Be respectful of others' views and choices.
 #85016  by brich2929
 
I'm not sure if this has been posted here before, but if you haven't seen it, it makes a great case for the stupidity in banning magazines.



:mrgreen:

http://ow.ly/jCxVg
Last edited by brich2929 on Thu May 02, 2013 11:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
 #85033  by SR9
 
Today HB 58 the Hi-capacity magazine ban was voted out of the Administrative Committee in the Delaware Legislature, by a "on its merits" vote by 3 out of the 5 members. There were no fasvorable votes, no opposed votes. Next it go to the floor for discussion and vote.
 #85076  by brich2929
 
SR9 wrote:Today HB 58 the Hi-capacity magazine ban was voted out of the Administrative Committee in the Delaware Legislature, by a "on its merits" vote by 3 out of the 5 members. There were no fasvorable votes, no opposed votes. Next it go to the floor for discussion and vote.
:banghead:

Deaf ears....

Well, still time to send those letters out and make calls
 #85187  by brich2929
 
JägerMatthias wrote:The video brings up some interesting demonstrations, but the bias is evident.

Care to elaborate?
 #85188  by JägerMatthias
 
Yes. For instance, how could the guy, Jim, shoot faster with the mag change than without? How does that add up?

Additionally, the guy who was running for the "attack during reload" test was pretty slow, and didn't seem to put much effort into the run. I'm not sure what else, I just skimmed through the vid. Coulda' been a little more honest, that's all.
 #85195  by Sodbuster
 
Did you notice that neither shooter fired until empty before reloading? Easy to do on a range when you can count your rounds, not so much on the street I would think. The shooters also didn't have to draw the spare magazines from their person, just grab them from the barrel top. It doesn't seem like a very realistic demonstration to me.

Someone could take that same demonstration and argue that 10 round magazines are not a liability to the law abiding gun owner because you can shoot just as fast with multiple magazine changes as with only one change. (Which we all know is not true.)

I appreciate the effort in making the video, but I don't think it helps our cause that much.
 #85250  by stephpd
 
brich2929 wrote:Ok, this one then??



http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/shock-video- ... 1H5_ilaTDA

A little better. Problem there is that large capacity magazines will still be legal in the home. And since we live fairly close to PA would still be able to purchase them. And it would be hard for the state to prove when they were purchased since they don't go through an FFL. Cash and carry.

I think I made a better argument, and emotion filled, at the House hearing about concealed carry and where I work in Wilmington. Because by the proposed law I'm limited in what I can carry. And don't have time to waste reloading when my life is on the line in a very dangerous place and bullets fly on a weekly basis. Or that the state thinks my life worth less then law enforcement, who isn't limited, has body armor and backup. And I have none of those.

I had written out a fairly good rebuttal, but because of a few things said during the hearing I felt it important to focus on this area and drop my 'script'. I'm fairly sure it came out as emotional, honest, sincere and heart felt because I looked into each and every one of there eyes and saw recognition and sympathy. Also on the way back to my seat several people said thank you, so I'm sure others got the drift too.
 #85253  by Sodbuster
 
Much more realistic scenario. They should make one where the family is out in public when something like that happens.

It boils down to this;

These laws are supposed to make us safer.

Criminals don't obey laws.

By following the law, I am at a tactical disadvantage to the criminal.

Thus, these laws actually make me less safe.