It seemed earlier that he said he lost all of his guns due to some unfortunate incident relating to boating, though I might have misread. Maybe that explains his petulance. So, what happened CaseyH? Do you still own any guns, if not why not?
okay, now you are making me go on a tangent. Using a pistol would of been much easier in our training for CQB especially with how Marine Corps doctrine teaches CQB. When you have to shoulder a rifle and stack a fire time next to a door and gather up almost nut to butt a pistol would have been much easier especially trying to maneuver around tight doorways and spaces. But again this has no relevancy to our argument of why does a regular schmuck need an assault rifle.
I allowed that assault rifles may have increased the amount of people killed in the CO. shooting. But there could have been other factors as well that might have made handguns more effective, depending on what kind, and what if any training Holmes had. I simply don't have all the information to say one way for sure. What is interesting is that the Va. Tech shooter did use an expanded magazine as have several other mass killers. I have yet to see Casey H. or anyone else point out a self defense case where an extended magazine was required to be effective.
Well that has more to do with the USMC wanting 20 inch barrels and no collapsing stock. M4's might change your mind. To answer your question are we comparing a rifle to say something like an M9? Tragic boating accident. Said it before.
Home invasion suppressive fire. Missing because you went condition brown. Police regularly shoot tons of rounds against a single target.
Budget reasons... Obviously I would have loved to carry around an m4 than a m16a4 and a m203 but only those "who deemed it necessary" carried them... in other words officers, platoon sergeants, squad leaders and a few lucky assault men.
Well they also hated the 14.5" barrels terminal ballistics at longer range and the cheek weld on an M4 stock SUCKS. You would have HATED qualifying on one.
I don't have a problem with law enforcement having them. Again, people can fire multiple rounds at a single target with a standard magazine. I'm also open to hearing circumstances of people needing expanded capacity. But often merely having a gun will end the situation, shooting someone once will also often end it, shooting at someone can also end it, shooting someone several times can also end it. It is my belief that the need for an extended capacity magazine are almost non-existent. Or if it does exist, it's so extremely rare, that when compared to the times it's been used by murderers the cons outweigh the pros.
So now you are being intentionally obtuse. No, you won't drive a truck through a cinema. You would, however, be able to drive a truck through the crowd of people at a political appearance in a grocery store parking lot. As for chemical agents being tightly controlled, that is laughable. When was the last time you had to sign for chlorine or ammonia? There have been a lot of people who have made pipe bombs out of household items with no trouble at all. In short, your point is just incorrect.
Well read back on my discussion with NS and tell me your reasoning behind this. Well your belief isn't based on anything. Police shootings show the more rounds you have the more you are likely to fire. The more you fire the more likely a fatality. The more likely a fatality the more likely the target doesn't kill you.
QUESTION: I know we have alot of shootings . . murders. .. etc. . . but how often do we have SHOOT OUTS!? It seems mostly gun related deaths etc are one sided affairs. Am I wrong in this? Rocket River
Interesting question, not sure how you could find the answer. Obviously you are taking suicides out of the figure?
The purpose of personal defense is to deter the culprit. In a typical personal defense situation just SHOWING that you are armed is enough to prevent rape, muggings, robbery. In other words you would have to encounter one persistent son of a b**** that is not discouraged from just shooting ONE round in his or her general direction.
Wouldn't that effect be increased if he heard the concussive report of a rifle in a house? The difference in 9mm and 5.56 indoors is extreme.
umm... having 9mm pistol or a ar-15 pointed at the culprit will generate the same amount of fear in order to deter the culprit.
What if he is in another room and you want him to either GTFO of your house or stay there so you can bail. I would prefer a rifle in my hands to put a few through the door to convince him to stay there. You?
No, my belief is based on all kinds of cases, and studies about how often self defense shootings occur against people you know, etc. firing 10 shots into a victim is almost always going to be effective. Having an extended magazine won't make it more so. You have shown zero, nothing, to indicate that having an extended magazine capacity has worked where standard magazine capacity won't work. Until you do, it's kind of hard to buy your logic. I'm not saying there are no stories where it was effective, I just haven't seen any, and you haven't presented any, nor have you presented any studies that show that it's effective where standard magazine clips wouldn't be effective.
The culprit just knowing the fact that you are armed should be enough. Shooting a 9mm at the door will send the person the message that you mean business. Remember, you are the one fighting for your life and the culprit is just there for an end to a means such as rape or robbery... He can just go to the next house that isn't armed.
I agree but a rifle would be more effective in convincing them, when they feel their chest cave in with each concussive shot.
