MN Bill making gun magazines of more than 10 shells illegal.

[xd ED]

Can't we all just ignore the troll that is heffay. Don't feed him people.

But I'm not a troll. I'm a valuable contributing member of this forum.

Sorry but you are an troll. You repeat the same gibberish in twenty threads and then in the other you do nothing but jab at people to stir the pot.

Read this somewhere:

Can't we all just ignore the troll that is heffay. Don't feed him people.

[bigd55433]

Silly question but since I'm not a Minnesota historian by any means... But has there ever been a major tragedy in Minnesota or a serious crime that high cap mags were used in? Just curious. I suppose I'd have to define major and serious but I think you guys get what I'm asking.

[Hmac]

Silly question but since I'm not a Minnesota historian by any means... But has there ever been a major tragedy in Minnesota or a serious crime that high cap mags were used in? Just curious. I suppose I'd have to define major and serious but I think you guys get what I'm asking.

The shootings at Accent Signage are their rallying cry. It's all they have in Minnesota. Unfortunately, like the rest of the entire gun control debate, it's about emotion not logic or common sense.

[XDM45]

Silly question but since I'm not a Minnesota historian by any means... But has there ever been a major tragedy in Minnesota or a serious crime that high cap mags were used in? Just curious. I suppose I'd have to define major and serious but I think you guys get what I'm asking.

The shootings at Accent Signage are their rallying cry. It's all they have in Minnesota. Unfortunately, like the rest of the entire gun control debate, it's about emotion not logic or common sense.

Agreed.

I've also seen the craziness on our side though too when it comes to common sense..... such as if a PTC/CCW holder was in the theater in Aurora that the would be able to overcome the tear gas (non-lethal-chemical weapon really) in a crowded, dark theater full of gas, and be able to see, let alone hit the active shooter; but because he was wearing body armor, the PTC/CCW would have had to shot him in an unprotected area for a shot to permanently stop the threat or at least hit him to stop his actions. Chances of that happening are pretty low I'd think, but I've seen and heard people say that if they were there they could have done such and such. Maybe.... but if I were a bettin' man, I wouldn't take those odds.

However at Accent Signage, I think the complete opposite is true. If a PCT carrier was in the business at the time, I firmly believe that less lives would have been lost. Is it possible more would have been and not less? or that it wouldn't have made a difference? Yes, of course, all true. I'm simply saying that some people in the general gun community have this grand delusion of fantasy that if they'd been there, things would have turned out differently because they'd have saved the day.

I'm not saying anyone on here is or isn't like that. I'm speaking in a very general term, and I realize that people who have such ideas are on our fringe, not in the mainstream of the gun culture community. My point is that we have a nutjobs too who fail to use common sense, but thank goodness they are rare. The antis have the lack of common sense card played in spades every day and in every way.

[xd ED]

Can you site an incident where a citizen responding with a gun made things worse as you speculate?
That sounds like a 'what-if' straight out of the antis' playbook.

There is a growing list of schools, and shopping malls where the incidents were rendered a non-event, or much less damaging and harmful by the presence of an armed citizen....

And if you read up a bit, it appears the shooter in Aurora was wearing a bunch of tacticool- mall ninja wannabe crap, not ballistic armor.

Again, you seem to be confusing and conflating facts with 'opinions'; possibly for the purposes of derailing an otherwise informative and useful thread.

[XDM45]

Can you site an incident where a citizen responding with a gun made things worse as you speculate? That sounds like a 'what-if' straight out of the antis' playbook.
Not off the top of my head, but I'm sure it's out there. I agree that for the most part, things do go well if a carrier is present and I see (and am for) more pros than cons.

There is a growing list of schools, and shopping malls where the incidents were rendered a non-event, or much less damaging and harmful by the presence of an armed citizen....
Absolutely!! Thank goodness for that as well.

And if you read up a bit, it appears the shooter in Aurora was wearing a bunch of tacticool- mall ninja wannabe crap, not ballistic armor.
I thought he had on kevlar, unless the media was wrong (which is probably the case)

Again, you seem to be confusing and conflating facts with 'opinions'; possibly for the purposes of derailing an otherwise informative and useful thread
Not trying to derail the thread or confuse at all.

As I say, for the most part, carriers have prevented or stopped events from happening, more pros than cons, all true. I was simply pointing out that just because a carrier is there doesn't mean things can't go wrong. Heck, if I shot the active shooter and stopped the threat, what's to stop another carrier from mistaking me for a second shooter and bad guy? Or what if I made that mistake? Is that possible? Of course it is. Has it happened? not to my knowledge. I'm only pointing out the mere possibilities, that's all.

I carry. I've thought about what do I do if another carrier draws on me after I've stopped the threat. How do I determine the right person so I don't draw on the wrong person like another carrier who has stopped the threat? If I or another person yells "I'm a good guy" do I believe them? Will they believe me? I'm simply giving thought to possibilities, not trying to derail or fuel the anti's agenda. If someone carries and HASN'T thought about such things, that's scary.

[Hmac]

Can you site an incident where a citizen responding with a gun made things worse as you speculate?
That sounds like a 'what-if' straight out of the antis' playbook.

There is a growing list of schools, and shopping malls where the incidents were rendered a non-event, or much less damaging and harmful by the presence of an armed citizen....

And if you read up a bit, it appears the shooter in Aurora was wearing a bunch of tacticool- mall ninja wannabe crap, not ballistic armor.

Again, you seem to be confusing and conflating facts with 'opinions'; possibly for the purposes of derailing an otherwise informative and useful thread.

An armed citizen in the Aurora theater would have been unlikely, IMHO, to have mitigated the situation. But, he or she might have. And I do agree that it would have been unlikely that such an armed citizen would have made the situation worse.

You make a good point, however. I can't think or google a single instance of an armed citizen making an active shooter scenario worse. However, I can think of at least one situation where police officers winged a couple of bystanders taking down an active shooter. In the end, however, even that one was a net gain.

[XDM45]

Can you site an incident where a citizen responding with a gun made things worse as you speculate?
That sounds like a 'what-if' straight out of the antis' playbook.

There is a growing list of schools, and shopping malls where the incidents were rendered a non-event, or much less damaging and harmful by the presence of an armed citizen....

And if you read up a bit, it appears the shooter in Aurora was wearing a bunch of tacticool- mall ninja wannabe crap, not ballistic armor.

Again, you seem to be confusing and conflating facts with 'opinions'; possibly for the purposes of derailing an otherwise informative and useful thread.

An armed citizen in the Aurora theater would have been unlikely, IMHO, to have mitigated the situation. But, he or she might have. And I do agree that it would have been unlikely that such an armed citizen would have made the situation worse.

You make a good point, however. I can't think or google a single instance of an armed citizen making an active shooter scenario worse. However, I can think of at least one situation where police officers winged a couple of bystanders taking down an active shooter. In the end, however, even that one was a net gain.

Absolutely!! We need to keep it that way too. That's one of our greatest weapons against the antis.. Time and time again, we help more than harm.

[xd ED]

Can you site an incident where a citizen responding with a gun made things worse as you speculate?
That sounds like a 'what-if' straight out of the antis' playbook.

There is a growing list of schools, and shopping malls where the incidents were rendered a non-event, or much less damaging and harmful by the presence of an armed citizen....

And if you read up a bit, it appears the shooter in Aurora was wearing a bunch of tacticool- mall ninja wannabe crap, not ballistic armor.

Again, you seem to be confusing and conflating facts with 'opinions'; possibly for the purposes of derailing an otherwise informative and useful thread.

An armed citizen in the Aurora theater would have been unlikely, IMHO, to have mitigated the situation. But, he or she might have. And I do agree that it would have been unlikely that such an armed citizen would have made the situation worse.

You make a good point, however. I can't think or google a single instance of an armed citizen making an active shooter scenario worse. However, I can think of at least one situation where police officers winged a couple of bystanders taking down an active shooter. In the end, however, even that one was a net gain.

It is the 'net gain' that while almost impossible to discuss in rational conversation, that needs to be considered.
While it is regarded as beyond the roll of the armed citizen to protect the masses, if an armed citizen had responded in the first 5 seconds of Aurora, and struck the perpetrator and 5 others, it would realistically (and in hindsight) been a net gain for the entire incident.
It would not be viewed by many in that regard, because the loss of human life is a nearly insurmountable tragedy, far more so for those closest to the casualties, and there would be little motivation by the most vocal opponents of firearms to examine the various hypothetical alternate outcomes.

[Hmac]

I carry. I've thought about what do I do if another carrier draws on me after I've stopped the threat. How do I determine the right person so I don't draw on the wrong person like another carrier who has stopped the threat? If I or another person yells "I'm a good guy" do I believe them? Will they believe me? I'm simply giving thought to possibilities, not trying to derail or fuel the anti's agenda. If someone carries and HASN'T thought about such things, that's scary.

I think it's important to do more than think about it. I actually take courses, a couple a year, on addressing those very issues. The more knowledge and training one has, the more likely one is to be effective in those situations in the highly unlikely event they would ever come up.

[XDM45]

Can you site an incident where a citizen responding with a gun made things worse as you speculate?
That sounds like a 'what-if' straight out of the antis' playbook.

There is a growing list of schools, and shopping malls where the incidents were rendered a non-event, or much less damaging and harmful by the presence of an armed citizen....

And if you read up a bit, it appears the shooter in Aurora was wearing a bunch of tacticool- mall ninja wannabe crap, not ballistic armor.

Again, you seem to be confusing and conflating facts with 'opinions'; possibly for the purposes of derailing an otherwise informative and useful thread.

An armed citizen in the Aurora theater would have been unlikely, IMHO, to have mitigated the situation. But, he or she might have. And I do agree that it would have been unlikely that such an armed citizen would have made the situation worse.

You make a good point, however. I can't think or google a single instance of an armed citizen making an active shooter scenario worse. However, I can think of at least one situation where police officers winged a couple of bystanders taking down an active shooter. In the end, however, even that one was a net gain.

It is the 'net gain' that while almost impossible to discuss in rational conversation, that needs to be considered.
While it is regarded as beyond the roll of the armed citizen to protect the masses, if an armed citizen had responded in the first 5 seconds of Aurora, and struck the perpetrator and 5 others, it would realistically (and in hindsight) been a net gain for the entire incident.
It would not be viewed by many in that regard, because the loss of human life is a nearly insurmountable tragedy, far more so for those closest to the casualties, and there would be little motivation by the most vocal opponents of firearms to examine the various hypothetical alternate outcomes.

Absolutely. They look at the 5 dead and not the 100 saved. It's like the old question "If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you do it knowing how history has played out?" To people back then, you just murdered their messiah, not a monster. Never mind you just saved millions of lives, you are the bad guy, not the hero.

While I agree you can "what if" a situation to death, sometimes you need to look at it and say "Had X not happened, there's a very good probability that Y would have occurred."

My answer to the Hitler question: In a heartbeat. It's for the greater good unless some who would have lived somehow destroys the World, but I don't know that future. Id only know what Hitler would do, or has done, depending how you look at it from a space-time perspective.

[XDM45]

I carry. I've thought about what do I do if another carrier draws on me after I've stopped the threat. How do I determine the right person so I don't draw on the wrong person like another carrier who has stopped the threat? If I or another person yells "I'm a good guy" do I believe them? Will they believe me? I'm simply giving thought to possibilities, not trying to derail or fuel the anti's agenda. If someone carries and HASN'T thought about such things, that's scary.

I think it's important to do more than think about it. I actually take courses, a couple a year, on addressing those very issues. The more knowledge and training one has, the more likely one is to be effective in those situations in the highly unlikely event they would ever come up.

Absolutely!!! 1,000,000,000,000+ infinity agree with you. The more training, the better. It's not just shooting training that counts, but physical fitness, mental and emotional training, etc. Nothing will prepare you 100%, or for any or every situation, but the more tools you have in your tool box, the better off you and everyone else will be.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Your statement is exactly what I feel and the words are concise and perfect. Thank you!!

[Heffay]

Can't we all just ignore the troll that is heffay. Don't feed him people.

But I'm not a troll. I'm a valuable contributing member of this forum.

Sorry but you are an troll. You repeat the same gibberish in twenty threads and then in the other you do nothing but jab at people to stir the pot.

If I didn't know better, I would suspect you are trolling me. But that can't be, because trolling is against the forum rules.

So are personal attacks, but I have pretty thick skin. So I'll overlook your trolling and personal attacks. Hopefully the mods will be as forgiving.

[TommyMN]

So where is my personal attack towards you? I like to see it. My trolling as well. Do you need to post the copies of you saying the same **** 50 times?

(Insert personal attack here like "reading comprehension isn't something you can claim to have)

[TommyMN]

Pm me if you want heff. I'll leave this on topic now.