After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742602](restricting those whose only purpose is mass violence).[/QUOTE]
The only firearms categorically intended solely for mass violence are already heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act. Machine guns, grenade launchers, rockets, et cetera. They are so heavily restricted that since the NFA was passed in 1934, there have only ever been two crimes committed with a legally-registered weapon.
The kinds you propose banning include Olympic target pistols, sporting shotguns over a century old, and every carbine riding in a police officer's squad car. You would have to be critically ignorant of firearms on an even basic level to consider those to be weapons 'whose only purpose is mass violence'.
If you want to ban guns, say you want to ban guns. If you want to ban semi-automatic firearms to restrict rate of fire, say so. But don't try to dress it up in this 'we just want to get rid of [i]mass murder weapons[/i]' excuse because it's transparently nonsense.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742655]Not in capacity or reload speed, which are just as important when looking at the viability of a weapon for mass violence.[/QUOTE]
Revolvers come in all different shapes and sizes, some hold six, some hold 7 or 8, and there exists a thing called a speed-loader.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742655]Basically, I have no problem with hunting, sport, or self defense. I have a problem with the availability of weapons that have no real purpose in any of those.[/QUOTE]
Arent most examples of gun violence or mass shootings in the US done with a handgun? A significant portion, like somewhere around half, are illegally obtained too i believe, maybe more. Also iirc the guns you're referring to are already restricted.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52742657]The only firearms categorically intended solely for mass violence are already heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act. Machine guns, grenade launchers, rockets, et cetera. They are so heavily restricted that since the NFA was passed in 1934, there have only ever been two crimes committed with a legally-registered weapon.
The kinds you propose banning include Olympic target pistols, sporting shotguns over a century old, and every carbine riding in a police officer's squad car. You would have to be critically ignorant of firearms on an even basic level to consider those to be weapons 'whose only purpose is mass violence'.
If you want to ban guns, say you want to ban guns. If you want to ban semi-automatic firearms to restrict rate of fire, say so. But don't try to dress it up in this 'we just want to get rid of [i]mass murder weapons[/i]' excuse because it's transparently nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Olympic target pistols and 100 year old shotguns are bizarre outlier exceptions here, so please don't present them as the norm. You clearly understand the weapons I'm talking about, and attempts to find silly exceptions like this only serve to undermine your argument.
As for police carbines... yes? Why should civilians have access to semi-automatic high capacity carbines, especially ones modified with drum magazines and trigger hardware that effectively turns them into fully automatic weapons? Those [B]are[/B] weapons of mass violence.
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52742663]Revolvers come in all different shapes and sizes, some hold six, some hold 7 or 8, and there exists a thing called a speed-loader.
Arent most examples of gun violence or mass shootings in the US done with a handgun? IIRC the guns you're referring to are already restricted.[/QUOTE]
Yes, magazine fed "automatic" pistols are responsible for most on-the-street violence. They should be banned.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742669]
Yes, magazine fed "automatic" pistols are responsible for most on-the-street violence. They should be banned.[/QUOTE]
Wait what.
So are you just saying ban everything besides revolvers?
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
Why are you quoting "automatic". What do you mean by that. And what do you mean by magazine fed? Like most guns that arent shotguns or a couple rifles made in the last century?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742655]Not in capacity or reload speed, which are just as important when looking at the viability of a weapon for mass violence.[/QUOTE]
In a market where the primary interest in revolvers is nostalgia, sure. And even then, there already exist revolvers with swappable cylinders. There exist revolver designs with higher capacities than comparable semi-autos. All you're proposing is a few year hiatus before the industry steps up to the challenge and starts to exploit your arbitrary rules- and if the ten years of the AWB wasn't long enough of a timescale for you, then I feel confident in saying that this would be a completely worthless measure in the long run.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742655]Yes, I'm painfully aware of the aftermarket accessories used to make weapons [I]even more deadly[/I]. They need to be cracked down on. We need to be active in [I]stopping[/I] this kind of subversion. [/QUOTE]
Good luck. When has the government [i]ever[/i] succeeded in such a thing- rapidly passing and altering legislation to quash loopholes exploited by a politically-motivated industry? They couldn't manage it during Prohibition (eg pharmacy licenses for alcohol), why would it work now?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742655]As for custom creating weapons of mass destruction, that present one more major barrier to entry for would-be mass shooters. Not everybody has access to a machinery shop or the knowledge on how to construct a weapon. We also must consider the limited capabilities of homemade weapons and reliability of homemade weapons, and that the availability of production of homemade weapons is [B]nothing[/B] compared to the economies of scale of the weapons factories dumping new assault weapons into public rotation every day.[/QUOTE]
No, but homemade weapons with no desire to conform to existing laws tend to be more lethal than their legal counterparts, which we've seen with the rise of homebuilt machine pistols in Australia. And with 3D printing it's getting easier every day. Again, if you think ten years is too short of a timeframe to maintain and assess this kind of ban, where do you think 3D printing is going in that timeframe?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742669]
Yes, magazine fed "automatic" pistols are responsible for most on-the-street violence. They should be banned.[/QUOTE]
Oh becaus that worked for Chicago right
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;52741912]There should be tighter gun controls that are related to mental health issues. Now I know this guy didn't have any mental problems on paper, he was clearly harboring some deep problems that were never properly exposed.
I feel like people should be required to have some kind of mental health evaluation before being allowed to purchase. And you should be denied if you have a history of mental health issues like depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, etc.
These things aren't toys. They're seriously deadly pieces of equipment that should not be in everyone's hands.[/QUOTE]
The problem with that from a medical industry standpoint is that the state will do something retarded like allow you to go to an urgent care and have any doctor who doesn't know you to check off your physical
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742669]Olympic target pistols and 100 year old shotguns are bizarre outlier exceptions here, so please don't present them as the norm. You clearly understand the weapons I'm talking about, and attempts to find silly exceptions like this only serve to undermine your argument.[/QUOTE]
Those are not 'bizarre outlier exceptions', you have no idea what you're talking about. The Browning Auto 5 and its numerous clones, as well as modern Remington and Benelli gas-operated derivatives, are some of the most popular hunting and sporting shotguns in the United States, but according to you they're weapons of mass destruction solely intended for mass murder.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742669]As for police carbines... yes? Why should civilians have access to semi-automatic high capacity carbines, especially ones modified with drum magazines and trigger hardware that effectively turns them into fully automatic weapons? Those [B]are[/B] weapons of mass violence.[/QUOTE]
You mean to tell me that police forces all across the country are deliberately equipped with weapons suitable for [I]nothing but mass murder[/I]? I know you're one for increased police accountability but surely you have to realize that the vast majority of people don't share that extreme view?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52742673]Wait what.
So are you just saying ban everything besides revolvers?
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
Why are you quoting "automatic".[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I quoted automatic because an automatic pistol is not necessarily a pistol that is actually "automatic" in the same sense as a machine gun, which is the common understanding of automatic weapons for those not overly familiar with gun terminology.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742687]Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I quoted automatic because an automatic pistol is not necessarily a pistol that is actually "automatic" in the same sense as a machine gun, which is the common understanding of automatic weapons for those not overly familiar with gun terminology.[/QUOTE]
So in your mind are magazine fed pistols somehow inherently more deadly than revolvers? or Revolvers less deadly than magazine fed pistols?
I seriously want to see you explain this.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742655]It didn't go far enough, nor was it viewed in the scope of a long enough period of time.
Not in capacity or reload speed, which are just as important when looking at the viability of a weapon for mass violence.
Yes, I'm painfully aware of the aftermarket accessories used to make weapons [I]even more deadly[/I]. They need to be cracked down on. We need to be active in [I]stopping[/I] this kind of subversion. As for custom creating weapons of mass destruction, that present one more major barrier to entry for would-be mass shooters. Not everybody has access to a machinery shop or the knowledge on how to construct a weapon. We also must consider the limited capabilities of homemade weapons and reliability of homemade weapons, and that the availability of production of homemade weapons is [B]nothing[/B] compared to the economies of scale of the weapons factories dumping new assault weapons into public rotation every day.
At least if you were actually proposing a total ban on guns I could accept that it might have some long-term effect, but instead you're trying to propose a balanced, nuanced take without the requisite knowledge to actually do such a thing, and the result is pointless, arbitrary, and delivered with enough unnecessary moral invective to be downright insulting.
I'd happily consider a ban on guns in their entirety if you prefer, but the biggest danger of mass violence comes from those [I]capable[/I] of mass violence. The limited capabilities of bolt action rifles, shotguns, and revolvers impose hard physical limits on just how much havoc they can wreak, the range of the havoc that they can wreak, and the time it takes to wreak it.
Basically, I have no problem with hunting, sport, or self defense. I have a problem with the availability of weapons that have no real purpose in any of those.
Which he [I]didn't use[/I], because he knew it was much less reliable and capable than simply bringing his gun collection to a hotel room and shooting out the window. People would have been killed and injured on success, but not nearly to the same scale. The attack as it happened would have been impossible without his collection of weapons. His alternatives would have been less effective. And, frankly, even if he [I]had[/I] come in with a goddamn plane, the simple fact of the matter is that [I]most would-be mass killers don't have planes. They [B]do[/B] have access to guns.[/I][/QUOTE]
I would argue that more people have access to cars then guns. Convicted felons can own cars, not guns (though that doesn't stop them from getting them). Almost anyone can make explosives with a quick Google search. For someone who wants to kill a whole lot of people and not survive themselves it's not hard to add up what I'm going after here.
Let's pretend for a second that every gun in the country disappeared. It's not going to reduce murders out of crimes of passion, most of those are committed with blunt objects in the first place.
It may cut down on gang violence, although I would think it would change the type of violence more so than the amount of violence.
Then we have the lone wolf's. Would there be less mass shootings? Well yeah, because there would be no guns. Would there be more bombings/stabbing/crowds being run over etc? Yes. You are just shifting the method of violence over to another.
This guy was a millionaire. He had all the expendable income he could ever need to carry out any sort of attack. Given different circumstance if he were not to have had those firearms I think it would be easy to believe he could just rent a U-haul, load it up with ANFO and steel chunks, then plow into a street level open venue and detonate it. McVeigh did it, and the only thing that kept the kill count what it was is the fact that it was a building. In an open setting like that concert, the casualties would be catastrophic.
All your doing is shifting the method of violence to the more destructive for those who are determined to kill large quantities of people. None of which solves why people do so in the first place.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742687]Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I quoted automatic because an automatic pistol is not necessarily a pistol that is actually "automatic" in the same sense as a machine gun, which is the common understanding of automatic weapons for those not overly familiar with gun terminology.[/QUOTE]
This is what a revolver is capable of.
[video=youtube;0FbUMqoyjDw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FbUMqoyjDw[/video]
If you're gonna be against all semi-automatic magazine fed weapons on the basis that they shoot too fast, be against revolvers as well.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52742169]We do not even have school shootings in this country. Ever.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't stop someone from taking a knife and stabbing a crowd of people.
When you boil it down, a lack of firearms won't stop a murderer. If someone wants to kill or harm someone else, they're going to do it with or without a gun.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52742676]In a market where the primary interest in revolvers is nostalgia, sure. And even then, there already exist revolvers with swappable cylinders. There exist revolver designs with higher capacities than comparable semi-autos. All you're proposing is a few year hiatus before the industry steps up to the challenge and starts to exploit your arbitrary rules- and if the ten years of the AWB wasn't long enough of a timescale for you, then I feel confident in saying that this would be a completely worthless measure in the long run.[/quote]
So we adjust legislation as necessary to combat the exploits. Furthermore, ten years is fucking [I]nothing[/I] compared to the number of guns that exist. I am proposing a long term solution that will, over several decades, help reduce these crimes. You and I both know that there is no magical overnight solution here -- the gun problem is just [B]too[/B] advanced in the US. The only thing we [I]can[/I] do is seek out long term measures.
As for stating that it will be completely worthless if it takes longer than ten years to have effect? That's just silly. Fully halting the production of weapons for civilian use, and spending several decades wearing down the population of existing guns will eliminate the bulk of the problem through simple attrition. After long enough, the only guns still available will be antiques, and the only ones still in serviceable enough condition to be reliably [I]used[/I] will be those that were well taken care of and properly stored.
[quote]Good luck. When has the government [i]ever[/i] succeeded in such a thing- rapidly passing and altering legislation to quash loopholes exploited by a politically-motivated industry? They couldn't manage it during Prohibition (eg pharmacy licenses for alcohol), why would it work now?[/quote]
Your arguing that the gun industry trying to worm around regulations means its pointless to ever make regulations. Guess we should just give up on the rule of law entirely, because [I]everybody[/I] works to find loopholes in existing systems. Patch them as necessary. That's it.
[quote]No, but homemade weapons with no desire to conform to existing laws tend to be more lethal than their legal counterparts, which we've seen with the rise of homebuilt machine pistols in Australia. And with 3D printing it's getting easier every day. Again, if you think ten years is too short of a timeframe to maintain and assess this kind of ban, where do you think 3D printing is going in that timeframe?[/QUOTE]
Again, you're pointing to hypothetical futures as a reason why we should never do anything to curtail a [I]current[/I] problem. Maybe what you propose will be a problem in a few decades, and if it is then maybe we'll have to start debating how to deal with it if or when it does become one. Currently, it's just a fantasy. The only 3D printed weapons in existence right now are bumbling toys that destroy themselves within minutes, and require expensive and specialized equipment to produce.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742726]-words-[/QUOTE]
If you think that guns are inherently bad and no one should have them at all just come out and say it, because what you're proposing only begins to become reasonable with that view.
Which not everyone shares.
[QUOTE=Nukedrabbit95;52742702]This is what a revolver is capable of.
[video=youtube;0FbUMqoyjDw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FbUMqoyjDw[/video]
If you're gonna be against all semi-automatic magazine fed weapons on the basis that they shoot too fast, be against revolvers as well.[/QUOTE]
Well, people who train professionally to reload and shoot revolvers fast vs a normal person who'll probably fumble and drop something while shaking with adrenaline.
You're comparing the fighting skills of a [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/42atg6/til_donnie_yen_once_beat_up_a_gang_of_8_men_who/"]martial artist[/URL] to a [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOcl7JVJsh0"]layman[/URL].
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742726]So we adjust legislation as necessary to combat the exploits. Furthermore, ten years is fucking [I]nothing[/I] compared to the number of guns that exist. I am proposing a long term solution that will, over several decades, help reduce these crimes. You and I both know that there is no magical overnight solution here -- the gun problem is just [B]too[/B] advanced in the US. The only thing we [I]can[/I] do is seek out long term measures.[/QUOTE]
What you're proposing sounds like "lets ban guns but every feature at a time", from the standpoint of not understanding how guns work or function in almost any respect besides finger pull trigger bullet come out.
And i'm not even really a gun guy, i just have a passive interest in how machines work.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52742551]High capacity automatic weapons? You mean the ones heavily regulated under the NFA already, and which have been used to commit crimes a total of twice since 1934?
Or are you just conflating multiple categories of firearms to pretend that the sporting rifles you called for banning are actually nothing but mass-murder weapons, while simultaneously trying to argue nuance regarding cars without any self-awareness?[/QUOTE]
Guns are for killing people, cars are for driving. Seems kind of irrelevant that some guns are more efficient killing machines than others.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52742740]Well, people who train professionally to reload and shoot revolvers fast vs a normal person who'll probably fumble and drop something while shaking with adrenaline.
You're comparing the fighting skills of a [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/42atg6/til_donnie_yen_once_beat_up_a_gang_of_8_men_who/"]martial artist[/URL] to a [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOcl7JVJsh0"]layman[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Double action revolvers from what i understand function much like a regular semi-auto pistol.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52742740]Well, people who train professionally to reload and shoot revolvers fast vs a normal person who'll probably fumble and drop something while shaking with adrenaline.
You're comparing the fighting skills of a [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/42atg6/til_donnie_yen_once_beat_up_a_gang_of_8_men_who/"]martial artist[/URL] to a [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOcl7JVJsh0"]layman[/URL].[/QUOTE]
But the point is that you [i]can[/i] train to reload a revolver pretty fast, so why ignore that?
[QUOTE=catbarf;52742684]Those are not 'bizarre outlier exceptions', you have no idea what you're talking about. The Browning Auto 5 and its numerous clones, as well as modern Remington and Benelli gas-operated derivatives, are some of the most popular hunting and sporting shotguns in the United States, but according to you they're weapons of mass destruction solely intended for mass murder.[/quote]
Are we speaking about pump actions here? Because I've already stated that I have no issues with shotguns, generally. They can be used for mass violence, but are much more limited than rifles, carbines, and automatic pistols I've already highlighted.
As for your Olympic pistol nonsense, show me the mass shooter running around with one of these lol:
[img]http://www.issf-sports.org/iteam_data/public/issf/images/userimages/academy/20110324_London2012-1YearToGo_001.jpg[/img]
[quote][B]You mean to tell me that police forces all across the country are deliberately equipped with weapons suitable for [I]nothing but mass murder[/I[/B]]? I know you're one for increased police accountability but surely you have to realize that the vast majority of people don't share that extreme view?[/QUOTE]
Literally yes? They are assault style weapons made for the express purpose of killing other people, often multiple targets, and especially those who are also heavily armed? They are effectively military hardware. I don't have any major problem with [B]police[/B] having those weapons, but [B]civilians[/B] should not.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52742699]So in your mind are magazine fed pistols somehow inherently more deadly than revolvers? or Revolvers less deadly than magazine fed pistols?
I seriously want to see you explain this.[/QUOTE]
A revolver holds 6-8 rounds and requires time and practice to reload that a magazine fed pistol does not. It's really as simple as that. The 6-8 rounds that the revolver fires are obviously just as deadly, but if you put one in your Average Joe's hands, he's going to be severely hampered by his ability to keep putting more rounds into the weapon to [I]keep[/I] killing, a feat that is made much easier and more convenient by automatic pistols.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742726]So we adjust legislation as necessary to combat the exploits. [/quote]
You seem to have missed the point. You're saying we just need to ban semi-autos and detachable magazines, on the grounds that weapons like revolvers and fixed-magazine rifles [i]currently[/i] aren't as effective. What do you do when gun manufacturers respond by making those weapons as effective as what's currently available? Why do you think the government, fractious and disorganized as it is, will be any more capable of adjusting legislation to combat exploits than it was during Prohibition?
I could design [I]right now[/I] a double-action revolver with a large integral cylinder and feeding from custom speedloaders, providing comparable rate of fire, capacity, and ease of reloading to a semi-automatic handgun, and without [i]any[/i] tricks or exploits of the law. The only reason such a weapon doesn't currently exist is that it would be bulkier than a semi-automatic handgun, but that's hardly an obstacle to a mass shooter. So what have you accomplished, exactly?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742726]Again, you're pointing to hypothetical futures as a reason why we should never do anything to curtail a [I]current[/I] problem. [/quote]
You're the one proposing solutions that you readily admit won't curtail a [i]current[/i] problem. If your argument hinges on possibly having long-term benefits, it matters whether developments in that long-term will invalidate your proposal.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742761]
A revolver holds 6-8 rounds and requires time and practice to reload that a magazine fed pistol does not. It's really as simple as that. The 6-8 rounds that the revolver fires are obviously just as deadly, but if you put one in your Average Joe's hands, he's going to be severely hampered by his ability to keep putting more rounds into the weapon to [I]keep[/I] killing, a feat that is made much easier and more convenient by automatic pistols.[/QUOTE]
What if he comes prepared with speedloaders?
[QUOTE=Nukedrabbit95;52742739]If you think that guns are inherently bad and no one should have them at all just come out and say it, because what you're proposing only begins to become reasonable with that view.
Which not everyone shares.[/QUOTE]
Don't put words into my mouth, please. I've stated multiple times that I'm fine with weapons owned for sport, hunting, and self defense (within reason). My issue lies with guns designed for warfare being in civilian hands. There is no discernible reason why Joe Schmoe should have an assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine and a somehow-legal trigger modification that essentially turns it into a rapid fire weapon.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52742745]Double action revolvers from what i understand function much like a regular semi-auto pistol.[/QUOTE]
Not so much so. Semi-automatics use mechanical action powered by the ammunition to cycle the action, some just have a double action trigger mechanism derived from a revolver. Revolvers cyckle their action either through using your thumb to pull back the hammer and cycle the action in a single action, or pulling a heavy trigger which cycles the action and fires the gun in double action. There's only a handful of revolvers that actually act like a semi-auto.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52742679]Oh becaus that worked for Chicago right[/QUOTE]
Gun crimes only happen in Chicago :downs:
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52742775]Not so much so. Semi-automatics use mechanical action powered by the ammunition to cycle the action, some just have a double action trigger mechanism derived from a revolver. Revolvers cyckle their action either through using your thumb to pull back the hammer and cycle the action in a single action, or pulling a heavy trigger which cycles the action and fires the gun in double action. There's only a handful of revolvers that actually act like a semi-auto.[/QUOTE]
Oh i see.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742761]Are we speaking about pump actions here? Because I've already stated that I have no issues with shotguns, generally. They can be used for mass violence, but are much more limited than rifles, carbines, and automatic pistols I've already highlighted.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.browning.com/content/dam/browning/product/firearms/shotguns/a5/a5-pre2016/Browning-A5-Hunter-011800-158.jpg/jcr:content/renditions/cq5dam.web.835.835.jpeg[/IMG]
It might have been sold as a popular sporting and hunting shotgun for over a hundred years, but since it's semi-automatic, it's [I]actually[/I] been a mass-murder weapon with no other legitimate use in disguise this whole time!
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742761]As for your Olympic pistol nonsense, show me the mass shooter running around with one of these lol:[/QUOTE]
Do you look at that image and see 'weapons suited only for mass murder'? Because that's literally what you're arguing.
I'm utterly baffled here because it's like you're satirizing your own argument. Of fucking course you won't see a mass shooter running around with an Olympic target pistol, because being semi-automatic and magazine-fed doesn't make it a weapon only suitable for mass murder like you claimed. If you want to ban semi-autos because you think they're better suited to nefarious purposes then just say that, but you're acting like you only want 'weapons of war' off the streets when in reality you're proposing sweeping legislation against an enormous number of firearms that were never intended to be used against humans, let alone for mass murder.
[QUOTE=Nukedrabbit95;52742756]But the point is that you [i]can[/i] train to reload a revolver pretty fast, so why ignore that?[/QUOTE]
The knife attackers in London [I]could[/I] have trained in offensive driving to minimise damage to their car while maximising casualties, and trained in publicly hand to hand knife combat courses to increase confidence and deadliness.
I'm not ignoring anything, there's just no real precedent to what you're saying.
The only guns laypeople should be able to own are small caliber handguns at most. Collectioners and gun enthusiasts should apply to own inert versions of their desired guns, and if they want to shoot them, keep them at a gun range.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52742772]What if he comes prepared with speedloaders?[/QUOTE]
Or more than 1. They aren't exactly hard to carry if you have holsters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.