On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.


So, why do you need 30... another dodge?

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:08:53 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.


So, why do you need 30... another dodge?

You don't, unless you're fighting off an attack of Taliban folks armed with AK's.

I never espoused the 30-round magazine. Outlaw them. I don't care.

My point is that three 10-round clips can do the same amount of damage in about 7-10 additional
seconds - at most.

On 12/19/2012 9:30 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:08:53 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.


So, why do you need 30... another dodge?

You don't, unless you're fighting off an attack of Taliban folks armed with AK's.

I never espoused the 30-round magazine. Outlaw them. I don't care.

My point is that three 10-round clips can do the same amount of damage in about 7-10 additional
seconds - at most.


WTF are you guys getting so hot about this question? It's just a
question? I am sensing a lot of penis guns here in this group, more
than I originally thought..

In article , says...

On 12/19/2012 9:30 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:08:53 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.


So, why do you need 30... another dodge?

You don't, unless you're fighting off an attack of Taliban folks armed with AK's.

I never espoused the 30-round magazine. Outlaw them. I don't care.

My point is that three 10-round clips can do the same amount of damage in about 7-10 additional
seconds - at most.


WTF are you guys getting so hot about this question? It's just a
question? I am sensing a lot of penis guns here in this group, more
than I originally thought..

Agreed.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:06:18 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/19/2012 9:30 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:08:53 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.


So, why do you need 30... another dodge?

You don't, unless you're fighting off an attack of Taliban folks armed with AK's.

I never espoused the 30-round magazine. Outlaw them. I don't care.

My point is that three 10-round clips can do the same amount of damage in about 7-10 additional
seconds - at most.


WTF are you guys getting so hot about this question? It's just a
question? I am sensing a lot of penis guns here in this group, more
than I originally thought..

Who's hot?

You've asked the same question about 20 times. No one here has provided a rationale for 30-round
clips, except for military/police type activity. Yet you persist in asking your stupid question.

WTF for?

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,
why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why
target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of
one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in
terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number
in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false
hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many
guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out
mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on
magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,
especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty
rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up
to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks
happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it
quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone
using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said
nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis
power or not.

----------------------------------------------------------

There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer
is possible. That's not really the question or issue.
What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun
control reform possible in this country is to define what
the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,
you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive
weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons
generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.

In article ,
says...

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,
why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why
target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of
one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in
terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number
in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false
hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many
guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out
mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on
magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,
especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty
rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up
to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks
happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it
quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone
using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said
nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis
power or not.

----------------------------------------------------------

There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer
is possible. That's not really the question or issue.
What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun
control reform possible in this country is to define what
the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,
you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive
weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons
generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.

Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is
a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.

The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person
initiating the sequence of events.

On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,
why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why
target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of
one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in
terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number
in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false
hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many
guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out
mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on
magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,
especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty
rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up
to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks
happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it
quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone
using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said
nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis
power or not.

----------------------------------------------------------

There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer
is possible. That's not really the question or issue.
What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun
control reform possible in this country is to define what
the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,
you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive
weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons
generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.

Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is
a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.

The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person
initiating the sequence of events.



So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote:

In article ,

says...



"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait

wrote:



On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"

wrote:







"Califbill" wrote in message

...





Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,

why

did a

person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why

target

assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.



------------------------------------------------------



My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of

one

to kill the children and adults.

He used a pistol to kill himself.



Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on

assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to

acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in

terms of

how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine

capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common

recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just

announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits

magazine rounds to 10.



So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number

in

our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?

There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false

hope

that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many

guns

exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out

mass

murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.



I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on

magazine

capacity that is "acceptable".





How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,

especially if one is taped to the

other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty

rounds. Another four or five

seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up

to thirty rounds off.



Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks

happy. It won't stop a determined

killer in any way.





It will.



Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it

quite easy to change 10 round

magazines quite rapidly.



I have been watching videos of people put into situations where

they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,

some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...



Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone

using more than one will drop

his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.



Right.





A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when

the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the

weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is

either for penis power, or offense...



The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said

nothing here that shows a ten

round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis

power or not.



----------------------------------------------------------



There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer

is possible. That's not really the question or issue.

What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun

control reform possible in this country is to define what

the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,

you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive

weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons

generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.



Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is

a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.



The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person
initiating the sequence of events.


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life necessity, but it can be fun.