- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Feel free to explain it, but you've said nothing so far suggests it's an important issue. But you don't have gun fights in the street. A few shots and such, but not a war zone.
rejected as stupid. Cops have backup but they have 17 rounds
at what point is a law abiding citizen not trustworthy? 20 rounds? 15 rounds? 10 rounds?
given there was no studies supporting the limits it is obvious the goal is to gradually decrease what honest people could own
its STUPID
BTW boo-the duty is on you to support the limits and explain why honest people should be so handicapped
We've covered that, complete with links showing the differences.
Again show me those wild fire fights. This is a logic question. Without fire fights, there's no logical reason to associate self defense with number of rounds.
I've supported the claims I've made. You claim a handicap. Support it.
you don't know anything about civilian or police shooting issues
why do cops have 17? do you think you are better off with less rounds
at what point does an honest gun owner become untrustworthy due to number of rounds
the opinions of someone who clearly has no training in this field is not support. Its an opinion based on poor or no information
As I said, I supported the claims. Go back and read.
No you didn't you speculated that it might cause a mass shooter to have to reload
but mass shooters have ignored more substantive laws
magazine limits will only apply to honest people
so tell me-why should honest people be banned from owning normal capacity magazines
IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO USE ANY GUN TO MURDER PEOPLE
Yes, as, we know that. But as the market adjusts, there will mostly only be seven round options. No thinking person expects immediate results.
that is beyond stupid. I own at least a few hundred normal capacity magazines you still haven't told me why
1) someone should be jailed for owning a magazine that has been legal for 100 years
2) why trustworthy people become untrustworthy at 8 rounds
3) why honest people should be handicapped (and stop with the psychobabble about not needing them)
I have concluded your posts are designed to bait pro gun posters because you have proven that you support this nonsense in an effort to annoy those who don't agree with your politics. You have yet to make an honest argument. I doubt you even believe the crap you are spewing and that is evidenced by the paucity of any rational arguments you have made
I don't answer those because I didn't make those claims. I claimed it would not be a hardship. I claim police have an actual job that puts them in harms way. I keep asking that you address what I said.
cops don't face as much danger when dealing with armed criminals than do other civilians
My links differently. Nor are you required to act. They are.
Even if JUST ONE citizen needs more than 7 rounds then the law is idiotic
and cops have no duty to protect people either. Its a supreme court ruling
and cops choose normally when they confront criminals. Other Civilians do not
other civilians are attacked at the time place and choosing of criminals
criminals generally pick times when people are least likely to have back up or be able to fight back
I know, part of my job for years was dealing with that fact
Its highly unlikely even one will need more than seven. Again, this is not a war zone.
And, go, as my link showed, they often walk into trouble doing their job. Again, read the links.
more idiocy. you are just speculating
since it is illegal for criminals to own any guns magazine bans only target law abiding citizens
we cannot establish that a mag limit will deter crime. however there are hundreds of cases of people needing more than 7 rounds to save themselves. and many competitive shooting sports require more than 7 rounds
so you want to harass people (which of course is your goal when it comes to gun owners) for no positive benefits
cops often walk into trouble but other civilians are specifically TARGETED for criminal assault
so your argument sucks yet again
We both make logical assumptions, mind more logical than yours, but assumptions. And as we don't have these fire fights on the streets, it's quite logical to assume we won't. Seven we be more than enough to defend someone.
And no one us being harassed. Why you exaggerate this way I just don't know.
rejected as opinion based on a lack of facts and no understanding of the subject matter
its too bad that people like you cannot suffer the consequences of those who are harmed by the idiotic limitations assholes like Cuomo want to impose on honest people. Harassment-paying 150 dollars in 1996 for the competition magazines for my IPSC race gun-magazines that cost 35 dollars before the CLINTON gun ban
HARASSMENT-owning normal capacity magazines in NYS and being told you can be arrested if you don't destroy them or ship them out of state
Thats not the definition of harassment. Sorry.
I've never needed a guy. So, not having one, why haven't I paid for it?
Thats not the definition of harassment. Sorry.
I've never needed a guy. So, not having one, why haven't I paid for it?
Its highly unlikely even one will need more than seven. Again, this is not a war zone.
And, go, as my link showed, they often walk into trouble doing their job. Again, read the links.
Usually the cops show up AFTER the fact. It's the civilian who has to worry about his or her safety in the meantime. Most home invasions are done by groups of gang members who are armed to the teeth, through the illegal black market of course.
rejected as stupid. Cops have backup but they have 17 rounds
at what point is a law abiding citizen not trustworthy? 20 rounds? 15 rounds? 10 rounds?
given there was no studies supporting the limits it is obvious the goal is to gradually decrease what honest people could own
its STUPID
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?