High capacity magazine in rampage was banned under Clinton-era law

[james&olya 1,121]

Such questions are usually not answered, at least not honestly.

I see this has deteriorated from the usual haters of guns spouting the same the points as always and the usual firearms enthusiasts spouting theirs. It doesn't change.

C'est la vie. The second amendment has been solidly affirmed in the past few years, there remains exactly TWO states that are yet to allow some form of concealed carry. Byt the end of this year, there will be ONE. There hasn't been any federal laws seriously considered since the last time the Dems lost control over the assault weapons "non-ban" (Columbine High School massacre occurred during the Clinton "Assault weapons ban")

It is really a done deal.

I am not going to convince the haters and no new laws will come of this, so I think I have discussed it enough. I take my .45 with me everywhere. I do not worry about criminals.

I really do hope you are in the right place at the right time. You sound like you have thought this through and maybe you tilt the balance in a favorable direction. I still wish there were fewer guns out there though!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

wish there were fewer guns out there though!

Keep on WISHIN!

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't take a gun anywhere ever, and I don't worry about criminals either. Clearly carrying a gun around is not a determining factor in feeling 'safe'.

Interestingly, I don't live in safe and cosy Vermont, but in the wild west of SoCal. Interesting, no?

Edited January 12, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[natty bumppo 297]

Less rounds shot is going to mean less casualties, that's simple math. However, that still does not explain how you leap to the conclusion that "... what [i'm] saying is if we pass more laws then people will stop using guns to kill other people?". I have never said that, implied it, or speculated that would be the case. Try engaging the arguments I actually put forward, not imaginary ones.

Guns and weaponry should be treated as what they are, instruments designed to deliver lethal force at a target (whatever that target might be), not household objects that can cause harm under specific (and limited) circumstances. Weaponry is stored in an armory for a reason and it's not because they are considered simple household tools.

I can't imagine why anyone would think it's a sound plan to keep one loaded in the bedroom, but that's another conversation entirely.

Slightly off topic, how many of the gun owners here who believe they own a gun as a means to protect themselves and their family from lethal invasion drink?

simple math example ....

50 rounds shot .... 3 hit target

5 rounds shot ... 5 hit target

want to rethink your math problem?

[Peikko 1,575]

simple math example ....

50 rounds shot .... 3 hit target

5 rounds shot ... 5 hit target

want to rethink your math problem?

Not really, no. That's typical red herring material that you specialize in.

[natty bumppo 297]

Not really, no. That's typical red herring material that you specialize in.

actually your reasoning was just a lot off target.

more rounds fired do not equate to more hits. it does equate to more opportunity for hits ...

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

actually your reasoning was just a lot off target.

more rounds fired do not equate to more hits. it does equate to more opportunity for hits ...

What up Bumpy?

[james&olya 1,121]

actually your reasoning was just a lot off target.

more rounds fired do not equate to more hits. it does equate to more opportunity for hits ...

Wow, now that is really profound!! That really enlightens this whole conversation! Now we can all see the light! I am going to change my mind and join the NRA!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I don't take a gun anywhere ever, and I don't worry about criminals either. Clearly carrying a gun around is not a determining factor in feeling 'safe'.

Interestingly, I don't live in safe and cosy Vermont, but in the wild west of SoCal. Interesting, no?

Cleo you would just put your hands up and say "TAKE ME"

Wow, now that is really profound!! That really enlightens this whole conversation! Now we can all see the light! I am going to change my mind and join the NRA!

Have some granola!

[natty bumppo 297]

Wow, now that is really profound!! That really enlightens this whole conversation! Now we can all see the light! I am going to change my mind and join the NRA!

talk about a dislocated comment .... what does this ^ have to do with mc's faulty logic?

[james&olya 1,121]

Have some granola!

Granola too? How could it get any better?

[natty bumppo 297]

What up Bumpy?

just watching the rhetoric ...

you doing okay?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

just watching the rhetoric ...

you doing okay?

Doin GREAT! Funny to watch a lib go crazy.

[james&olya 1,121]

talk about a dislocated comment .... what does this ^ have to do with mc's faulty logic?

Your need to focus on irrelevant arguments that miss the point of the controversy being discussed!

[Peikko 1,575]

actually your reasoning was just a lot off target.

more rounds fired do not equate to more hits. it does equate to more opportunity for hits ...

No, I had it spot on, I claim that had the shooter fired less rounds he would have hit less targets, that's irrefutable.

Your need to focus on irrelevant arguments that miss the point of the controversy being discussed!

That's what he does. Makes him feel clever and important. That's how some people roll.