Questions for the NRA

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You have to keep in mind these people's fundamental stance. From a 'sh**t-scared of almost everything in the world' perspective, the practical uses actually are, as krazen said, pretty obvious.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You have to keep in mind these people's fundamental stance. From a 'sh**t-scared of almost everything in the world' perspective, the practical uses actually are, as krazen said, pretty obvious.

I would suggest that these NRA types, and, well, thousands of everyday law enforcement who use such magazines might not be afraid of a pacifist like Nathan, but might be afraid of a handful of gangbangers coming to rape their women and children.

Why does it have to be 'their' women as well as their children? Can women not themselves operate firearms or be members of the NRA or law enforcement officers or something? In any case, fixation on that fear isn't good for anybody. It really isn't. One or two Freudian temper tantrums about 'good guys with guns' are one thing, but when you're at the point where you've made your career and life as an activist out of it, it's probably reached the status of an unreasonably consuming terror. (Either that or you're acting in bad faith because you're in bed with arms manufacturers. Or both.)

Amazingly, even law enforcement in many other countries doesn't feel the need for 'such magazines' in most situations. Believe it or not, in many situations, if you shoot one or two gangbangers' kneecaps out, the rest will lose interest pretty quickly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Quite easy. Here the cops required 84 rounds. Contrary to rwoy's bizarre assertion that 'threatening' the assailant would lead to him surrendering, such a verbal warning led to the assailant attempting to shoot the cops.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_raining_lead_in_harlem_ISB87yqtPOQzqrT6ekPdGI

And of course your, err, conjecture, is quite incorrect. They use 15 round mags.

Interesting story.  From this link http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5468505-NY-cops-fire-84-shots-at-suspect-who-lives/ they say they hit him 14 times.  This tells me a few things.  First, if you only hit the target 16% of the time then there is a problem and these guys need to go back to the range.  Second, I seriously doubt that after being shot 10 times this guy was still going (I mean it sounds like this guy deserved to die, but I really don't think it takes 14 hits to stop ANYONE).

Well, unfortunately, the right of self-defense does not rely on rwoy's arbitrary designation of 'accurate' and 'inaccurate'. Nathan the pacifist might have the skill to take down such a shooter by hitting a 10 inch kneecap, but few do.

It's more that the 'right' to self-defense doesn't apply to my daily life and I don't want it to, nor do most normal, peaceful folk without phallic obsession. And if it takes eighty-four rounds to kill somebody then these cops really should be trained better, size of the target notwithstanding.

Police officers have to go into situations where being fired at is likely. Civilians generally don't.

Yes, they do.

What kind of dystopian hellhole do you live in? I feel bad for you, man.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I, like most people who (apparently unlike you) don't live in Mad Max times, can with relative ease determine whether or not I end up in situations in which I'm likely to be assailed, and whether or not I choose to live in profound enough fear of the possibility of something out of the ordinary occurring to carry an object whose only function is to slaughter other living things.

Also, in this story you love so much, the cops were the 'elites' and the person who apparently killed his sister was 'the people'. Just so we're all aware.