2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: hvybarrels on March 13, 2020, 11:48:57 PM
-
HPD has centered their mag capacity argument around this theory and presenting it as an indisputable fact. It is much more likely that shooting back is the most effective means of stopping a shooter, and this waiting for a mag-change scenario to launch a physical assault is either an extremely rare occurrence or straight up fiction borrowed from a Tom Clancy novel.
In either case we need to make sure this one gets addressed in the next round of testimony because it has gone unchallenged for far too long.
-
Also re testimony- Sprinkling in more statistics would really help going forward. HPD has been acting like a crime statistics authority even though the facts do not support their arguments.
-
There are recent anecdotal accounts of someone tackling a shooter during a mag change/fumble. I think one was the Gabby Giffords shooting.
Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[31]
Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the fourteenth injury.[32][failed verification]
Loughner was tackled to the ground by Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel[33] who had also been shot himself. Loughner was further
subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio, a concealed weapon (CCW) permit holder, had a weapon on his person,
but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm.[34]
Thirty-one shell casings were found at the scene by investigators.[35]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
The question is, who wants to be the first 5-10 people shot hoping the 11th is brave enough to jump the gunman after he's forced to change mags? I'd much rather stop the shooter long before he empties his mag no matter how many rounds it holds.
Lawmakers are setting an arbitrary number on how many people they think is acceptable casualties before a potential window of opportunity presents itself, no matter how small or unlikely that will be a long enough pause.
That arbitrary number of acceptable casualties is apparently 10.
-
On the flip-side, a mass shooting was PREVENTED by an armed church member. The victim tally halted after just 2 rounds were fired. The third fatality was the murderer.
Had the church goers needed to wait for a mag change -- assuming the only mags available legally OR ILLEGALLY held 10 rounds -- that's 11 rounds (one chambered) that represents 11 potential deaths before anyone had a chance to react without being shot first.
BTW, the shooter reportedly used an illegal sawed off shotgun. I don't know what capacity it had, so there's not much of a correlation to be drawn with the mag limits. It seems details never get reported when the scary black rifle is absent.
The attack ended after 6 seconds, and five or six other members of the church assembly also drew their own weapons in response to the shooting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Freeway_Church_of_Christ_shooting
When someone intends to commit murder using deadly force, it's obvious our state politicians think a mag restriction somehow levels the playing field. They refuse to allow the law abiding to be armed. Since we can't defend ourselves with reasonable means, the law has to try and make the odds of loosing the fight less one-sided -- or at least pretend to do so.
I'll bet $100 you can find 10 lawmakers in a matter of minutes who don't know that a 10 round magazine means a criminal likely has 11 rounds loaded.
-
So a State Government who does ZERO for people with mental health and addiction issues and leaves them to fend for themselves on the street, has somehow decided that legal firearm owners with all the checks were are required to go thru are the folks who have the most potential to be dangerous?
If you want some statistics to show HPD how about - We find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh of the rate for police officers - Crime Prevention Research Center
-
Anyone ever watch Jerry Miculek reload a revolver? He fired 12 shots on target in 2.4 sec with a 6 shot revolver. I can easily reload my Glock 19 in 1.5 sec if I have a magazine in my support hand. By the time someone realizes I am out of ammo and need to reload, it will already have been done. Not to mention the fact that someone planning a mass shooting can easily obtain large capacity mags, like a 21 or 33 rd mag for the Glock 9mm pistols.
Stupid laws proposed by stupid clueless idiots.
-
I dont think it has anything to do with mag changes at all. HPD and other orgs that see gun ownership as NOT a right will continue to chip away at the right till it is too expensive or impractical to own a firearm. The process of obtaining a rifle or pistol is illogical and only exists to dissuade ownership. Its easier to buy a car and all the info related to a car is done a lot easier and faster. Yet more people are killed with cars.
-
so they expect criminals to abide by HRS, and only use 10rd mags, just because? how has that been working sofar, criminals abiding by HRS? if that's their plan, somebody needs to be fired. Well, if the criminals were respective of the HRS, then they wouldn't be criminals, now, would they?
so they're going to sit out a mass shooting, cool-head, behind cover, and count the shots, and then after the 10th person is shot, everybody rush? seriously? Well, that kinda means they got there before the first shot, dunno how, so they can start their count. Really? That's their plan? or, they expect witnesses rushing out of the building to provide them with an accurate round count? this is so ridiculously ludicrous.
Maybe that's what School Resource Officer Scot Peterson was then "bravely" doing (HPD-style) during the Florida Stoneman-Douglas Parkland school shooting, standing around outside the door, not going in. Maybe he lost count? The rest of the world labeled it as cowardice, but I guess that's the HPD plan. Really? That's what they're going with?
:wacko:
-
(https://i.imgur.com/1voSQ9D.png)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xjr2hnOHiM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xjr2hnOHiM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Nci-GVuHE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Nci-GVuHE)
if this is the HPD mass shooter strategy, this merits National ridicule, JMHO.
-
HPD has centered their mag capacity argument around this theory and presenting it as an indisputable fact. It is much more likely that shooting back is the most effective means of stopping a shooter, and this waiting for a mag-change scenario to launch a physical assault is either an extremely rare occurrence or straight up fiction borrowed from a Tom Clancy novel.
In either case we need to make sure this one gets addressed in the next round of testimony because it has gone unchallenged for far too long.
I heard that too and I was interested to know whether there was any statistical data to support that.
The statement makes intuitive sense and I believe some combat training involves moving or assaulting a target when the target is reloading so it isn't an irrational belief however that doesn't mean it is statistically supported. From my experience in paintball when your opponent has gone dry and is reloading is a very opportune time to rush them. I think the argument is likely true
-
I heard that too and I was interested to know whether there was any statistical data to support that.
The statement makes intuitive sense and I believe some combat training involves moving or assaulting a target when the target is reloading so it isn't an irrational belief however that doesn't mean it is statistically supported. From my experience in paintball when your opponent has gone dry and is reloading is a very opportune time to rush them. I think the argument is likely true
The problem is, was he reloading or just stopped shooting. Many who hear a pause in fire, assume reloading. It takes 1 second to reload. I dont think there is enough evidence to prove either side.
But if we look at what evidence is trackable, a small number of deaths every year due to active shooters, doesnt warrant infringing on the rights of thousands.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I heard that too and I was interested to know whether there was any statistical data to support that.
The statement makes intuitive sense and I believe some combat training involves moving or assaulting a target when the target is reloading so it isn't an irrational belief however that doesn't mean it is statistically supported. From my experience in paintball when your opponent has gone dry and is reloading is a very opportune time to rush them. I think the argument is likely true
Thank you for demonstrating the kind of flawed thought process our legislatures use.
The reason I started the thread is that it is also one of the arguments that Chris Lee used during the speech where he was pretending to assassinate his fellow House members.
He does not strike me as the type of people who would count bullets and then rush out to confront an armed attacker, but more like the type that prays for someone else with a gun to show up and stop the attack for him.
-
But if we look at what evidence is trackable, a small number of deaths every year due to active shooters, doesnt warrant infringing on the rights of thousands.
Three possible responses:
1. More accurately:
But if we look at what evidence is trackable, a small number of deaths every year due to active shooters, doesnt warrant infringing on the rights of TENS OF MILLIONS.
2. "If it can save just one life... anything is worth doing." [Prepare the gulags...]
3. The honest response, "Look, you know it, we know it, we know you know it... we have absolutely no interest in decreasing crime or crime victimization. We want only one thing, to eventually completely disarm the civilian population, and, as this must be done incrementally, this is one of those steps. We'll leave it up to you to decide why we'd want to do that."
-
I heard that too and I was interested to know whether there was any statistical data to support that.
The statement makes intuitive sense and I believe some combat training involves moving or assaulting a target when the target is reloading so it isn't an irrational belief however that doesn't mean it is statistically supported. From my experience in paintball when your opponent has gone dry and is reloading is a very opportune time to rush them. I think the argument is likely true
The problem is that you THINK it’s true, but have no PROOF it is. There were lots of times in paintball and airsoft I’d pretend to go dry just to sucker someone into breaking from cover and rush.
-
The problem is that you THINK it’s true, but have no PROOF it is. There were lots of times in paintball and airsoft I’d pretend to go dry just to sucker someone into breaking from cover and rush.
Yup. Push to “do something” based on emotion, not logic or rational thought.
-
The problem with depending on statistics for things like this (and some on here have an addiction to statistics over common sense) is that when someone rushes a shooter and DIES in that attempt, there is no way to know if that dead person thought -- or knew -- the shooter was reloading. Unless, of course, someone heard him say, "He's reloading! Rush him!"
The "rusher" may have just waited for the shooter to turn his back to him, or for the moment when he was seemingly focused on someone else? Maybe the shooter was taking aim at someone the would-be tackler cared for and he/she was acting out of instinct to protect that someone else?
Good luck finding ANY reliable stats on the FAILED attempts to rush a shooter -- during reloads or not.
-
The problem is, was he reloading or just stopped shooting. Many who hear a pause in fire, assume reloading. It takes 1 second to reload. I dont think there is enough evidence to prove either side.
But if we look at what evidence is trackable, a small number of deaths every year due to active shooters, doesnt warrant infringing on the rights of thousands.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
That is always a risk. In paintball I would sometimes fire the gun without a ball to make people think I was out. I have read that US soldiers would carry extra spring clips for their M1 and pop them to trick the enemy into thinking they were out. The guy could be fake reloading to trick you into attacking but honestly I doubt most mass shooters are really thinking that deeply about tactics. Plus that is assuming you are relying on sound alone. If you see the person drop the mag out of their gun and reach for a new magazine then you know they are actually reloading and you have a short window to act upon.
I totally agree that in the end it does not justify banning high capacity magazines, just that there are merits to the argument.
-
That is always a risk. In paintball I would sometimes fire the gun without a ball to make people think I was out. I have read that US soldiers would carry extra spring clips for their M1 and pop them to trick the enemy into thinking they were out. The guy could be fake reloading to trick you into attacking but honestly I doubt most mass shooters are really thinking that deeply about tactics. Plus that is assuming you are relying on sound alone. If you see the person drop the mag out of their gun and reach for a new magazine then you know they are actually reloading and you have a short window to act upon.
I totally agree that in the end it does not justify banning high capacity magazines, just that there are merits to the argument.
Merits can be made for anything anti 2a, watch
If barrels were required to be 17 inches, the shooter might bang the door or wall cause that extra 1 inch didnt clear it. Thus giving someone time to run or attack the shooter.
Not being able to wrap ur thumb around the pistol grip of an AR would give the shooter less control of the rifle if someone were to attack the active shooter.
Requiring rifles to weigh 80lbs or more would make an active shooter move too slow and unable to move the rifle quickly.
Rights are designed to not be taken away or limited.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I totally agree that in the end it does not justify banning high standard capacity magazines, just that there are merits to the argument.
I fixed it for you.
While arguments can have merit, this is the problem with that. Merit has nothing to do with proof or fact. It's more related to feelings of worth. An example of an argument that had merit is "Separate but equal" which was an argument used to justify school segregation, and an argument that had merit, but was proven to be false. Again, you don't offer any proof to your argument that banning standard capacity magazines would allow survivors to escape from an active shooter because he would have to reload more often. None of this addresses the main cause of all of this and that's the shooter.
-
I fixed it for you.
While arguments can have merit, this is the problem with that. Merit has nothing to do with proof or fact. It's more related to feelings of worth. An example of an argument that had merit is "Separate but equal" which was an argument used to justify school segregation, and an argument that had merit, but was proven to be false. Again, you don't offer any proof to your argument that banning standard capacity magazines would allow survivors to escape from an active shooter because he would have to reload more often. None of this addresses the main cause of all of this and that's the shooter.
"None of this addresses the main cause of all of this and that's the shooter. "
It is not wise to confuse Democrats with facts and data.
They just order society to shut down.
-
The problem with pointing out the merits of an argument is the merits are not based on anything provable or supported by reality.
It's easy to convince an anti-gun person that "reloading equals a chance to flee or tackle the shooter "when they may also believe that a magazine is no longer useful, ever again, when it's been emptied.
Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette has been the lead sponsor on a federal ban on high-capacity
ammunition magazines in two Congresses, saying it’s one of her top priorities.
:
Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing
gun violence, DeGette said:
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re
going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines
is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t
be any more available.”
At least her argument has "merit." :wacko:
Merit: the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
-
Merits can be made for anything anti 2a, watch
If barrels were required to be 17 inches, the shooter might bang the door or wall cause that extra 1 inch didnt clear it. Thus giving someone time to run or attack the shooter.
Not being able to wrap ur thumb around the pistol grip of an AR would give the shooter less control of the rifle if someone were to attack the active shooter.
Requiring rifles to weigh 80lbs or more would make an active shooter move too slow and unable to move the rifle quickly.
Rights are designed to not be taken away or limited.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I acknowledge reasonable merits in arguments whether they are for or against my position though. As is often stated, facts don't care about feelings. Thus I am acknowledging when the opposition makes an argument that has a reasonable merit. Pretending it is fallacious would be dishonest on my behalf. Now where my opinion comes into play in this is that I don't think that merit justifies banning high capacity magazines.
As to you last line I agree generally but very few, if any, rights are absolute but that's kind of getting into a different subject.
-
I fixed it for you.
While arguments can have merit, this is the problem with that. Merit has nothing to do with proof or fact. It's more related to feelings of worth. An example of an argument that had merit is "Separate but equal" which was an argument used to justify school segregation, and an argument that had merit, but was proven to be false. Again, you don't offer any proof to your argument that banning standard capacity magazines would allow survivors to escape from an active shooter because he would have to reload more often. None of this addresses the main cause of all of this and that's the shooter.
Perhaps merit is not the most precise word to describe what I am getting at. Another way of putting it is that the argument has a point. The argument has a basis in logic and I would argue that there is enough proof to support the conclusion.
A high capacity magazine means you can fire more rounds quicker. This really isn't something we need some scientific test to know is true, especially if you have any experience with firearms. But even then, people have done tests which do show that higher capacity magazines allow more rounds to be fired in the same time frame. With an experienced shooter the time difference is less significant but with a novice shooter the time difference is going to be more significant. Either way it creates a window, however short, which will enable people to get farther away or someone else to confront the threat. Why do you think reload practice is so important? Because a lot can happen in that gap between the first magazine and the second.
-
Why do people use rare occurrences of mass shootings to justify limiting magazine capacities when the reality is that more law abiding people should have the option to protect themselves and others with the exact same capacities the Cops use.
I'm tired of people who think limiting the rights of millions who do nothing illegal will somehow prevent a criminal from obtaining illegal mags or finding other ways to circumvent the law (like carrying multiple weapons, planning his route so he's not exposed during reloads, firing the entire time from cover, etc, etc).
Why are Cops exempted? If there are any exemptions, then the premise that nobody in the state can commit crimes with standard capacity mags is false. How many Cop cars in Hawaii have been burglarized and guns stolen? How many Cops have been investigated and indicted for felonies in the state in the last 4 years?
If mags are the problem, then NOBODY should have them. If they are effective enough for Cops, they should be allowed for the public. Period.
-
Perhaps merit is not the most precise word to describe what I am getting at. Another way of putting it is that the argument has a point. The argument has a basis in logic and I would argue that there is enough proof to support the conclusion.
A high capacity magazine means you can fire more rounds quicker. This really isn't something we need some scientific test to know is true, especially if you have any experience with firearms. But even then, people have done tests which do show that higher capacity magazines allow more rounds to be fired in the same time frame. With an experienced shooter the time difference is less significant but with a novice shooter the time difference is going to be more significant. Either way it creates a window, however short, which will enable people to get farther away or someone else to confront the threat. Why do you think reload practice is so important? Because a lot can happen in that gap between the first magazine and the second.
Names, specific names of survivors from recent mass shootings that said they survived because the shooter took too long to reload. You only offer generalities and are evasively vague in your answer. What “tests”, and what “people”? Give us the names of these people and organizations that conducted these “tests” because I believe that would be a first. You lack specific, concrete, examples to support your claim.
-
If you reverse the Tueller 21 ft rule and apply it to the potential victim, it would take them 1.5 seconds to even decide to commit to attack the shooter if they thought he was empty and going to reload
Now add the time it takes to cover the distance to get to shooter.
For the sake of argument we'll call that 3 seconds ( empty a 10 rnd mag in 3 seconds) for 21 ft distance as I think once the shooting started , most folks near the shooter would already be victims or would be digging out. and that's getting at least 21 ft via Tueller.
How many mag changes can most "Regular" shooters make in 4.5 seconds ?
-
If you reverse the Tueller 21 ft rule and apply it to the potential victim, it would take them 1.5 seconds to even decide to commit to attack the shooter if they thought he was empty and going to reload
Now add the time it takes to cover the distance to get to shooter.
For the sake of argument we'll call that 3 seconds ( empty a 10 rnd mag in 3 seconds) for 21 ft distance as I think once the shooting started , most folks near the shooter would already be victims or would be digging out. and that's getting at least 21 ft via Tueller.
How many mag changes can most "Regular" shooters make in 4.5 seconds ?
I reviewed the video that the guy in New Zealand moslem
shooting. It is a class in why Hawaii gun laws can't possibly work,
to avoid such crimes.
911 really works, NOT! for you Hawaii cops
reading this. You are useless in a situation where I have to
save my or someone else's life in a matter of minutes.
Shooter fumbled his mag changes. Dropping some.
If just one guy had blasted some rounds at the guy
it would have stopped him even if your shots missed or did not
kill him if you hit him.
The one guy that either tripped into the shooter or tried to tackle
the guy was shot. Didn't slow shooter down, they needed more than one guy
to attack. Only military/gang trained guys would attack as a group.
For some reason that video has been removed from everywhere,
probably because Democrats don't want you to see how easy it is to
ki ll people in a "Gun free" zone.
Even when you drop your magazines.
Hawaii Democrats keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different
result.
-
The problem with pointing out the merits of an argument is the merits are not based on anything provable or supported by reality.
It's easy to convince an anti-gun person that "reloading equals a chance to flee or tackle the shooter "when they may also believe that a magazine is no longer useful, ever again, when it's been emptied.
At least her argument has "merit." :wacko:
Merit: the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
Does it have merit when her statement is completely false? Like implying an empty magazine is no longer any good? Does she not know magazines are sold empty and the buyer has to fill it up? Like most liberals, her argument is senseless and stupid.
-
Does it have merit when her statement is completely false? Like implying an empty magazine is no longer any good? Does she not know magazines are sold empty and the buyer has to fill it up? Like most liberals, her argument is senseless and stupid.
1. She has been pushing mag limit legislation for YEARS.
2. She doesn't have the first clue about how a magazine functions, nor whether her proposed laws will save one single life.
3. We do know that if someone is forced to protect themselves or family members, limiting the capacity in their mags puts their lives at risk. Her only apparent goal is to effect a decrease in the number of people who can own certain firearm accessories.
4. There's no way to find and confiscate every single higher-capacity mag in the jurisdiction. Therefore, the laws will have no effect on criminals who already have, or can obtain through purchase or theft, grandfathered items. Her lack of understanding of how mags work leads her to believe this is a non-issue over some unspecified amount of time, as magazines will be "used up and disappear from the public."
5.. Exemptions from limits for Cops ensures there will always be higher-capacity mags in circulation, through theft, illegal black market sales, and access by friends or family of Cops.
According to EEF, her argument has merit, even if her ignorance is on full display, because HE AGREES with the underlying premise that requiring a mass shooter to perform more mag changes will equal more time to fight or flee for victims.
He ignores the REAL solution, which was demonstrated in a church recently where a shooter was stopped by an armed civilian in 6 seconds. it was a mass shooting that never reached mass shooting fatality numbers. If they had relied on the law to protect them, there could have been 10 casualties before a reload presented any opportunity to fight back versus the actual number of 2 fatalities (not counting the dead shooter).
I wonder if EEF wants to be one of the first 10 to die waiting on a reload so "somebody" can "maybe try" to tackle him?
-
How many mag changes can most "Regular" shooters make in 4.5 seconds ?
I don't know if people who attend Front Sight courses would be considered "regular" shooters or not, but I do know if you cannot clear a type 3 malfunction in 4.5 sec or less, you failed that part of the course. The time they give you for a tactical reload is much less.
-
I don't know if people who attend Front Sight courses would be considered "regular" shooters or not, but I do know if you cannot clear a type 3 malfunction in 4.5 sec or less, you failed that part of the course. The time they give you for a tactical reload is much less.
A tactical reload by definition means the pistol is not empty, even after the mag is ejected and before another mag is inserted.
That fact alone destroys any argument that a mag change = chance to fight or flee.
-
I reviewed the video that the guy in New Zealand moslem
shooting. It is a class in why Hawaii gun laws can't possibly work,
to avoid such crimes.
911 really works, NOT! for you Hawaii cops
reading this. You are useless in a situation where I have to
save my or someone else's life in a matter of minutes.
Shooter fumbled his mag changes. Dropping some.
If just one guy had blasted some rounds at the guy
it would have stopped him even if your shots missed or did not
kill him if you hit him.
The one guy that either tripped into the shooter or tried to tackle
the guy was shot. Didn't slow shooter down, they needed more than one guy
to attack. Only military/gang trained guys would attack as a group.
For some reason that video has been removed from everywhere,
probably because Democrats don't want you to see how easy it is to
ki ll people in a "Gun free" zone.
Even when you drop your magazines.
Hawaii Democrats keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different
result.
Dont forget ur wml falling off too.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Dont forget ur wml falling off too.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
what is "wml"?
I'm an old guy.
I'm thinking of offering NJ my services as a COBOL
programmer. They apparently can't find any.
I'm that old.
-
what is "wml"?
I'm an old guy.
I'm thinking of offering NJ my services as a COBOL
programmer. They apparently can't find any.
I'm that old.
I only know one person who voluntarily devoted their career to COBOL. He was paid quite well until he retired from HECO. When he left, they had no choice but to migrate to a less obscure coding language. That was in 2013.
-
I only know one person who voluntarily devoted their career to COBOL. He was paid quite well until he retired from HECO. When he left, they had no choice but to migrate to a less obscure coding language. That was in 2013.
I actually am fluent in 20 or so computer languages.
I have a BS degree in computer science.
I know how to design a computer language.
One of my senior projects was to create a language,
write a compiler for it, and let other people use it.
COBOL was not, is not obscure.
What surprises me is why people find COBOL
hard to understand.
But then again I read code like you read this comment.
Full disclosure;
Retired Boeing real time software engineer,
that mainly designed power supplies for airplanes,
(Mine worked and didn't burn up)
managed multi million dollar projects,
and had to hide the fact I'm a life time NRA
member.
If you can't multi task, you are going to be history
in today's world.
Want me to design and build you a robot that will hunt
down cops parked and waiting to give you a speeding ticket?
It is easier than you think.
Aloha and stay healthy.
-
I actually am fluent in 20 or so computer languages.
I have a BS degree in computer science.
I know how to design a computer language.
One of my senior projects was to create a language,
write a compiler for it, and let other people use it.
COBOL was not, is not obscure.
What surprises me is why people find COBOL
hard to understand.
But then again I read code like you read this comment.
Full disclosure;
Retired Boeing real time software engineer,
that mainly designed power supplies for airplanes,
(Mine worked and didn't burn up)
managed multi million dollar projects,
and had to hide the fact I'm a life time NRA
member.
If you can't multi task, you are going to be history
in today's world.
Want me to design and build you a robot that will hunt
down cops parked and waiting to give you a speeding ticket?
It is easier than you think.
Aloha and stay healthy.
Not news to me.
I worked on AWACS, a Boeing 707 airframe, with a mission compartment designed by Boeing (the radar was from Westinghouse, and the radios from Motorola).
We used 4Pi Assembler, Fortran, IBM 370 Assembler, and, yes COBOL.
I also wrote a compiler in college, but used PASCAL.
I thought my COBOL days were over when I graduated, but my 13 week training at Keesler AFB and 5 years at Tinker AFB continued my COBOL use. When I PCSed to Langley, my COBOL days were over. :thumbsup:
COBOL is self documenting -- IF the coder uses intelligible naming conventions. Big "if".
-
what is "wml"?
I'm an old guy.
I'm thinking of offering NJ my services as a COBOL
programmer. They apparently can't find any.
I'm that old.
The mosque shooters weapon mounted light fell off.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Not news to me.
I worked on AWACS, a Boeing 707 airframe, with a mission compartment designed by Boeing (the radar was from Westinghouse, and the radios from Motorola).
We used 4Pi Assembler, Fortran, IBM 370 Assembler, and, yes COBOL.
I also wrote a compiler in college, but used PASCAL.
I thought my COBOL days were over when I graduated, but my 13 week training at Keesler AFB and 5 years at Tinker AFB continued my COBOL use. When I PCSed to Langley, my COBOL days were over. :thumbsup:
COBOL is self documenting -- IF the coder uses intelligible naming conventions. Big "if".
We probably know each other.
or at least crossed paths.
To be honest my favorite language is Pascal,
but it is more for academic types.
ADA is probably the best but very hard to master.
I'm familiar with your OTAN planes as I worked to certify them,
NATO for you guys that don't speak French.
Most "coders" are kids that should be fired
as they want to make their creations as
mysterious as possible.
My education was to make it as
"open as possible"
It is just a Ones and Zeros
Transistors that is really fast.
-
Names, specific names of survivors from recent mass shootings that said they survived because the shooter took too long to reload. You only offer generalities and are evasively vague in your answer. What “tests”, and what “people”? Give us the names of these people and organizations that conducted these “tests” because I believe that would be a first. You lack specific, concrete, examples to support your claim.
Maybe you would like to participate in a controlled study and get shot at to see if you have a smaller chance of getting hit but I will pass.
How about this, if you had to shoot 30 rounds as fast as possible, would you choose a single 30 round magazine or 3 ten round magazines? My guess is you wouldn't need a scientific test to find out. Reloading takes time, why do you need a scientific test to prove this?
But check out this video. Having to reload added time to their shooting. All other things being equal are you going to tell me those extra couple of seconds won't make any difference in someone running from or attacking the threat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU&t=733s
-
Why do people use rare occurrences of mass shootings to justify limiting magazine capacities when the reality is that more law abiding people should have the option to protect themselves and others with the exact same capacities the Cops use.
I see 2 main themes in their arguments to answer that question:
1. Mass shootings get the most attention given the extremely violent nature and senselessness of it.
2. They think that if it saves a few lives then it is worth it. If if restricting you and I to ten round magazines allows one more victim to escape then it was work it in their mind.
I'm tired of people who think limiting the rights of millions who do nothing illegal will somehow prevent a criminal from obtaining illegal mags or finding other ways to circumvent the law (like carrying multiple weapons, planning his route so he's not exposed during reloads, firing the entire time from cover, etc, etc)
Agreed. I think it would be effective but that doesn't mean it justifies restricting all of our rights. Every time I point out that banning alcohol would save lots of lives too (more in fact), they abandon that same logic though!
Why are Cops exempted?
My guess is that it can be justified because cops go through more serious background checks and regular training.
-
My guess is that it can be justified because cops go through more serious background checks and regular training.
lol
how often is the training that you do that you consider it "regular"?
-
Maybe you would like to participate in a controlled study and get shot at to see if you have a smaller chance of getting hit but I will pass.
How about this, if you had to shoot 30 rounds as fast as possible, would you choose a single 30 round magazine or 3 ten round magazines? My guess is you wouldn't need a scientific test to find out. Reloading takes time, why do you need a scientific test to prove this?
But check out this video. Having to reload added time to their shooting. All other things being equal are you going to tell me those extra couple of seconds won't make any difference in someone running from or attacking the threat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU&t=733s
Cool story bro 😎. Again, you don’t offer any proof that mag limits result in lives being saved during a mass shooting. All you’re doing is reguritating your theory in different ways. You can’t cite a survivor from one of the recent mass shootings because there aren’t any that anyone can find. So tell me how your theory would have resulted in more survivors of the worst mass shooting in modern Hawaii history - Xerox.
-
Maybe you would like to participate in a controlled study and get shot at to see if you have a smaller chance of getting hit but I will pass.
How about this, if you had to shoot 30 rounds as fast as possible, would you choose a single 30 round magazine or 3 ten round magazines? My guess is you wouldn't need a scientific test to find out. Reloading takes time, why do you need a scientific test to prove this?
But check out this video. Having to reload added time to their shooting. All other things being equal are you going to tell me those extra couple of seconds won't make any difference in someone running from or attacking the threat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU&t=733s
How many active shooters obeyed any magazine law? Let's use Hawaii as an example since it's here. Uyesugi used standard glock mags 15rds. The mag limit was passed 2 years prior and there is no grandfather clause.
So an active shooter will break the following laws: Murder, attempted murder, probably transporting a firearm in an illegal manner (depending on the state), gun free zone (depending on the location of shooting) but yet for some miracle reason, they will use 10rd magazines and not standard mags. If they will abide by a 10rd magazine law, why don't we make the law 1 rd?
The only exception is Niklaus Cruz for some reason, he used 10rd mags. And he also calmly ate at McDonalds after as well.
-
How many active shooters obeyed any magazine law? Let's use Hawaii as an example since it's here. Uyesugi used standard glock mags 15rds. The mag limit was passed 2 years prior and there is no grandfather clause.
So an active shooter will break the following laws: Murder, attempted murder, probably transporting a firearm in an illegal manner (depending on the state), gun free zone (depending on the location of shooting) but yet for some miracle reason, they will use 10rd magazines and not standard mags. If they will abide by a 10rd magazine law, why don't we make the law 1 rd?
The only exception is Niklaus Cruz for some reason, he used 10rd mags. And he also calmly ate at McDonalds after as well.
And for some reason, Niklaus Cruz used 10rd mags in a state with NO Mag limit :wacko:
-
And for some reason, Niklaus Cruz used 10rd mags in a state with NO Mag limit :wacko:
The reason he gave, according to what I read, was that larger mags would not fit in the bag he was using.
The 19-year-old school shooter who killed 17 in Florida on Valentine’s Day had 150 rounds of ammunition
in 10-round magazines. Larger ones would not fit in his bag, Florida state senator Lauren Book revealed.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/report-parkland-shooter-did-not-use-high-capacity-magazines/
-
I would have used a bigger bag. Dumbass.
-
I would have used a bigger bag. Dumbass.
I would say intelligence and logic are NOT in the mass shooters skill set. :crazy:
-
That shows he was bat shit crazy, and stopping after to eat a burger. Had he had an escape plan, he might have gotten very far.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
lol
how often is the training that you do that you consider it "regular"?
Well at least 3 hours a day, 4 days a week in Call of Duty HARDCORE mode so pretty regular.
-
Cool story bro 😎. Again, you don’t offer any proof that mag limits result in lives being saved during a mass shooting. All you’re doing is reguritating your theory in different ways. You can’t cite a survivor from one of the recent mass shootings because there aren’t any that anyone can find. So tell me how your theory would have resulted in more survivors of the worst mass shooting in modern Hawaii history - Xerox.
Again, do you need proof that magazine changes take more time than no magazine changes? Do you need proof that more time to flee gives you a better chance at survival?
The same reason that high capacity magazines allow you to better defend yourself is the same reason it makes an attacker more dangerous. You can't make the argument that it makes no difference but does make a difference.
-
How many active shooters obeyed any magazine law? Let's use Hawaii as an example since it's here. Uyesugi used standard glock mags 15rds. The mag limit was passed 2 years prior and there is no grandfather clause.
So an active shooter will break the following laws: Murder, attempted murder, probably transporting a firearm in an illegal manner (depending on the state), gun free zone (depending on the location of shooting) but yet for some miracle reason, they will use 10rd magazines and not standard mags. If they will abide by a 10rd magazine law, why don't we make the law 1 rd?
The only exception is Niklaus Cruz for some reason, he used 10rd mags. And he also calmly ate at McDonalds after as well.
I am not addressing the effectiveness of such a law, only the effectiveness of a high capacity magazine vs a 10 round magazine.
-
Again, do you need proof that magazine changes take more time than no magazine changes? Do you need proof that more time to flee gives you a better chance at survival?
The same reason that high capacity magazines allow you to better defend yourself is the same reason it makes an attacker more dangerous. You can't make the argument that it makes no difference but does make a difference.
I concede your point, but then the issue becomes what is the utility of interfering with a frequently exercised constitutional right in order to possibly have a minor effect on events that are extremely rare and only involve a tiny amount of people? It is so far of a stretch to argue that this is in the interest of "public safety" that I am inclined to believe that the real issue is not about mass shootings, but the police and politicians are actually demanding a lethal advantage over private citizens. The real question is what are they preparing for and do they think of us as their enemy?
-
I concede your point, but then the issue becomes what is the utility of interfering with a frequently exercised constitutional right in order to possibly have a minor effect on events that are extremely rare and only involve a tiny amount of people? It is so far of a stretch to argue that this is in the interest of "public safety" that I am inclined to believe that the real issue is not about mass shootings, but the police and politicians are actually demanding a lethal advantage over private citizens. The real question is what are they preparing for and do they think of us as their enemy?
The same reason that high capacity magazines allow you to better defend yourself
is the same reason it makes an attacker more dangerous.
That's an insane comparison:
1. an ATTACKER intent on killing the maximum number of people is going to plan, equip and be mentally prepared to empty a mag, reload, and continue firing.
2. a VICTIM who is SURPRISED by an attacker is not going to be able to plan the time, place nor equipment for that situation. Only the attacker gets the luxury of choosing the time, place and situation.
Therefore, the victim not having planned to carry or have on hand several mags already filled and in a position to quickly change when needed is at a disadvantage. Having a STANDARD CAPACITY mag reduces the disadvantages to at least two rather than three.
Assuming that all things are equal except for having a larger mag capacity, and that a person is more dangerous because of that, is naive at best --- dishonest at worst.
Let's say the Cops have the same capacity mags as a criminal. That's not an advantage for either. Same holds true for a home invasion. The resident and attacker with the same number of bullets loaded is no advantage for either.
But, when Daddy has to protect his and his family's lives, forcing him to buy 10 rd mags is a disadvantage. If he becomes a "danger" to the public, the Cops still have the advantage if mag capacities are equal -- they have an advantage in numbers of people, training, additional weapons and equipment. In that instance, time is on the side of the criminal -- unless the victim is armed and has the firepower to resist until help can arrive.
-
It is so far of a stretch to argue that this is in the interest of "public safety" that I am inclined to believe that the real issue is not about mass shootings, but the police and politicians are actually demanding a lethal advantage over private citizens. The real question is what are they preparing for and do they think of us as their enemy?
The reason why this nation is moving towards the eradication of the 2nd Amendment should be clear to everyone by now. Neo-feudalism is starting to take shape in the American empire where the ultra-wealthy will own everything and rule with a fascist government over a citizenry dependent on them.
Aside from eliminating the only two nations that can oppose them externally, Russia and China, the 2nd Amendment, allowing for an armed populace, is the only thing standing in their way domestically from taking absolute power in the US.
-
Haven’t heard the media report any mass shootings for weeks now. Are even crazy people obeying the stay at home order?
-
Again, do you need proof that magazine changes take more time than no magazine changes? Do you need proof that more time to flee gives you a better chance at survival?
The same reason that high capacity magazines allow you to better defend yourself is the same reason it makes an attacker more dangerous. You can't make the argument that it makes no difference but does make a difference.
I'm not arguing that mag changes take time. Yeah, you need to prove your theory, otherwise, it's just a theory. You still can't provide an example of a mass shooting survivor that made it out because the shooter took too long to reload. Now you're shifting your argument to include defensive uses of standard capacity magazines, which is a different topic all together. The defensive use of a weapon is exactly that; defensive. Someone has threatened me with rape, sodomy, or grave bodily harm. That's a completely different set of circumstances than a mass shooting that is not in the least related to mass shootings. You're grasping at straws to sustain your position. Again, if your theory is true, then where are the survivors?
-
I concede your point, but then the issue becomes what is the utility of interfering with a frequently exercised constitutional right in order to possibly have a minor effect on events that are extremely rare and only involve a tiny amount of people? It is so far of a stretch to argue that this is in the interest of "public safety" that I am inclined to believe that the real issue is not about mass shootings, but the police and politicians are actually demanding a lethal advantage over private citizens. The real question is what are they preparing for and do they think of us as their enemy?
As I stated before I do not support high capacity magazine bans. I don't believe saving a few lives justifies greatly restricting the rights of hundreds of millions of people.
-
I'm not arguing that mag changes take time. Yeah, you need to prove your theory, otherwise, it's just a theory. You still can't provide an example of a mass shooting survivor that made it out because the shooter took too long to reload. Now you're shifting your argument to include defensive uses of standard capacity magazines, which is a different topic all together. The defensive use of a weapon is exactly that; defensive. Someone has threatened me with rape, sodomy, or grave bodily harm. That's a completely different set of circumstances than a mass shooting that is not in the least related to mass shootings. You're grasping at straws to sustain your position. Again, if your theory is true, then where are the survivors?
My father (a former sheriff) got an award for tackling a crazy guy with a gun in the middle of a public street. The guy was shooting off rounds and had a jam. My father took that opportunity to run up and tackle the guy. No, it wasn't a magazine change but can still present a similarly short window of time and my father used that short window to attack and disarm the man.
This article mentions a few instance where someone was stopped during a reload or got away during a reload.
https://thinkprogress.org/seattle-school-shooter-was-thwarted-by-a-limited-amount-of-ammunition-e647ee2ce0c2/
Another instance where the shooter was stopped during a reload
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933
-
My father (a former sheriff) got an award for tackling a crazy guy with a gun in the middle of a public street. The guy was shooting off rounds and had a jam. My father took that opportunity to run up and tackle the guy. No, it wasn't a magazine change but can still present a similarly short window of time and my father used that short window to attack and disarm the man.
This article mentions a few instance where someone was stopped during a reload or got away during a reload.
https://thinkprogress.org/seattle-school-shooter-was-thwarted-by-a-limited-amount-of-ammunition-e647ee2ce0c2/
Another instance where the shooter was stopped during a reload
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933
Not a mass shooting. Next. Jared had already killed several people including a six year old girl. Again, mag restrictions don’t save lives because it fails to address the root cause of mass shootings and that’s the shooter. If you look at the DOJ/FBI report on the incident you’ll read that Jared was subdued after his gun jammed. He had expended all rounds from one mag, changed, shot the elderly woman as she tried to take his gun away, and then it jammed. He was subsequently subdued by others in the crowd. You should read the report rather than trust the media.
-
My father (a former sheriff) got an award for tackling a crazy guy with a gun in the middle of a public street. The guy was shooting off rounds and had a jam. My father took that opportunity to run up and tackle the guy. No, it wasn't a magazine change but can still present a similarly short window of time and my father used that short window to attack and disarm the man.
SNIP
Bravo to your father. :thumbsup:
The taking of action immediately or soonest is the way to stop. Short of preventing mass shootings (that's another topic), best is resistance. Not to wait for anything. A CCW or armed security response soonest. Gang tackle, preferably from the rear or side. We did some active shooter drills in a defense class and I played the role of shooter a couple of times with different groups. One thing that I noticed that I did get a sort of tunnel vision, trying to "target" individuals, I didn't notice the "resister" coming from the side to take me down, which is what the training was. The key there is once that first resister makes the move, to jump on and overwhelm. I'm not saying that is the best nor only way, but seems an effective and realistic means. I'm not saying charge the shooter indiscriminately, but the idea of people waiting or recognizing a mag change isn't realistic at all.
-
My father (a former sheriff) got an award for tackling a crazy guy with a gun in the middle of a public street. The guy was shooting off rounds and had a jam. My father took that opportunity to run up and tackle the guy. No, it wasn't a magazine change but can still present a similarly short window of time and my father used that short window to attack and disarm the man.
Was your father armed at the time? If not, then it figures that he had to RISK HIS LIFE to stop the crazy guy. If he were an active sheriff (deputy?), he would have had the means to meet deadly force with equal force and not risk his own life in the process.
The outcome doesn't change the odds that the crazy guy's gun would not have jammed, that the jam was quick to clear or that he had a second firearm. Your father was damned lucky to have lived. I think all law enforcement people should have that same attitude -- willing to die to save others -- but I also think disarming the intended victims of crazy people with guns is the wrong answer.
Anyway, this is a false anecdotal example. A jam is not a mag change. It is a stoppage, not a pause. Totally different scenario. Longer time for people to know he's stopped shooting, to see he's struggling to clear the jam and to mentally register that a pause has presented itself. Mag changes, unless the shooter is right next to someone, barely gives anyone the chance to recognize that's what's happening, let alone offer ample time to act.
-
Not a mass shooting. Next. Jared had already killed several people including a six year old girl. Again, mag restrictions don’t save lives because it fails to address the root cause of mass shootings and that’s the shooter. If you look at the DOJ/FBI report on the incident you’ll read that Jared was subdued after his gun jammed. He had expended all rounds from one mag, changed, shot the elderly woman as she tried to take his gun away, and then it jammed. He was subsequently subdued by others in the crowd. You should read the report rather than trust the media.
Maybe it wasn't a mass shooting because the good samaritan stopped the shooter.
You asked for more proof and I gave you actual instances. If I have to confront a shooter I am going to take any gap in time I might have whether it be from a jam or a magazine change.
You want some study provided an exact number? Something like "magazine size can make a 15.3% difference in victim rate"? Then sure, I don't think any such data exists. But logic and actual instances make a fairly strong argument in my book. Dismiss those if you want.
-
Bravo to your father. :thumbsup:
The taking of action immediately or soonest is the way to stop. Short of preventing mass shootings (that's another topic), best is resistance. Not to wait for anything. A CCW or armed security response soonest. Gang tackle, preferably from the rear or side. We did some active shooter drills in a defense class and I played the role of shooter a couple of times with different groups. One thing that I noticed that I did get a sort of tunnel vision, trying to "target" individuals, I didn't notice the "resister" coming from the side to take me down, which is what the training was. The key there is once that first resister makes the move, to jump on and overwhelm. I'm not saying that is the best nor only way, but seems an effective and realistic means. I'm not saying charge the shooter indiscriminately, but the idea of people waiting or recognizing a mag change isn't realistic at all.
You are absolutely right, in a crazy situation like that people don't function normally. Tunnel vision, sound occlusion, time and distance perception changes etc.
I think bottom line is that in any situation like an active shooter there are going to be short windows that people can use to react whether flee or attack back. Whether it be a jam, a reload, a distraction it will be a possible opportunity. No guarantee of course, but all things equal the more windows the better your chances.
-
Maybe it wasn't a mass shooting because the good samaritan stopped the shooter.
You asked for more proof and I gave you actual instances. If I have to confront a shooter I am going to take any gap in time I might have whether it be from a jam or a magazine change.
You want some study provided an exact number? Something like "magazine size can make a 15.3% difference in victim rate"? Then sure, I don't think any such data exists. But logic and actual instances make a fairly strong argument in my book. Dismiss those if you want.
I refutes your one instance of the Tuscon shooting with the actual FBI report. Again, you don’t have proof that restricting magazine capacity leads to more survivors of mass shootings. In all the examples you cited NONE specifically show that victims survived because the shooter took too long to reload. You’re the one ignoring the evidence and relying on unproven theory that’s pushed by the Gifford’s foundation for gun control.
-
I refutes your one instance of the Tuscon shooting with the actual FBI report. Again, you don’t have proof that restricting magazine capacity leads to more survivors of mass shootings. In all the examples you cited NONE specifically show that victims survived because the shooter took too long to reload. You’re the one ignoring the evidence and relying on unproven theory that’s pushed by the Gifford’s foundation for gun control.
I gave you multiple examples where people used a brief window to stop an attacker. We both know it takes time for a reload. I can put two and two together.
If someone was shooting at you, would you rather they had one 30 round magazine or three 10 round magazines? I don't need a FBI study to know which one would give me a better chance of survival.
-
I gave you multiple examples where people used a brief window to stop an attacker. We both know it takes time for a reload. I can put two and two together.
If someone was shooting at you, would you rather they had one 30 round magazine or three 10 round magazines? I don't need a FBI study to know which one would give me a better chance of survival.
Do you honestly believe that someone will have the intestinal fortitude and reaction skills to try to subdue an active shooter within the first 10 rounds fired?
By the time he's ready for the first reload, people's ears MIGHT have stopped ringing and disorienting them. But, I highly doubt that in the time it takes expend 10 rounds, assuming he's as you've said over and over is just trying to fire the most rounds in the least amount of time possible, that anyone will be paying close enough attention to know he's reloading at that moment.
So, if you think the SECOND reload after 20 ROUNDS is the "window of opportunity" to flee or fight, that is no different in terms of your arguments than the shooter using a 20 round mag and not having to reload.
Your logic is so sloppy -- you ignore the obvious human factors associated with being shot at and pretend this is an academic experiment with controllable variables.
I guarantee anyone can fire 1 rd/second, which means the first 10 seconds of the massacre is all anyone has to think, decide and act when the first mag is empty. How many do you think are even in a position to view the shooter if they are hiding? How many while running away will do an about face to fight?
If all the stars and planets align, and someone with proximity and opportunity AND COURAGE goes for the shooter, the mag change will not be the deciding factor. The instinct to survive will be enough.
-
As always I am grateful for EEF contributing to this conversation because even though he claims to oppose mag bans, his POV is exactly what we are confronting at the Capitol.
The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact, and if we carelessly follow them down that rabbit hole trying to say it ain't so then it makes us look silly ideological prisoners. Remember they want to portray us as Gun Nuts who are too emotional to make life or death decisions when it comes to defending ourselves and our loved ones.
If you want to put your head in that noose I can't stop you, but there are lots of other holes in the argument we have neglected to exploit. True, we have grown used to being attacked and giving up any ground seems like losing the battle, but on the other hand we all know their Common Sense is based on lies and it is our duty to ourselves and our fellow countrymen to find them and point them out so that the other side looks silly instead.
The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact
Just this sentence, while true, has dozens of assumptions and logical holes built in. Number one it relies on the perfect scenario that Hollywood has drummed into our collective heads, and if someone does not want to see the actual numbers before making a policy decision then that is basically admitting they are swayed by emotion or some other factor like Bloomberg Bucks, preparing for the Fourth Turning, likely some combination thereof.
-
99.5% of people being shot at will not count rounds thinking as soon as he fires 10 I am going to rush him. Would you bet your life that you counted right? Hell, even when shooting in my backyard at multiple targets as fast as I can under time pressure, trying to count 9 shots and do a tactical reload, I miscount. In this scenario, I am the shooter and its not a real life and death situation. Imagine if it was for real and you were not the shooter but the shootee. All anyone would be thinking about is getting their ass out of there, especially if unarmed.
-
As always I am grateful for EEF contributing to this conversation because even though he claims to oppose mag bans, his POV is exactly what we are confronting at the Capitol.
The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact, and if we carelessly follow them down that rabbit hole trying to say it ain't so then it makes us look silly ideological prisoners. Remember they want to portray us as Gun Nuts who are too emotional to make life or death decisions when it comes to defending ourselves and our loved ones.
If you want to put your head in that noose I can't stop you, but there are lots of other holes in the argument we have neglected to exploit. True, we have grown used to being attacked and giving up any ground seems like losing the battle, but on the other hand we all know their Common Sense is based on lies and it is our duty to ourselves and our fellow countrymen to find them and point them out so that the other side looks silly instead.
The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact
Just this sentence, while true, has dozens of assumptions and logical holes built in. Number one it relies on the perfect scenario that Hollywood has drummed into our collective heads, and if someone does not want to see the actual numbers before making a policy decision then that is basically admitting they are swayed by emotion or some other factor like Bloomberg Bucks, preparing for the Fourth Turning, likely some combination thereof.
This is a damn good post right here. I’ve been trying to figure out a way to put my thoughts into words. You hit the nail on the head. :shaka:
-
Do you honestly believe that someone will have the intestinal fortitude and reaction skills to try to subdue an active shooter within the first 10 rounds fired?
By the time he's ready for the first reload, people's ears MIGHT have stopped ringing and disorienting them. But, I highly doubt that in the time it takes expend 10 rounds, assuming he's as you've said over and over is just trying to fire the most rounds in the least amount of time possible, that anyone will be paying close enough attention to know he's reloading at that moment.
So, if you think the SECOND reload after 20 ROUNDS is the "window of opportunity" to flee or fight, that is no different in terms of your arguments than the shooter using a 20 round mag and not having to reload.
Your logic is so sloppy -- you ignore the obvious human factors associated with being shot at and pretend this is an academic experiment with controllable variables.
I guarantee anyone can fire 1 rd/second, which means the first 10 seconds of the massacre is all anyone has to think, decide and act when the first mag is empty. How many do you think are even in a position to view the shooter if they are hiding? How many while running away will do an about face to fight?
If all the stars and planets align, and someone with proximity and opportunity AND COURAGE goes for the shooter, the mag change will not be the deciding factor. The instinct to survive will be enough.
You are making a lot of assumptions about how active shooters operate and how people react to such threats, none of which are universally true.
-
99.5% of people being shot at will not count rounds thinking as soon as he fires 10 I am going to rush him. Would you bet your life that you counted right? Hell, even when shooting in my backyard at multiple targets as fast as I can under time pressure, trying to count 9 shots and do a tactical reload, I miscount. In this scenario, I am the shooter and its not a real life and death situation. Imagine if it was for real and you were not the shooter but the shootee. All anyone would be thinking about is getting their ass out of there, especially if unarmed.
Personally, I wouldn't rely on counting. I would look for when the shooter has dropped the magazine and is reading in his belt for another one, but that's just me.
-
You are making a lot of assumptions about how active shooters operate and how people react to such threats, none of which are universally true.
Interesting choice of adverbs.
Nothing you've said about the mystical "window of opportunity" created by a mag change is universally true, either. And yet you think somehow the argument has merit for those wishing to ban > 10 rd mags.
-
As always I am grateful for EEF contributing to this conversation because even though he claims to oppose mag bans, his POV is exactly what we are confronting at the Capitol.
The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact, and if we carelessly follow them down that rabbit hole trying to say it ain't so then it makes us look silly ideological prisoners. Remember they want to portray us as Gun Nuts who are too emotional to make life or death decisions when it comes to defending ourselves and our loved ones.
If you want to put your head in that noose I can't stop you, but there are lots of other holes in the argument we have neglected to exploit. True, we have grown used to being attacked and giving up any ground seems like losing the battle, but on the other hand we all know their Common Sense is based on lies and it is our duty to ourselves and our fellow countrymen to find them and point them out so that the other side looks silly instead.
The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact
Just this sentence, while true, has dozens of assumptions and logical holes built in. Number one it relies on the perfect scenario that Hollywood has drummed into our collective heads, and if someone does not want to see the actual numbers before making a policy decision then that is basically admitting they are swayed by emotion or some other factor like Bloomberg Bucks, preparing for the Fourth Turning, likely some combination thereof.
A good post. If we fail to understand your opponent then it is to our own detriment. We wouldn't have done very well in WW2 if we thought that because Nazi's were evil scum that therefore their army was a joke. We don't win any battles or sway any mins by belittling the opponents arguments, we do so by conceding where they have valid points but then showing them how in the greater position they are wrong or how the ends don't justify the means, etc.
-
Personally, I wouldn't rely on counting. I would look for when the shooter has dropped the magazine and is reading in his belt for another one, but that's just me.
We should make belts/pockets illegal so they cannot hold more mags. Thus cannot reload. Problem solved.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Interesting choice of adverbs.
Nothing you've said about the mystical "window of opportunity" created by a mag change is universally true, either. And yet you think somehow the argument has merit for those wishing to ban > 10 rd mags.
No, I don't think the argument merits banning mags over 10 rounds, I have already clearly stated I don't support mag bans over 10 rounds. All I am saying is that the argument presented is factual. Just because I don't like the conclusion they draw (ban high capacity magazines) doesn't negate the validity of all elements of the argument itself. If they said the 4th amendment makes it harder to find police therefore we should get rid of it I would point out that the first half of their argument is correct but then argue why the conclusion they draw is flawed.
-
Personally, I wouldn't rely on counting. I would look for when the shooter has dropped the magazine and is reading in his belt for another one, but that's just me.
You're going to have your head exposed watching the shooter instead of seeking cover or concealment? Yikes!
-
You're going to have your head exposed watching the shooter instead of seeking cover or concealment? Yikes!
EEF's universe is void of reality ... and logic.
"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."
-
It's not that nobody on this forum doesn't understand the anti-gunners' arguments.
It's that we also know their arguments are just so much dishonest and ignorant bullshit.
EEF thinks he's enlightening all of us because we don't take that BS on its "merits", like he wants to pretend he does.
You can't change the minds of people who only have an agenda. They will cling to any and all arguments that confirm their preconceptions regardless of how much we try to "understand the facts as they see them," and no matter how logically we point out how wrong their conclusions are.
When you dignify their insanity with rational debate, you lose the fight -- always.
"The main difference between a Liberal and a Conservative is the Liberal hasn't been mugged."
-
I read many articles both for and against mag capacity limits, and it's funny how only places that already have draconian gun laws are pushing for these bans and using this reload pause argument.
Most focus on the increased efficiency, higher fire power and "attractiveness" that 30 and 100 rd mags present to would-be mass shooters. They avoid the "tackle during a reload" benefit, because they themselves don't teach people to attack the shooters. They teach sheltering in place, running for an exit, blocking doors, hiding in closets, etc. They seem to get that a bunch of unarmed people, especially school kids and teachers, are not commandos trained to take out a bad guy with a pair of scissors or the pointy end of the auditorium's American flag.
So, if you want to keep harping on the existence of a 1-2 second window that offers a chance to fight back, you should know you are in the minority of those who see any merit in it.
The only place I've seen this pushed as a bonafide rationale is on Twitter, which is not the real world.
-
I read many articles both for and against mag capacity limits, and it's funny how only places that already have draconian gun laws are pushing for these bans and using this reload pause argument.
Most focus on the increased efficiency, higher fire power and "attractiveness" that 30 and 100 rd mags present to would-be mass shooters. They avoid the "tackle during a reload" benefit, because they themselves don't teach people to attack the shooters. They teach sheltering in place, running for an exit, blocking doors, hiding in closets, etc. They seem to get that a bunch of unarmed people, especially school kids and teachers, are not commandos trained to take out a bad guy with a pair of scissors or the pointy end of the auditorium's American flag.
So, if you want to keep harping on the existence of a 1-2 second window that offers a chance to fight back, you should know you are in the minority of those who see any merit in it.
The only place I've seen this pushed as a bonafide rationale is on Twitter, which is not the real world.
That is a really good point.
-
You're going to have your head exposed watching the shooter instead of seeking cover or concealment? Yikes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofQ6i9I1IYY
-
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Judgment-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf (ftp://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Judgment-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf)
Judge Benitez’s ruling in Duncan v. Becerra. This is currently being appealed in the 9th Circuit, but Round 1 went to the gun rights groups. Magazine restrictions are unconstitutional.
-
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Judgment-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf (ftp://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Judgment-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf)
Judge Benitez’s ruling in Duncan v. Becerra. This is currently being appealed in the 9th Circuit, but Round 1 went to the gun rights groups. Magazine restrictions are unconstitutional.
Oral arguments for round 2 happened a couple weeks ago. We should see a ruling in the next 3 months hopefully.
-
You're going to have your head exposed watching the shooter instead of seeking cover or concealment? Yikes!
Of course but that's the nature of the beast. If you have decided you are going to attack an active shooter you are going to have to watch. Doubt running in blind makes much sense. The same is true if you are just fleeing. You can run at just any time or you can try to run when the attacker is reloading.
-
The problem is you would have to be within 20 ft or closer if you expect to be able to tackle and subdue the shooter during a reload. I do not want my head exposed that close to an active shooter.
-
It's not that nobody on this forum doesn't understand the anti-gunners' arguments.
You say that yet your replies suggest you don't understand.
You can't change the minds of people who only have an agenda.
Not with that attitude.
They will cling to any and all arguments that confirm their preconceptions regardless of how much we try to "understand the facts as they see them," and no matter how logically we point out how wrong their conclusions are.
You mean just like people on our side do? Of course when you start out by insulting people and their ideas they are going to get defensive and not have an open mind. You might as well punch them in the face then ask why they keep flinching.
When you dignify their insanity with rational debate, you lose the fight -- always.
You have a failed perspective there, and this is a perfect example of how you don't understand their arguments. No one chooses arguments they believe to be fake. Their arguments make sense to them just as yours makes sense to you. Your arguments are just as irrational to them as theirs are to you. You don't overcome that with your method: insults and claims of intellectual superiority.
-
The problem is you would have to be within 20 ft or closer if you expect to be able to tackle and subdue the shooter during a reload. I do not want my head exposed that close to an active shooter.
No one does but you play the cards you are dealt.
-
You say that yet your replies suggest you don't understand.
Not with that attitude.
You mean just like people on our side do? Of course when you start out by insulting people and their ideas they are going to get defensive and not have an open mind. You might as well punch them in the face then ask why they keep flinching.
You have a failed perspective there, and this is a perfect example of how you don't understand their arguments. No one chooses arguments they believe to be fake. Their arguments make sense to them just as yours makes sense to you. Your arguments are just as irrational to them as theirs are to you. You don't overcome that with your method: insults and claims of intellectual superiority.
Your problem is you believe there is a middle ground.
That's why we have the horrible laws that exist today. Too many people gave up inch after inch, but the anit-gun crowd keeps asking for more.
It won't end. Pretending there's an answer if we can just understand their side is, once again, insane.
-
For arguments sake, let's say that having 10rd mags is beneficial during a active shooting. But then the gun grabbers will want 5rd mags, then 3rd mags and so on.
But we need to look at that active shootings are such a small amount of death and injuries every year, that it doesn't justify screwing over millions of gun owners. If we look at the CDC/FBI stats, you're more likely to get shot by a cop than an active shooter % wise. But those stats do include felons getting shot by cops also.
-
For arguments sake, let's say that having 10rd mags is beneficial during a active shooting. But then the gun grabbers will want 5rd mags, then 3rd mags and so on.
But we need to look at that active shootings are such a small amount of death and injuries every year, that it doesn't justify screwing over millions of gun owners. If we look at the CDC/FBI stats, you're more likely to get shot by a cop than an active shooter % wise. But those stats do include felons getting shot by cops also.
Agreed, that is how we defeat their arguments.
-
Your problem is you believe there is a middle ground.
That's why we have the horrible laws that exist today. Too many people gave up inch after inch, but the anit-gun crowd keeps asking for more.
It won't end. Pretending there's an answer if we can just understand their side is, once again, insane.
Your problem is you believe their is no middle ground. (Though I am sure there are times even you would support some restrictions on guns)
As long as you are aggressive and insulting you are not going to change their minds, you are just going to make them more resolute in their positions. You need to understand how the human brain works, you need to understand that when someone feels under attack they get defensive and their high level thought process decreases. The less threatening the situation, the better the human brain works. You insult someone and it gets harder for them to see your point. But if you come at them in a non threatening manner you increase the chances they will change their minds.
Hostility in discussions only hurts our cause.
-
Your problem is you believe their is no middle ground. (Though I am sure there are times even you would support some restrictions on guns)
As long as you are aggressive and insulting you are not going to change their minds, you are just going to make them more resolute in their positions. You need to understand how the human brain works, you need to understand that when someone feels under attack they get defensive and their high level thought process decreases. The less threatening the situation, the better the human brain works. You insult someone and it gets harder for them to see your point. But if you come at them in a non threatening manner you increase the chances they will change their minds.
Hostility in discussions only hurts our cause.
I'm not insulting the anti-gun zealots. I'm only insulting you.
Oh, wait .... :geekdanc:
You can't find a middle ground when the other side gives up NOTHING in exchange for us giving up whatever we think will placate them. That's not middle ground. That's losing ground.
-
I'm not insulting the anti-gun zealots. I'm only insulting you.
Oh, wait .... :geekdanc:
You are doubling down on your ineffective insulting tactics by insulting me. Wow, brilliant. Keep shooting our cause in the foot to demonstrate how smart you are.
You can't find a middle ground when the other side gives up NOTHING in exchange for us giving up whatever we think will placate them. That's not middle ground. That's losing ground.
Where did I say anything about giving up something? Straw man. Stop equating compromise with non confrontational debate methods. If you can't tell the difference between giving up your rights and defending them in a way which doesn't close other people's minds you have no business in complaining about anti-gunners because people like you are partially to blame for their militant anti gun views. You might as well punch them in the face and ask why they end up covering their face with their hands.
-
You are doubling down on your ineffective insulting tactics by insulting me. Wow, brilliant. Keep shooting our cause in the foot to demonstrate how smart you are.
Where did I say anything about giving up something? Straw man. Stop equating compromise with non confrontational debate methods. If you can't tell the difference between giving up your rights and defending them in a way which doesn't close other people's minds you have no business in complaining about anti-gunners because people like you are partially to blame for their militant anti gun views. You might as well punch them in the face and ask why they end up covering their face with their hands.
"Debate methods" are ineffective against the agenda-driven.
Maybe you should stop trying to be so academic and try a little reality and common sense.
-
"Debate methods" are ineffective against the agenda-driven.
Maybe you should stop trying to be so academic and try a little reality and common sense.
Common sense tells me I don't convince my opponent of my position by insulting him. It really is communication 101 here, not rocket science.
-
Common sense tells me I don't convince my opponent of my position by insulting him. It really is communication 101 here, not rocket science.
You’ve only been able to quote your own personal truths and have yet to show any scientific/statistical evidence since you’re speaking of science.
-
Common sense tells me I don't convince my opponent of my position by insulting him. It really is communication 101 here, not rocket science.
You probably have very little difficulty convincing anti-gun Liberals of your position, since you seem to agree with them on a great many issues.
-
You probably have very little difficulty convincing anti-gun Liberals of your position, since you seem to agree with them on a great many issues.
You completely overlook that when we have such discourse/argument/debate/idea sharing, that it isn't just some opponent as steadfast as you in the picture. It is also many other people who watch but don't chime in. People who still have open minds, people who could be convinced to take our side on the issue. If we come off insulting, arrogant, stubborn, and angry that doesn't bode well for us in their eyes and you can end up alienating undecided people that we could have had on our side.