I will post exactly what I want, where I want .. if you have a problem with that then I suggest you contact the MOD's and ask them whether I am on or off topic. The basic premise of this thread is the assumption that God exists, if it is a hypothetical assumption then it does not state that in the OP title or in the OP itself, nor does it state that the topic is for 'believers' only, perhaps you should think a little more carefully before starting a topic in future oh and BTW even if you had stated it was for 'believers' only there is no rule here that restricts non-believers from responding as long as it is on topic and as God is the foundation of your OP then I am very much on topic.
Just did. We are not discussing whether or not the God of the Bible exists. We are discussing what does the Bible says about self defense. no you're not. You're trying to direct the topic into a "does God exists" thread. The premise of the thread is implied.
Except for the fact that it does not. Let us examine firearms restrictions that have been enacted in various states, proposed in others, and was once in place on the federal level. One key element of these restrictions is that no detachable magazines can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Many proponents of such restrictions claim loudly that not one single individual outside of police officers ever has any legitimate purpose for carrying more then ten rounds of ammunition in a detachable magazine at any given time. And yet none of them, not even the ones who drafted the legislation that would implement such a rule, can explain the method of reasoning that was used to determine such a concept. When questioned they absolutely refuse to elaborate as to the why or how, suggesting that they do not have the ability to explain, and do not wish to admit that they have nothing with which to reply. If even the authors are unable to explain the basic method of reasoning that was used, then it is doubtful that any actual reasoning or logic was used in the first place.
Nope, just taking your premise to its starting point, no doubt you have to ignore the fundamental question that is the foundation of your premise after all if you don't it falls apart.
Large capacity ammunition magazines are the common thread uniting all of the high-profile mass shootings in America. The shooter who killed 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 equipped his assault weapon with 30-round magazines, which enabled him to fire 154 rounds in less than five minutes. The gunman in Tucson, Arizona who killed six people and injured 13 others, including U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, in a supermarket parking lot in 2011, used a handgun equipped with a 33-round magazine. His shooting spree was only interrupted when he was tackled by a bystander as he finally stopped to reload his weapon. Large capacity magazines were also used in the assault weapons massacres in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012, at Columbine High School in 1999, on a military base in Fort Hood, Texas in 2009, and in an office building at 101 California Street in San Francisco in 1993. Moreover, the shooter who killed 67 people at a summer camp in Norway in 2011 stated in his written manifesto that he purchased 30-round ammunition magazines via mail order from a dealer in the United States. In fact, a review of 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 by Mother Jones found that large capacity ammunition magazines were recovered in 50% of them. A review of mass shootings between January 2009 and January 2013 by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that incidents where assault weapons or large capacity ammunition magazines were used resulted in 135% more people shot and 57% more killed, compared to other mass shootings. Large capacity magazines are a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to the 1980s, the most popular type of handgun was the revolver, which typically holds six rounds of ammunition in a rotating cylinder. During the 1980s, however, the firearms industry began mass producing and marketing semiautomatic pistols, which can accept ammunition magazines. In 1980, semiautomatic pistols accounted for only 32% of the 2.3 million handguns produced in America. By 2008, however, such pistols accounted for 76% of the 1.8 million handguns produced that year. Bans on large capacity ammunition magazines are often adopted in concert with bans on assault weapons. However, large capacity ammunition magazine bans reduce the capacity, and thus the potential lethality, of any firearm that can accept a large capacity ammunition magazine, including a firearm that is not an assault weapon. Crime data also suggests that a ban on large capacity magazines would have a greater impact on gun crime than a ban on assault weapons alone. Polling consistently shows that a strong majority of Americans support laws banning large capacity ammunition magazines. For example, in a 2012 survey for CNN, 62% of those polled supported such laws. Sources : Violence Policy Center, Mass Shootings in the United States Involving High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines, at http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf. Mary Ellen Clark & Noreen O’Donnell, Newtown School Gunman Fired 154 Rounds in Less than 5 Minutes, Reuters, Mar. 28, 2013, at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/28/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-idUSBRE92R0EM20130328. Sam Quinones & Nicole Santa Cruz, Crowd Members Took Gunman Down, L.A. Times, Jan. 9, 2011, at http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-arizona-shooting-heroes-20110110. Id. For more information about these tragedies, see Mark Follman, Gavin Aronsen,& Deanna Pan, A Guide to Mass Shootings in America, Mother Jones (July 20, 2012), at http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map. Stephanie Condon, Norway Massacre Spurs Calls for New U.S. Gun Laws, CBSNews.com (July 28, 2011), at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20085056-503544.html. Mark Follman et al., More Than Half of Mass Shooters Used Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines, Mother Jones (Feb. 27, 2013), at http://www.motherjones.com/politics...h-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein. For some of the mass shootings included in the analysis, information about the types of firearms and ammunition magazines used remains unknown. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings 1 (Jan. 2013), at http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/56/4/1242/analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings.pdf. Violence Policy Center, Backgrounder on Glock 19 Pistol and Ammunition Magazines Used in Attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and Others 1 (Jan. 2011), at http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/AZbackgrounder.pdf. As of 1994, 21% of civilian-owned handguns and 18% of all civilian-owned firearms were equipped with magazines that could hold 10 or more rounds. Christopher S. Koper, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice 6, 18 (June 2004), at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf. Assault weapons make up only about 1% of the firearms estimated to be in civilian hands. Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, U.S. Department of Justice, Firearms, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Guns Used in Crime 6 (July 1995), at http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF. In 1994, guns equipped with large capacity magazines were involved in 14% to 26% of gun crimes, while assault weapons were only used in 6%. Koper, supra note 11, at 19. Additionally, a survey of police departments conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum found that “38 percent of the police departments reported noticeable increases in criminals’ use of semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines” since the expiration of the federal ban. Police Executive Research Forum, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact 2 (May 2010), at http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/GunsandCrime.pdf. CNN/ORC International Poll, December 17-18 – Gun Rights 3 (Dec. 2012), at http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/19/cnnpoll.december19.4p.pdf Seems to me the base reasoning was very much in place.
All of which is irrelevant to the question that was asked of you. Meaning they are only used in, at most, half of all mass shootings carried out, while the other half is committed with firearms using magazines that they not qualify, due to holding ten or less rounds of ammunition. Meaning even if such magazines are legally prohibited, mass shootings and mass killings would still continue unabated. This is factually incorrect. Magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition have been around since the early twentieth century. The Thompson submachine gun was designed with fifty and one hundred round drum magazines. The Browning Hi-Power handgun utilized magazines capable of holding thirteen rounds of ammunition. They have always been available. The only aspect resembling a so-called "relatively new phenomenon" has been increased feeding reliability, and a decrease in the risk of jams. This was due to price, reliability, and ease of maintenance. Revolvers can be cleaned with relative ease compared to semi-automatic pistols, which must be stripped down significantly further, especially with the designs produced by Browning. Because reliability, price, and complexity stopped being issues that had to be contended with. Beyond which, your citation does not differentiate between semi-automatic pistols which can accept magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, and those that do no accept such. Your citation is made up almost exclusively of the groups Mother Jones, and the Violence Policy Center, both of which have been caught deliberately engaging in intellectual dishonesty to justify their positions. Josh Sugarman, for example, went on record as stating that the Violence Policy Center should knowing lie to the public and play on their ignorance in order to generate public support for their policies. The above is justification for the prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. However it is not the basic method of reasoning used to conclude that no private individual has a legitimate reason for owning a magazine capable of holding eleven or more rounds of ammunition. Once again the reasoning behind why that specific amount was selected goes without explanation. How was it determined that ten rounds was the absolute maximum amount of ammunition a private individual could believably have a legitimate reason for, but eleven and anything above was determined to be too much?
An experienced shooter armed only with 19th century weapons technology can fire 24 shots in 14 seconds. Youtube search "fastest cowboy action shooter". In Sandy Hook, the shooter fired 154 rounds yet only killed 26 people in 5 minutes. The Tucson shooter is the only instance we know where a shooter was stopped during a reload, yet we have multiple instances of an armed civilian stopping a mass shooting, which means that eliminating gun free zones would be a much better solution than magazine restrictions. Besides, there are multiple billions of magazines in existence and they're easily manufactured with 3D printing. Why 10 rounds? The city of Denver prohibited larger than 20 rounds. The state of Colorado insisted 15 rounds would make us safe. We've seen 10 and 7 rounds proposed. If any of these restrictions (which violate Miller and Heller, according to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals) are Constitutional, then any number limit is Constitutional including 2 or 1. There's nothing magical about 10.
Thank you for your detailed response, however it was unnecessary as what I said answers your original question - "If even the authors are unable to explain the basic method of reasoning that was used, then it is doubtful that any actual reasoning or logic was used in the first place." .. what I posted shows, rightly or wrongly that there was "actual reasoning or logic" involved. Seems to me the basic level of reasoning was; ban magazines that hold more than ten rounds and mass shootings will reduce. BTW. Before any conclusions are jumped to I don't support gun rights restrictions at all.
I agree .. however, the discussion is not about whether magazine capacity restrictions are valid or even legal, it is about whether there was a basic method in logic that underlined the idea .. that basic logic was that reducing legal magazine capacity to 10 rounds or under would reduce mass shootings .. not saying it is right (in fact I know it isn't) but it does answer the question put forward.
Once again what is presented is the justification for the limitation that was implemented. However justification is not reasoning as to how the amount of ten rounds was reached, and considered the absolute maximum that a private citizen had a legitimate use for. Why was the amount ten, rather than seven, eight, twelve, or even fifteen? How was ten selected as the appropriate number for private use? No explanation pertaining to reason has ever been given by anyone, either proponents or even authors. It is as if they simply went and selected the number entirely at random, and if not that then any other number would have done just fine for them. There is no reasoning that has been used in this matter, and amounts to nothing more than the opinion of those who authored the legislation. They cannot and will not explain how they arrived as their conclusions, they simply expect the public to abide by them regardless. Noted.
Incorrect. The discussion has been about how it was determined that private citizens do not have a legitimate purpose for carrying more than ten rounds of ammunition in a single magazine; not as to whether or not such capacity limitations would in any way reduce mass shootings, and mass killings.
On the surface, such information would seem to make sense, yet it is important to point out that the people that supply that information are not experts in the subject of Firearms. Foremost compare the venerable Revolver to an Autoloading pistol, the advantage offered by a modern Autoloading pistol is not in its higher capacity, it is in its reloading, less chance of a slip up, less complicated, and way faster, less manual dexterity is required, and if you are injured, you may not be able to reload a Revolver, However, it is possible to reload an Autoloading pistol. I conducted tests with 1911s and various Browning Hi powers, and important to note, Even the single column magazine pistols fared well and could be rapidly reloaded, and lay down withering fire. Don't get Me wrong, high capacity magazines are great, but in a pinch, your vintage 1911 and it's Single column magazines are no slouch either.
One can only point to Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) and the courts rationale that a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment, ... "the banned arms magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are hardly central to self-defense. The right to possess magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds lies on the periphery of the Second Amendment right, and proscribing such magazines is, at bare minimum, substantially related to an important government interest." .. whether that reasoning is sound is another matter.
TBH my detailed knowledge of guns is limited, I wouldn't know the various loading speeds of various guns .. I grew up shooting 12 bore shotguns, such as the AyA (Aguirre y Aranzabal)
Since this thread is called "The Bible and self defence", let me toss a few observations into the playpen as food for thought..- God said- "Raise a banner on a bare hilltop, I have summoned my warriors to carry out my wrath..they come from faraway lands..to destroy the whole country..and destroy the sinners within it" (Isaiah ch 13) Tyrants beware!
As a Brit what the heck do I know about guns, but I hear there's a greater risk of jamming with autos, whereas with revolvers the mechanism is loose and free. If I was to buy a gun I think I'd plump for a .38 revolver, not too big, not too small. BTW- a lot of people in survival forums seem to like .22 pistols, isn't .22 a bit on the small size? I mean, Serpico took a pointblank .22 shot in the kisser and it just left him dazed-
Thx for the old testament quotes There is no doubt that the god of the old testament was into all sorts of mayhem Some people are of thd opinion that jesus had some different ideas... like turn the other cheek
That's not why I'm not addressing it. If this was a "does God exist" thread then may have something, however this is a "what does the Bible says about..." Thread so your post is irrelevant.
For the most part your description is pretty much spot on, I prefer from my experience, to describe a Revolver as a passive device because it totally relies on it's mechanical parts to rotate the cylinder and cause the firing pin to strike the cartridge primer. I like to refer to an Autoloading pistol as a dynamic mechanism because when the cartridge fires, it must be ejected by the gasses, and then, the barrel and lock up, unlocks allowing rearward travel expelling the empty case, and ejecting it, this is what complicates the process of an Autoloading pistol as compared to a Revolver. Revolvers are not necessarily more reliable than Autoloading pistols, it is their operation that is inherently better as a passive device less prone to difficulties such as jamming and dirt in the chamber, a failure of a Revolver often involves another pull of the trigger as opposed to a more complicated drill when an Autoloading pistol jams.
Ok let's take God out of the equation, what the bible says about anything doesn't matter because without God it just becomes another in a long line of books that have no 'power'
