LogFAQs > #925618101

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	My sister and two cousins are at a mall that has an active shooter
wolfy42 08/04/19 5:10:14 PM #184:	TheWorstPoster posted... wolfy42 posted... TheWorstPoster posted... wolfy42 posted... If you limit guns to only being able to fire a few times, it solves pretty much all the problems, while still allowing people to defend themselves. At that point, why not just limit it to one bullet, because "nobody needs more"? The amount of ammunition isn't the problem. The firearm isn't the problem. The problem, is who is holding the firearm, as well as restricting those who are law abiding from carrying because of policies made by those who have armed guards. You should also limit WHO has them at all, make it like getting a drivers license (at least), but there is really no reason to have a gun that fires more then say 6 shots. 1 shot? Yeah, you can miss, or there could be 3 intruders etc. I'd say a 6 shot gun would work for almost every defensive action. Even if you are being robbed by 3-4 guys, you can shoot all of them, or at least scare them away. No need for more then 6 shots in 99.99% of cases where you are using a gun defensively. So step the heck up, and start replacing any guns in the US with ones that can only shoot so many times, and make it illegal to have any other kinds of guns (other then rifles etc that shoot just once for hunting etc). A specific list of legal guns, and the ability to trade in old guns (that are no longer legal) for a new legal gun. Still won't be popular, but, I think it could happen without a civil war. Why 6 though? Why not 5? Or 1? Or 0? What is the magical reasoning why 6 is the magic number? Are 7 bullets going to make law-abiding citizens more dangerous? Cause then they will all be six shooters of course!! No honestly, you don't even need 6, but...it's a large enough number to be effective vs a small group of invades, but not large enough to commit mass killings with. 7 wouldn't really be any more dangerous, but you really would never need a 7th bullet. 5 would also be ok tbh, but 6 would give you 2 shots per person if you were faced with 3 dangerous people. It would let you shoot warning shots without worrying about running out of bullets etc. Just firing a gun at someone is likely to scare them off if they are breaking into your home etc. No need to actually kill someone. But...what if there are 3 of them and you only have 3 bullets in your gun? First you HAVE to try and hit/take out each person with your bullets, since you only have 3, second you could still miss, and third no way of warning them by firing etc. With 6 bullets you could A: Fire a warning shot, which also alerts neighbors to call police etc. B: If they don't leave, you can shoot at their legs etc and try and wound them, not kill them initially. C: If A and B don't work, you have enough bullets to still shoot them all if you have no other option. Even vs 1 person who is breaking in etc, you have alot more options with 6 shots. A warning shot, shoot them in both legs etc so they can't move catch you, then wait for police etc. You don't/are not forced to kill the person, and that is important to some people. Add in you don't always know how many people are involved, and it's really a good idea to have a few bullets in reserve just in case there are more outside etc. I would say 4 would be a minimum. 6 is perfect. --- We are 4 oreos from Heaven!!!! <cite>wolfy42 posted [p:925618101] in My sister ... [t:77911985]...</cite> <quote>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote>wolfy42 posted...</cite> <quote>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote>wolfy42 posted...</cite> <quote>If you limit guns to only being able to fire a few times, it solves pretty much all the problems, while still allowing people to defend themselves.</quote> At that point, why not just limit it to one bullet, because "nobody needs more"? The amount of ammunition isn't the problem. The firearm isn't the problem. The problem, is who is holding the firearm, as well as restricting those who are law abiding from carrying because of policies made by those who have armed guards.</quote> You should also limit WHO has them at all, make it like getting a drivers license (at least), but there is really no reason to have a gun that fires more then say 6 shots. 1 shot? Yeah, you can miss, or there could be 3 intruders etc. I'd say a 6 shot gun would work for almost every defensive action. Even if you are being robbed by 3-4 guys, you can shoot all of them, or at least scare them away. No need for more then 6 shots in 99.99% of cases where you are using a gun defensively. So step the heck up, and start replacing any guns in the US with ones that can only shoot so many times, and make it illegal to have any other kinds of guns (other then rifles etc that shoot just once for hunting etc). A specific list of legal guns, and the ability to trade in old guns (that are no longer legal) for a new legal gun. Still won't be popular, but, I think it could happen without a civil war.</quote> Why 6 though? Why not 5? Or 1? Or 0? What is the magical reasoning why 6 is the magic number? Are 7 bullets going to make law-abiding citizens more dangerous?</quote> Cause then they will all be six shooters of course!! No honestly, you don't even need 6, but...it's a large enough number to be effective vs a small group of invades, but not large enough to commit mass killings with. 7 wouldn't really be any more dangerous, but you really would never need a 7th bullet. 5 would also be ok tbh, but 6 would give you 2 shots per person if you were faced with 3 dangerous people. It would let you shoot warning shots without worrying about running out of bullets etc. Just firing a gun at someone is likely to scare them off if they are breaking into your home etc. No need to actually kill someone. But...what if there are 3 of them and you only have 3 bullets in your gun? First you HAVE to try and hit/take out each person with your bullets, since you only have 3, second you could still miss, and third no way of warning them by firing etc. With 6 bullets you could A: Fire a warning shot, which also alerts neighbors to call police etc. B: If they don't leave, you can shoot at their legs etc and try and wound them, not kill them initially. C: If A and B don't work, you have enough bullets to still shoot them all if you have no other option. Even vs 1 person who is breaking in etc, you have alot more options with 6 shots. A warning shot, shoot them in both legs etc so they can't move catch you, then wait for police etc. You don't/are not forced to kill the person, and that is important to some people. Add in you don't always know how many people are involved, and it's really a good idea to have a few bullets in reserve just in case there are more outside etc. I would say 4 would be a minimum. 6 is perfect. --- We are 4 oreos from Heaven!!!!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1