[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Not quite, there were those who were stopped when confronted by others with guns because they didn't want to die, and others still that were stopped after they themselves were hit during their shooting spree. What's more likely is entirely dependent on the specific scenario, but either way your assertion is not only overly broad, but also incorrect.

Say hello to Patricia Maisch, a 61 year old grandma, who stopped a shooter as he stopped to reload. Oh hey, if only we restricted bullets to a certain size and gave people more chances to stop a shooter as he's reloading, eh? But that's difficult to do, and only elderly people have a chance at doing that. Yes, the shooter was also tackled to the ground by some men, but the point remains: a shooter was stopped by unarmed civilians when he tried to reload.

I guess your assertion is incorrect.

Oversimplification. What's the layout? is it outdoor? or indoor? in a school or a mall? is it in a room or a corridor? how big is the room? how many people are present? What''s the mix of people present - children? teen? adult?

More importantly, how many weapons does the shooter have? how is his proficiency at reloading his weapons?

Seriously? You really think a shooting being indoors or outdoors makes a difference? It doesn't fuckin' matter. The question is 30 bullets or 10. Which is safer for the people around? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd feel safer if a shooter had 30 bullets to spend, instead of 10?

Sorry, gonna have to call BS on this. Most of these are not man-portable systems, but are instead ship/vehicular mount devices. As far as i can see, the few "dazzler" weapons that are designed for portable use are DoD prototypes that are likely to stay that way, much less becomes something that will be available to the general public (nor do I even want to imagine the cost if they were).

I'm not surprised you aren't aware of the state of technology nowadays; very few people realize how far things have come. But here, have a portable sonic weapon. And Canadians have been buying blinding lasers for quite awhile now. Although that only mentions the military, lasers with the potential to blind people, have been on sale for awhile now. Hell, you can practically do it with a laser pointer. Airline pilots have complained that people are trying to blind them on take off.

You were saying?

Probably not on hunting no, but I'm not a hunter, so I'll defer that to those who know better. On self-defense it entirely predicates on the number and type of assailants you're facing. For sports, let's just say that shooting sport has went far beyond just static KD range shooting, like the 3-gun competition that's growing more and more popular, where 10 round mags would not suffice.

This is on top of the fact that banning magazines that carry more than 10 rounds would be even more futile than trying to ban guns. You think there are a lot of guns in the US? now try magazines.

On the contrary, regulating bullets is easier. Why? Because it is MUCH more difficult to make a good bullet. Anyone can piece together a gun in their garage, but damn few can make an accurate bullet with any kind of stopping or penetrating power.

Good luck with that one, now you're stomping on the toes and livelihood of hunters too.

Because no one was able to hunt before the invention of the gun, hmm? Man, I feel sorry for all those people who hunt with bows and arrows and traps. Someone ought to tell them they aren't supposed to be able to hunt. Seems to be, a true man could easily hunt via traps and a self-made spear... not following in the grand steps of Palin, who shot a high-powered rifle from a helicopter. Helluva hunter, there.

But yes, I'll grant my suggestion was a wee extreme. But I'd be more than willing to regulate small sales of hunting bullets to hunters. But self-defense shooters get rubber bullets only. Better?

And yes, I recognize some of my statements were a bit provocative, but they were intended to highlight a point. That is what the NRA (and more than a few gun nuts) argue from. They aren't arguing from the perspective of self-defense, or hunting, or sports... they are arguing from the standpoint of "dun take ma guns away!" That's what we have to get past. I already proposed middle-of-the-road reasonable suggestions for solving the problem.