You can't have my guns.

[HumblePie]

Same of you are bat shit insane ... seriously. Mass roundups executions by the government etc. If they ban your guns sad sad sad. Fantasies that you would protect your self with a rifle if the government would come to execute you.
I'm convinced mental health is a bigger issue than gun control now. I vote for mandatory mental health checks for everyone.

Bat shit insane huh? No one thought Adolf Hitler would round up all the Jews in Germany and mass murder them using the Government. It happened.

The point being, while it seems highly likely it will ever happen, and I hope it never does, it never hurts to be prepared.

 

[pontifex]

Now, with all of that said...
I personally don't believe that anyone needs more than 3 rounds.. period...

-For personal defense, if you can't take down your armed assailant with three rounds - you're already dead...
-If your armed assailant brings company with him and you draw down on one of them period then you're dead. You're not going to get the drop on all of them and Doc Holiday only did it in the movies.

3 rounds huh? what about these people who are shot multiple times and still come at you?

What if you miss, you know, because adrenaline is pumping, you're scared, etc? Its well documented that under extreme circumstances fine motor skills drop severely.

So just because there's 3 guys I should just give up and let them kill me? I'd rather die fighting than die like a little bitch.


in 2004 the 1994 assault weapons ban was lifted. It banned high cap mags. has crime with guns that it banned increased? How much? If this was such a problem, why didn't they extend the ban?

A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."
The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.

That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans. The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[13] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[14] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

3 rounds huh? what about these people who are shot multiple times and still come at you?

What if you miss, you know, because adrenaline is pumping, you're scared, etc? Its well documented that under extreme circumstances fine motor skills drop severely.

So just because there's 3 guys I should just give up and let them kill me? I'd rather die fighting than die like a little bitch.

If I hit you anywhere near center mast with the ammunition I keep in my hand gun for personal defense then you're going down (98% 1 shot stop rating). Is that your argument - you need more ammo in case you miss because you're adrenaline is pumping...? And if you can't focus your fear and adrenaline enough in that type of situation to engage a single target accurately what on Gods green earth makes you think you could ever handle three at once? The result is going to be the same if you have 3 rounds or 100.

And based on the rest of your post that you edited and amended.... It makes me wonder if you even read mine in its entirety? Or -more likely the case- have singled out a small portion of a much larger statement and are taking issue with that. And to what end? It's my opinion. Take it or leave it...

What you did in fact do was quote a whole bunch of sources that more or less supports everything "else" I was saying and for that I say thanks!:thumbsup:

 

[pontifex]

If I hit you anywhere near center mast with the ammunition I keep in my hand gun for personal defense then you're going down (98% 1 shot stop rating). And if you can't focus your fear and adrenaline enough in that type of situation to engage a single target accurately what on Gods green earth makes you think you could ever handle three?

And based on the rest of your post that you edited and amended.... It makes me wonder if you even read mine in its entirety? Or -more likely the case- have singled out a small portion of a much larger statement and are taking issue with that. And to what end?

ok and you know this how? you've tested it in real life???

your first few comments are ok. after that it was pretty much drivel.

why should i comment about anything else anyway? you made the same worthless arguments as all the other anti-gunners about needing less ammo AND despite claiming how much you were affected by the events you can't even give us the correct name of the school. It's Sandy Hook, not Sandy Brook.

 

[BladeVenom]

Same of you are bat shit insane ... seriously. Mass roundups executions by the government etc. If they ban your guns sad sad sad. Fantasies that you would protect your self with a rifle if the government would come to execute you.
I'm convinced mental health is a bigger issue than gun control now. I vote for mandatory mental health checks for everyone.

Have you ever read a history book?

262 million people have been murdered by governments in the last century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

 

[Phanuel]

Wow, I didn't know there was a "1 shot rating" rating... mind bottling. Can you link me to some literature about this rating? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[highland145]

Wow, I didn't know there was a "1 shot rating" rating... mind bottling. Can you link me to some literature about this rating? I'm genuinely curious.

12 ga 00 buck to the chest should be 100%. Guess there's a margin of error like with birth control.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

ok and you know this how? you've tested it in real life???

your first few comments are ok. after that it was pretty much drivel.

why should i comment about anything else anyway? you made the same worthless arguments as all the other anti-gunners about needing less ammo AND despite claiming how much you were affected by the events you can't even give us the correct name of the school. It's Sandy Hook, not Sandy Brook.

NO sir...

What I said was....

I don't think a ban on "not-so-assault-weapons" OR magazine capacity solves anything

AND

Do you really buy the argument that having only 10 rounds vs. 16,... or 30 is going to save lives in a mass shooting? How quickly can the police respond, vs. how fast can I change out a drop-free magazine in a pistol?.. For me, it's under 3 seconds and I can reload another 10 round mag.

and THEN I said...

I personally don't believe that anyone needs more than 3 rounds..

Which is merely my own opinion... Which you seem to be interpreting as something to the effect of "Jolly says let's ban anything with more than 3 rounds...!! RAWR! RAWR! RAWR!!".

Which is quite the contrary of THIS:

So.. do we "NEED" high capacity magazines as civilians for hunting and home defense? I say no, and you could make the same argument for 400HP cars too but it doesn't stop me from wanting and owning one and why should anyone tell me I can't have 400HP if I'm clearly responsible enough to handle it?

Translation... I don't think we per se "Need" high cap mags.. but I'm not advocating telling people they can't have them..

Which brings us full circle... back to this:

I don't think a ban on "not-so-assault-weapons" OR magazine capacity solves anything

And on Sandy Hook....
Typo, I know the name - but that's not the real issue here is it? Now you're just fishing..

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

Wow, I didn't know there was a "1 shot rating" rating... mind bottling. Can you link me to some literature about this rating? I'm genuinely curious.

Linked, for the Google Impaired.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm

 

[OlafSicky]

Have you ever read a history book?

262 million people have been murdered by governments in the last century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

America is a nation of law It has never happens in the US and never will guns or no guns. Total ban of all guns is the only way. It worked for EU countries it will work here. No the government will not round up anyone after they have your guns why would they?

 

[highland145]

Linked, for the Google Impaired.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm

I have the original magazine article of that somewhere. Kind of misleading "one shot stop". The AIT is what's important.

 

[x-alki]

America is a nation of law It has never happens in the US and never will guns or no guns. Total ban of all guns is the only way. It worked for EU countries it will work here. No the government will not round up anyone after they have your guns why would they?

And how would they get our guns? They dont know if I have any or not. If I did I sure has hell wouldnt volunteer to give them up.

 

[OverVolt]

America is a nation of law It has never happens in the US and never will guns or no guns. Total ban of all guns is the only way. It worked for EU countries it will work here. No the government will not round up anyone after they have your guns why would they?

RIP - hopefully you get to live out the rest of your life with zero rights in peace but I doubt it.

 

[pontifex]

NO sir...

What I said was....



AND



and THEN I said...



Which is merely my own opinion... Which you seem to be interpreting as something to the effect of "Jolly says let's ban anything with more than 3 rounds...!! RAWR! RAWR! RAWR!!".

Which is quite the contrary of THIS:


Translation... I don't think we per se "Need" high cap mags.. but I'm not advocating telling people they can't have them..

Which brings us full circle... back to this:



And on Sandy Hook....
Typo, I know the name - but that's not the real issue here is it? Now you're just fishing..

sorry, i'm still trying to get over not needing more than 3 rounds, you having 1 shot stopping ammo, and you being a super marksman under any situation.

a navy seal would probably laugh at this.

 

[spidey07]

A seal would put two thru the heart and one to the head.

Now out of ammo and is killed by the other 3 guys.

In a defensive situation, you can never have too much ammo. Limiting ammo hurts the good guys and they have to fire against the aggressor. Doesn't do much for mass shootings because the shooter isn't facing a threat and can easily reload in 2-3 seconds. With the attackers going after you, there is no time to be reloading.

Stop the threats, all of them, as quickly as possible. That's one of the reasons for the popularity of 9mm, magazine capacity (and cost).

 

[BladeVenom]

America is a nation of law It has never happens in the US and never will guns or no guns. Total ban of all guns is the only way. It worked for EU countries it will work here. No the government will not round up anyone after they have your guns why would they?

Ruby Ridge, and Waco.

Gun control hasn't stopped crazies in Europe.
Germany has had some of the worst school massacres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

Russia has had the worst school massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

Switzerland is heavily armed, they keep machine guns in their homes. They have a very low crime rate. Serbia is also heavily armed, and has a fairly low homicide rate.

 

[Hoober]

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That was drafted as a protection against internal insurrection and foreign invasion. There was no national standing army - local/state militias made up of private individuals was all the country had for defense. It was never meant to be Carte Blanche for any weapon of any type for personal use.

It was drafted as a necessity for the security of a free state. It's stated in plain fucking English. Our forefathers recognized that enemies may not necessarily be foreign.

 

[spidey07]

It was drafted as a necessity for the security of a free state. It's stated in plain fucking English. Our forefathers recognized that enemies may not necessarily be foreign.

Correct. Enemies both foreign and domestic.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

sorry, i'm still trying to get over not needing more than 3 rounds, you having 1 shot stopping ammo, and you being a super marksman under any situation.

a navy seal would probably laugh at this.

Jesus Holy Christ man! Get over it already!

What part of

....It's my opinion. Take it or leave it...

can't you seem to wrap your head around here.?

You don't agree with me.. I get it.. I think anyone reading this thread gets it by now... Spidey apparently doesn't agree either although he doesn't come right out and directly say it.. And that's OK... He's allowed to disagree with me.. and so are you! Hell maybe even 110% of the English speaking world disagrees. So be it!

But don't sit there and try to brand me some gun-control freak who wants to take away your precious high cap magazines over it.

I mean the way you've come after me over this one little nit-noid statement I made (that wasn't even really the point of my post BTW) you'd think I had insulted your mother!

[size=+1]<---*Grabs Microphone*.. check check..1-2.. is this thing on?...[/size]
[size=+2]Attention all of ATOT!!...
Can we all agree here that good pontifex disagrees with my opinion(s)? Yes?

Great.. moving on.. [/size]

 

[Iron Woode]

anti-gun nutjobs have forgotten the difference between Peace and Freedom.

You fight for freedom. You surrender for peace.

 

[spidey07]

Jesus Holy Christ man! Get over it already!

What part of

can't you seem to wrap your head around here.?

You don't agree with me.. I get it.. I think anyone reading this thread gets it by now... Spidey apparently doesn't agree either although he doesn't come right out and directly say it.. And that's OK... He's allowed to disagree with me.. and so are you! Hell maybe even 110% of the English speaking world disagrees. So be it!

But don't sit there and try to brand me some gun-control freak who wants to take away your precious high cap magazines over it.

I mean the way you've come after me over this one little nit-noid statement I made (that wasn't even really the point of my post BTW) you'd think I had insulted your mother!

[size=+1]<---*Grabs Microphone*.. check check..1-2.. is this thing on?...[/size]
[size=+2]Attention all of ATOT!!...
Can we all agree here that good pontifex disagrees with my opinion(s)? Yes?

Great.. moving on.. [/size]

No. I will not move on. You want to take away my natural rights.

I will absolutely not move on. I will not agree to disagree.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

No. I will not move on. You want to take away my natural rights.

I will absolutely not move on. I will not agree to disagree.

Boy did you ever miss the boat...
Do you even have the slightest clue about the vomit coming out of your halitosis hole right now? Have you read even a single thing I've posted up until just now? Taking away your natural rights?!

Get off your high horse and do us both a favor by going back a page or two and reading a little bit before you just start going off on me half-cocked. (no pun intended)

 

[Iron Woode]

Boy did you ever miss the boat...
Do you even have the slightest clue about the vomit coming out of your halitosis hole right now? Have you read even a single thing I've posted up until just now? Taking away your natural rights?!

Get off your high horse and do us both a favor by going back a page or two and reading a little bit before you just start going off on me half-cocked. (no pun intended)

to be brutally honest; nobody cares what you think or say.

sorry.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

to be brutally honest; nobody cares what you think or say.

sorry.

Ditto.

 

[eits]

honeestly, i can't believe this thread is continuing...