Okay fine. I won’t blabber rip? Let me just ask you, “Why do you need more than 10 rounds?”
And just because we don’t know shit about guns makes us idiots. Wow, you ignorant republicans. I don’t want or need to learn about gun use, okay? Neither do you for that matter, but you are allowed do to whatever you want. That is my mini rant for the day. Now back to the debate.
Why do you need more than 10 rounds?
AU, there are countless cases of drunk/high suspects taking numerous hits without going down. There was one case where the target was still moving after 39 hits and it took to rounds from a shotgun to put an end to it.
Still, does that prove you need more than 10 rounds? I don’t think so. Just freaking reload your gun, or use a semi-automatic.
“Trained” police need 137 shots to kill two unarmed people in a car. So why wouldn’t an “untrained” civilian need 20-30?
By the way - did Rosa Parks need to move to the front of the bus?
(Emphasis mine.)
Ar? 
.
Listen, one bullet in the head or the heart will be enough for your purposes. That will kill the person pretty fast. I think anyone with common sense knows this.
Gabrielle Giffords is dead? :eek:
'cuz everyone is a sharpshooter.
It is called wrong, actually. “Common sense” usually isn’t.
If you have time to fire a warning shot, you are not in immediate danger of death or severe bodily harm, and that means you’re not justified in firing the gun at all. And warning shots can easily endanger others. Bullets are quite capable of passing through walls.
Look, if you really want to learn about armed self-defense, I suggest you do some reading first, then come back with questions. I’d recommend starting with In the Gravest Extreme (an oldie but goodie) and Gunshot Wounds (the standard forensic pathology text on the subject). Once you’re no longer reacting based on Hollywood imagery, your questions will be more informed. Right now you sounds like a person who’s never seen a car debating traffic laws.
I would just check to see if the other guy had a weapon in his hand. If so, then I would simply shoot the weapon out of his hand. Well, first I’d go for a warning shot, then I’d shoot the weapon out of his hand and then, after I’ve spent some time deliberating any other action I might take, would I shoot the other person.
That guns are incredibly lethal is one of the myths of this debate.
About 80% of people shot with guns survive, which includes head wounds. Survival decreases to about 50% if shot in the head. Each additional shot increases mortality only by about 0.3%.
You scared me there for a minute!
Mmm. At the risk of jumping into the middle of a conservation to weigh in on a side debate, those figures raise my suspicions. In fact it feels a bit absurd: the wording in the abstract implies that the risk of death from one gunshot wound is 0.2, whereas that from thirty gunshot wounds is … also about 0.2 (around 0.219). You could spend a few minutes turning me into a sponge and, at least after the initial shot, I wouldn’t have a whole lot to worry about.
Perhaps they mean percentage points rather than percent, although I don’t have immediate access to the article and can’t verify. I suspect there’s some selectivity driving the results — if the first wound or two doesn’t kill, this is probably due to reasons (e.g. low skill; hectic circumstances) that make successive shots less lethal as well.
What do you mean, “use a semi-automatic”? You realize these debates about guns and gun control spanning the last month and half have all been over semi-automatic weapons, right?
And this is why we don’t support “reasonable regulations.” At least you are honest in your ultimate goal. Others are not.
I think the proposal is that every gun is registered like a car and every transfer requries a traansfer of title and registration. This will severely restrict the inflow of guns into the hands of criminals. Thats just fact. You can argue about whether it is cosntitutional or whether it is the first step towards confiscation but you can’t argue that it won’t restrict the flow of guns into the hands of criminals if you start putting people in jail for selling or giving guns to criminals without registration.
Sure criminals will still get their hands on guns but it will get a LOT harder.
Stolen guns account for a minority of guns used in crimes. You would also be able to detect straw purchasers with more regularity.
Thats a pretty narrow definition of straw purchase.
Gun shows are not really the sort of places where criminals hang out to buy their guns. But they are the sort of place where people who sell to criminals buy their guns, no background check, no record of their ever buying the gun.
As far as i can tell, criminals generally don’t hang out at shoting ranges either. Too many cops. This generally leads to very poor shooting habits and poor aim.
I’ve been to several gun shows and it seems like half the gun tables belong to private sellers. They are there consistently enough that I recognize some of them by sight. One guy actually works in a rural gun shop (pawn shop?) and maybe he is selling guns out of his private collection but as far as I can tell just brings the used gun inventory to a gun show because he can get a lot more for used guns in Northern Virginia than he is going to get in Cumberland County.
You sure about that?
My home defense instructor started out by telling us how horrible handguns were for killing people. Not to convince us not to get a handgun but to convince us that training and practice are important to making ahandgun consistently lethal. If you don’t hit a vital organ or artery you need at least a 44 mag (most people can’t really handle a 44 mag) or a rifle/shotgun to one shot stop an intruder.
I’m not sure I would go through all that before shooting an intruder in the head. I MIGHT announce that I have a gun but if the intruder had a gun, I wouldn’t even do that.
There are a LOT of gunowning Democrats. Gun ownership is more a matter of geography than politics.
Arguing about a subject you are ignorant about and then proclaiming you don’t want to know anything about it while you continue to argue about that subject is the worst form of wilful ignorance. Are you sure YOU’RE not the Republican in this scenario?
You treat the right to bear arms (an explicit right in the constitution) with more disdain than Republican treat the “right to an abortion” (a "penumbra right that was created out of whole cloth by 5 justices on the Supreme court).
Why do I need more than 10 rounds? I dunno. To put this in the context of a right you may care more about, why do you NEED an abortion? After all the right to bear arms is explicitly in teh constitution, the right to an abortion is not.
I didn’t see it mentioned in the abstract, but I suspect the study is looking almost exclusively at handgun wounds (as they are the most common gunshot wounds seen in the ER). Handguns are a LOT less lethal than rifles or shotguns. The majority of people shot by a handgun survive, while that is not true of rifle or shotgun injuries.
IME, most gun control advocates seriosuly do not know the difference bewteen fully-automatic and semi-automatic. And have little if any grasp of any of the existing gun control laws.
They think the new, proposed AWB will ban this. And that that is freely available to anyone as an over-the-counter purchase at Wal-Mart or the local gun store with no more than a driver’s license, some cash, and a toothy smile.
It’s the female’s choice. The baby inside is technically not a human yet, so I don’t consider it murder.
I’m not saying that abortion is the preferred choice in most problems. It’s actually usually the last resort choice. It is a little immoral, but you need to understand, there may be problems with the baby where it’s really hurting the mother physically, or is about to kill the mother. The baby doesn’t care. It doesn’t even know it’s alive. So really, it doesn’t affect the baby too much.
It’s still inside. Why should we give too much of a shit about “killing” a human who hasn’t even developed yet? Remember, babies are formed when the sperm reaches the egg. This process results in the development of the baby. But a baby who hasn’t even developed, isn’t really a human.
Sometimes it’s the only practical choice, like the scenario described in number two.
E=Odesio;15947197]I would just check to see if the other guy had a weapon in his hand. If so, then I would simply shoot the weapon out of his hand. Well, first I’d go for a warning shot, then I’d shoot the weapon out of his hand and then, after I’ve spent some time deliberating any other action I might take, would I shoot the other person.
[/QUOTE]
Have you ever shot A gun in your life? “I would first shoot the gun out of his hand”? You have got to be kidding me. Movies are not real, repeat, movies are not real. By the time you have done all this gun magic you claim you can do, the person who is standing in your house with his stolen firearm has just emptied his weapon into your center of mass.