• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

elkman92 said:
The Heller and McDonald 2A cases use the phrase "in common use" many times. Are you saying that firearms that use magazines that contain greater than ten rounds are not in common use?

The magazine capacity of semiauto handguns is directly related to the size of the handgun and the cartridges it is chambered for. There is a reason that a 1911 in 45 ACP typically has a seven round magazine, and the same thing would apply to a Walther PPK in 380 ACP. However, a Browning HiPower in 9x19 (original design from 1935), or a Beretta 92 in 9x19, or a Glock 17 or 19, might have a 13 or 15 or 17 round flush fitting magazine is due to that. A handgun of the same size as those chambered for the 22 LR rimfire could hold twenty.

As far as calling me bat shit crazy, good on you. Same thing could be said for Diane Feinstein, as she keeps calling for a so-called AWB, but that part of Manchin-Toomey went down 60 to 40.

As far as background checks are concerned, I posted before that I would agree with what Tom Coburn proposed. To paint those opposed to the Manchin-Toomey bill, which contained many questionable sections, as opposed to background checks in general, is just being disengenuous...
Click to expand...

so what about clips/magazines (not getting into a semantics debate, whatever you consider them) that are not flush with the bottom of the handle. are those necessary? clearly they go beyond the original manufacturer's standards.
 
BarcaDeac said:
so what about clips/magazines (not getting into a semantics debate, whatever you consider them) that are not flush with the bottom of the handle. are those necessary? clearly they go beyond the original manufacturer's standards.
Click to expand...

Even the examples he gave in his post don't make the point he needs to make. I own a Glock 21 and he is absolutely correct that it comes with a standard magazine of 13 rounds. However the fact that a flush fitting magazine for my Glock 21 CAN handle 13 bullets does not have any bearing on an argument as to whether it SHOULD be able to have that many bullets in it. The fact automatic weapons were automatic did not prevent them from being outlawed because it was deemed that automatic weapons were too dangerous and people adjusted. If it is determined magazines should not have more than 10 bullets, then guns that do not adjust to conform will be illegal. There is no reason Glock cannot make my 13 round magazine into a 10 round magazine. Absolutely none whatsoever. The question is whether a handgun needs to have a higher capacity magazine and my answer is they absolutely do not. I own one that does. I also own multiple magazines for it (like anybody else does) so if I can only have 10 bullets per magazine I will still have plenty to defend myself.

The only person that needs multiple magazines of over 10 bullet capacity either A) is a law enforcement officer that can get involved in shootouts, B) Has no fucking idea how to accurately use their weapon, or C) Apparently has roaming gangs of thugs breaking in every night. Fact of the matter is I have enough proficiency with my gun that 10 rounds of hollow points is more than enough for me to defend against most threats that could present themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
Big Tree it doesn't address having a 20 or 30 round magazine, but elkman doesn't care about that. There is no doubt the NRA and it's blind minions put the profits of gun companies over the lives of innocent Americans.
 
KickballDeac said:
Six months later, are we any better off?
Click to expand...

To expand on my own post:

Why hasn't there been another Sandy Hook in the past six months? It's pretty clear that the main reason it hasn't happened again is because no one has felt like doing it. That's our means of protection against gun violence.

The major change in our country since then is that 19 people can be shot at a Mother's Day parade in New Orleans and the response is "No one died? Doesn't count." (It also doesn't count if it's "gang-related" or involves minorities, but that's not new.) And 5 people can be killed and 4 wounded in Santa Monica and the response is "That's not very many." The major change is that the bar has been raised.

What a sad, pathetic realization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
Good post. Along with that, children are killing other children and adults and it barely makes news because it is considered accidental.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
Even the examples he gave in his post don't make the point he needs to make. I own a Glock 21 and he is absolutely correct that it comes with a standard magazine of 13 rounds. However the fact that a flush fitting magazine for my Glock 21 CAN handle 13 bullets does not have any bearing on an argument as to whether it SHOULD be able to have that many bullets in it. The fact automatic weapons were automatic did not prevent them from being outlawed because it was deemed that automatic weapons were too dangerous and people adjusted. If it is determined magazines should not have more than 10 bullets, then guns that do not adjust to conform will be illegal. There is no reason Glock cannot make my 13 round magazine into a 10 round magazine. Absolutely none whatsoever. The question is whether a handgun needs to have a higher capacity magazine and my answer is they absolutely do not. I own one that does. I also own multiple magazines for it (like anybody else does) so if I can only have 10 bullets per magazine I will still have plenty to defend myself.

The only person that needs multiple magazines of over 10 bullet capacity either A) is a law enforcement officer that can get involved in shootouts, B) Has no fucking idea how to accurately use their weapon, or C) Apparently has roaming gangs of thugs breaking in every night. Fact of the matter is I have enough proficiency with my gun that 10 rounds of hollow points is more than enough for me to defend against most threats that could present themselves.
Click to expand...


I find it funny you replied to a post from barcadeac about the semantics of clips and magazines, yet you cannot even differentiate between bullets and cartridges. This is why it is almost pointless to have a discussion on the subject. Words have exact meanings, but posters here use words that mean different things interchangeably. Good on you that you feel like ten rounds is good enough for you. I'd rather my options not be limited by your opinion, or a politician's opinion, especially since said politician walks around with the armed bodyguards we pay for.
 
One of the things that bothers me the most is the two women in a blue truck who were confused for Chris Dorner, and were fired upon 105 times. One hundred five times. Were those cops suspended or relieved of duty? Did they make sure of their target, and what lay behind it? How many times did they change magazines? Were they using rifles or handguns? Another PD did the same thing, but did not fire as many times. Why did a guy have to mark his own shirt?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...cW-UYb6KpO30AHqyIDgCw&ved=0CCwQ9QEwAA&dur=944
 
elkman92 said:
I find it funny you replied to a post from barcadeac about the semantics of clips and magazines, yet you cannot even differentiate between bullets and cartridges. This is why it is almost pointless to have a discussion on the subject. Words have exact meanings, but posters here use words that mean different things interchangeably. Good on you that you feel like ten rounds is good enough for you. I'd rather my options not be limited by your opinion, or a politician's opinion, especially since said politician walks around with the armed bodyguards we pay for.
Click to expand...

Watch out! He is going to get you!

mountain-lion_637_600x450.jpg
 
It scares me how much pro-gun people complain about Secret Service and bodyguard protection while wanting the right to legally bring guns to political events. No wonder they feel no sympathy towards Gabby Giffords and her cause. She's getting in the way.

They like to tie up this debate in frivolous semantic discussions instead of how best to allow guns to exist with fewer dead bodies. Notice how elkman only shows up to talk about how many bullets and never to talk about all these incidents in which only a few bullets took a life. We can't trust people like elkman to have an honest debate.
 
PhDeac said:
It scares me how much pro-gun people complain about Secret Service and bodyguard protection while wanting the right to legally bring guns to political events. No wonder they feel no sympathy towards Gabby Giffords and her cause. She's getting in the way.

They like to tie up this debate in frivolous semantic discussions instead of how best to allow guns to exist with fewer dead bodies. Notice how elkman only shows up to talk about how many bullets and never to talk about all these incidents in which only a few bullets took a life. We can't trust people like elkman to have an honest debate.
Click to expand...

right, it seems like every time I ask him a question he wants to get into a semantics debate. I concede I don't know as much about guns as him so I concede his point about what to call them, I just want to know why there is a need for them to go beyond the manufacturer's intent and have clips that extend beyond the handle of the gun so it does not fit flush.
 
Barca, for years, every time someone shows a whole in his "logic", elkman makes the post about something else. His masters have trained him well.

You blew a hole through his magazine "reason". So he changes the subject to insult you and BigTree. He's done the same thing to every poster who defies him.
 
PhDeac said:
It scares me how much pro-gun people complain about Secret Service and bodyguard protection while wanting the right to legally bring guns to political events. No wonder they feel no sympathy towards Gabby Giffords and her cause. She's getting in the way.

They like to tie up this debate in frivolous semantic discussions instead of how best to allow guns to exist with fewer dead bodies. Notice how elkman only shows up to talk about how many bullets and never to talk about all these incidents in which only a few bullets took a life. We can't trust people like elkman to have an honest debate.
Click to expand...

It's not everyone. Plenty of Pro-Gun people are fine with magazine limits and back ground checks.
 
elkman92 said:
I find it funny you replied to a post from barcadeac about the semantics of clips and magazines, yet you cannot even differentiate between bullets and cartridges. This is why it is almost pointless to have a discussion on the subject. Words have exact meanings, but posters here use words that mean different things interchangeably. Good on you that you feel like ten rounds is good enough for you. I'd rather my options not be limited by your opinion, or a politician's opinion, especially since said politician walks around with the armed bodyguards we pay for.
Click to expand...

So to summaize you have no response to my points other than not wanting other people to have a,say in what you can and cannot legally do. Good for you but you live in the wrong country. In fact short of owning a provate island, you are shit out of luck period. Keep giving reasonable gun owners a bad name though, as that is your right.
 
Officers responded to a report of a child shot late Sunday morning. They found the girl in a bedroom, suffering from a gunshot wound to the head. She was transferred to a hospital but later died from her injury.

"A preliminary investigation indicates the child was home alone and had somehow come into contact with a .38 revolver and accidentally shot herself in the head," police said in their statement.

They said the mother told them she locked her daughter in the home while she went to the store. Upon her return, she found the girl in the bedroom with the gunshot wound.
 
PhDeac said:
It scares me how much pro-gun people complain about Secret Service and bodyguard protection while wanting the right to legally bring guns to political events. No wonder they feel no sympathy towards Gabby Giffords and her cause. She's getting in the way.

They like to tie up this debate in frivolous semantic discussions instead of how best to allow guns to exist with fewer dead bodies. Notice how elkman only shows up to talk about how many bullets and never to talk about all these incidents in which only a few bullets took a life. We can't trust people like elkman to have an honest debate.
Click to expand...

Was it you a few pages ago that thought that it was legal to order firearms through the mail simply because a politician said so? Or was that rjkarl? I am pretty sure I have pointed out provisions of the GCA of 1968, which existed prior to Al Gore inventing the internet, so I am not sure what kind of honest debate you would like to have...
 
BarcaDeac said:
right, it seems like every time I ask him a question he wants to get into a semantics debate. I concede I don't know as much about guns as him so I concede his point about what to call them, I just want to know why there is a need for them to go beyond the manufacturer's intent and have clips that extend beyond the handle of the gun so it does not fit flush.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are talking about, but my Glock 19 in 9x19 has a flush fitting magazine that holds 15 cartridges, and my Glock 23 in 40 S&W has one that holds 13 cartridges flush fitting. So, those are the manufacturer's intent with those models. My Walther PPKS in 380 ACP holds seven, as does my 1911 in 45 ACP. All flush fit. So, what magazines are you specifically talking about?
 
BigTreeDeac said:
Even the examples he gave in his post don't make the point he needs to make. I own a Glock 21 and he is absolutely correct that it comes with a standard magazine of 13 rounds. However the fact that a flush fitting magazine for my Glock 21 CAN handle 13 bullets does not have any bearing on an argument as to whether it SHOULD be able to have that many bullets in it. The fact automatic weapons were automatic did not prevent them from being outlawed because it was deemed that automatic weapons were too dangerous and people adjusted. If it is determined magazines should not have more than 10 bullets, then guns that do not adjust to conform will be illegal. There is no reason Glock cannot make my 13 round magazine into a 10 round magazine. Absolutely none whatsoever. The question is whether a handgun needs to have a higher capacity magazine and my answer is they absolutely do not. I own one that does. I also own multiple magazines for it (like anybody else does) so if I can only have 10 bullets per magazine I will still have plenty to defend myself.

The only person that needs multiple magazines of over 10 bullet capacity either A) is a law enforcement officer that can get involved in shootouts, B) Has no fucking idea how to accurately use their weapon, or C) Apparently has roaming gangs of thugs breaking in every night. Fact of the matter is I have enough proficiency with my gun that 10 rounds of hollow points is more than enough for me to defend against most threats that could present themselves.
Click to expand...


In response to your other post, since when were automatic weapons outlawed? The NFA of 1934 placed certain restrictions on the ownership of fully automatic weapons, and six states ban ownership of said, but they certainly were not outlawed.

As far as your concern on magazine capacity of certain handguns, and that the police must have the ones with greatest capacity, I honestly do no know what to say. No one responded to my post about the police shooting 105 times at two women in a blue pickup truck who were not Chris Dorner.

Fact of the matter is I am much more proficient with my large frame Smith moon clip revolvers in 40 S&W and 45 ACP than any of my semiautos, but why should I tell anyone that their thirteen round magazines are no good?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top