Questions for the NRA

[rwoy]

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?

1b) If your answer is "protection from the government", do you really think that little of the US Military and the billions we spend on National Defense to think that you and your arsenal can overpower them?

1c) If your answer is "I'm a hobbyist and it is protected in the Constituition", then would you agree that if they could afford it someone should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

2) What is wrong with Wayne LaPierre that he couldn't just say "This school shooting was a horrid tragedy caused by a criminal with obvious mental problems.  We at the NRA have always promoted firearm safety and will continue to work with law enforcement and the US government ensure that firearms are only used in a safe and lawful manner."?  (His tirade about the media and school safety was a disgusting embarassment.)

[krazen1211]

The practical use is incredibly obvious.

Multiple assailants.

[Frodo]

1b) If your answer is "protection from the government", do you really think that little of the US Military and the billions we spend on National Defense to think that you and your arsenal can overpower them?

Simple answer: yes.

Not that I am endorsing armed rebellion, but bear in mind that neither the VietCong nor the Afghan Mujahedeen had nuclear weapons, yet they forced the United States and the Soviet Union out.  

 

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

You have to keep in mind these people's fundamental stance. From a 'sh**t-scared of almost everything in the world' perspective, the practical uses actually are, as krazen said, pretty obvious.

[Silent Hunter]

Not that I am endorsing armed rebellion, but bear in mind that neither the VietCong nor the Afghan Mujahedeen had nuclear weapons, yet they forced the United States and the Soviet Union out.   

They did have surface-to-air missiles and in the former case, supersonic fighters.

[krazen1211]

You have to keep in mind these people's fundamental stance. From a 'sh**t-scared of almost everything in the world' perspective, the practical uses actually are, as krazen said, pretty obvious.

I would suggest that these NRA types, and, well, thousands of everyday law enforcement who use such magazines might not be afraid of a pacifist like Nathan, but might be afraid of a handful of gangbangers coming to rape their women and children.

[Frodo]

Not that I am endorsing armed rebellion, but bear in mind that neither the VietCong nor the Afghan Mujahedeen had nuclear weapons, yet they forced the United States and the Soviet Union out.   

They did have surface-to-air missiles and in the former case, supersonic fighters.

The Vietcong did not have supersonic jet fighters, unless you're confusing them with the North Vietnamese military.

[Silent Hunter]

Not that I am endorsing armed rebellion, but bear in mind that neither the VietCong nor the Afghan Mujahedeen had nuclear weapons, yet they forced the United States and the Soviet Union out.   

They did have surface-to-air missiles and in the former case, supersonic fighters.

The Vietcong did not have supersonic jet fighters, unless you're confusing them with the North Vietnamese military.

They were effectively allies, so I'm lumping them together.

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

You have to keep in mind these people's fundamental stance. From a 'sh**t-scared of almost everything in the world' perspective, the practical uses actually are, as krazen said, pretty obvious.

I would suggest that these NRA types, and, well, thousands of everyday law enforcement who use such magazines might not be afraid of a pacifist like Nathan, but might be afraid of a handful of gangbangers coming to rape their women and children.

Why does it have to be 'their' women as well as their children? Can women not themselves operate firearms or be members of the NRA or law enforcement officers or something? In any case, fixation on that fear isn't good for anybody. It really isn't. One or two Freudian temper tantrums about 'good guys with guns' are one thing, but when you're at the point where you've made your career and life as an activist out of it, it's probably reached the status of an unreasonably consuming terror. (Either that or you're acting in bad faith because you're in bed with arms manufacturers. Or both.)

Amazingly, even law enforcement in many other countries doesn't feel the need for 'such magazines' in most situations. Believe it or not, in many situations, if you shoot one or two gangbangers' kneecaps out, the rest will lose interest pretty quickly.

[krazen1211]

You have to keep in mind these people's fundamental stance. From a 'sh**t-scared of almost everything in the world' perspective, the practical uses actually are, as krazen said, pretty obvious.

I would suggest that these NRA types, and, well, thousands of everyday law enforcement who use such magazines might not be afraid of a pacifist like Nathan, but might be afraid of a handful of gangbangers coming to rape their women and children.

Why does it have to be 'their' women as well as their children? Can women not themselves operate firearms or be members of the NRA or law enforcement officers or something? In any case, fixation on that fear isn't good for anybody. It really isn't. One or two Freudian temper tantrums about 'good guys with guns' are one thing, but when you're at the point where you've made your career and life as an activist out of it, it's probably reached the status of an unreasonably consuming terror. (Either that or you're acting in bad faith because you're in bed with arms manufacturers. Or both.)

Amazingly, even law enforcement in many other countries doesn't feel the need for 'such magazines' in most situations. Believe it or not, in many situations, if you shoot one or two gangbangers' kneecaps out, the rest will lose interest pretty quickly.

It doesn't have to be their women and children. It can in fact be any individual who is bearing arms, and anyone's women and children.

Law enforcement in the United States carry magazines, in the average handgun, of 10-20 rounds. The Secret Service can be included in that figure. The P228 for instance carries 13 rounds.

It is confusing to think that private citizens should be capped at 10 rounds, as per rwoy, when professionals get more rounds. I might add that it is not easy or natural to shoot a moving target in the kneecaps. Nathan and Jack Bauer might have such skill, but few do. Most shoot the torso.

[rwoy]

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).

[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).

Is Rwoy a perfect shot somehow, capable of taking down 10 mobile adult men with 10 bullets, or does he have experience in this manner?


Are private sector citizens supposed to gamble their lives and the lives of their women and children on this theory?

[Vosem]

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

1a) If your answer is "self defense", are you suggesting that 10 bullets isn't enough to stop someone? It is, but it never hurts to err on the side of caution

1b) If your answer is "protection from the government", do you really think that little of the US Military and the billions we spend on National Defense to think that you and your arsenal can overpower them? That's not my answer, but I do think with a small arsenal and some a bit of foreign aid you can keep a guerilla group going for decades

1c) If your answer is "I'm a hobbyist and it is protected in the Constituition", then would you agree that if they could afford it someone should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? Since no government is going to be willing to sell anyone a nuclear weapon, this question is meaningless

2) What is wrong with Wayne LaPierre that he couldn't just say "This school shooting was a horrid tragedy caused by a criminal with obvious mental problems.  We at the NRA have always promoted firearm safety and will continue to work with law enforcement and the US government ensure that firearms are only used in a safe and lawful manner."?  (His tirade about the media and school safety was a disgusting embarassment.) I don't know, I'm not Wayne laPierre, I'm just Vosem

[homelycooking]

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).

Is Rwoy a perfect shot somehow, capable of taking down 10 mobile adult men with 10 bullets, or does he have experience in this manner?

Are private sector citizens supposed to gamble their lives and the lives of their women and children on this theory?

"Their women and children"? You refer to them as one would a piece of land or a house - as chattel.

"Ten mobile adult men"? The image you conjure up is one of urban gang violence - one we unconsciously but inevitably associate with black, hypersexualized, undisciplined, acutely menacing bodies.

And then you refer to "private sector citizens": defined, by your own syntactic implications, as the rational, disciplined antithesis and counterpart to these two groups. Gun ownership is important here: it represents the efficient, calculated use of deadly force against savagery as well as the political "organ" of American frontier masculinity.

You've managed to neatly distill centuries of bigotry into two sentences. As Americans, we're all burdened with these racist and sexist fantasies, but that doesn't mean that it's all right to give them credence in an argument as you have.

Merry Christmas

[DC Al Fine]

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

1a) If your answer is "self defense", are you suggesting that 10 bullets isn't enough to stop someone? It is, but it never hurts to err on the side of caution

1b) If your answer is "protection from the government", do you really think that little of the US Military and the billions we spend on National Defense to think that you and your arsenal can overpower them? That's not my answer, but I do think with a small arsenal and some a bit of foreign aid you can keep a guerilla group going for decades

1c) If your answer is "I'm a hobbyist and it is protected in the Constituition", then would you agree that if they could afford it someone should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? Since no government is going to be willing to sell anyone a nuclear weapon, this question is meaningless

2) What is wrong with Wayne LaPierre that he couldn't just say "This school shooting was a horrid tragedy caused by a criminal with obvious mental problems.  We at the NRA have always promoted firearm safety and will continue to work with law enforcement and the US government ensure that firearms are only used in a safe and lawful manner."?  (His tirade about the media and school safety was a disgusting embarassment.) I don't know, I'm not Wayne laPierre, I'm just Vosem

This

[rwoy]

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).

Is Rwoy a perfect shot somehow, capable of taking down 10 mobile adult men with 10 bullets, or does he have experience in this manner?

Nope, but then again if you reread my post I suggest that you only need to threaten to shoot one.  And if you can't hit someone with 10 shots then you shouldn't have a gun because clearly you aren't competent to operate one properly.  And again, lets remember that you can "reload".  If you are being rushed by 5 assilants you are f'd even if you have a weapon with a > 10 bullet mag.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not?  We've been gambling w/ our lives that somehow more weapons on the streets equates to a safer society.  But Canada, the UK, and Ireland (all nations which are VERY similar to ours except with stricter gun laws) all have less per capita crime and violence.  So .... why not give that a try for a change?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

You have to keep in mind these people's fundamental stance. From a 'sh**t-scared of almost everything in the world' perspective, the practical uses actually are, as krazen said, pretty obvious.

I would suggest that these NRA types, and, well, thousands of everyday law enforcement who use such magazines might not be afraid of a pacifist like Nathan, but might be afraid of a handful of gangbangers coming to rape their women and children.

lol

The sad part is that krazen's mentality is pretty universal amongst the NRA-set, even in backwoods parts of the country where criminal behavior outside of meth production and domestic abuse/child abuse is pretty rare.

[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).

Is Rwoy a perfect shot somehow, capable of taking down 10 mobile adult men with 10 bullets, or does he have experience in this manner?

Nope, but then again if you reread my post I suggest that you only need to threaten to shoot one.  And if you can't hit someone with 10 shots then you shouldn't have a gun because clearly you aren't competent to operate one properly.  And again, lets remember that you can "reload".  If you are being rushed by 5 assilants you are f'd even if you have a weapon with a > 10 bullet mag.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not?  We've been gambling w/ our lives that somehow more weapons on the streets equates to a safer society.  But Canada, the UK, and Ireland (all nations which are VERY similar to ours except with stricter gun laws) all have less per capita crime and violence.  So .... why not give that a try for a change?

I am quite aware of your suggestion. The question is of course what is the basis of this suggestion, given that you admit you have no experience in the matter. It's ok if this suggestion is just conjecture and not borne out of any real life data.



The why to part 2 is obvious. See South Africa, Brazil, and Mexico. In any case your first post was about >10 round magazines, which you have arbitrarily deemed are not required for self-defense based on, well, this 'suggestion' of yours.


I would personally be quite interested in reading a single incident of the rwoy 'threaten 1 and rest back off' theory.

[DC Al Fine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well Canada, the UK and Ireland don't border Mexico for one.

[rwoy]

So krazen & DC Al both think that the United States is more like South Africa, Mexico, and Brazil than it is like Canada, the UK, and Ireland??  Honestly?  That is what you think?  Do I really need to go through the explanation of why that is ridiculous?

Now to respond to krazen's comment about where I get my conclusions about "threaten one and all will back down".  I get that from 2 places.  First is from the suggestion of a friend of mine growing up who is currently an instructor at the US Military Academy.  He said a standard method of crowd control isn't to threaten to kill everyone ... just one.  No one wants to be the "one".  Second is from common sense.

Look, I don't think we should ban all weapons.  But I do think we should do a better job of controlling how they are distributed and their capabilities.  Just as automobiles have things such as "emission standards", it makes sense for firearms to have rules and regulations.

[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.

[krazen1211]

So krazen & DC Al both think that the United States is more like South Africa, Mexico, and Brazil than it is like Canada, the UK, and Ireland??  Honestly?  That is what you think?  Do I really need to go through the explanation of why that is ridiculous?

Now to respond to krazen's comment about where I get my conclusions about "threaten one and all will back down".  I get that from 2 places.  First is from the suggestion of a friend of mine growing up who is currently an instructor at the US Military Academy.  He said a standard method of crowd control isn't to threaten to kill everyone ... just one.  No one wants to be the "one".  Second is from common sense.

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'?

OK.

I suspect that expert Rwoy should explain his common sense to thousands of law enforcement across the nation who use >10 round clips that he is correct and they are wrong, based on the above conjecture.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

Their thinking seems relatively mainstream these days, no?  Or shall I link you to the bajillion articles about people loading up on the weapons that will soon be proposed to be banned?

[DC Al Fine]

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.

[rwoy]

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.