cho's weapon of choice was a 15 round 9mm Glock. If people can carry a gun to "defend" themselves do you really need a gun that has a 15 round capacity to do so? most of the civilians i know who have carry permits either carry a 6 round .38 revolver or a 7 round 1911. Who really needs that many bullets? (i am aware even if he had a .45 he could still just reload, but the more times he has to reload the more time he is spending without a loaded firearm in his hand). If you are truly defending yourself why can't you do it with a 6 or 7 round gun?
2007-04-19 05:21:43 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Nope...guns with that many bullets were outlawed during the assault weapons ban....a law that was allowed to expire by Bush and the Republican Congress in 2003.
2007-04-19 05:25:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 7⤋
What's your point? How many rounds a gun has a capacity for does not make that gun more or less evil. As long as criminals can get the kind they want, then law abiding citizens need to be able to get what they want.
My question is - in the time he needed to reload, didn't anyone think about rushing him?
2007-04-19 06:06:12 · answer #2 · answered by mikey 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe that cho was defending himself. If you only want to put 7 rounds in a 15 round clip go for it.
2007-04-19 05:24:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 0⤋
Sure! What if you're in a group of about 10 people being attacked by a group of about 20 or 30 others that are armed to the teeth?
Those guys caught in the "Boston Massacre" sure wish they would have had a 15 round 9mm pistol! I bet that if there had been 3 or 4 of those in VT in the hands of sane, normal people that there would be a lot less dead there too.
2007-04-19 05:26:39 · answer #4 · answered by Paul McDonald 6 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Why shouldn't you have the right to have a 15 round magazine? 15 rounds doesn't make the gun inherently more dangerous than the same gun with a 10 round magazine..
A skilled marksman with 10 can do more damage than an amateur with 15..
If someone wants a 6 round revolver fine..but just because they do doesn't mean everyone should be limited at that.
2007-04-19 05:27:52 · answer #5 · answered by . 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
There is only one thing worse then not having a gun when you need one - that is not having enough ammunition. As a police officer I chose the Sig Sauer so I could carry 16 rounds and 2 extra clips on my belt and 2 more in the car. Having more rounds of ammunition is important to your self defense.
2007-04-19 05:30:38 · answer #6 · answered by netjr 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Bazookas are so hard to carry around. BTW it only takes one bullet to be called a killer. The other 14 don't matter at that point.
2007-04-19 05:37:18 · answer #7 · answered by mbush40 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't care how many rounds a pistol will hold. He could have used more than one pistol or a shot gun or anything else. The problem in this case is Laws that tie the hands of mental health professionals. Mostly the result of misguided ACLU lawyers and lobbyists
.
2007-04-19 05:29:12 · answer #8 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Facebook quizzes
2016-03-18 03:52:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. This guy at VT was a human aboration. Someone who was looking to go out and kill as many people a he could. But in most cases i think that the more guns you have in a situation the higher the body count will end up being.
2007-04-19 05:27:35 · answer #10 · answered by lxtricks 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Who are you to tell me (a law abiding citizen) what I can or can't have?
2007-04-19 05:28:40 · answer #11 · answered by Trollbuster 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋