:\

I meant a Muslim Muslim, not some NOI-hack. You know, the Arab kind.

Also I don't remember a conversation about large magazines in that case.

Also I don't remember a conversation about large magazines in that case.

That's because he didn't use them, or at least they were irrelevant (I gather he used an AR-15, which could have a large magazine) since the killings were all sniper style with one or two shots taken.  It turns out that being a good aim matters a lot more than how many bullets you have in your clip.  Maybe we should make target practice illegal, and report people who go to gun ranges to the FBI.

Allons-y!

It turns out that being a good aim matters a lot more than how many bullets you have in your clip.

If you are trained by the military, have an Expert Rifleman's Badge, and have the luxury of driving around shooting people over a 20 DAY period of time. But don't let those "liberal" facts and logic get in your way. (Lol)  

Btw, the accomplice dropped a magazine and the led to them being caught:

"Police followed a lead in which an anonymous caller told a priest to tell the police to check out a liquor store robbery-murder that had occurred in Montgomery, Alabama. Investigators responding to that crime scene found one of the suspects had dropped a magazine with his fingerprints on it"

Why do you think he dropped the magazine? I can think of a good idea why: he was attempting to reload (you know, because he didn't have a large magazine) and someone saw him doing it/intefered and he dropped it and fled. That seems like a pretty damn good argument for a smaller magazine.

he was attempting to reload (you know, because he didn't have a large magazine) and someone saw him doing it/intefered and he dropped it and fled. That seems like a pretty damn good argument for a smaller magazine.

See what I was saying about liberals having this tendency to make up facts?

Allons-y!

I wasn't making up facts, I was speculating.

What about the facts? You have any rebuttal or are you going to play false equivalency Port in an attempt to seem balanced?

I wasn't making up facts, I was speculating.

spec·u·late   [spek-yuh-leyt]  
verb (used without object), spec·u·lat·ed, spec·u·lat·ing.

1. to engage in thought or reflection; meditate (often followed by on, upon,  or a clause).
   
2. to indulge in conjectural thought.

Allons-y!

Port, I said in that post I was speculating or making a conjecture with the words: "I can think of a good idea why"

I wasn't claiming that was a set of facts.

You're trying to play with me because you know I owned you heavily with post #14 and with your OWN link.

Are you going to report me to the FBI for that analogy?

Nope, but take a flight lesson or buy a shit load of fertilizer. See what happens.

I don't concede that you "owned me" - I honestly didn't think your points were meaningful enough to be worth responding to.  What does the time scale matter?  JAM created more chaos and terror than the Colorado shooter did.  The entire DC metro area was paralyzed for a month - I have family that lives down there, and it was a very scary time for them.  The fact that he was military trained is somewhat relevant, but there are a LOT of people trained by the military to be marksmen, and at the distances he was shooting from, with a good scope, most people would probably do just as well with a bit of practice.  Shooting a gun sniper-style isn't all that difficult.  Shooting at a moving target in a stress setting is very hard, but shooting from a fixed position at a person who's standing still - literally anyone could do it, given a week or two of practice, as long as they had the ability to get over the mental hurdle of killing someone.  I think that is the main reason why people who have spent a lot of time around guns oppose gun control - we realize that any gun is a very dangerous weapon, so there's really no point in "control" - it's either allow guns, or don't allow guns.  "Control" just gives a pointless false sense of security at best, and at worst it starts us moving down the slope to a complete ban on private ownership.

Allons-y!

The rest of your post is full retard (I mean some minor points but mostly retard).

"Control" just gives a pointless false sense of security at best, and at worst it starts us moving down the slope to a complete ban on private ownership.

This is the religious position you've been attacking liberals on all day. This is your absolute truth. No facts could convince you otherwise.

I can give you a long list of multiple-shooting incidencts in countries that have gun control laws that are far more strict that the United States.  I have demonstrated to you that it is quite possible to kill multiple people with a bolt action hunting rifle.  Indeed - I worry about saying this since you might take it as a threat and report me, but you should not, I'm speculating here - I am pretty convinced that even though I haven't shot a rifle in about seven or eight years, I could set up a car like JAM and with a willing driver kill a similar number of people, if not more, with my grandfather's 1890's vintage .30/.40 Krag.  There are hundreds of thousands of older, fully functional, completely unregistered and untraceable rifles out there like that gun - there is no way that you can stop a determined person from getting one and doing what he's going to do.  

Let me put it to you another way - far more people die from car accidents ever year than die from gun violence.  You're far more likely to get hit by a car than you are to get shot, even in a dangerous city.  Despite this, nobody talks about banning cars, and very few people even talk seriously about making it harder to get a driver's license or restricting car ownership.  Why is this?  People see a real need to own cars and are willing to put up with the consequences.  Many people do not see a similar need to own guns, so they want to restrict ownership (which, as I have demonstrated, is pointless) or ban them.  This is one of those issues where there is no real objective truth - either you think that self-defense through gun ownership is a fundamental right, or you don't.  I personally think it should be (even though, somewhat ironically, I choose not to avail myself of it), and you think it shouldn't.  Don't fool yourself into thinking there's some middle way here though - nothing short of an outright ban is really going to meaningfully stop the ability of people to carry out mass gun killings like this shooting.  More gun control laws might reduce suicides to some degree, and marginally reduce accidental shootings, but that's about it.

Allons-y!

lol.. It's come full circle.

We got:

• others places have gun violence!

• old and/or shitty guns can kill people too!

• cars kill people!

• my balanced view is there is no balanced view!

• you have to be advocating banning all guns, why? because i said so!

Alright, enough.

So your response is that you have no response?  Here's a set of simple questions for you:

1.  Have you ever handled a gun outside of something like Boy Scouts?  Air Rifles don't count.
   
2.  Have you ever shot a rifle or a pistol?
   
3.  Have you ever taken a gun safety class?
   
4.  Have you ever purchased a rifle or pistol?
   
5.  Have you ever gone hunting?
   
6.  Have you ever shot and killed a living animal while hunting?

Allons-y!

1. Yes
   
2. Yes
   
3. No
   
4. No (would like to but not jonesing
   
5. No
   
6. No

But let me get this straight, you think you have the right to have an opinion on guns (but not me) because you inherited weapons from your grandfather. You're a Mitt-Romney-Gun-Fund baby like those members of the police and military that have a family lineage of that type of work and that gives you some specialness over me. What's hilarious about that is that is contradictory to gun rights advocates saying that everyone has a second amendment right. Well if everyone has a second amendment right then your level of expertise doesn't matter at all.  

I mean there's limitations on that too  IE rocket launcher - apparently no gun rights people are ever willing to answer that question

But let me get this straight, you think you have the right to have an opinion on guns (but not me) because you inherited weapons from your grandfather.

You have the right to have an opinion, but my opinion is more informed than yours because I have used and handled guns, including using them to kill.  I know first hand what kind of damage a gun can do to a living thing, and I know what it takes to make a kill shot.  If we are being empirical here, then yes, I am more qualified than you, because I have significantly more knowledge about how guns work and what they're capable of.

You're a Mitt-Romney-Gun-Fund baby like those members of the police and military that have a family lineage of that type of work and that gives you some specialness over me.

Again, no.  My "specialness" comes from the fact that I have a significant amount of experience using and handling guns.  You have some, apparently, but it appears I have more.

What's hilarious about that is that is contradictory to gun rights advocates saying that everyone has a second amendment right. Well if everyone has a second amendment right then your level of expertise doesn't matter at all.  

Everyone has a 2nd amendment right to own guns, but that right can certainly be curtailed, particularly once a person goes off their own property.  I support licensing requirements for concealed carry - I think that stats should be mandated to issue licenses to people who complete the proper training (in other words, I'm a "shall issue" guy, not a "may issue"), but I think that training and licensing should be at least as rigorous as what it takes to get a driver's license, if not more so.  I also think hunting licenses should require completion of a mandatory gun safety course (some states require this, some don't, it varies).  

The point here, though, is that what matters is the person handling the gun, far more than the gun itself.  Any gun is a very dangerous weapon, as I've said time and again.  Regulating certain types of guns or certain types of magazines just isn't going to have the impact you imagine it will - and when those regulations fail, the next step is going to be an attempt at an outright ban.  You still haven't articulated how any of the rules you have proposed would stop someone like JAM or Charles Whitman - all those guys needed was a limited capacity magazine on a hunting rifle with a good scope.  Any experienced deer hunter could have done the same.

Even with the Colorado shooter, if his magazines had be limited, he could have either trained himself to reload faster or just brought one or two more handguns (as Ken noted, when his original gun jammed he switched to another gun - if he'd had a more limited clip he'd probably have done the same) - it's just not something that's going to make that much of a difference.  You keep saying things like "it's so obvious how limiting magazine size will make a difference", and yet those of us who have lots of experiencing using guns (including many ex-military folks) have all told you that it's not obvious at all, and yet you just put your hands over your ears and start shouting "LALALALA" at the top of your voice instead of listening to us.  If you won't take the word of people who have actually used guns on a regular basis (and in the case of our ex-military folks, actually be trained to use guns to kill people, even), whose word will you take?

Allons-y!

I don't think having more experienced in recreational firearms makes  you any more informed about killing people with firearms in regards to "dangerousness". It's like saying a physicists would have a more informed opinion about how devastating a nuclear bomb will be. Well, I am pretty sure all nuclear bombs are devastating regardless of me having a masters in Physics. But whatever, this distinction serves your benefit that's why you make it.

You keep saying things like "it's so obvious how limiting magazine size will make a difference", and yet those of us who have lots of experiencing using guns (including many ex-military folks) have all told you that it's not obvious at all, and yet you just put your hands over your ears and start shouting "LALALALA" at the top of your voice instead of listening to us.  If you won't take the word of people who have actually used guns on a regular basis (and in the case of our ex-military folks, actually be trained to use guns to kill people, even), whose word will you take?

If you think it is a consensus that magazine size doesn't matter, then you're either not reading the posts here or don't care to read any post that questions magazine size, because certainly I am not the only here or in the media talking about it, and certainly it's not just "non-experts".

Take for instance, Paul Barrett, who wrote a history of the Glock, "Glock: The Rise of America's Gun." He is an expert on guns and he talks about limiting magazine size: http://www.npr.org/books/authors/145639531/paul-barrett

That link should be: http://www.npr.org/2012/07/24/157288297/will-colo-shooting-change-gun-debate

Barrett live in NYC, doesn't own a gun (apparently he took a few shooting lessons to get background for the book), and apparently is pretty much an anti-gun guy in his personal life (although the book appears to be reasonably even-handed).  I'm not sure how that makes him any more qualified than you are to be giving "expert opinions" on magazine capacity.

Allons-y!

I love how you had to factor in "lives in NYC" as a negative point.

Of course the guy is not in lockstep with your position so he is automatically anti-gun.

NYC is one of the few places in the country that pretty much bans guns ownership - if you live there you have very little day to day interaction with guns.  I don't see how you can live in NYC and be a "gun expert" - same with DC or Chicago.

Allons-y!

I don't see how you can live in NYC and be a "gun expert" - same with DC or Chicago.

Until you get shot and then bleed out waiting for the cops to show up 45 minutes later.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

What makes it so potent in this environment is the oversized capacity. The reports are that this man had a 100-round magazine, a drum-shaped magazine that would allow him to fire a bullet per second until it was emptied. Apparently, his gun jammed at a certain point.

I can think of a good idea why

Rampage shootings can never be 'effective' because it's always going to play out on TV as "a lone nut who acted alone and is dead or in prison declared as insane, and there is definitely nothing else to talk about except some features of legally-purchased gear he bought/used."

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Just an FYI: earning an Expert Rifleman's Badge just means that one time he hit at least 36 out of 40 targets.  It's not hard over a long enough career-- I did it one very lucky day, and I'm generally an average-to-below-average shot-- but the media always seems to point out if the guy was a "sharpshooter"* or "expert" when some ex- or current-military guy starts shooting the wrong people.  The flipside of that is when they're profiling some soldier who's been "done wrong" by the military and they describe him or her as "decorated" before listing a basket of didn't-screw-up-too-badly awards.

Oh, yeah, and Hollywood, please stop having your characters wear the patrol cap wrong.  Well, it's okay when they have a National Guard character do it 'cause they do so all the time in real life, but your Active Duty guys wouldn't get away with that.  It's not a goddamn ball cap.  And get your kids off my lawn.

* Usually meaning he at least once earned the second highest marksmanship badge.

Appreciate the FYI, I'll keep that in mind when I see Expert Rifleman's Badge again.

How this type of argument relates to the advantages of a large mag in spraying a crowded room of people escapes me. It should escape you. But, no.

This passes as thoughtful here when it is simply an insult to brains and thinking. It's little wonder that people snap, take hostages and delete their accounts.

I mean, good god, we have Lewis Carroll over there taking an argument for crappy mags and mistaking it for an argument for large mags. WTF?

FOX has hollowed out their little heads.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

...the advantages of a large mag in spraying a crowded room of people...

Thank you.

Please explain to me how one "sprays" bullets with a SEMI auto rifle.

Some days I understand completely why zyx acts the way he does here.

[I'm not that guy.]

Please explain to me how one "sprays" bullets with a SEMI auto rifle

Some days I understand completely why zyx acts the way he does here

I was referring to your intensely Socratic approach.

[I'm not that guy.]

It's not Socratic. A Socratic approach doesn't start with a conclusion. Call it what it is, childish.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

Call it what you want.

What he does or doesn't do has nothing to do with the fact that you don't know wtf you are talking about when it comes to firearms.

[I'm not that guy.]

Yes, yes. On that note I'll take my leave of this thread and let you all fap in peace.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

Skip to 1:50:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY

Noob

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

You are not honestly suggesting that the fuckwit in Aurora was trying to bump fire his AR, are you? Please tell me you are kidding, because if you aren't then you are definitely taking home the TnT Golden Retard award for this week.

Bump firing is a range trick that a) doesn't work very well b) is a lot harder to do than that video indicates c) does not allow for any kind of aiming or control (note where the rifle is in relation to the idiot's eyes in the video) and d) did I mention it doesn't work very well?

Have you ever tried it?

[I'm not that guy.]

What is it about guns that makes people lose their fucking minds? I will never understand it.

Would you agree that any jackoff could fire off 100+ rounds per minute? Because, Jesus shit-stain on a pogostick, are we really going to argue about the definition of spray now?

If so, rest assured, you have finally reached Z status.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

If so, rest assured, you have finally reached Z status.

Actually, in this context and in this particular series of posts, I'll take that as a compliment.

[I'm not that guy.]

I hear it's bliss

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

Would you agree that any jackoff could fire off 100+ rounds per minute?

Provide examples. (Not challenging you, just want more info)

this i guess?  since the history of me and folks i know is probably more anecdote than example.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Is it two?  I usually go with two.

My math skills are pretty decent, but I know that multiple, smaller magazines are usually a better choice than a single, larger magazine.

And you "know" this based on your extensive first hand experience perpetrating public massacre?

I can think of no reason why a firearm should handle differently for a murderer.

It's reassuring that Zyx (who never shows any qualities of being a psychopath) has all the scenarios of perpetuating mass murder down pact.

Clearly the answer to my question is "no."

Larger magazines are at least somewhat more likely to jam than smaller magazines.

I know this from my years of extensive first hand experience at the range.

[I'm not that guy.]