Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumRachael Maddow Tears Into NRA: You Can’t Oppose Gun Laws Just Because ‘Criminals Don’t Follow Laws'
VIDEO here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maddow-trashes-nra-you-cant-oppose-gun-laws-just-because-criminals-dont-follow-laws/
-snip-
Mz Pip
(27,404 posts)Criminals will just break them no matter what they are. We have speeding laws, child abuse laws, trespassing laws.
Oh never mind. Trying to point out the idiocy of the NRAs argument isn't worth the effort.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)and trespassing are always a bad thing. The same cannot be said of guns.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)would have to speed to avoid an accident. Imagine being in the right hand lane bumper to bumper with a semi truck in the left lane. If he starts to merge into your lane, you have 3 choices to avoid the accident:
1. speed up, including exceeding the speed limit
2. slow down
3. go off roading (if no barrier)
#1 is the best choice under that situation.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Acceleration is far slower than braking. Awareness plus properly managed road space control will keep you out of the trouble.
The only situation where acceleration might work is in a "sandwich" accident and, open road, you should not be in that position anyway whilst on a crowded road acceleration will only put you into the back of the car in front.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)situation as well - defensive driving or not.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)that "... only very skilled gun owners..." can quickly change out a magazine? It takes just a little practice to learn how to push a button for the magazine to fall out, insert another magazine, and press another button to release the slide back, (or release the bolt back in the case of a long gun). The last part is not necessary if the magazine is swapped out while a round is in the chamber. (This is what Lanza did.)
This is not the first time Maddow has used faulty information about firearms in her attempts to make a point. It seems that neither she nor her staff checks out the gun information they wish to use by talking with someone who knows how guns actually work.
That's not exactly her point, is it?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)to make a point with that response, then why did she say it?
jjewell
(618 posts)...how fast can the average semi-automatic firearm owner switch out magazines, the point was the ridiculousness of the argument that laws should not be changed or enhanced because, by definition, criminals violate laws.
I'm surprised you didn't challenge the lock picking, car jumping, and handcuff escaping aspects of the clip...
according to you, she has no point. I am unaware of the other aspects of your post, sarcasm or not.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Except, of course, Rachel's are based on facts and reality rather than wishful thinking, a false sense of superiority & fantasy.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)the skill needed to swap magazines are fallacy.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)And considering that you & the other self-described gun owners spend your entire time on DU trying to shoot down any discussion in support of reasonable gun control measures (which are overwhelmingly supported on DU - and nationally, for that matter) I'm tending to agree.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)You feel the need to sift through all of my posts for at least EIGHT MONTHS to dig up something "incriminating"?
I'd really be intimidated by your pimply, pasty-faced Internet Warrior skills - if it wasn't so sad.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)and it makes an interesting counterpoint to your hypocrisy on other issues.
I assume by now you have edited it.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)That even MORE pathetic!
Do you have it sorted by topic? Or by date? Or both?
The word "sophomoric" comes to mind.
.....
And maybe you missed where I agreed with the statement? The fact that self described gun owners tend to side with the RW weirdos from the NRA, and that they believe their guns are more precious & more important that the lives of our children (and not just other people's children, either) supports the idea. If you don't like it, maybe you should reconsider your position.
And if you need to find hypocrisy, look at those who say: "Oh, I'm all for gun control!"; then try to oppose, suppress, derail & sidetrack it whenever it comes up. That's something you should be very familiar with, you poor, poor little child, since that's exactly what you're doing here.
You see, unlike you RW weirdo gun worshipers, I'm able to look at a statement and judge it on it's merits - as most educated adults (the ones who are liberals & progressives, at least) are able to do. Unless it's stated otherwise, I'm not going to search for some sort of dishonest "hidden meanings", or delve into the dusty archives, or try to divine the latest prognostications of my Masters before I determine what I'm allowed to believe.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)What should be done is a matter of legitimate debate, fanatics of all side really do not help the matter. Neither do statements like "all gun owners have blood on their hands"
spin
(17,493 posts)If you are interested watch and form your own conclusions. Two shooters, one with considerable experience one with less, fire both pistols and an AR 15 and swap magazines while being timed. Revolver shooting is also demonstrated. Also the chance that a person who is 25 feet from the shooter can disarm him while reloading is shown.
This is obviously a video designed to prove that the law limiting magazine capacity is foolish, but to many it might prove how dangerous any semi-automatic firearm or revolver is. It's nice to watch a talking head on the TV or read an editorial in the newspaper but that doesn't really give you any real understanding of the issue.
Note: the first 1 minute and 40 seconds add little to the video and is largely propaganda.
http://m.
I should add that I have been shooting handguns for over 40 years but I don't own a pistol with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. I also do not own an assault style rifle.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I think a shooter would have all the magazines in their pockets or somewhere, so that would take a bit more time.
And people would be ducking and running as opposed to the paper targets.
spin
(17,493 posts)Often magazines are stored in belt pounches where they can be accessed readily.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)or bench. I knew exactly where they were at all times.
spin
(17,493 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Again, it assumes some level of training and competence, but with most handguns, you should be able to reload without looking at it.
demcoat
(31 posts)doesnt give a realistic chance to tackle the shooter then how does a magazine restriction limit one from defending themselves. Saying it differently, if it doesn't slow down an active shooter then how can it be then said that it affects a civilian from defending them self?
spin
(17,493 posts)Most civilian defensive shootings involve less than 10 rounds. (I should note that there really isn't a lot of data about the number of rounds fired by civilians in self defense.)
Of course if you are faced with multiple attackers it would be nice to have more than 10 rounds or if you face an attacker who has a pistol with 17 rounds, 10 rounds might put you at a disadvantage.
I legally carry a snub nosed revolver with a five round capacity and a speed loader for one reload. Of course I feel there is very little chance that I will ever have to use my revolver for self defense and prefer to carry it as as it is very light and easy to conceal. If I suspected that I faced a serious threat, I would carry the snubbie as a backup to my 1911 style Colt .45 ACP pistol with a seven or eight round magazine and one in the chamber. I would also have a spare magazine or two on my belt.
But that's just me. I know some gun owners who wish to have as much ammo as possible in their firearm. They will argue that 15 or 17 rounds in their handgun beats 10 rounds every time. Some seen to have a "spray and pray" or "fill the air with lead" approach to defensive shooting. Most of these guys rarely carry their firearm because lugging that much weight around is a real pain in the ass if you don't have a damn good reason. Therefore they leave their weapon behind in the safe while out and about.
Of course I live in Florida where it is often difficult to conceal a large handgun as it's usually too hot to wear a light jacket or vest. Most people who regularly carry concealed in this state pack "mouse guns" simply because they are more practical here.
In my opinion the debate over the capacity of firearm magazines is largely irrelevant. As the video demonstrates, magazines can be changed quickly by any shooter with some training. Of course honest citizens would abide by the law while criminals and nut cases would not. Therefore, once again, the law would do little as honest and responsible citizens are not the problem. Millions and millions of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are already in circulation. Even if you could confiscate all of these magazines, the bad guy would just practice swapping magazines and be able to do as much damage with lower capacity magazines as he could with the hi-caps.
In fact in several recent shootings, the hi-cap magazines used caused the shooter's weapons to jam. It's far more difficult to clear a jam than to change a magazine. It is quite possible that a person could successfully rush and take down a shooter who had a gun jam.
I favor better enforcing current laws and improving them in ways that would make them more effective. The problem appears that the gun control side of the debate will be satisfied only if they can ban something. I want to do something that will help reduce gun violence and tragic massacres and the gun control crowd seems to want a to win a trophy to prove that they can beat the NRA even if it accomplishes nothing.
Volaris
(10,260 posts)That is all.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Really?