Feinstein calls for banning more than 150 types of firearms, including pistols and shotguns.

The video is a farce simply because it is using the most extreme example of why concealed carry is ineffective. The only more extreme example that could be used is if he accidentally shot a bystander.

You have a est .0001% chance of being killed in a mass shooting. The odds are even less likely to be killed in the first few seconds (long enough to pull).

It looks as if they picked the biggest goofball to be the concealed carry person.

Do you know what really makes this video pointless?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

 

Let me put it another way:

You have to be in one of two classrooms with 40 other people. In one classroom, a psycho with a .44 magnum enters and starts shooting people. In the other classroom, a psycho with a Bushmaster .223 enters and starts shooting people.

Which classroom would you choose to be in?

In short, arguing that the type of weapon is irrelevant is stupid.

And for the record, I am not talking about the lethality of the weapon when shooting one person, I am talking about the overall lethality of a weapon versus a group of people. We are, after all, talking about mass shootings here...

 

. And the odds that you will be saved by an armed upstanding citizen are 0.0000000000000000000000 null set nothing ever. So they need bushmasters to keep this perfect record!

 

Seems you have forgotten about zimmerman. He saved his own life.

The Portland Oregon mall shooting?

There are dozens of more cases, but you can't count hypothetical saved lives, right?

 

And a .44 holds six shells while the Bushmaster (which still does plenty enough damage to kill) with an extended magazine holds 30. Reloading a .44 Magnum revolver will also take quite some time compared to ejecting and replacing a 30 round magazine.

A shooter armed with a .44 will be able to kill people, certainly, but not as many as quickly as a shooter with a Bushmaster.

 

this.

It's pure politics from Obama. He's a typical slimy politician. This proposed assault weapons ban won't change a damn thing. If a criminal wants to get one, they will. If a psycho wants to kill people he will. Obama just has to do something to make it seem like he's protecting kids so he can score cheap political points. The fact that we're wasting so much time and political energy on this is ridiculous, considering the national disgrace that is our current unemployment situation right now.

 

You mean Obama and crew don't really think this crap is gonna make us all safer? They are creating meaningless legislation that limits our freedoms for no benefit, and people think its a great idea?

Ya, your prolly right.

 

When the first argument consists of some redneck shooting down a teenager armed with a pack of skittles you have perfectly proven my point.


**** your hobby and your fantasies- it's of no concern to adults.

 

SamFisher has gone off the deep end, even trying to stir up emotions from the Trayvon case, which is anything but settled.

You know you're wrong, Sam. When you start cussing and reaching for such tangents, it's clear that you're defensive and can't "stand your ground" in a reasoned debate.

 

Maybe. Someone packing a speed loader ready to go can probably deal some damage quite quickly. All someone needs is to be packing a few of these and reloading something, like a small revolver becomes a snap.

 

“What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It's not good at much else.”


― Tom Clancy

 

You gun nuts aren't looking at the right places. These are still legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek

 

And a person would have to use five speed loaders, reloading five times, to match a single 30 round magazine. Again, if you don't believe this would slow someone down versus using a Bushmaster, you are deluded.

 

I am 98% more likely to be killed by a handgun than a bushmaster, regardless of magazine size.

So ask me again, which one am I more afraid of?

 

If you were rational and considered the two side by side, it would be the Bushmaster. More rounds can be fired more quickly with fewer reloads necessary using an AR-15. A guy with a .44 can only take six shots at me before he has to reload, giving me a window to escape or attack. Facing a gunman with a Bushmaster gives me five times as many shots to dodge before such a window opens and the window is shorter because replacing a magazine is a far shorter process than reloading a revolver, even with a speed loader.

 

I actually don't have a problem with this...so long as they bring their checkbook with them. You know...governmental takings and all.

 

The Luger semi auto pistol (with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds) was the standard sidearm of the German military from WW1 until the outset of WW2. Would that qualify it as a military weapon?

I understand your point, and do not really disagree. I also believe that the lines need to be carefully drawn so that a slippery slope is not created where none exists.

 

First off, you're not going to be dodging any bullets, regardless of caliber. If its your turn to be shot, you better hope he has poor aim.

The point isn't whether you would prefer to be in a shooting involving a semi automatic rifle or a handgun.

The point is, would you rather regulate (or ban) something that involves only 2% of deaths or something that affects the 98%? Even in a perfect world where you could magically make all the semi-automatic rifles disappear, those 2% of deaths would just be replaced by handguns instead of rifles.

This isn't about protecting the 'gun nuts' right to own semi automatic rifles. It is about the ignorant left ignoring the true problems of gun control.

Does it really make you feel better at night knowing you prefer to ban a weapon that will practically have no effect on gun deaths in the long run?
Do you really prefer to spend months and months of typing up debate and legislation time to save a handful lives a year, while ignoring the hundreds of lives a year that could be saved through meaningful legislation? Of course not. The naive anti-gun crowd would prefer to follow the hollow cries of justice instead of take a little time and educating themselves.

 

Great post. Moon gets so wound up in the "us vs. them" that he forgets what logic he's even arguing for.

and L-O-L at the sight of moon trying to dodge bullets. Who does he think he is, a "bobbing and weaving macbeth"? *snort*

 

I think he's putting the bullets in the wrong way...



...oh wait, now I see the arrow.