Ann Coulter: "For a homeowner who is a poor marksman, a large-capacity clip could be a lifesaver."

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Fresh off of blaming Jared Loughner's killing spree in the Tucson mall on Sarah Palin, liberals are now blaming it on high-capacity magazines. They might as well imprison everyone named "Jared" to prevent a crime like this from ever happening again.

It's so adorable when people who wouldn't know a high-capacity magazine from Vanity Fair start telling gun owners what they should want and need.

In fact, high-capacity mags put a predator like Loughner at a disadvantage because they are so long, unwieldy and difficult to conceal. This may be why the Tucson shooting appears to be the first spree killing involving a high-capacity magazine. It would have been easier for Loughner to bring two guns.

On the other hand, for a homeowner who is a poor marksman, a large-capacity clip could be a lifesaver.

http://nation.foxnews.com/ann-coulter/2011/02/02/coulter-op-ed-what-liberals-dont-know-about-guns-chapter-217

[dkf]

1. Oh gosh I needed some comic relief.

Thx.

[PDJane]

2. If they can't shoot straight,

the likelihood is that they are going to be shot with their own gun.

That woman is amazing, and I wish she'd consider the option of becoming the strong, silent type.

[TheWraith]

9. Actually, trained police only hit one out of 12 rounds on average in combat conditions.

The idea that it's easy to take someone's gun away and use it on them is a myth--if it were true, the military would simply send guys into combat barehanded to steal the enemy's weapons.

[PDJane]

12. Statistically, a homeowner's gun is more likely to be used

to shoot the homeowner than the invader. That's partly because it takes training to use the thing and manage to stay cool, and partly because the thief/invader/criminal is more likely to be desperate.

Americans seem to think they're living in a Rambo movie instead of a horror flick......

[TheWraith]

14. That's completely untrue.

It's based on studies which have long been debunked, which only claimed that a "gun in the home" was more likely to shoot a homeowner than an intruder. Problem is, the methodology was all wrong--they counted weapons brought by intruders as a "gun in the home," as well as not controlling for whether the homeowner had a gun legally.

Statistically speaking, accidental shootings number in the hundreds per year, while defensive uses of firearms number in the hundreds of thousands. I recommend the research of a guy named Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University. He's a liberal Dem/ACLU member who started out from the cultural perspective of supporting gun control, only to find that his own research disproved most of the beliefs that gun control is based on.

[benEzra]

17. Not the case, actually. That is the popular media mischacterization of Kellerman et al

but (1) even Kellerman didn't say that, and (2) Kellerman et al purposely excluded 99.9% of defensive gun use, counted only defensive incidents in which the attacker (a) died of his injuries and (b) was a complete stranger to the victim, and lumped many criminal shootings with criminally possessed guns into the "homeowner's gun caused a tragedy" category. And even then, he had to include suicides to get an unfavorable result.

If you're not at risk of suicide and are not involved in criminal enterprise, ownership and competence with a firearm provides a net safety benefit.

Ownership is a deeply personal choice, certainly, but don't try to revoke my right to choose because you don't feel that you could wield a weapon competently under stress.

[Hoyt]

21. Not fair. Gun owners here have shot hundreds of paper targets and watched videos.

They are adequately trained to shoot a man -- blasting away in a large crowd at 25 yards -- right between the eyes, with a load that will not pass through and hit anyone else. Well, that's what we are supposed to believe anyway.

[X_Digger]

23. ...

[Hoyt]

24. Straw Man -- Is that the only response you know. Heck, check out NRA site for lots of propaganda.

[X_Digger]

26. If that's all you have, that's all my response will be..

Perhaps you could address what someone actually on this forum said, not what some boogeyman, somewhere, said.

[Hoyt]

29. I understand. When it is all YOU have, YOU resort to posting YOUR Straw Man bull.

[X_Digger]

32. If you keep regurgitating logical fallacies, I'll keep calling you on them.

If you'd like to engage in something besides logical fallacies, hyperbole, and moral panic-mongering, I'll still be here.

[cleanhippie]

34. YOU TOTALLY MADE THAT UP!

You did, you just made that shit up of of thin air.


Link to the stat if you didn't.

[rl6214]

37. Where are these statistics

you speak of?

[beevul]

3. Can I make an observation of the photo, for future reference?

That which has been seen, can not be unseen, unfortunately.

[petronius]

13. On the bright side, that's probably the best picture I've ever seen of her

Although someone ought to tell her that when your head already converges to a point, you should probably avoid hairstyles that accentuate the pinhead look...

[AtheistCrusader]

16. She looks like she's rotting from the inside out.

In a Stephen King, 'Desperation' sort of way.

[SharonAnn]

4. If the opponent has a large capacity and is a better aim, then "Oh well! Never mind."

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

6. That's fucking brilliant! Just spray bullets everywhere and hope you hit a bad guy.

What could possibly go wrong? :silly:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Mandatory marksmanship lessons for criminals

After all, if they're the only ones allowed to be armed let's at least make sure they're accurate when they shoot at us.

[rl6214]

38. The only gun I've ever seen with a "spray" feature

Was one of my sons supersoakers.

[Webster Green]

42. Good grief.

:spray:

[beevul]

44. Check out this fully automatic, with spray feature,

Check out this fully automatic, with spray feature:



Complete with ten liter magazine!!!


Why - someone could shoot for at least ten minutes without ever reloading. Nobody needs a magazine that large for personal use!!


Ban them!!!

For the children!!

[AzNick]

50. When I go to the local indoor range, 50% are sprayers

People who shoot a silhouette target at 15 feet and can't seem to get a good group.

I am not even mentioning the dude who shows up with a Taurus Judge and peppers everyone's target 2 lanes on each side.

This is why this particular range does not allow rapid fire. I can only imagine the disaster if these particular shooters were allowed to shoot rapid fire.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. If the first six shots didn't do the job, the next 24 won't either.

If the intruder is armed, and (let's be optimistic) an equally shitty shot, he'll have run out of ammo and fled. If he isn't armed, then you didn't need the first shot.

If you're that poor with a weapon, but absolutely must have one, buy a shotgun and impress upon the family the need to hit the deck.

[TheWraith]

10. Shotgun blasts don't actually scatter that much at close range.

At anything approaching the range used for home defense, a shotgun blast would still be less than 2 inches in "pattern," the spread of the pellets.

[Hoyt]

22. +10000.

[PavePusher]

25. You seem to have missed the stats on people beaten to death with hands and feet.

Who doesn't need to be armed against an "unarmed" intruder?

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Then the crappy marksman had better empty the magazine before unarmed intruder takes it.

Is a 30 round magazine significantly more likely to keep you safe than six? The scenario in which it makes home-defense logic is unlikely to occur.

[PavePusher]

30. Unlikely? Sure.

Unknown or impossible? Not at all.

Do you intend to volunteer to compensate anyone who is harmed by being limited to your allowed amount of ammo?

Somehow, I'm guessing you won't....

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. Are you willing to compensate everyone killed by the >7 th shot fired by every killer?

I am willing to bet that if we put both bets into a piggy bank for the other, I'd go home wealthier.

[PavePusher]

33. No, because criminals are not going to even try to abide by the proposed legislation.

The only ones at additional risk would be the legal gun owners trying not to get arrested by government thugs and "concerned citizens" who want to restrict their rights and options for self-defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Why is six such a magic number that you wish to limit mags to it?

Are you aware that a mag can be changed in less than one second, with practice, less than two seconds without practice? So a criminal can shoot his six round and then slap in another mag. Now he can fire shots 7,8,9,10,11,12, reload, 13,14,15,... Or he can have more than one gun.

Why do anti-gunners never think about things like that?

[flamin lib]

43. Excuse me, it's a MAGAZINE, not a mag or clip or any other slang term,

I have it on good authority that anyone mis-labeling a firearm part in any way cannot take part in these discussions!

[beevul]

45. Mag is short for magazine.

An abreviated term, is not the same as "mis-labeling" something.


You're reaching.

[flamin lib]

47. I just enjoy tweakin' the "you're roo ignorent to take part" crowd,

even if I use someone who hasn't picked that particular nit.

[dairydog91]

11. Well, if you regard firearms as a safety device, then it makes sense.

Nobody in a defensive situation would be thinking "Gosh! I wish I had fewer rounds!" Sort of like how nobody who has ever used a fire extinguisher has thought "I'd be happier if they shipped these with less foam. I mean, who needs this much flame retardant?"

Before anyone tries to get snarky, I do not endorse the Ann Coulter Spray 'n' Pray method of home defense. You'd probably be better off with solid doors and a German Shepherd than a gun which you can't shoot straight.

[mindwalker_i]

15. For someone who wants to render Ann's face viewable....

A rocket launcher is indispensable.

[benEzra]

18. So because she offers a dumb argument, that automatically makes it OK

to ban standard NON-extended magazines for the most popular pistols and rifles in the United States, going back to the 1860's, right? And it means that threatening 40 *million* likely voters with 10-year Federal felonies for using standard factory magazines won't carve the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme in stone for a generation, right? :eyes:

Banning standard magazines for ordinary civilian guns going back to the 1861 Henry, Winchester Model 1873, and Browning P-35 is not "reasonable gun control." It is not going to pass, and trying to pass it basically tells gun owners that all the stuff about supporting lawful gun ownership/etc. between 2006 and 2010 was BS. That does not help the party, and it doesn't help the nation at large, IMO.

If over-10-round 9mm magazines were useless for legitimate defense, your local police officer wouldn't carry one on her hip and two or three more on her belt, and McCarthy's ban wouldn't exempt police pistols or guns transferred to retired LEO's.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

The fact of the matter is, in high-stress situations like shoot-outs, even the police miss some 40% of the time. So if you've got 10 shots in your firearm, you're likely to miss with 4 of them.

Myself, since the cost of the firearm is basically the same whether it holds 7 rounds or whether it holds 13 (Colt 1911 vs. Springfield Armory XDM 45), I'll take the firearm that gives me the biggest advantage - in this case more ammunition capacity.

[RamboLiberal]

27. +1 - I feel like puking that I actually had to agree with Coultergeist

on several of her points.

[Mojorabbit]

40. Same here. nt

[rl6214]

41. I own one of the Springfield xd45s

And they are awesome weapons. My brother swears by his 1911 and says the same thing about not needing more than his 8 rounds but that is just him being a braggard about his shooting prowess. If push comes to shove you use what you've got but I know he believes what I know, I would rather have the higher capacity.

[rl6214]

36. Just another example of Ann Coulters

Sarcasm.

[BrightKnight]

39. I'm not sure that her neighbors would see it that way but regulating magazines is pointless.

She should spend a little time at the range. I would not want my neighbor wildly spraying scores of rounds through the neighborhood.

What is a "large capacity magazine"? A 9mm pistol with a 30 round magazine might be awkward and ridiculous. Changing a clip is very fast and easy. Banning larger clips would not accomplish anything.

It is possible to promote reasonable gun laws without saying stupid crap like that.

[beevul]

46. It depends who you ask.

What is a "large capacity magazine"?


It depends who you ask.


If you go according to current talking points, its an extended magazine - one that protrudes out the handle of a handgun, by 6 inches or so.

If you go by what theyre trying to ban, its anything over ten rounds.

Gun owners by and large take the position, that "standard capacity" is what a non-protruding non extended magazine will hold without being artificially limited.


And also that "high capacity" is an extended protruding magazine.


In pictures, its these:

[shadowrider]

48. Google is your friend

<img src="" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/><br/>Shot at 2011-02-05

[AzNick]

49. How about he takes a class for the price of the large capacity clip?

Or rent a lane at your local shooting range for half the price? I pay $15 (non-member price) at my local range per hour.

And seriously, you don't need to be a good "marksman" to shoot someone at short range.