Why do I need high capacity clips and so much ammo?

[bakerjw]

When asked why you need high capacity clips and so much ammunition, response appropriately.

Why does the DHS need a 5 year contract for 750,000,000 rounds of devastating hollow point handgun ammunition? That's 1,250,000 per month. We used less per month in Iraq. They are not in Iraq. The only possibilities are to secure the border, secure airports and ports of entry, or secure the American people.

[Bugzy]

Baker....those are just practice rounds for them. It'll take that many to hit the broad side of a barn!

[IceHandLuke]

Because there are still tooooo many Democrats that want your guns and how are you going to lay down suppressive fire when your buddy needs to move and advance? Thats why.

Why lie about it.

[MV10]

The correct answer is, "What part of the Constitution says a person has to justify any natural right?"

[rogerme]

Wants, needs and desires are not the same thing as a right.

[wolf]

Then tell them ,

the moment YOU(those who did ask) make the Government ONLY spend MY money , for ONLY ,what is REALLY needed , then we can start to talk about my tiny little budget THAT I PAY FOR WITH MY OWN DAMN MONEY


tell them that when you can only get what others tell you ,you need

THEN you are living in a Communist state ( in which the leaders NEVER have to get by with as little as the citizen have )

[silencertalk]

I don't need high capacity clips. I do need normal capacity magazines.

If my home is invaded by multiple armed criminals, am I an unreasonable person to want the normal 17 rounds of ammunition in my Glock 17 - one of the most normal and common handguns? Why would I want to leave my life at risk and the life of my family to be only 1/2 full when the criminal - who by definition does not obey laws, will follow no such limit?

If I were crossing death valley in the summer, why do it with 1/2 a tank of fuel? Do airlines only fuel up with the minimal amount of fuel likely to get them there?

[poikilotrm]

Do airlines only fuel up with the minimal amount of fuel likely to get them there?

Yes, so bad rhetorical question. Don't use that one.

[Abiqua]

Do airlines only fuel up with the minimal amount of fuel likely to get them there?

I was stationed on a 95' cutter in Hilo, Hawaii. Hilo is the farthest east airport of the islands, so closest to the mainland. In the two years I was there we we called out at least 4 times to go get in the path of a passenger carrying flight that was re-routed to Hilo because they had an estimated X minutes of fuel left and >X minutes of flight time left. The plan was for us to be en route so if it went down we would be on scene as soon as possible. We would get on station and watch the airliner fly past us with a fighter plane in escort, all of them made it to Hilo safely.

So to answer your question, yes airlines only fuel up with the minimal amount of fuel to get them there.

[66427vette]

Do airlines only fuel up with the minimal amount of fuel likely to get them there?

Yes, so bad rhetorical question. Don't use that one.

If the public only knew.

[JacksonBrowne]

No, airliners have mandatory reserves (~an hour or more) and sometimes a discrepancy between flight planning and reality mean that they land with minimum fuel.

[CThomas]

Wow didn't this thread take a turn

[Munk]

This argument touches on a fundamental issue that most gun-related arguments do; the idea that the more effective a weapon is, the more "evil" it is. So, why would people feel that effectiveness = wrongness, despite intention or actual use? It's because of a lack of trust. Those who are pushing for an AWB and/or mag limits do not trust others to use these tools responsibility, and so they are trying to minimize the potential damage that can be caused by abuse...instead of focusing on the root of the issue, i.e. the individuals who abuse them. While tackling the root of this issue isn't an easy task, it's the only thing that will ultimately make a difference. After all, a dangerous person can kill just as many people by misusing and automobile or can of gasoline as they can with an "assault weapon", and possibly even more. That's the reality of the situation people don't want to accept, because there is no easy fix.

But no, these anti-gun folk loose sight of the forest for the trees. They fixate on treating a symptom instead of the disease. Insert third aphorism here. So while none of the antis will come out and say that people shouldn't have the right to protect themselves, deep down inside they only want people to have the bare minimum in terms of how they can protect themselves (if anything at all). Again, this is because they fear abuse, but focus on the thing being abused instead of the abusers. It's madness.

So when someone asks me why I need an "assault weapon" or "hi-capacity" magazines, I point out that effectiveness ≠ badness like they are trying to imply. I say something to this affect:

"If you end up in a situation where you have no choice but to use a firearm to defend your life, doesn't it make sense to use the most effective one you have? How is it 'better' or 'safer' to use a gun that's harder to shoot accurately (pistol), that requires more rounds to stop the threat, and yet holds less bullets? Did you know that the hit-rate in self defense shootings are anywhere between 35% and 17% even though with 90% of those circumstances occur within 21ft? And what if there is more than one assailant? I don't know about you, but only having a handful of bullets in your gun only seems safer for the bad guy, and not for the innocents who's lives are being endangered. My idea of safe is reducing the risk of missing my target and sending stray rounds where they are not supposed to go. My idea of safe is not having to shoot more bullets than I otherwise would need to in order to stop a threat, especially if only 1 in 3 is going to hit the target. And similarly, my idea of safe is not having to worry about fumbling with extra magazines when I am struggling to protect myself and my family's lives in a such a high-stress environment. Case in point, making it harder for a gun to do its job does not make it safer to use, it does the exact opposite. I know it might seem unintuitive, but just like how its actually safer to cut something using a sharp knife as opposed to a dull one, so is the case when it comes to firearms."

^ You probably won't be able to say that in a single chunk, but it can be told in pieces to address the person's rebuttals, if they have any.

[Munk]

In fact, this is one of the most reasonable cases I have ever heard regarding this issue...despite its meager 235 views on YouTube. It's worth watching, twice.