TexasCHLforum.com

Since the Supreme court ruled:
1) Police has no duty to protect me'
2) Bearing firearms is an individual right.
AND,
3) Since no congressman, or any federal and state official can guarantee my safety or the safety of my family
4) Since my duty is to protect my self and family.
5) Since 1 or more assailant criminals can attack me or my family at the same time with deadly force.

I have the right to use whatever reasonable means to defend myself and my family.

If the means of self-defense were to be made illegal to own and use and where the criminals will continue to have said banned deadly means,
Then, one can conclude that even the illegal use of said banned means to terminate the threat of criminal or criminals using said deadly means to protect life and life of family is better outcome then being dead, or one of the family being dead at the hands of said criminals. One can bear the outcome of being charged with UWP.

BillT wrote:

karder wrote: The Tucson shooter was no more enabled to cause havoc due to his 30 round magazines than he would have with 10 rounders.

He was stopped by the crowd after emptying the 30 round magazine and trying to reload another. So for some reason I come up with less than half as many people would have been shot if he only had 10 round magazines. In my mind that is substantially less havoc.
Am I missing something? There is something in your logic I'm not getting, nor are the majority of the people that have responded to the CNN poll. Much better arguments are needed if the gun control momentum this tragic event started has a hope to be stopped.

I have to ask, why do you come to that conclusion?

If he had had 3 ten-round magazines wouldn't he still have killed and wounded as many people?

Ignoring the base assumption that the gun-control folks want guns to be banned...period, can we assume that what they are really getting at here is the desire for those carrying firearms to carry no more than a limited amount of ammo, period?

BillT wrote:He was stopped by the crowd after emptying the 30 round magazine and trying to reload another. So for some reason I come up with less than half as many people would have been shot if he only had 10 round magazines. In my mind that is substantially less havoc.
Am I missing something?

This would only be true if the bullets which struck the victims were evenly dispersed through out the 30 round magazine. In all likelihood, the most deadly and destructive rounds were the first rounds the shooter fired, before his victims scattered. Most of the misses, in all probability, came from the bottom of the magazine, not the top.
You simply cannot make society safer by attempting to control what law abiding citizens are legally allowed to own. If my memory serves me correctly, there were a series of savage stabbings of elementary school children in China last year, where many children were killed and maimed by evil men with "psychological" problems. I don't believe the fact that the men used a knife rather than a gun makes it less tragic.
As a society, we must hold the Tucson shooter accountable for his premeditated and deliberate actions, and not blame the system for not getting him help when he was a boy.

Beiruty wrote:If the means of self-defense were to be made illegal to own and use and where the criminals will continue to have said banned deadly means,
Then, one can conclude that even the illegal use of said banned means to terminate the threat of criminal or criminals using said deadly means to protect life and life of family is better outcome then being dead, or one of the family being dead at the hands of said criminals. One can bear the outcome of being charged with UWP.

That sounds like a verbose, yet still 100% accurate, way of saying, "It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6." I concur.

Probably we should just go by the facts of this incident rather than coming up with "likelihoods" of other possible scenarios. Otherwise we sound like gun nuts! Bottom line is the crowd stopped him from loading the second magazine. A 10 rounder certainly would have had less people wounded. How can that be disputed if we only go by the facts of this particular incident?

Cho planned ahead

Jared planned ahead

I'm betting any kid can Google "How to disassemble a magazine" and figure out how to restore a 17 or 20 round mag with a spacer in it to its original capacity.

However, a law against doing it would CERTAINLY make them not do it prior to committing their murders, because they'd be breaking a law by having an illegal magazine.

As I said elsewhere, I just wish legislators would educate themselves prior to introducing bills which could become unenforceable laws making them look silly and people losing respect.

RPB wrote:Cho planned ahead

Jared planned ahead

I'm betting any kid can Google "How to disassemble a magazine" and figure out how to restore a 17 or 20 round mag with a spacer in it to its original capacity.

However, a law against doing it would CERTAINLY make them not do it prior to committing their murders, because they'd be breaking a law by having an illegal magazine.

As I said elsewhere, I just wish legislators would educate themselves prior to introducing bills which could become unenforceable laws making them look silly and people losing respect.

You think that elected officials are worried about losing the respect of the people? Have you seen congresses approval ratings recently?

It's a CNN poll.

'nuff said.

BillT wrote:Probably we should just go by the facts of this incident rather than coming up with "likelihoods" of other possible scenarios. Otherwise we sound like gun nuts! Bottom line is the crowd stopped him from loading the second magazine. A 10 rounder certainly would have had less people wounded. How can that be disputed if we only go by the facts of this particular incident?

To say "a 10 rounder certainly would have wounded less people" is also an assumption. It would not have helped Ms. Giffords, nor the 9-year old, or the judge according to witness reports. There is an automatic presumption that a high capacity weapon is a more dangerous weapon. If that were true, why do so many law enforcement agents, special forces, and highly trained and knowledgeable shooters choose to carry 7 or 8 shot 1911 models instead of high capacity Glocks? Personally, I feel that 8-10 rounds and a couple of spare magazines is more than sufficient for my self defense. If you gave me the choice of three 10 rounders or one 30 rounder, I would take three 10 round magazines because in the event of magazine malfunction, I still have two more.

That being said, I would fight hard to keep the right to own or carry higher capacity magazines for those who choose to carry them. Gun control does not work. I have lived most of my life living right on the Mexican border. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, yet the city of Juarez had over 3100 murders last year, while gun friendly El Paso had 2. If there is anyone out there who believes that gun control works, I would invite them to take a tour of Juarez. I won't go with them, but I will draw a map so they can get to some cool locations.

In El Paso Texas, there are a lot of people who are legally licensed and carrying high capacity Glocks, FivenseveNs, XD's and a lot of 1911s as well. 2 murders in 2010. Across the river, if you are caught with a single bullet in your pocket, you are going to jail. Over 3100 murders. And I am not talking about stabbings, I am talking about people getting mowed down with fully automatic AK-47s and hand grenades. Those guys are not using Glocks with 30 round magazines either.

If I told you that strict gun control in the U.S. could lead to drug cartels, extortionists, murders, and kidnappers running the street and our people hiding in their homes and living in fear, you would say that I am an alarmist, but that is exactly what has happened a mile from my doorstep. I don't want our great country going down the same path.

karder wrote:Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, yet the city of Juarez had over 3100 murders last year, while gun friendly El Paso had 2.

As of 2010/12/22, it was five. All the same, I'd expect a city that big have a much higher rate, so... , , and a & to El Paso's residents for keeping their city safe!

Don't get bothered over a CNN poll. If that same poll were given on FOX the results would be opposite the CNN results. Today, news networks program to the worldview of their audience, meaning liberals watch CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, and NBC. Conservatives watch FOX. This is a lesson where media bias is exceptionally strong especially regarding social issues. Hey, if CNN ran a poll if water pistols should be banned, the results would be to ban them.

Dave2 wrote:As of 2010/12/22, it was five.

You are correct. I was only referring to murders in the city limits. I believe that 5 adds in the murders in the county as well with includes a number of small communities such as Canutillo, Socorro, San Eli, and more. Our excellent EPPD does not patrol those areas, but we have a top notch Sheriff's Dept. that takes care of those folks. 5 is a more honest number as it doesn't split hairs and is less confusing.

karder wrote:

Dave2 wrote:As of 2010/12/22, it was five.

You are correct. I was only referring to murders in the city limits. I believe that 5 adds in the murders in the county as well with includes a number of small communities such as Canutillo, Socorro, San Eli, and more. Our excellent EPPD does not patrol those areas, but we have a top notch Sheriff's Dept. that takes care of those folks. 5 is a more honest number as it doesn't split hairs and is less confusing.

Keep it up Paso!

High-Capacity Magazine Sellers Raise Millions for NRA
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/01/18-18" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NRA should probably thank the misinformed legislators for helping the fundraising efforts by advertising to buy stuff.

RPB wrote:High-Capacity Magazine Sellers Raise Millions for NRA
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/01/18-18" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NRA should probably thank the misinformed legislators for helping the fundraising efforts by advertising to buy stuff.

As usual, the quotes from the anti-gun folks show that they are projecting THEIR attitudes and prejudices onto the pro-gunners.

Also didn't notice (only scanned the article, though) any quotes from the pro-gun contingent, bringing the claimed objectivity of the Center for Public Integrity into question.