• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defensive gun use thread

So how do magazine capacity limits make it harder for the bad guys to get a gun? Sure feels like a needless restriction on legal gun owners, period.
I wasn't talking about high capacity mags. but maybe explain how unreasonable restricting high capacity mags would be to the 473 people killed and wounded by a single gunman in Las Vegas when they went to a music festival.

I've owned guns all my adult life, including semi-autos, and despite hunting all sorts of animals with them I have never needed, or even wanted, more than 10 rounds in a mag. I am not sure I have ever even fired 5 shots in a row. I can think of a very few pest control activities that might work better with say a 20 round mag, but those are very rare occurrences involving a small number of people with that requirement. I would certainly argue that they get granted an exemption from any high cap mag restrictions if any were introduced.

So when it comes to the availability of high capacity mags we are mostly talking about weekend Rambos wanting to blaze away extra rounds for whatever reason, vs the impact on innocent lives such as in the Las Vegas shooting. I personally don't think we should make the bad guys able to kill even more people than they already do just to satisfy some peoples Rambo fetishes. You, and others, may of course have different priorities and feel innocent people dying is not that important.
 
I wasn't talking about high capacity mags. but maybe explain how unreasonable restricting high capacity mags would be to the 473 people killed and wounded by a single gunman in Las Vegas when they went to a music festival.

I've owned guns all my adult life, including semi-autos, and despite hunting all sorts of animals with them I have never needed, or even wanted, more than 10 rounds in a mag. I am not sure I have ever even fired 5 shots in a row. I can think of a very few pest control activities that might work better with say a 20 round mag, but those are very rare occurrences involving a small number of people with that requirement. I would certainly argue that they get granted an exemption from any high cap mag restrictions if any were introduced.

So when it comes to the availability of high capacity mags we are mostly talking about weekend Rambos wanting to blaze away extra rounds for whatever reason, vs the impact on innocent lives such as in the Las Vegas shooting. I personally don't think we should make the bad guys able to kill even more people than they already do just to satisfy some peoples Rambo fetishes. You, and others, may of course have different priorities and feel innocent people dying is not that important.


It's not all about you or what you do. People who do differently than you are not necessarily deserving of derogatory comment.

Check the bigotry, please.
 
I wasn't talking about high capacity mags. but maybe explain how unreasonable restricting high capacity mags would be to the 473 people killed and wounded by a single gunman in Las Vegas when they went to a music festival.
Paddock apparently used 100-round mags and multiple firearms to accomplish his high firepower output. Given the unusual amount of preparation that went into this attack, I suppose we can start banning fertilizer, too, if we decide to base gun laws on high profile, highly unusual incidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

If Paddock didn't have access to high capacity mags, I suspect he would have simply transitioned to a belt-fed system instead. I suppose the law can be tailored (and it likely is in some states already) to cover 11+-round ammo belts, but then Paddock could have just purchased 100 10-round segments of ammo belts and linked them together to give him 1,000 round capacity.

Would have been more efficient, too.
 
And then they go and release 10x re-offenders and when he re-offends for the 11th time, they push for serial numbers of bullets, as if they don't know who is committing all the crime.View attachment 67511916
I think it's not really about crime and reducing it. I think it's about being against you.
 
I wasn't talking about high capacity mags. but maybe explain how unreasonable restricting high capacity mags would be to the 473 people killed and wounded by a single gunman in Las Vegas when they went to a music festival.
Thank God he used a rifle with high-capacity mags.
Had he used something with a belt, many hundreds would have died.
I've owned guns all my adult life, including semi-autos, and despite hunting all sorts of animals with them I have never needed, or even wanted, more than 10 rounds in a mag.
That's nice.
So what?
So when it comes to the availability of high capacity mags we are mostly talking about weekend Rambos...
Please - try to be serious.

 
Do you get out to the range much??

Occasionally, to sight in my rifles using unfamiliar loads, or to confirm accuracy if I haven't been in the field for a while. Usually that means a max of 5 or 6 rounds per rifle. Often only 2 or 3 if the rifle is still shooting on target. Maybe a few more if I have added a new scope. By the time I finish bore-sighting a new scope I am almost always close enough that I don't need a lot of rounds to fine tune for range. I like to hunt, but putting holes in paper while making loud noises doesn't excite me so much. I can't think of any reason why you would possibly need more than a 10 round mag at a range though?

I understand that some people get their thrills from firing off a lot of shots in quick succession. I don't understand why they do, but I do understand that they do. I sometimes refer to this as Rambo fantasies. Of course that upsets some people, but that's the only reason that I can think of. For me, that isn't enough justification to make it easier for bad guys to kill a lot of innocent people really quickly. We all have different views, and that is mine.
 
Occasionally, to sight in my rifles using unfamiliar loads, or to confirm accuracy if I haven't been in the field for a while. Usually that means a max of 5 or 6 rounds per rifle. Often only 2 or 3 if the rifle is still shooting on target. Maybe a few more if I have added a new scope. By the time I finish bore-sighting a new scope I am almost always close enough that I don't need a lot of rounds to fine tune for range. I like to hunt, but putting holes in paper while making loud noises doesn't excite me so much. I can't think of any reason why you would possibly need more than a 10 round mag at a range though?

I understand that some people get their thrills from firing off a lot of shots in quick succession. I don't understand why they do, but I do understand that they do. I sometimes refer to this as Rambo fantasies. Of course that upsets some people, but that's the only reason that I can think of. For me, that isn't enough justification to make it easier for bad guys to kill a lot of innocent people really quickly. We all have different views, and that is mine.

I don't see why people like to have cars that can go 100 mph. I refer to it as the Andretti fantasy. It isn't enough justification to make it easier for reckless people to kill a lot of innocent people.
 
The point that constantly gets ignored by the gun lobby when discussing gun control is that restrictions on gun owners are only there to stop the bad guys getting access to guns.
That is incorrect. Bad guys have nothing to do with it. The point of gun control is to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.
 
I don't see why people like to have cars that can go 100 mph. I refer to it as the Andretti fantasy. It isn't enough justification to make it easier for reckless people to kill a lot of innocent people.
That's weak. Need to try harder! An 80mph goods truck is as, or more, dangerous than some fast sports car. Of course in some countries they are actually implementing speed limiters on cars to limits their destructive potential. I guess where you have enlightened gun laws you might expect to see enlightened car speed laws as well??

I'm a life long hunter (since 15 years old) and built my first 'hot rod' in my teens as well. I have never not owned a modified vehicle or classic muscle car since I was 19 years old, and that is over 40 years ago. I like guns and fast cars. I like guns to hunt with and fast cars on a drag strip or track. And yet I have no issue with sensible laws designed to keep people safe from the worst dangers associated with those items. We have speed limits, with penalties and significant every day present enforcement to deter people from speeding. With guns we have virtually nothing but an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff after someone gets shot. Yet our gun control laws are far weaker than our car control laws, even though on a 'per usage' basis guns kill massively more people each year.
 
That is incorrect. Bad guys have nothing to do with it. The point of gun control is to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.
Just more gun lobby rhetoric! The very valid reason for better gun control is the 40,000+ deaths,100.000+ injuries, and millions of impacted lives that occur with guns being wrongly used each year. All the 'civil liberty control' bs is just a gun lobby generated fear campaign as is typical with right wing politics in the US.
 
Just more gun lobby rhetoric! The very valid reason for better gun control is the 40,000+ deaths,100.000+ injuries, and millions of impacted lives that occur with guns being wrongly used each year.
That is incorrect. Gun control has nothing to do with trying to combat deaths or save lives.


All the 'civil liberty control' bs is just a gun lobby generated fear campaign as is typical with right wing politics in the US.
That is incorrect. It is wrong to violate people's civil liberties.
 
That's weak. Need to try harder! An 80mph goods truck is as, or more, dangerous than some fast sports car. Of course in some countries they are actually implementing speed limiters on cars to limits their destructive potential. I guess where you have enlightened gun laws you might expect to see enlightened car speed laws as well??

I'm a life long hunter (since 15 years old) and built my first 'hot rod' in my teens as well. I have never not owned a modified vehicle or classic muscle car since I was 19 years old, and that is over 40 years ago. I like guns and fast cars. I like guns to hunt with and fast cars on a drag strip or track. And yet I have no issue with sensible laws designed to keep people safe from the worst dangers associated with those items. We have speed limits, with penalties and significant every day present enforcement to deter people from speeding. With guns we have virtually nothing but an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff after someone gets shot. Yet our gun control laws are far weaker than our car control laws, even though on a 'per usage' basis guns kill massively more people each year.

I don't think you can find a single instance of a gun killing someone. Resorting to that "Sasquatch did it" argument and the hoary implication that guns aren't regulated, makes for my post still standing strong.
 
The very valid reason for better gun control is the 40,000+ deaths,100.000+ injuries....
The right to keep ans bear arms is protected by the constitution because firearms are, currently, the most effective means for an in individual to kill or injure another individual.
That they work as intended is not a valid reason to ignore the constitution.



 
I'm a life long hunter (since 15 years old)....
I have one black friend.
And yet I have no issue with sensible laws designed to keep people safe from the worst dangers associated with those items.
Laws do not keep people safe.
Laws punish people after they do something to make people unsafe.


 
I wasn't talking about high capacity mags. but maybe explain how unreasonable restricting high capacity mags would be to the 473 people killed and wounded by a single gunman in Las Vegas when they went to a music festival.

I've owned guns all my adult life, including semi-autos, and despite hunting all sorts of animals with them I have never needed, or even wanted, more than 10 rounds in a mag. I am not sure I have ever even fired 5 shots in a row. I can think of a very few pest control activities that might work better with say a 20 round mag, but those are very rare occurrences involving a small number of people with that requirement. I would certainly argue that they get granted an exemption from any high cap mag restrictions if any were introduced.

So when it comes to the availability of high capacity mags we are mostly talking about weekend Rambos wanting to blaze away extra rounds for whatever reason, vs the impact on innocent lives such as in the Las Vegas shooting. I personally don't think we should make the bad guys able to kill even more people than they already do just to satisfy some peoples Rambo fetishes. You, and others, may of course have different priorities and feel innocent people dying is not that important.
I've also owned guns all my life, even before I became an adult. I have also carried a wide variety of different loads in those firearms, from the State requirement to only have three rounds loaded while duck or goose hunting, to having 30-round magazines.

This time of year in particular I am frequently carrying my AR-12 and my Ruger .44 Super Redhawk. When at the range, I use 20-round magazines for the AR-12 and 30-round magazines for my SKS. However, when I'm carrying the AR-12 in the bush, I carry two 10-round magazines with one magazine already loaded. That is primarily because I do not want to haul around the extra weight. A 20-round magazine of .65 cal. slugs can get pretty heavy after awhile. I also carry two speed loaders for my back-up Ruger. If I am going to be spending time between high tides, I also bring along an AR-7 and a box of 50 .22 LR. The AR-7 only includes a 10-round magazine.

I can certainly appreciate the need someone might have to include large capacity magazines in their arsenal. If they are carrying extra ammo then their destination is most likely a range. No hunter "blazes away" with their ammunition. Someone who has owned guns all their adult life would know this. The fact that you think gun owners are "weekend Rambos" clearly demonstrates your extreme anti-Second Amendment leftist position. It also calls into question your other assertion. You may have seen firearms your entire adult life, but I seriously doubt you have ever owned or used one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bum
I know it's off topic not being a gun use of self defense, and it's a couple weeks old, but a gun was involved, and it was self defense.


According to Blackman, Glenn was "cut to pieces" and "very much deceased" when he was found by deputies.


Holy crap. A knife can be used with deadly effect.

The deceased seems like one of those having no business being free in a peaceful society.
 
Grandma takes out home invader:

(20 minutes report)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bum
























This last one is not so much a DGU incident as it is simply funny and karma laden.

Stay safe and unvictimized by the thugs.
 
*sigh*.... this is so sad...I can only hope it's in sarcasm,

1718626377259.webp
 
















Stay safe and unvictimized, Citizens.
 




















Stay safe and unvictimized folks...have a great weekend.
 
Back
Top Bottom