Coming from someone who has never fired a gun that doesn't have much weight
speed loaders are still slower than 30 round magazine changes.
If he had a six shooter, yes it would have been prevented.
The dude had 30 round extended magazines.
Coming from someone who has never fired a gun that doesn't have much weight
Ever hear of speed loaders? Train a little and you can reload a revolver almost as fast as you can an auto. That's assuming he gave a fuck about following the law in the first place.
He changed sides so many times in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin thread that I lost count. I'm beginning to think he may be bi-polar.
Does he count?
Does he count?
Thank you for your honest admission of trolling.considering the "conversation" you guys had with Charles K, it's the only way.
I shoot revolvers all the time and don't need someone to tell me how easy it is or isn't to reload quickly. irishScott is correct that it's almost as fast, close enough that it really wouldn't change things.
Someone's bitter.
Yes, I'm of the opinion that due to simple matters of physics someone with equivalent training will be able to reload an auto slightly faster than a revolver.
In the off chance that you're implying speed loaders are substantially slower:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvCGcD-i love you
I'm not implying anything. The claim was made that a smaller magazine requires reloading more which opens up an opportunity to stop the attacker, you guys claim that someone can reload and fire just as fast as someone who doesn't have to reload.
So far all I see are claims that you can train to reload quickly but it's not the same as not having to reload.
Are you claiming someone with three 10 round clips can fire off as many shots as someone with a 30 round clip in the same amount of time?
No, we're claiming negligible amount of extra time. Especially with various reloading techniques depending on the gun. Here's one with a timed difference of half a second.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrAt7-ij2k&t=9m11s
So there is a difference? How many shooters have been well trained? How many responsible gun owners can reload as quickly as the person in the video?
Now with all that information do you think the chances of stopping an attacker while he is reloading is higher or lower if he didn't have to reload?
Secondly, if people can reload almost as fast and there isn't a significant difference between fast reloading and a larger clip then is there a reasonable reason why a larger clip is necessary?
Did you even watch the video? He used packaging tape to tape two magazines side-by-side. I'd say just about anyone can be "trained" to do that.
Given that the Virginia Tech shooter carried 19 reloads and no one stopped him, and there are eyewitness accounts of the Aurora shooter calmly reloading with people with several feet of him, and no one even tried, and the Norwegian shooter wrecked more carnage than both of them combined with a 5 round bolt action, I'd say the penalty to a mass shooter is negligible at best and easily compensated for by the situation.
Larger magazines are necessary for defensive use because when actively defending against an attacker, negligible can suddenly become meaningful. But we're not talking about defending against an attacker, we're talking about an attacker preying on defenseless people. In that context, where the people aren't equipped to defend themselves even if they had the will to, the impact is negligible.
Negligible is not the same as no impact.
And yes people can be trained or they can use various tricks but is the reality that that is likely to be the case? Especially in the case of mass shootings and the typical MO of the shooter.
Someone posted this link and I thought it had a lot of good info in it:
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
so small, trifling, or unimportant that it may safely be neglected or disregarded
No, negligible means its there but can be treated as if it had no impact.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Negligible?s=t
From what I've read most of these shooters fantasized about it a lot before they actually did it. Which means they gave it some thought and some time. Given that, and the fact that you can get good at reloading sitting on your couch and watching TV while you do it...
Even if they did suck at reloading (which is something you have to try to suck at), just proves my point. It apparently didn't matter all that much in actual shootings. Buncha reloads, over a dozen in the case of VT, no one did or was able to do shit; which makes a lot of sense. Say instead of taking half a second to reload, they take 1.5-2.0 seconds. Because shocked, unarmed, panicked and partially shot victims are definitely going to seize that extra second and a half. Yeah, no.
Never mind that no magazine ban is going to effectively dry up supply. Not even close. Most guns nowadays ship with magazines over 10 rounds and have for years, there are hundreds of millions of them out there. Good luck keeping them out of the hands of people who don't care about their own lives, let alone the law.
this is a highly dubious assumption. If something can be purchased legally it would be. If it cannot be purchased legally, is it now impossible to get?From the link I posted most guns were obtained legally so banning larger clips would indeed have an affect.
From the link I posted most guns were obtained legally so banning larger clips would indeed have an affect.
You are projecting when you say people could train to be faster and you are right people can train but do they?
Try removing your own personal feelings about the subject and just rely on the facts or the reality of the situation.
Actually, based on my time playing call of duty...
Those double-taped magazines are quick on the first reload. but the second reload does take longer.
Actually, based on my time playing call of duty...
Actually, based on my time playing call of duty...