If that were true, none of our Constitutional rights would have been eroded over the past 100 years. It all would have been a "ploy" to generate more campaign contributions.
They pulled the bill for lack of support. http://washingtonexaminer.com/nra-w...ter-illinois-win/article/2517558#.UObsgW_AexV
assuming your assailant stays put in the same place and you can discharge a few rounds to center of body mass... but if he starts moving, and you are freaking out, 10 rounds will seem like too little, specially if you are getting shot back at... under pressure, everything changes.
The would be intruder or robber will flee at vast majority of cases at first sign of a gun, they do not want their precious lives be endangered. If it comes to shoot out, someone will rifle will face the same pressures, granted with a better chance due to a much bigger magazine. However, large magazines come at a price as we all recently saw unfortunately.
Lanza could have just as easily driven a big vehicle into the classroom. The only problem for him is he might not have been sensationalized by the media.
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told Secrets Friday, "This was the first of many challenges gun owners and hunters will face this year. We will face many more and we need to keep our focus on those upcoming challenges." ***** Translation...keep those donations coming!!! Think about it...why does a bill get "introduced", get a bunch of press and then suddenly get "pulled" a short time later? Did a bunch of politicians change their mind? Not likely. The person introducing it could have gotten a vote tally before bringing it up. This thing made the rounds, checkbooks came out and now it goes back in the drawer. 200 years ago, politicians were handed bags of cash for votes. Today, we write checks to the NRA and the NRA writes checks to politicians in exchange for the sacrosanct act of doing nothing.
Precisely. The only folks who think 10 rounds is "enough" are the philosophers who have usually never fired a gun and certainly never been in a confrontational situation (like Senators and NYC Mayors who are surrounded by armed guards). They think of standing at the range, feet planted, the target is still, and you calmly aim at the bullseye. 10 rounds should be plenty, what's the big deal? In the real world here is how it may go down. Your assailant is not standing still waiting for you to shoot him, he's moving around, often hiding behind solid objects. And you're not standing still, either tracking him or trying to get away from him. It's dark and you can barely see since over 80% of bad-guy activity happens at nighttime. Your adrenaline is pumping, your heart is pounding, your hands are sweating and probably shaking because this is for real, not some philosophical discussion. Oh, and a couple other things... no calm bullseye practice because this target is shooting back (!) so you are constantly moving and ducking for cover. And bad guys often travel with their buddies so there could easily be 2 or 3 of them. NYC does an annual follow-up survey of all gun activity by their police force. They found that these highly trained individuals who graduated their Policy Academy and are required to practice and qualify with their firearms at regular intervals completely missed their human targets over 70% of the time. Hmmm, so that leaves you with only 3 out of the 10 rounds. Or to put it another way â NO ONE was ever in a gunfight and wished they had fewer rounds.
when cops fire they always empty their clips before they stop firing. I've never seen a video where this was not the case.
No there's plenty of dumb to go around. If one were to use knowledge and understanding of science then the GOP is the dumbest hands down. And really, science is one of the only objective truths out there.