Practical firearms discussion: size and weight considerations

Why you telling me?

 

For the simple reason that personal details relating to myself are not relevant to the discussion. Such details have never been submitted in any discussion partaken on the part of myself, as they serve no purpose. Once such details are introduced, the discussion ultimately becomes about myself, rather than the topic that is being discussed.

Once again. Is there an overriding reason for which a private citizen must limit themselves to only so much ammunition on their person, with only so much per each magazine they may choose to carry? What is the reason for which they should be required to engage in such a course of action, rather than free to make the determination for themselves?

 

With "not always" being the key phrase in the above. Such is an admission on the part of yourself that such situations do indeed occur, and it is private citizens who are the first to encounter violent criminals before law enforcement is dispatched to deal with them.

 

Hahaha...others have answered it. I guess we all know why YOU won't And until you do answer it, you have lost any privilege of asking me a question. This ain't a one way street.

 

The content of the posts submitted on the part of yourself suggest that such a fact is not actually being understood. Those who object to magazine capacity do not object to the amount of ammunition any particular person chooses to carry around with them at any given point in time. Thus they have no legitimate reason to object to how that ammunition is carried and contained.

 

Yes, of course some do. But not to the level that cops do, whereas it's the JOB of a cop to engage with criminals. You understand this, right? Oh...who am I kidding...you'll never admit to or answer any direct questions.

 

Nope...you're wrong...AGAIN.

 

More accurately, the above is nothing more than a cheap excuse to not answer a particular question about what has become a controversial matter of individual rights and attempts at government restrictions that cannot be justified, or explained as being anything more than arbitrary and capricious.

It is more than likely understood on the part of yourself that if such a discussion continued, it would eventually be asked what scientific methodology was utilized in determining that absolutely no private individual anywhere could possibly have a legitimate use for magazines that held eleven rounds of ammunition. Such an inquiry could never be answered on the part of yourself, so more than likely an abort to the discussion was launched preemptively to avoid having to admit to such.

 

Again...when YOU answer a question I will be happy to answer any and all questions you have. It's funny, how you think YOU can avoid answering questions yet expect me to answer your questions.
What's even funnier is I have already stated in other posts that I don't think mags should be limited. So basically you're looking for an issue that isn't even there with me. Hahahahahahaha

 

Which does not actually mean anything of either relevance of significance when it comes to the validity of such.

 

Don't edit my posts.

Here is the actual post and as usual...

 

And yet no personal details were requested of yourself in this discussion.

While simultaneously disparaging those who seek out greater magazine capacity, as the post relating to the OK corral would demonstrate.

 

Are you referring to this post? What does the post by dave8383 have to do with me???

And what personal details did I ask of you?

 

Totally incorrect, it is quite possible to burn through 10 rounds when dealing with multiple assailant's, as such having a larger capacity magazine would be quite useful and necessary.

 

The point is, what makes you think you'd wind up dealing with multiple assailants? Chances of that are as far out there as your fear of being the first one taken because you're carrying in an open manner. This isn't Dodge City. Frankly, you're thinking is over the edge.

 

How much ammunition is carried on the part of myself.

 

Multiple assailants? Where the heck do you live....south side of Chicago?

 

THAT'S a personal question? Hahahaha...SMFH

 

Numerous security and cellphone videos showing such to be the case. It is something that is documented as being a fact, not merely a concept of thought.

What were the chances of september eleventh being carried out as was witnessed, prior to it actually being done?

 

Yes, America is so dangerous.

 

"In 2005-10, 29% of violent victimization by strangers involved multiple offenders, compared to 12% of violent victimizations by offenders known to the victim (table 11). In each time period, the average annual percentage of violent victimizations by multiple strangers was more than twice that of incidents with multiple offenders known to the victim. While the percentage of stranger victimizations with multiple offenders decreased between 1993-98 and 1999-04, it remained relatively stable over time."

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

 

Can you provide links to these security and cellphone videos?

 

It happens all the time, guess you don't keep up with the news too much?

Home invasions are seldom if ever committed by a single criminal.

 

Happens all the time? Ha ha.

Is there a Big Shootout newspaper?

 

Do all of these incidents involve shootouts with multiple assailants?