#BoycottNRA

#3,851
#3,851
luthervol said:
There is no need for more than x rounds per y seconds for home protection or hunting. That's one of the beauties of x / y.
Click to expand...

3 armed assailants crash through your fromt door at 2 am in a home invasion.

What x/y capability would you consider to be rational and reasonable?
 
#3,852
#3,852
And this is why liberals are dangerous and cannot be trusted. Mayor Kahn is now going to have a freaking knife ban in London.

Twitter
 
#3,853
#3,853
Vol8188 said:
Rights don’t neccisitate a need. Rosa Parks didn’t need to sit up front.

But you’re confused. You seem to believe the type of weapon determines rounds per second. That’s more about the shooters abilities than anything else.
Click to expand...

This has already been covered.
 
#3,855
#3,855
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,857
#3,857
luthervol said:
Don't confuse lack of interest in types of guns with lack of interested in reasonable and rational gun laws and regulations.

You don't have to be interested in types of rocks in order to be against public stoning.

I think the gun fascination and obsession is often a hindrance to the debate.
Click to expand...

It seems to me one would need to understand the different kinds of weapons to know what is reasonable and rational. You don't know weapons, reasonable, nor rational. You know uninformed emotional responses.
 
#3,858
#3,858
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,859
#3,859
Orange_Crush said:
It seems to me one would need to understand the different kinds of weapons to know what is reasonable and rational. You don't know weapons, reasonable, nor rational. You know uninformed emotional responses.
Click to expand...

Oh but they’re reasonable and rational uninformed emotional responses!🙄
 
#3,863
#3,863
GreyWolf1129 said:
Current Active Shooter Protocol: Run, Hide, Fight.
Liberal version: Run, Hide, Protest.
Conservative Version: Aim, Slack, Squeeze.
ND40 Version: Point, Press, Poot.

Only the last two give you a reasonable chance of survival.

:)
Click to expand...

GV version:

"Shoot, scan, assess."
 
#3,866
#3,866
Wonder if this guy violated the X and Y theory?

2 men hurt in shootout during robbery at West Garfield Park church | Chicago Sun-Times

A man exchanged gunfire with an armed robber Wednesday evening inside a West Garfield Park neighborhood church, leaving both men wounded.

A 57-year-old man was sitting in a the church at 8:09 p.m. in the 4400 block of West Maypole when a 27-year-old man walked in and announced a robbery, according to Chicago Police.

The two men then started shooting at each other, police said. The older man was struck in the left arm and taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in good condition. The robber was shot multiple times in the chest and was in critical condition at Stroger Hospital.
Click to expand...
 
#3,868
#3,868
#3,869
#3,869
luthervol said:
Fairly certain he would not be in x / y violation.

He was able to protect himself and others by shooting the robber in the chest just 5 times (? - it just said multiple). There was no need to shoot the robber in the chest 13 times.
Click to expand...

And if there are multiple targets? You bothering to factor in missing? (LEO certainly do)
 
#3,873
#3,873
luthervol said:
Fairly certain he would not be in x / y violation.

He was able to protect himself and others by shooting the robber in the chest just 5 times (? - it just said multiple). There was no need to shoot the robber in the chest 13 times.
Click to expand...

The only reason not to shoot a robber in the chest 13 times is because the magazine only held 12 rounds.... and the police were across the street.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top