I read your recent "debate with a ‘gun nut’" and see where you are coming from regarding magazine capacity,
but I think you are missing the point. You argue that 30 round magazines are something no one needs because
some nut could then kill 30 kids before reloading, whereas under the old law he would get 10 shots at most.
But I believe you are in error.

With your Glock you have 10 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. And unlike a rifle, one can use
two handguns at once, which is 22 rounds before you have to reload. So this hypothetical nut can now kill 22 kids,
at a higher rate of fire than an assault rifle (all semi-autos, whether Glocks or AK’s fire as fast as you pull the trigger,
so 2 Glocks would fire 22 rounds twice as fast as one AK).

You seem to be saying that a Glock is "as bad" as an AK-47.
So wouldn't that bolster my argument that owning a Glock or two is all the firepower a fella needs?
If a Glock is that deadly, what's the argument for getting the AK-47?

You (and most everyone) probably know more about guns than I do, but it's my understanding
bullets from an AK-47 go thru walls and if one hits you it blows a softball-sized hole out your back.
Glocks don't do that, so there is a difference.
 

As far as someone tackling him while he is reloading; how much time does it take you to switch magazines Bart?
Three to five seconds? How many people will remain close enough while the psycho is firing at them, and remain
uninjured and able to attack when the opportunity is there for those few seconds? So using your logic, the people
who view you as a "gun nut" can argue that your Glocks are as bad or worse than an assault rifle, they are much
easier to conceal and can fire way too many rounds, and can be reloaded too quickly.

What I'm hearing is that firing an AK-47 non-stop is "almost as dealy" as a Glock that needs to be reloaded
after 11 shots.  I submit the reloading period could be the difference between life and death..
 

What you don’t seem to appreciate is that the same arguments you use against us "gun nuts" will be used on you
later in the game. Just as you are quick to demonize anyone who does not support your exact position as a "gun nut"
who obviously thinks "it should be OK for every drunken felon with rage problems to be armed with any gun in the world";
you will one day be vilified in the same way.

No, that's not true at all.
With guns, you can only have three positions:
1. All types of guns are OK for anybody at all times.
2. No guns for any non-cops at any time for any reason,
3. Reasonable limits for some weapons for some people.

I like Option Three and I can't see anybody winning that argument with me.
 

You are misrepresenting our position, claiming we must either accept someone’s arbitrary limitations on the second
amendment, or we favor armed psychopaths going on killing sprees.

No, your position defines your position.
If you're a Number One, you're insane.
You want drunk 11 year olds to have AK-47s?
 

The truth is limiting magazine capacity or outlawing "assault rifles" of any kind is not the answer,
and would not stop psychos like Colin Ferguson, who went on his killing spree with the type of gun you favor.

If you're a Number One, just say so and we'll stop wasting time.
You either want SOME control on SOME guns or you don't.
If you do, then you agree with me.
If you don't, you're a loon - it's that simple.
 

Does this mean you think it’s ok for people like that to have access
to easily concealed weapons like that? What kind of gun nut are you?

That's quite a loaded question.
Are you asking me about Ferguson's particulars?
I don't know - was he legally insane when he bought the gun?
Did he steal the gun?
Did the previous onwer report the gun stolen?
Had people complained about him prior to the shooting?
And when you ask if  "it's OK," we really should be talking about legalities.

If, by all accounts, Ferguson was a pillar of the community with no record and he possessed
a legally purchased firearm and then went crazy with it, I'd say that's the unfortunate price we have
to pay to live in a nation of a hundred million guns.
You attempt to paint me as a "gun nut" has not been successful.
 

The only viable solution is for more Americans to do as you have done, to obtain and learn how to use the tools
to defend themselves and others. By accepting bans on certain types of guns you are justifying further limitations later,
and many, many people in the victim disarmament movement have made it very clear that after they get my AK,
they are going after your Glock.

John Fitz.
 

ha ha
The "victim disarmament movement?"
Is that what you call those who resist allowing taggants in dynamite?

Your last paragraph tells me you're a full-throttle Number One,
which means All types of guns are OK for anybody at all times.

That's a position that you can't defend and yes, that makes you a certified loon
because you just said, in effect, that every drunken and legally insane violent felon
should be able to buy any weapon made without even a waiting period.

Forget guns for a moment - you can't win a debate using "every" and "all"
because that opens the door for any wild example I might pull out of thin air.
If you endorse the legally insane having AK-47s, you should work for the NRA.

I believe you should allow logic to seep into your position of absolutes.

 Return to bartcop.com