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

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Must not have had any Sarah targets and used their camels. Is that her in the back with the BIG WHITE smile?

[Ban Hammer 12,878]

Why not? After the first three rounds, the accuracy take a nose dive....at least that's what Danno tells me.

after the first round, accuracy is out the window. machine guns are good for engaging an area target, not a point target.

[^_^ 5,021]

after the first round, accuracy is out the window. machine guns are good for engaging an area target, not a point target.

by area target, do you mean michael moore?

[Ban Hammer 12,878]

I'm feeling warm and fuzzy now - I have my order for a pink machine gun ready for processing. Can I have pink bullets too? (I'm fully expecting Charles to inform me that machine guns do not use 'bullets' )

baiting already?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

machine guns are good for engaging an area target, not a point target.

Like a crowd?

[Ban Hammer 12,878]

Do you understand how to argue? Four brave people saved the lives of others because the shooter ran out of bullets and was trying to reload when they stopped him. Just because he didn't go commando style doesn't negate the fact that his high capacity magazine allowed for him to fire off 31 rounds while standing in a crowd, killing 6 people and injuring 12, without any resistance.

Now try and give a real argument on how he still would have been able to fire off 31 rounds into a crowd if he had to reload a few times to do it.

be thankful he didn't have a sawed off 12 gauge with a magazine extender!

by area target, do you mean michael moore?

larger targets are naturally easier to successfully engage.

Like a crowd?

like a squad or platoon........

[slim 1,514]

Of all the stupid arguments that people use, the 'guns are only as lethal as common household items everyone has access to' is the most stupid. Guns are designed for a specific purpose, they are extremely efficient and modern guns require little skill to operate in such a manner as to achieve maximum mayhem. If the gunman had been armed with a hammer, I'm betting no one from the incident would be dead today, bruised possibly but dead? Not a chance. How absolutely ignorant to suggest that because people are accidentaly harmed in all kinds of ways that is in any way equivalent or useful in an argument concerning the necessity or not to limit the availability of guns and other weaponry to the general public.

So it's completely stupid for me to compare a gun to a hammer yet it's OK for the OP to say a 31rd. mag is more dangerous than a 10rd. mag? They're both pieces of metal - and not guns- right?

If we're going to go down this road are you insinuating that a Glock 17 is more dangerous than a Glock 21 since it has a higher magazine capacity?

I'm feeling warm and fuzzy now - I have my order for a pink machine gun ready for processing. Can I have pink bullets too? (I'm fully expecting Charles to inform me that machine guns do not use 'bullets' )

I haven't seen a pink machine gun but one of my homeys has a sweet AR-15 all decked out in pink with a Hello Kitty sticker on it.

Do you understand how to argue? Four brave people saved the lives of others because the shooter ran out of bullets and was trying to reload when they stopped him. Just because he didn't go commando style doesn't negate the fact that his high capacity magazine allowed for him to fire off 31 rounds while standing in a crowd, killing 6 people and injuring 12, without any resistance.

So apparently, "how to argue" =

1. Accuse the opposition of being a straw man.

2. Ignore facts about the case you posted.

3. Ignore facts about historical cases I posted.

4. Ignore statistical analysis.

5. Repeat.

Almost got me! A couple more repeats and/or a "you're a terrorist" are probably all you need to win this one.

Now try and give a real argument on how he still would have been able to fire off 31 rounds into a crowd if he had to reload a few times to do it.

See #3 above.

I guess you missed the whole, "the VA Tech criminal reloaded several times with standard-capacity magazines yet killed more people" part that I posted. Please, try to take that one into consideration before you make yourself looked uninformed and illogical again. It's for your own good.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I guess you missed the whole, "the VA Tech criminal reloaded several times with standard-capacity magazines yet killed more people" part that I posted. Please, try to take that one into consideration before you make yourself looked uninformed and illogical again. It's for your own good.

You are thick, but for sh!ts and giggles I'll take your bait and address your tangent. For one, you have no idea how many more lives that shooter would have taken had he been using 31 round magazine clips as opposed to 15. He was running around commando style as opposed to standing in crowd as the Tucson shooter did. They are different situations with very different dynamics.

Now that I engaged your tangent, answer my question: Tell me how you think Loughner would have still been able to fire off 31 rounds if he had used a 10 or 15 round capacity magazine under the circumstances?

[Peikko 1,575]

So it's completely stupid for me to compare a gun to a hammer yet it's OK for the OP to say a 31rd. mag is more dangerous than a 10rd. mag? They're both pieces of metal - and not guns- right?

If we're going to go down this road are you insinuating that a Glock 17 is more dangerous than a Glock 21 since it has a higher magazine capacity?

I haven't seen a pink machine gun but one of my homeys has a sweet AR-15 all decked out in pink with a Hello Kitty sticker on it.

So apparently, "how to argue" =

1. Accuse the opposition of being a straw man.

2. Ignore facts about the case you posted.

3. Ignore facts about historical cases I posted.

4. Ignore statistical analysis.

5. Repeat.

Almost got me! A couple more repeats and/or a "you're a terrorist" are probably all you need to win this one.

See #3 above.

I guess you missed the whole, "the VA Tech criminal reloaded several times with standard-capacity magazines yet killed more people" part that I posted. Please, try to take that one into consideration before you make yourself looked uninformed and illogical again. It's for your own good.

Yes it is ridiculous. Tell me just how many people you think would have died on Saturday if the gunman had been armed with a claw hammer instead of a gun? Lots of things are dangerous, indeed yes they are, but few things are efficient as the means to end life in a short space of time and without the necessity for outstanding combat skills. Guns are chosen by people who wish to kill lots of people in a short space of time for a reason.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[slim 1,514]

They are different situations with very different dynamics.

Yet you're offfering one solution to cure both problems.

Tell me how you think Loughner would have still been able to fire off 31 rounds if he had used a 10 or 15 round capacity magazine under the circumstances?

He could've "run around all commando style" instead of standing in the crowd.

Guns are chosen by people who wish to kill lots of people in a short space of time for a reason.

So what you're saying is if we pass more laws then people will stop using guns to kill other people?

[웃 910]

Tell me how you think Loughner would have still been able to fire off 31 rounds if he had used a 10 or 15 round capacity magazine under the circumstances?

Easy. He'd buy the guns illegally.

In the ghetto where you have a good murder per day how many of these shooters are licensed gun holders? Probably 1 out of 100....I've seen videos with a dude from Detroit (rapper) with a rocket launcher...Matter of fact, here is the video, you tell me if he has a license to carry those weapons (fast forward to 2:30):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCbFWoan2m8

Edited January 11, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Peikko 1,575]

Yet you're offfering one solution to cure both problems.

He could've "run around all commando style" instead of standing in the crowd.

So what you're saying is if we pass more laws then people will stop using guns to kill other people?

No, I'm not saying that at all, any where, nor suggesting it, nor inferring it. Why do you think that is what I am saying?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He could've "run around all commando style" instead of standing in the crowd.

He would no longer have the advantage of essentially shooting people at point blank range, so most likely his accuracy would go down. Also, for him to run around, it would also have given innocent bystanders the chance to also run for cover. He fired off 31 rounds in a matter of seconds....SECONDS. It was only because he ran out of bullets that four brave people were able to wrestle him to the ground. If magazine capacity doesn't make any difference in the effectiveness for shooting off a high number of rounds quickly then why the need for high capacity magazines in the first place?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No, I'm not saying that at all, any where, nor suggesting it, nor inferring it. Why do you think that is what I am saying?

Let's play Slim's game here of straw man fallacies. See what he really thinks is the solution to such incidences is to arm every man, woman and child with guns. Only then can we truly prevent such tragedies.

[slim 1,514]

I've seen videos with a dude from Detroit (rapper) with a rocket launcher...

I guess you missed the fact that it was empty?

The M-72 LAW rocket is a single-shot device. Once it's empty, it becomes a display piece that's legal to own under BATFE standards. It's nothing more than an empty tube.

The other weapon he was holding was a perfectly legal to own AR-15 with a BETA mag. Since it holds 100 rounds it's probably a lot more lethal than any Glock out there!

(Nevermind the fact that Royce da 5'9 is a multi-millionaire and could purchase whatever fullauto weapons he wanted LEGALLY.)

No, I'm not saying that at all, any where, nor suggesting it, nor inferring it. Why do you think that is what I am saying?

Because you're going along with what's being posted on here. Less rounds = less casualties.

He would no longer have the advantage of essentially shooting people at point blank range, so most likely his accuracy would go down. Also, for him to run around, it would also have given innocent bystanders the chance to also run for cover. He fired off 31 rounds in a matter of seconds....SECONDS. It was only because he ran out of bullets that four brave people were able to wrestle him to the ground. If magazine capacity doesn't make any difference in the effectiveness for shooting off a high number of rounds quickly then why the need for high capacity magazines in the first place?

Who's making the straw man arguments?

Let's play Slim's game here of straw man fallacies.

PLEEEEEEEEASE see above!

See what he really thinks is the solution to such incidences is to arm every man, woman and child with guns. Only then can we truly prevent such tragedies.

This kind of thing would've never happened in Vermont.