[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by raab

Or better aim... JK, this at least makes sense and is a valid argument. For me I really like the idea that some depressed kid can't just go grab dad's gun and go into a theatre/school/mall and start shooting it up without needing to reload in 5 shots. That time he takes to reload may be all the time someone needs to tackle him, and stop any more violence.

If your at the range it takes two seconds to reload,

So the argument is that you shouldn't need to have a magazine that holds more five rounds because it takes virtually no time to reload? Yet you are telling us that having to reload more often somehow makes a firearm less of a threat? You are arguing with yourself, and to top it off you are losing.

I believe the Mayerthorpe incident involved a fully auto weapon.

Incorrect information.

I said I wasn't sure if the rifle used in Mayerthorpe was full auto, but I was sure it was prohibited.

If it's already prohibited, how would more legislation change anything?

I'm sure theres tons out there if we went and looked.

You haven't provided a single example where a civilian owned fully automatic, or semi auto converted to fully automatic rifle was used in a crime in Canada.

I've been in the middle of a pack of wolves. They didn't bother with me.

And I carried an AR-15 in the truck, with a 20 round mag, for shooting coyotes for years, and no crimes were committed, and nobody was killed or injured.

I have never seen so many posts on one thread, by one individual, that are so devoid of both fact and reason.