More people were murdered by blunt objects than by rifles.

#18 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02

The point really is, and has always been, that a potential, untrained victim can always do much more about a hammer than a gun.

The point also is, and has always been, that large ammunition magazines are peculiarly suited to a certain kind of crime.

#21 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02

I said nothing that was erroneous. Love guns or hate them, what I said is right.

Time to deal with it. Or do you not think someone out there wants to break Lanza's record?

# since someone with five 10 bullet magazines can do more damage than someone with a single 30 bullet magazine?

#24 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-02

Its an interesting place the gun-consuming public has put the rest of us in, isn't it?

I'm sitting here wondering what people do with five ten-bullet clips or one thirty-bullet clip and the only answer I can come up with is to protect themselves against others with five ten-bullet clips or one thirty-bullet clip.

It is a matter of fact that shows banning the amount of bullets in a magazine is a meaningless and fruitless endeavor.

#28 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-02-19 08:52 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Actually, the theory is that small magazines will provide others with an opporunity to either defend themselves against, or escape from, a shooter.

They might actually be able to defend themselves using a gun. That ought to make you happy. If it does not then, sorry, you are a gun-nut.

I'm bemused with those who seem to advocate that every possible tactical advantage be provided to those who take the initiative for mass murder

I am equally bemused by those who would have law abiding citizens intentionally put themselves at a tactical disadvantage in a situation where they are confronted by criminals who would seek to do them harm and who would not be constrained by laws regarding their possession of illegally configured weapons.

#31 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02

Well, seems that there is a lot of bemusement going around.

I assume, given your line of argument, that you'd have no problem with legalizing fully automatic arms for civilians to carry with them. Given, as you say, that bad people aren't being restrained by relevant law anyway?

I have one friend with an M-14 and another with an M-60.
As a handloader I find full auto to be wasteful.

#33 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-19 10

Sure, ZAT.

Do they carry these with them when they go out for a loaf of bread?

Yes? No? Sometimes? Easter only?

fanciful paranoia?

#37 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-02

In my paranoia, I seem to be missing where you are actually addressing my points.

I'd guess that one of those points would be, since criminals aren't restrained by gun laws, why we don't see more of them toting fully automatic weapons?

After all, the logic they should do so is faultless. At least, from your point of view, since (unlike ZAT'S friends), most ordinary people aren't keeping their Thompsons with them when they shop at the mall.

If you don't understand the above, then don't blame me. Blame the NRA. They created it.

#39 You haven't given your justification for limiting the number of magazines an individual can possess. That was what was asked for.

#40 | Posted by HeuristicGratis

At least one rationale is advanced. You just need scroll up. Meanwhile, I'm going to lunch for a bit. If you haven't found it by then, I help you a bit.