Over here the cops are almost always near to hand. That’s not true in America.
Probably a good idea. I’ll give you a pass on this one, but generally such posts would get you a warning from moderation - me, among others - and too many of those could lead to bad things.
But you’re new here and you seem to have realized that was too far.
Here, give it to me and I’ll hold on to it for ya.
Looks like a two man job. I’ll help.
Thanks, guys. I like a two-hand shooting stance. Just pass it back when I’m done with this mag.
(NB: I do not advocate the use of psychotropic or intoxicating substances while using firearms under any circumstances.)
.
Good call. He is looking for information and if there are some incorrect assumption underlying the questions he asks, I’m more than happy to correct those assumptions. Inquisitive gun control minds are hard to come by, they almost always either become much more rational on the topic and as a result much less gun control prone.
The question is why does some one need an assault rifle with a maximum clip while living in some where like New York City. Do not get me wrong I am not anti gun but to often we read that the gun used does not match the envirement
I think the best answer is this old saw:
“You’ll probably really never ‘need’ a gun. But if you ever do, you’re going to need it real f’ing bad.”
I feel the same way about ammunition capacity. I’ll probably never need 30 rounds, but if I do…
Plus, what’s the harm? I’m not going to murder one innocent person, let alone 30.
I don’t think I understand the objection to high capacity magazines. What is restricting people to low capacity magazines supposed to do?
After 7 shots the mass killer decided it was jus too much trouble to take two seconds to switch magazines so he gave up and lives were saved?
The mass killer forgot to bring an extra magazine before he went on his spree?
It seems to me that a bad guy who is planning on doing wrong is going to go the effort to load up on weapons and ammo before he goes on his spree. Smaller magazines isn’t going to slow anything down.
If a citizen is EDCing a gun during an active shooter situation, it’s more likely the good guy only has the magazine in his gun, in which case limiting capacity is going to work in the favor of the bad guy.
I have an acquaintance who lived in L.A. close to and during the riots who told me he was damn glad he still had his AR in case the need for it had arisen.
Like it or not modern “assault weap:rolleyes:ns” are militia arms and EXACTLY some of the equipment the founders were talking about when they enumerated the right granted to each of us by our creator, regardless of where one lives. 200 years from now it might be a thermo intrepulated laser rifle.
It’s not an assault rifle and it’s not a clip. Of course you don’t know what it’s for - you don’t even know what it is.
Maybe you do not call them assault rifles and clips in the colonies but in the U.K. it is not unknown for these terms to be used by the military.
Experience lived and worked with the military
The rifles being used by the military in the U.K. might indeed be assault rifles - but those rifles are not generally available for purchase by civilians in the United States.
If you disagree, can you provide some specific examples of assault rifles issued to the UK military that you believe are also generally available for civilian purchase in the New York area?
Ignoring the terminology - do you think being in a large city confers some shield or protection against potential ails that does not exist elsewhere? What precisely is unique or different about a city that would necessitate a difference in treatment?
The gun control crowd point to the Tuscon shooting and say “see? THERE is an example of a guy who got taken down by an unarmed old man while he fumbled while trying to change magazines. That proves that smaller magazines can save lives.”
Is that what happened?
Is there any film or anything, because I find it hard to beleive. It takes about a second to switch magazines, if that. How can somebody be so close and have somebody fumble so long…
What if your active shooter is not a klutz?
Quibbling about the difference between clips and magazines is just a form of bullying by gun rights folks. It does nothing to clarify or advance the argument.
Quibbling about the difference between assault rifles and assault weapons is a necessary clarification.
The term assault rifle has been around since WWII. They are select fire weapons that generally fire relatively light ammunition to reduce weight and increase the number of rounds that can be carried.
The term assault weapon was invented in 1994 by a piece of legislation that banned use sale of ANY rifle that had certain features, almost all of which were cosmetic (front barrel shroud or bayonet lug), or ergonomic (front pistol grip, adjustable stock), or common in other weapons (detachable magazine, front barrel heat shield/picatinny rails).
The term was deliberately crafted to confuse people into confusing the two. There was literally a parade of commentators on TV saying that the law to ban assault weapons would ban machine guns (machine guns are already banned here).
I am going by what is on sale in America, AK 47, a range of Sig Sauer. Ok if I was in bear country a heavy Sig would be desirable, for city use probably a Glock 43
The AKs sold in the US, with very few exceptions of NFA weapons, are all semi automatic. They look the same as their select fire brothers but are not by definition assault rifles. Sig Sauers, AR15s are all semi auto, not assault rifles.
Why would you want a single stack 6 round capacity 9mm pistol for city use? What is unique about the city that makes this desirable?