending themselves with a firearm from intruders. How many times the intruders were injured/killed, the resident injured/killed, both or neither. I'd be interested to see that.