Or the shooter could have stood off with a more powerful gun and changed out magazines when needed. Telling good citizens that they must limit the number of rounds they have with them because of what one wacko did is punishing the innocent for the acts of the guilty.
Do you think those people who told their survivor stories of being shot in the head, or having a bullet pass through a large amount of their body would be able to tell their story if those were 10mm rounds instead of 9mm?
Mike, there are consequences to magazine capacity mandates. One current advantage that 9mm has is that it is a relatively small cartridge which affords more capacity in a given space. Take that advantage away, and you might as well fill that space with caliber and powder.
Very good point, TS. I'm not the only one convinced that the resurgence of the 1911 (and the .45 ACP cartridge in general) had very much to do with the fact that the 11-round and large magazine ban eliminated one of the biggest advantages of the 9mm and other small cartridges.
I suspect micro-compact pistol development also got a big boost--when there's no need for a long magazine (and thus long grip), one of the main advantages of a larger gun is neutralized.
Mag bans are becoming irrelevant, and that's almost regrettable--this time, I'd like to see the popularity of the .50 GI get a nice boost.
And because of this one case, we need to limit everyone's rights, even though there are more cases where having a larger magazine can help the defender.
T., you and Greg both are pretending Loughner is the only bad example. That's a joke and it shows what a poor argument you guys have against reasonable restrictions.
Actually, the number is irrelevant, even though you've been shown wackos who used limited magazines. My concern is whether the magazine in question can be used in a legitimate manner, and magazines of any capacity certainly can, so you have no business trying to limit how many rounds I may legally have with me.
This was one of the cases in which magazine capacity proved to be a factor.
Um . . . "one of" how many? One?
Have you noticed that magazines are pretty simple? Generally a metal or plastic box with a spring in it? Do you think we even need 3-D printers in order to make a ban irrelevant?
Keep thinking that--it will make the crushing of your illusions that much more delicious.
Busted: finger on the trigger while changing mags.
Bullshit. You couldn't "bust" a Liberator pistol with an 8-lb sledge hammer.
The rifle was pointed downrange the entire time--what "danger" do you think you've spotted?
Besides, his trigger discipline is rather a long way from the point here--that "magazine control" is a ridiculous fantasy, soon to become irrelevant.
When they tear down the silly sculpture of a revolver with a knotted barrel in the UN Sculpture Garden, and replace it with a marble statue of civil rights icon Cody Wilson, his trigger discipline will be remembered just about as much as Martin Luther King's tendency to forget to check his blind spot before changing lanes.
Mikeb, what the hell are you going on about? The rule is to keep one's finger off the trigger until the weapon is on target. The rifles in those videos were on target the whole time. Besides, it's strange that you put so much faith in Cooper's rules while at the same time rejecting his whole philosophy of which the rules are an integral part.
Bullshit. It's perfectly OK at any time the shooter is not averse to the gun firing. When it's pointed downrange (which we do know, because it's precisely the same direction he fired the entire time), why would he be averse to the gun firing? Sure, accuracy would suffer if (somehow) he fired a round while loading a magazine, but bullseyes weren't the point--demonstrating the approaching irrelevance of magazine bans was.
Mikeb, have you ever considered the fact that you're probably not the person to try to lecture responsible gun owners about gun safety? Remember previous humiliations?
Kurt, maybe you didn't follow that discussion about pocket carry very well, but it was Greg who was humiliated. Of course, he'd deny that to his dying day, but he said a gun in the pocket is ok, the Armed Intelligentsia almost to a man said it's not unless it's in a holster.
About this thread, I suppose you feel it's too much of an infringement to be required to keep your finger off the trigger UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO FIRE. For you, no restrictions means you can put your finger on the trigger while changing mags or any other time you want.
This is another example of your bizarre and hard-headed extremism. Even fanatical gun-rights folks usually accept Jeff Cooper's rules, but not you.
Kurt, maybe you didn't follow that discussion about pocket carry very well, but it was Greg who was humiliated.
Hey--you're the one who complained that Tennessean had "really made [you] look bad." The fact that he did so by telling the truth kinda brings up some questions about who is responsible for you looking bad, but we all know that shirking responsibility is a defining characteristic of "gun control" zealots.
About this thread, I suppose you feel it's too much of an infringement to be required . . .
An "infringement," "to be required . . . " I hadn't realized anyone was considering legislating Lt. Col. Cooper's Four Rules--or is that just you pushing for that?
Let me try again to explain. For something to be "dangerous," someone has to be endangered. Who would that be, in this case? The gun is clearly pointing downrange, and the range is clearly hot.
Another way to put it is that the shooter was ready to fire, even throughout a magazine change. The gun wasn't, but the shooter was just trying to burn through magazines as quickly as possible. He had no reason to be bothered by the gun firing right away.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
When doing a mag-dump downrange, the "target" tends often to be nothing more specific than an area in which there is nothing you care about getting shot, in which case the sights were "on the target" the whole time--even throughout the mag change.
Man--when you dig yourself a hole, you like to use the Bagger 288, don't you?
It's curious how I saw you, Mikeb, as the one who should have felt shame in that previous discussion, but here you are quoting Jeff Cooper as though you take him as an Old Testament prophet.
1. The man's finger only briefly entered the trigger guard and then went back out. The gun was pointed in a safe direction the whole time.
2. Cooper's rules are useful guides, but they aren't the kind of absolute laws that you love. For example, one part of inspecting a gun before buying it is to check the condition of the barrel. A semiautomatic would require the barrel to be removed, and many rifles and all revolvers take gunsmithing tools. Standard practice is to open the action, check for clear, and use a bore light to look at the rifling. That often involves looking down the barrel.
Is that a violation of Cooper's rules? Yes, only if you take them to be simple-minded and absolute. But his rules, again, are guidance. They require an intelligent person to understand them. Cooper said that simpletons were hopeless around guns--as they are hopeless in anything involved in adult life.
3. But if you regard his four rules as sacrosanct, does this mean that you've adopted the rest of his philosophy?
MikeB: “About this thread, I suppose you feel it's too much of an infringement to be required to keep your finger off the trigger UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO FIRE.”
Mike, there are situations where you are “ready to fire” during the mag change. It’s called a tactical reload. I’ve talked about this many times when arguing for the futility of magazine capacity limitations. The concept is keeping the gun on target and ready to shoot (that means finger on the trigger), and refresh the magazine before you run the gun to slide lock. That way the gun is never empty and always ready to fire. Granted, in this video, the shooter was not practicing that technique, and in the first clip he showed better discipline, so I’ll give you that. But I do want to clarify that the safety rule does allow for being ready to shoot through a mag change, and it is something that should be practiced, and in itself is not breaking a Cooper rule.
It is not quite the same, but I recall you trying to pull a gotcha on Xavier for some pictures with his finger on the trigger while he was actually shooting the gun. That was lame.
Or the shooter could have stood off with a more powerful gun and changed out magazines when needed. Telling good citizens that they must limit the number of rounds they have with them because of what one wacko did is punishing the innocent for the acts of the guilty.
ReplyDeleteDo you think those people who told their survivor stories of being shot in the head, or having a bullet pass through a large amount of their body would be able to tell their story if those were 10mm rounds instead of 9mm?
DeleteMike, there are consequences to magazine capacity mandates. One current advantage that 9mm has is that it is a relatively small cartridge which affords more capacity in a given space. Take that advantage away, and you might as well fill that space with caliber and powder.
Exactly--when magazine capacity limits were law, people moved to the .45 again or to smaller and smaller pocket guns.
DeleteVery good point, TS. I'm not the only one convinced that the resurgence of the 1911 (and the .45 ACP cartridge in general) had very much to do with the fact that the 11-round and large magazine ban eliminated one of the biggest advantages of the 9mm and other small cartridges.
DeleteI suspect micro-compact pistol development also got a big boost--when there's no need for a long magazine (and thus long grip), one of the main advantages of a larger gun is neutralized.
Mag bans are becoming irrelevant, and that's almost regrettable--this time, I'd like to see the popularity of the .50 GI get a nice boost.
And because of this one case, we need to limit everyone's rights, even though there are more cases where having a larger magazine can help the defender.
ReplyDeleteT., you and Greg both are pretending Loughner is the only bad example. That's a joke and it shows what a poor argument you guys have against reasonable restrictions.
DeleteActually, the number is irrelevant, even though you've been shown wackos who used limited magazines. My concern is whether the magazine in question can be used in a legitimate manner, and magazines of any capacity certainly can, so you have no business trying to limit how many rounds I may legally have with me.
DeleteThis was one of the cases in which magazine capacity proved to be a factor.
ReplyDeleteUm . . . "one of" how many? One?
Have you noticed that magazines are pretty simple? Generally a metal or plastic box with a spring in it? Do you think we even need 3-D printers in order to make a ban irrelevant?
Keep thinking that--it will make the crushing of your illusions that much more delicious.
Busted: finger on the trigger while changing mags. Keep sharing that one Kurt, it really makes you guys look good.
DeleteBusted: finger on the trigger while changing mags.
DeleteBullshit. You couldn't "bust" a Liberator pistol with an 8-lb sledge hammer.
The rifle was pointed downrange the entire time--what "danger" do you think you've spotted?
Besides, his trigger discipline is rather a long way from the point here--that "magazine control" is a ridiculous fantasy, soon to become irrelevant.
When they tear down the silly sculpture of a revolver with a knotted barrel in the UN Sculpture Garden, and replace it with a marble statue of civil rights icon Cody Wilson, his trigger discipline will be remembered just about as much as Martin Luther King's tendency to forget to check his blind spot before changing lanes.
"Finger on the trigger" is never OK, Kurt, even when the rifle is pointed downrange, which by the way, we could not see in the video.
DeleteBut for you, it's irrelevant because we were talking about something else. Good one.
Mikeb, what the hell are you going on about? The rule is to keep one's finger off the trigger until the weapon is on target. The rifles in those videos were on target the whole time. Besides, it's strange that you put so much faith in Cooper's rules while at the same time rejecting his whole philosophy of which the rules are an integral part.
Delete"Finger on the trigger" is never OK . . .
DeleteBullshit. It's perfectly OK at any time the shooter is not averse to the gun firing. When it's pointed downrange (which we do know, because it's precisely the same direction he fired the entire time), why would he be averse to the gun firing? Sure, accuracy would suffer if (somehow) he fired a round while loading a magazine, but bullseyes weren't the point--demonstrating the approaching irrelevance of magazine bans was.
Mikeb, have you ever considered the fact that you're probably not the person to try to lecture responsible gun owners about gun safety? Remember previous humiliations?
DeleteJust a thought.
Kurt, maybe you didn't follow that discussion about pocket carry very well, but it was Greg who was humiliated. Of course, he'd deny that to his dying day, but he said a gun in the pocket is ok, the Armed Intelligentsia almost to a man said it's not unless it's in a holster.
DeleteAbout this thread, I suppose you feel it's too much of an infringement to be required to keep your finger off the trigger UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO FIRE. For you, no restrictions means you can put your finger on the trigger while changing mags or any other time you want.
This is another example of your bizarre and hard-headed extremism. Even fanatical gun-rights folks usually accept Jeff Cooper's rules, but not you.
Kurt, maybe you didn't follow that discussion about pocket carry very well, but it was Greg who was humiliated.
DeleteHey--you're the one who complained that Tennessean had "really made [you] look bad." The fact that he did so by telling the truth kinda brings up some questions about who is responsible for you looking bad, but we all know that shirking responsibility is a defining characteristic of "gun control" zealots.
About this thread, I suppose you feel it's too much of an infringement to be required . . .
An "infringement," "to be required . . . " I hadn't realized anyone was considering legislating Lt. Col. Cooper's Four Rules--or is that just you pushing for that?
Let me try again to explain. For something to be "dangerous," someone has to be endangered. Who would that be, in this case? The gun is clearly pointing downrange, and the range is clearly hot.
Another way to put it is that the shooter was ready to fire, even throughout a magazine change. The gun wasn't, but the shooter was just trying to burn through magazines as quickly as possible. He had no reason to be bothered by the gun firing right away.
Have you seen this wording of Rule 3?
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
When doing a mag-dump downrange, the "target" tends often to be nothing more specific than an area in which there is nothing you care about getting shot, in which case the sights were "on the target" the whole time--even throughout the mag change.
Man--when you dig yourself a hole, you like to use the Bagger 288, don't you?
It's curious how I saw you, Mikeb, as the one who should have felt shame in that previous discussion, but here you are quoting Jeff Cooper as though you take him as an Old Testament prophet.
Delete1. The man's finger only briefly entered the trigger guard and then went back out. The gun was pointed in a safe direction the whole time.
2. Cooper's rules are useful guides, but they aren't the kind of absolute laws that you love. For example, one part of inspecting a gun before buying it is to check the condition of the barrel. A semiautomatic would require the barrel to be removed, and many rifles and all revolvers take gunsmithing tools. Standard practice is to open the action, check for clear, and use a bore light to look at the rifling. That often involves looking down the barrel.
Is that a violation of Cooper's rules? Yes, only if you take them to be simple-minded and absolute. But his rules, again, are guidance. They require an intelligent person to understand them. Cooper said that simpletons were hopeless around guns--as they are hopeless in anything involved in adult life.
3. But if you regard his four rules as sacrosanct, does this mean that you've adopted the rest of his philosophy?
MikeB: “About this thread, I suppose you feel it's too much of an infringement to be required to keep your finger off the trigger UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO FIRE.”
DeleteMike, there are situations where you are “ready to fire” during the mag change. It’s called a tactical reload. I’ve talked about this many times when arguing for the futility of magazine capacity limitations. The concept is keeping the gun on target and ready to shoot (that means finger on the trigger), and refresh the magazine before you run the gun to slide lock. That way the gun is never empty and always ready to fire. Granted, in this video, the shooter was not practicing that technique, and in the first clip he showed better discipline, so I’ll give you that. But I do want to clarify that the safety rule does allow for being ready to shoot through a mag change, and it is something that should be practiced, and in itself is not breaking a Cooper rule.
It is not quite the same, but I recall you trying to pull a gotcha on Xavier for some pictures with his finger on the trigger while he was actually shooting the gun. That was lame.
Why, because if he wasn't a "jam-o-matic 33" more people would have died?
ReplyDelete