John Pierce debates the Brady camp on gun control

Nice job John, you represent us well.




http://www.usatoday.com/video/index...+Tucson?/42804638001/45603016001/749732239001

While I as watching this video I couldn't help but think about what the Brady lawyer kept saying about 10 round magazines. We continually hear about LEO training and that LEO is much more capable of handling anything and everything because of their training! But they discontinued their use of revolvers and went to a 9mm then a .40 S&W BECAUSE of high capacity magazines.

Yet with all of that training they still insist on hi capacity mags. What about us lowly everyday citizens with little to no training?

I would like the lawyer for the Brady's to tell me what gives him the authority to decide what anybody needs. It drives me nuts to hear the anti's say nobody needs hicap. mags. semi-auto etc... They don't have the right to tell anybody what they need.

10 round magazines means they criminal will have to reload. It doesn't stop someone from going on a rampage. Do these liberals know you can reload firearms? Also, the "gun show loophole" shouldn't have even been brought up. You still need to pass a background check, unless you a buying from a private seller. But how many private sellers are going to just sell to anyone? Very, very few. No one wants to see violent felons from hurting people. In fact, no one in their right mind wants to see violent felons let out of prison.

John, well done.

My reactions...:

How is the G19 "military style weaponry"?
Looks an awful lot like the G17 I have close to hand. I chose it partly for the reliability, partly for the lower weight, and partly for the magazine capacity (17+1), so I don't have to carry a second.

And the 33-rd magazine can be used for shooting sports, competitions, range time...
I don't see a need for me to own one, but there are legitimate uses by non-deranged non-homicidal people (which are most gun owners).

As for the 10-round limit, if the Brady Bunch gets CA-style limited magazines passed nationwide (not a chance), they'll push for UOC across the country, then no carry at all. Ever hear the parable of the camel in the tent?

The Brady Bunch lawyer bringing in "child" victims of shootings is disingenuous.
Most of those "children" are only technically children by virtue of being slightly under 18.
Most of those "children", and their shooters, are criminals already, & this is gang-on-gang violence. Not that the deaths mean nothing, but it's not like someone innocent is dying.

"Too dangerous to remain in school"

Click to expand...

No, he was acting strangely & the school wanted reassurance that he wasn't dangerous.
He'd also threatened people before, and according to news reports the police dissuaded them from pressing charges so as not to embarass his family.

"he would have stopped shooting at 10 rounds & lives could have been saved"

Click to expand...

Unless he hit all 6 of the people he killed within the first 10 rounds.
Granted, fewer people would have been wounded if someone stopped him sooner, but we can't know in what order people were hit, so we can't know if there would still be 6 people dead or not.

As John points out, what does a gun show or an AK47 (aka an Evil Black Rifle) have to do with this incident?


Brady Bunch talking points (probably on a card above the camera):
common sense gun laws
loophole
background check
military style weaponry
no questions asked (guess he's never seen a 4473)

Perhaps the Brady Group should move to China, where the Government doesn't allow it's citizens the same Freedoms we currently have.

I wonder what it would be like if the Brady Group spent it's time and energy towards giving people freedoms instead of attempting to undermine and take freedoms away.

JJC

My thoughts:

When debating a lawyer, particularly one who represents the anti's, one should first find out the Brady Group's argument and then come with competent facts to refute it. (Eg: FBI Crime Statistics, etc.) As previously pointed out, having the facts with respect to how many "children" were killed, it would have been useful to have the percentage of those who were engaged in combat as gang-bangers vs. those who were merely the victim of a negligent discharge in a home setting. Likewise, it would have been useful to point out in the case of innocent bystander children killed during gang related activity, that laws already exist to prohibit the gang-bangers (child or adult) with a criminal record from possessing firearms and also laws that prohibit possession of handguns by anyone under 18 who is not directly supervised by a parent or other authorized adult. No additional laws will have any effect on the above.

It would have likewise been useful to point out that police in this country have long since abandoned the 6-shot revolvers in favor of Glocks and/or Springfield XD models that have high capacity magazines. If the police (who often travel in groups of 2 or more) need high capacity magazines in an urban law enforcement setting, how much more so might a law abiding citizen need a high capacity magazine? Are police lives worth more than the citizens they are supposed to protect?

One last thought. Lawyers are supposed to vigorously represent the position of their clients. I wonder if that particular lawyer actually believed the lies he told?

jpm84092 said:

My thoughts:

When debating a lawyer, particularly one who represents the anti's, one should first find out the Brady Group's argument and then come with competent facts to refute it. (Eg: FBI Crime Statistics, etc.) As previously pointed out, having the facts with respect to how many "children" were killed, it would have been useful to have the percentage of those who were engaged in combat as gang-bangers vs. those who were merely the victim of a negligent discharge in a home setting. Likewise, it would have been useful to point out in the case of innocent bystander children killed during gang related activity, that laws already exist to prohibit the gang-bangers (child or adult) with a criminal record from possessing firearms and also laws that prohibit possession of handguns by anyone under 18 who is not directly supervised by a parent or other authorized adult. No additional laws will have any effect on the above.

It would have likewise been useful to point out that police in this country have long since abandoned the 6-shot revolvers in favor of Glocks and/or Springfield XD models that have high capacity magazines. If the police (who often travel in groups of 2 or more) need high capacity magazines in an urban law enforcement setting, how much more so might a law abiding citizen need a high capacity magazine? Are police lives worth more than the citizens they are supposed to protect?

One last thought. Lawyers are supposed to vigorously represent the position of their clients. I wonder if that particular lawyer actually believed the lies he told?

Click to expand...

Very Well Stated.

JJC

Good representation John! :monkey

The brady bunch can't understand why a private citizen would need a semi-auto rifle or a hi cap magazine. They don't dispute that the police have a genuine use for them. Last I checked, people normally have to confront criminals BEFORE the police catch the criminals. Sounds to me like the normal people have just as much OR MORE need for hi cap magazines.

And how many of those deaths where from self defense.

The same could be said about cars. No one "needs" a 500hp 2 door coup, but we have them. And they both can be a hell of a lot of fun.

I have a Rugar 10/22 rifle. I bought it before the Clinton hi-cap ban and had a 25 rd. mag for it. A friend of mine broke it after the ban took effect and I was stuck with the 10 rd. mags. It really sucked not having the 25's anymore. But now I have 2 and will probably pick up a couple more.

johnny amish said:

I would like the lawyer for the Brady's to tell me what gives him the authority to decide what anybody needs. It drives me nuts to hear the anti's say nobody needs hicap. mags. semi-auto etc... They don't have the right to tell anybody what they need.

Click to expand...

+1 to that! Now if you were talking about mandating THEM to go kill their own food or protect their family we'd hear how anti-American that is.