Or he could have stood off a bit and swapped out magazines. Or he could have used a rifle instead of a handgun. Or he could have driven into the crowd with a panel truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel.
Telling good people that they can't own something because one bad guy misused that thing is a bizarre notion.
It's a safety measure. Like all safety measures that society puts on people to stop deaths. I'm sure many think the government does not have the authority to force us to wear seat belts. They made that law to save lives, and it has worked. The fact that you refuse to allow laws that would save lives without infringing on your right to own a gun, just shows how anti-social you are, and could care less about the safety of innocent citizens, or even their deaths.
A limit on the number of rounds won't save lives. It's either a silly effort to look busy, or more likely an attempt to make gun ownership as difficult as possible.
Greg, you might as well deny that the Earth rotates around the Sun as deny that Laughner and Lanza killed more people than they otherwise would have due to the extended magazines they used. But your level of integrity is such that you have no problem denying things that are obvious.
But it's not obvious. That's the problem. Too much is obvious to you that just isn't so. I know how easy it is to change out magazines. Both shooters could have done so--the Newtown shooter especially since he wasn't surrounded by a crowd close to him.
We have direct physical evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun. There is no such proof about the effect of limiting magazine capacity.
Greg, Lanza would have had to change magazines fifteen fucking times, not to mention the difficulty in carrying all that hardware. But that's not obvious to you?
Greg missed the interview with a person inside the carnage who testified that because the shooter had to reload four children were able to run out while he was reloading saving four children's lives. I say make the killer reload more often.
No, I didn't miss that interview. Four children ran out, but others got shot. It's the unpredictable nature of an incident like that. And since the number of rounds would have been the same, carrying more magazines isn't that difficult, especially ones with plastic bodies. Or he could have chosen a more powerful gun. Your magical thinking insists that ten is a saving number, but that's not reality.
Make them reload more often and MORE children will get out. WOW, it's easy to see why you are accused of not caring about children's deaths and lying to fit your false position.
He did reload more than he had to. He dropped magazines that were sometimes half full. It is called "tactical reloads" and it involves reloading when the situation best calls for it, not waiting until you run out. When you do it that way- you are never empty (because there is a round in the chamber during reload). Plus he had backup handgun(s).
TS, he did FIVE tactical reloads. And he carried FIVE extra magazines. Don't you think having to change mags FIFTEEN times would have made a difference? Don't you think carrying FIFTEEN mags might have been a problem?
Both of you guys are dodging the question. It doesn't matter how many rounds he fired before changing mags. It matters how many mag changes he made. Would changing mags 15 times have made a difference in the lives taken, yes or no?
TS, with this comment you have joined the ranks of liars and bullshit artists like Greg. You argue in bad faith. I suppose you think anything goes since you're fighting for your precious rights.
Whether he deliberately changed magazines sooner than he had to or not has nothing to do with it. He still made only 5 changes instead of 15, which you in your mendacious bullshit way insist made no difference.
Mikeb, I don't call you a liar for believing that limiting the number of rounds would save lives. I disagree with you, but I don't say that you are arguing in bad faith here. Why must you call someone who takes a view opposite to yours a liar?
Well, Mike, in calling me a "liar" you've now joined the ranks of Steve with his gross misuse of the word. I presented a case that the two or three seconds it takes for mag swap is an insignificant burden to a shooter against defenseless victims. I also presented a case that tactical reloading reduces the burden even further, to the point where it's an advantage to use this technique even at the expense at the expense of swapping more often (which he did). This is not lying. Even when you try to make inane arguments about why something needs to be banned, I don't call you a liar.
Also, where are you getting your information that he only reloaded five times? The numbers don't add up with the shots fired. (Notice how I am not calling you a liar?)
Not sure how you can deny, the fewer bullets, the fewer dead. But after reading your criminal thinking (in your own words) it's easy to understand that you are no better than the criminals you claim you need defense from.
Mikeb, the Newtown shooter did not use "extended" magazines. He used standard capacity magazines. But the result would have been exactly the same if he'd used magazines of the magic number.
Sally, you are lying. I do not call a mass murderer a good person.
Wow, Greg--you seem to have an impressive talent for getting under the skin of idiotic shitheads. It's a real treat to watch. Kudos, and keep up the great work!
We are talking about a mass murderer and making mass murder less likely by banning large capacity mags. This isn't about good people, it's about the mass murderers in our society, which being an ass hole lying criminal coward, you think we should try nothing to stop and lesson their killing.
But, Sally, there is no evidence that limiting the number of rounds in a magazine would save any lives. Ten, and now seven in New York, is just a magic number that gun control advocates came up with to make life difficult for gun owners.
The wetness of water is a physical property. But limiting magazine capacity involves human behavior, something that's a whole lot more difficult to predict.
But you're making a prediction, a wild one too. According to your logic, Adam Lanza would have carried 16 magazines that day and changed them one after another without missing a beat. Exactly the same number of teachers and kids would have died. That's your prediction.
Got ya. But, what Cho did or didn't do has little to do with Loughner and Lanza. Their cases clearly show that magazine capacity is related to lives taken.
Nice trick. When cornered on Lanza and Loughner switch the focus to Cho.
We've been using the Lanza and Loughner shootings to demonstrate how in SOME cases magazine capacity contributes to more killing. Cho might have killed a thousand with his 10.round mags, that still doesn't change the facts about L and L.
But, you know that. You're just slipping lower and lower into the muck of deceitful tricky pro-gun justification at any cost.
No, Mikeb, what we see here is that the number of rounds in a magazine is irrelevant to the number of people killed in an attack. The attacker chooses the time and place of the attack, which gives him the advantage. Standard-capacity magazines are a benefit to defenders who have to respond after an attack begins.
You say this with such certainty. At least the poster said "might".
ReplyDeleteOr he could have stood off a bit and swapped out magazines. Or he could have used a rifle instead of a handgun. Or he could have driven into the crowd with a panel truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel.
ReplyDeleteTelling good people that they can't own something because one bad guy misused that thing is a bizarre notion.
This is why you're known as a liar. "because one bad guy misused that thing"
DeleteONE?
He's known as an ass hole criminal lying coward, and rightly so.
DeleteThis image is focusing on one person as a reason for banning magazines beyond the magic number.
DeleteIt's a safety measure. Like all safety measures that society puts on people to stop deaths. I'm sure many think the government does not have the authority to force us to wear seat belts. They made that law to save lives, and it has worked. The fact that you refuse to allow laws that would save lives without infringing on your right to own a gun, just shows how anti-social you are, and could care less about the safety of innocent citizens, or even their deaths.
DeleteA limit on the number of rounds won't save lives. It's either a silly effort to look busy, or more likely an attempt to make gun ownership as difficult as possible.
DeleteGreg, you might as well deny that the Earth rotates around the Sun as deny that Laughner and Lanza killed more people than they otherwise would have due to the extended magazines they used. But your level of integrity is such that you have no problem denying things that are obvious.
DeleteBut it's not obvious. That's the problem. Too much is obvious to you that just isn't so. I know how easy it is to change out magazines. Both shooters could have done so--the Newtown shooter especially since he wasn't surrounded by a crowd close to him.
DeleteWe have direct physical evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun. There is no such proof about the effect of limiting magazine capacity.
Greg, Lanza would have had to change magazines fifteen fucking times, not to mention the difficulty in carrying all that hardware. But that's not obvious to you?
DeleteGreg missed the interview with a person inside the carnage who testified that because the shooter had to reload four children were able to run out while he was reloading saving four children's lives. I say make the killer reload more often.
DeleteNo, I didn't miss that interview. Four children ran out, but others got shot. It's the unpredictable nature of an incident like that. And since the number of rounds would have been the same, carrying more magazines isn't that difficult, especially ones with plastic bodies. Or he could have chosen a more powerful gun. Your magical thinking insists that ten is a saving number, but that's not reality.
DeleteFOUR CHILDREN GOT OUT
DeleteMake them reload more often and MORE children will get out.
WOW, it's easy to see why you are accused of not caring about children's deaths and lying to fit your false position.
He did reload more than he had to. He dropped magazines that were sometimes half full. It is called "tactical reloads" and it involves reloading when the situation best calls for it, not waiting until you run out. When you do it that way- you are never empty (because there is a round in the chamber during reload). Plus he had backup handgun(s).
DeleteThat BS is supposed to prove what?
DeleteThe facts show children lives were saved because he had to reload.
TS, he did FIVE tactical reloads. And he carried FIVE extra magazines. Don't you think having to change mags FIFTEEN times would have made a difference? Don't you think carrying FIFTEEN mags might have been a problem?
DeleteTS was telling you that the Newtown shooter didn't use all the rounds in each magazine. So essentially, he was using limited capacity.
DeleteGreg: "So essentially, he was using limited capacity."
DeleteBy choice, I might add. Mike likes to equate magazine capacity with body count, so did he choose to spare lives when he did that? Of course not.
Lives were saved because he had to reload. To deny that is just a lie. Why do you lie just to make a false point?
DeleteBoth of you guys are dodging the question. It doesn't matter how many rounds he fired before changing mags. It matters how many mag changes he made. Would changing mags 15 times have made a difference in the lives taken, yes or no?
DeleteNo, because mag changes are easy. On top of that, he could still shoot during the mag change.
DeleteBut you dodged my question. He deliberately changed magazines more often than he had to. Do you think that saved lives?
TS said:
Delete"No, because mag changes are easy."
That flies in the face of the evidence, that 4 children are alive only because he had to reload.
Mikeb, the answer is no. The only difference would have been in who got killed, not in the number killed.
DeleteTS, with this comment you have joined the ranks of liars and bullshit artists like Greg. You argue in bad faith. I suppose you think anything goes since you're fighting for your precious rights.
DeleteWhether he deliberately changed magazines sooner than he had to or not has nothing to do with it. He still made only 5 changes instead of 15, which you in your mendacious bullshit way insist made no difference.
Mikeb, I don't call you a liar for believing that limiting the number of rounds would save lives. I disagree with you, but I don't say that you are arguing in bad faith here. Why must you call someone who takes a view opposite to yours a liar?
DeleteWhen facts prove you wrong and you continue to spew your garbage, you are a liar.
DeleteWell, Mike, in calling me a "liar" you've now joined the ranks of Steve with his gross misuse of the word. I presented a case that the two or three seconds it takes for mag swap is an insignificant burden to a shooter against defenseless victims. I also presented a case that tactical reloading reduces the burden even further, to the point where it's an advantage to use this technique even at the expense at the expense of swapping more often (which he did). This is not lying. Even when you try to make inane arguments about why something needs to be banned, I don't call you a liar.
DeleteAlso, where are you getting your information that he only reloaded five times? The numbers don't add up with the shots fired. (Notice how I am not calling you a liar?)
DeleteNot sure how you can deny, the fewer bullets, the fewer dead.
ReplyDeleteBut after reading your criminal thinking (in your own words) it's easy to understand that you are no better than the criminals you claim you need defense from.
But limiting magazine capacity doesn't limit the number of bullets. A person can carry multiple magazines.
DeleteAnd you're not explaining why you want to punish good people who have done nothing wrong simply because one person did do something wrong.
Hey shit head, go fuck yourself and take your lies with you.
DeleteWell, there's a reasoned reply. But keep up those responses. Every time you act that way, you win over more people to the gun-rights side.
DeleteGreg, it's not that ONE person did something wrong. What the fuck is your problem.
DeleteLanza also killed more people because of his extended magazines. The examples are many. Why do you keep saying "one?"
Unusual treatment for an ass hole who insulted me the first time I commented here? Fuck you.You will be treated as you treated me, like a jack ass.
DeleteGood people? You truly are disgusting. As a criminal you think a mass murderer is a good person. Only shows what a lying criminal ass hole you are.
DeleteMikeb, the Newtown shooter did not use "extended" magazines. He used standard capacity magazines. But the result would have been exactly the same if he'd used magazines of the magic number.
DeleteSally, you are lying. I do not call a mass murderer a good person.
Wow, Greg--you seem to have an impressive talent for getting under the skin of idiotic shitheads. It's a real treat to watch. Kudos, and keep up the great work!
DeleteWe are talking about a mass murderer and making mass murder less likely by banning large capacity mags. This isn't about good people, it's about the mass murderers in our society, which being an ass hole lying criminal coward, you think we should try nothing to stop and lesson their killing.
DeleteActually, Sally, I think you should "lesson" your paint fume huffing.
DeleteI think you should join killers anonymous, since that's what you promote, killing.
DeleteBut, Sally, there is no evidence that limiting the number of rounds in a magazine would save any lives. Ten, and now seven in New York, is just a magic number that gun control advocates came up with to make life difficult for gun owners.
DeleteNo evidence? No evidence? Like there's no evidence that water is wet.
DeleteThe wetness of water is a physical property. But limiting magazine capacity involves human behavior, something that's a whole lot more difficult to predict.
DeleteBut you're making a prediction, a wild one too. According to your logic, Adam Lanza would have carried 16 magazines that day and changed them one after another without missing a beat. Exactly the same number of teachers and kids would have died. That's your prediction.
DeleteMikeb, that's because I know how to change out magazines. What you describe is a likely scenario.
DeleteThe VT shooter reloaded more than that, didn't miss a beat, used almost exclusively 10rd magazines, and killed more people.
DeleteWhat VT shooter?
DeleteVirginia Tech.
DeleteGot ya. But, what Cho did or didn't do has little to do with Loughner and Lanza. Their cases clearly show that magazine capacity is related to lives taken.
DeleteHow does that show that, when the most lives taken in a mass shooting was done almost entirely with Brady approved 10rd magazines?
DeleteNice trick. When cornered on Lanza and Loughner switch the focus to Cho.
DeleteWe've been using the Lanza and Loughner shootings to demonstrate how in SOME cases magazine capacity contributes to more killing. Cho might have killed a thousand with his 10.round mags, that still doesn't change the facts about L and L.
But, you know that. You're just slipping lower and lower into the muck of deceitful tricky pro-gun justification at any cost.
No, Mikeb, what we see here is that the number of rounds in a magazine is irrelevant to the number of people killed in an attack. The attacker chooses the time and place of the attack, which gives him the advantage. Standard-capacity magazines are a benefit to defenders who have to respond after an attack begins.
DeleteIt has been proven that having to reload saved children's lives. So now you are just lying. No surprise for lying cowards
Delete