Questions for the NRA

[Sbane]

This thread is just a parade of conservatives that are scared of black people.

Dcalfine, you do realize it is the US that supplies a ton of weapons into Mexico? But no, since they have dark skin they must be the aggressors causing all the problems. Bunch of racists.

Sbane, don't be stupid. Your better than this "conservatives are raciss!!!" nonsense.

The USA also supplies a ton of weapons into Canada, so much that we have twice as may guns per capita as Mexico. Yet, somehow Canada has fewer gun murders. This issue here is the use of guns in the drug trade, not Joe Schmo owning a weapon or 2.

Indeed drug violence is the cause of most of the violence. Yet that is also the fault of the united states due to its drug laws and drug use. Still, there are a lot of drugs that is transported into the UK as well. Why is there not as much gun violence?

Also the "gangbangers" raping women meme is highly racist. That actually explains a lot of the gun nut behavior. They are highly scared of Nubian males raping their women and perhaps converting them.

[krazen1211]

So you are not going to bother to demonstrate a single instance of this 'suggestion' working, and we are supposed to simply take your word for it, or, alternatively, the word of your alleged 'friend'?

How about I do you one better and give you an example of non-deadly force being used to stop a riot?

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/12/fort_worth_police_quell_small.php

Can you give me an example of someone in the United States needing more than 10 bullets to stop an assailant (or assailants)?  All we need is 1 example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be certain the firearm issued to law enforcement varies widely as does the size of the clip.  When a law enforcement officer must discharge his weapon he is accountable for every round he fires.  I believe the NYPD and Philly police force use the Glock 19 w/ a 10 rd mag.

Quite easy. Here the cops required 84 rounds. Contrary to rwoy's bizarre assertion that 'threatening' the assailant would lead to him surrendering, such a verbal warning led to the assailant attempting to shoot the cops.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_raining_lead_in_harlem_ISB87yqtPOQzqrT6ekPdGI

And of course your, err, conjecture, is quite incorrect. They use 15 round mags.



The police officer fired 45 shots — one round in his gun’s chamber, two 15-round magazines and all but one round in his third magazine. He told investigators he thought he was out of ammo. The sergeant also fired one shot he kept in the chamber, two 15-shot magazines and eight rounds from his third magazine, Browne said.




I would like for rwoy to explain how the people are supposed to survive with 10 rounds while more trained police, who are more prepared for armed violence at a given notice, are given 15 rounds.

[Silent Hunter]

Police officers have to go into situations where being fired at is likely. Civilians generally don't.

[rwoy]

Quite easy. Here the cops required 84 rounds. Contrary to rwoy's bizarre assertion that 'threatening' the assailant would lead to him surrendering, such a verbal warning led to the assailant attempting to shoot the cops.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_raining_lead_in_harlem_ISB87yqtPOQzqrT6ekPdGI

And of course your, err, conjecture, is quite incorrect. They use 15 round mags.

Interesting story.  From this link http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5468505-NY-cops-fire-84-shots-at-suspect-who-lives/ they say they hit him 14 times.  This tells me a few things.  First, if you only hit the target 16% of the time then there is a problem and these guys need to go back to the range.  Second, I seriously doubt that after being shot 10 times this guy was still going (I mean it sounds like this guy deserved to die, but I really don't think it takes 14 hits to stop ANYONE).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I refer you back to Canada, the UK, and Ireland where magically people are surviving and are apparently safer than in the United States.

[J. J.]

1) What is the practical use of weapons with >10 bullet mags?

1a) If your answer is "self defense", are you suggesting that 10 bullets isn't enough to stop someone?

There are several reasons, especially if you in a rural area.  The target might the bear about to eat you, or a fast moving rabid skunk. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One element, not advertizing that the school is totally defenseless makes sense.  I don't think that is a solution, however. 

[krazen1211]

Quite easy. Here the cops required 84 rounds. Contrary to rwoy's bizarre assertion that 'threatening' the assailant would lead to him surrendering, such a verbal warning led to the assailant attempting to shoot the cops.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_raining_lead_in_harlem_ISB87yqtPOQzqrT6ekPdGI

And of course your, err, conjecture, is quite incorrect. They use 15 round mags.

Interesting story.  From this link http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5468505-NY-cops-fire-84-shots-at-suspect-who-lives/ they say they hit him 14 times.  This tells me a few things.  First, if you only hit the target 16% of the time then there is a problem and these guys need to go back to the range.  Second, I seriously doubt that after being shot 10 times this guy was still going (I mean it sounds like this guy deserved to die, but I really don't think it takes 14 hits to stop ANYONE).

Well, unfortunately, the right of self-defense does not rely on rwoy's arbitrary designation of 'accurate' and 'inaccurate'. Nathan the pacifist might have the skill to take down such a shooter by hitting a 10 inch kneecap, but few do.


Setting aside Rwoy's conjecture, the record shows that the assailant still had a gun in his hand after such 84 shots and was still mobile. So there is no need to take Rwoy's false doubts into the equation over the record of the people who were there.


People of course get shot in every nation. You have still failed to demonstrate how to consistently take down multiple assailants with 10 shots. Especially, when, Rwoy is again implying that he can hit the assailant 10 times with 10 shots from a 10 inch magazine.

[krazen1211]

Police officers have to go into situations where being fired at is likely. Civilians generally don't.

Yes, they do. Which is why they are likely to have multiple magazines. A civilian threatened by an assailant is not unlikely to be in a situation where they have but a single magazine.


The training is for officers to shoot the assailant until the assailant does down. Hence of course the need for large magazines.

[krazen1211]

Multiple assailants?  I promise you this, if multiple assailants come at you, all you need to do is threaten to shoot one and most will back off.  If there are more than 10 then you are f'd (even if you have a weapon with a mag with more than 10 bullets).

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/12/22/police-say-1-dead-3-wounded-in-sac-home-invasion/

A suspect was caught and cuffed in connection with the deadly home invasion robbery. Police say the homeowner was rushed to the hospital after trading shots with several suspects and killing one of them.

Police say around 3:30 a.m. Saturday, armed suspects burst into a home on Haven Court, trying to rob those inside. Instead, one of the homeowners would grab a gun, and after an exchange of gunfire, the homeowner and two suspects would be wounded, while another suspect was shot dead.





Oh right. In the real world outside of the internet leftist bubble the hoodlums have a habit of continuing to attempt to shoot the people. Of course in New York you only get 7 shots to stop 4 hoodlums.

[Badger]

I support the Second Amendment, but Krazy's gun policy is derived from too many viewing of Dirty Harry and Birth of a Nation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Quite easy. Here the cops required 84 rounds. Contrary to rwoy's bizarre assertion that 'threatening' the assailant would lead to him surrendering, such a verbal warning led to the assailant attempting to shoot the cops.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_raining_lead_in_harlem_ISB87yqtPOQzqrT6ekPdGI

And of course your, err, conjecture, is quite incorrect. They use 15 round mags.

Interesting story.  From this link http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5468505-NY-cops-fire-84-shots-at-suspect-who-lives/ they say they hit him 14 times.  This tells me a few things.  First, if you only hit the target 16% of the time then there is a problem and these guys need to go back to the range.  Second, I seriously doubt that after being shot 10 times this guy was still going (I mean it sounds like this guy deserved to die, but I really don't think it takes 14 hits to stop ANYONE).

Well, unfortunately, the right of self-defense does not rely on rwoy's arbitrary designation of 'accurate' and 'inaccurate'. Nathan the pacifist might have the skill to take down such a shooter by hitting a 10 inch kneecap, but few do.

It's more that the 'right' to self-defense doesn't apply to my daily life and I don't want it to, nor do most normal, peaceful folk without phallic obsession. And if it takes eighty-four rounds to kill somebody then these cops really should be trained better, size of the target notwithstanding.

Police officers have to go into situations where being fired at is likely. Civilians generally don't.

Yes, they do.

What kind of dystopian hellhole do you live in? I feel bad for you, man.

[krazen1211]

Quite easy. Here the cops required 84 rounds. Contrary to rwoy's bizarre assertion that 'threatening' the assailant would lead to him surrendering, such a verbal warning led to the assailant attempting to shoot the cops.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_raining_lead_in_harlem_ISB87yqtPOQzqrT6ekPdGI

And of course your, err, conjecture, is quite incorrect. They use 15 round mags.

Interesting story.  From this link http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5468505-NY-cops-fire-84-shots-at-suspect-who-lives/ they say they hit him 14 times.  This tells me a few things.  First, if you only hit the target 16% of the time then there is a problem and these guys need to go back to the range.  Second, I seriously doubt that after being shot 10 times this guy was still going (I mean it sounds like this guy deserved to die, but I really don't think it takes 14 hits to stop ANYONE).

Well, unfortunately, the right of self-defense does not rely on rwoy's arbitrary designation of 'accurate' and 'inaccurate'. Nathan the pacifist might have the skill to take down such a shooter by hitting a 10 inch kneecap, but few do.

It's more that the 'right' to self-defense doesn't apply to my daily life and I don't want it to, nor do most normal, peaceful folk without phallic obsession. And if it takes eighty-four rounds to kill somebody then these cops really should be trained better, size of the target notwithstanding.

Police officers have to go into situations where being fired at is likely. Civilians generally don't.

Yes, they do.

What kind of dystopian hellhole do you live in? I feel bad for you, man.

I'm confused. First, because 84 rounds (12x what the people are allocated) didn't kill the perp. Second, because whether self-defense applies to Nathan or not is really not determined by Nathan at all, unless of course Nathan is employing others to defend him. Third, since Nathan proposed shooting kneecaps I presumed that Nathan had some expertise in the matter.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I, like most people who (apparently unlike you) don't live in Mad Max times, can with relative ease determine whether or not I end up in situations in which I'm likely to be assailed, and whether or not I choose to live in profound enough fear of the possibility of something out of the ordinary occurring to carry an object whose only function is to slaughter other living things.

Also, in this story you love so much, the cops were the 'elites' and the person who apparently killed his sister was 'the people'. Just so we're all aware.