Borderline Bar & Grill Shooting

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 04:22 PM)Benton Wrote: And you just did the same. In attempting to decry those calling for realistic gun safety, you pulled your soapbox out to say "hey, gun control doesn't work, look at this guy."

You guys obviously have me confused with someone not in favor of stricter gun control and ownership responsibility; however, this is not a situation that supports that stance. Despite Fred's feeble attempt to say "the magazine". 

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You guys obviously have me confused with someone not in favor of stricter gun control and ownership responsibility; however, this is not a situation that supports that stance. Despite Fred's feeble attempt to say "the magazine". 

High capacity magazines make it easier to kill more people faster.

If not then what do claim their purpose is?

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 04:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: High capacity magazines make it easier to kill more people faster.

If not then what do claim their purpose is?

Fewer reloads. 

WTS, how many times did you point to the magazine before that post? I saw a whole lot of other things unrelated to a magazine. 

What do you feel is the reasonable number of rounds a handgun magazine should hold?

[Au165]

(11-09-2018, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fewer reloads. 

WTS, how many times did you point to the magazine before that post? I saw a whole lot of other things unrelated to a magazine. 

What do you feel is the reasonable number of rounds a handgun magazine should hold?

Not Fred.....but I pointed to the magazine on the very first page, pointing out that magazine based weapons should be banned in favor of revolver hand guns and non magazined bolt action rifles. Both would allow people to defend homes, hunt, etc while slowing down fire rates when requiring reloads. 

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fewer reloads. 

Which makes it easier to kill more people faster.

(11-09-2018, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What do you feel is the reasonable number of rounds a handgun magazine should hold?

Depends on the size of the shell.  If it is an automatic then the number that will fit in the standard grip of a handgun about the size of a hand.

[Benton]

(11-09-2018, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You guys obviously have me confused with someone not in favor of stricter gun control and ownership responsibility

Nope. If you had intended solely to call out politicizing, you easily could have done that without the followup politicizing it the other way. If you truly do feel the need for stricter gun control laws, you're partisan is tripping up your comments.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 05:03 PM)Benton Wrote: Nope. If you had intended solely to call out politicizing, you easily could have done that without the followup politicizing it the other way. If you truly do feel the need for stricter gun control laws, you're partisan is tripping up your comments.

That made sense in your head didn't it?

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 05:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Which makes it easier to kill more people faster.


Depends on the size of the shell.  If it is an automatic then the number that will fit in the standard grip of a handgun about the size of a hand.

A trained marksman can reload with out missing a beat, but there are issues of jamming with the higher capacity magazines because the firearm is not designed to hold the additional weight. 

I have no problem with that, but this tragedy did not occur because of the magazine.  

My point is simple. This case does nothing to support stricter gun control. Now after the pulse shooting I was 100% behind looking at gun control. 

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 05:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That made sense in your head didn't it?

Made perfect sense to me.

A person in favor of common sense gun laws would not be squealing about how common sense guns laws would not have made a difference in this case. People in favor of common sense gun laws would welcome any chance to discuss them.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 04:54 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not Fred.....but I pointed to the magazine on the very first page, pointing out that magazine based weapons should be banned in favor of revolver hand guns and non magazined bolt action rifles. Both would allow people to defend homes, hunt, etc while slowing down fire rates when requiring reloads. 

Personally I think extended magazines are ignorant. We often had the "high speeds" tape 2 magazines together and then wonder why their weapon would not feed properly.

I've given my thought about gun control in other threads, it's just that I noticed folks dragging out their same tired pro/con arguments when this situation had nothing to do with it. 

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 05:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no problem with that, but this tragedy did not occur because of the magazine.  

Fewer people might have died.

(11-09-2018, 05:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My point is simple. This case does nothing to support stricter gun control. Now after the pulse shooting I was 100% behind looking at gun control. 

This case supports the law against high volumn magazines.

And if you are in favor of common sense gun control laws why are you so pissed off that we are talking about them?  What if we try to talk about them when there has NOT been a mass shooting?  Will that upset you also?

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 05:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Made perfect sense to me.

A person in favor of common sense gun laws would not be squealing about how common sense guns laws would not have made a difference in this case. People in favor of common sense gun laws would welcome any chance to discuss them.

It's because he is part of we.

How would they have made a difference? I haven't squealed about anything in this thread; simply stated folks are debating stuff that has 0 to do with this tragedy.  

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 05:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Fewer people might have died.


This case supports the law against high volumn magazines.

And if you are in favor of common sense gun control laws why are you so pissed off that we are talking about them?  What if we try to talk about them when there has NOT been a mass shooting?  Will that upset you also?

Of course you are just speculating.

All I've asked for is one common sense gun control law would have prevented/modified this tragedy? 

[Au165]

(11-09-2018, 05:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Personally I think extended magazines are ignorant. We often had the "high speeds" tape 2 magazines together and then wonder why their weapon would not feed properly.

I've given my thought about gun control in other threads, it's just that I noticed folks dragging out their same tired pro/con arguments when this situation had nothing to do with it. 

I'm not saying extended magazines, I'm saying eliminate all magazine for non law enforcement or military uses. It meets the standard for the 2nd amendment as it gives people the access to various classes of guns (hand guns, rifles, shotguns) however limits their rate of fire. I'm not even looking at this specific event, but all events where shooters worked through large areas of people. In all cases having to reload small capacity weapons with loose ammo would have unequivocally slowed them down. Would it have stopped it? No. Would it have saved a life or two? Maybe. I'm not sure we can stop these things but we can make attempts to limit damage. 

[Benton]

(11-09-2018, 05:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you are just speculating.

All I've asked for is one common sense gun control law would have prevented/modified this tragedy? 

... and when people start discussing that, you complain they're bringing up tired, unrelated issues.

It's the partisan merry-go-round!

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  simply stated folks are debating stuff that has 0 to do with this tragedy.  

So we are only allowed to talk about gun control laws after an incident that illustrates the issue?

How many days after the incident do we have to stop and wit for another one?

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 05:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you are just speculating.

All I've asked for is one common sense gun control law would have prevented/modified this tragedy? 

Ban high capacity magazines.  They make it easier to kill more people faster.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 05:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Ban high capacity magazines.  They make it easier to kill more people faster.

They always do not; I've already explained that they can cause malfunctions because of the added weight working against the cambering cycle. 

Ban them because they are stupid or ban them because it will make a few people feel better. But it won't matter. You know; the way you feel about thoughts and prayers. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 05:28 PM)Au165 Wrote: I'm not saying extended magazines, I'm saying eliminate all magazine for non law enforcement or military uses. It meets the standard for the 2nd amendment as it gives people the access to various classes of guns (hand guns, rifles, shotguns) however limits their rate of fire. I'm not even looking at this specific event, but all events where shooters worked through large areas of people. In all cases having to reload small capacity weapons with loose ammo would have unequivocally slowed them down. Would it have stopped it? No. Would it have saved a life or two? Maybe. I'm not sure we can stop these things but we can make attempts to limit damage. 

I personally don't think anyone needs a handgun for home protection

I feel a citizen of the age of consent should be able to own a long rifle to keep in their homes without restriction. 

Owning a handgun should come with a degree of qualification(s), but this dude would have met those. 

Not sure about the revolver only aspect. Personally I would prefer a revolver for a novice only. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 05:29 PM)Benton Wrote: ... and when people start discussing that, you complain they're bringing up tired, unrelated issues.

It's the partisan merry-go-round!

Actually Dino hit on what is relevant in this case (IMO) and it is mental health; especially, when tied to actions in combat serving our country.

That is a much more relevant discussion that how many rounds a magazine should hold in this case.