I shot holes in the NY Times editorial – This is what I think of the New York Times edito… https://t.co/XEJpuV05Kk pic.twitter.com/brh3KrODwS
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) December 5, 2015
no better argument against gun control than "this thing made me so upset that I shot it out of anger and frustration"
good work, Erickson
— Simon Maloy (@SimonMaloy) December 5, 2015
baby peepees self because daddy said he has to use potty now, that will show daddy. no potty. https://t.co/UpQ3rhtN0z
— Big Sexy Jeb! Lund (@Mobute) December 5, 2015
Chris Grace, at Medium, “I Had Gay Sex with Erick Erickson’s Post“:
This is what I think of Erick Erickson’s post about the New York Times editorial today. The New York Times published a front-page editorial advocating for gun control and Erick Erickson’s response is that all rational arguments can be addressed by shooting them with bullets. My response is to put my dick in his argument…
I feel like me fucking his post is as relevant as him shooting the New York Times’ editorial.
Maybe we could print this up so Erick Erickson can continue his shooting spree. https://t.co/4qb06Mi0rJ
— Bob Schooley (@Rschooley) December 6, 2015
………………
@gtx281 @mtaibbi My time in the Army, I wondered why soldiers buy lots of guns? You don't see plumbers obsessed with wrenches.
— Carlo Valle (@cvalle0625) December 4, 2015
@mtaibbi How many shoes do women have or how many watches for men?
— Mike Hebner (@bluemoon666) December 4, 2015
I thought a gun was just a tool to be used with reluctance, not a fashion accessory that gives us a self-esteem buzz https://t.co/3RlLpdJZDs
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 4, 2015
………………….
ah.. pic.twitter.com/BquBQbWPrU
— brendan james (@deep_beige) December 4, 2015
People occasionally complain, “Why doesn’t the Left have propaganda outlets to counter the many Right-Wing spin artists?”
Answer: Because part of being “Left” (progressive, humanitarian, not-RWNJ) is possessing a higher-than-room-temperature IQ, and at least a rudimentary sense of shame.
mkro
No matter how high-minded you want to be about this, you can’t ignore that Murdoch’s empire is killing liberal progress in this country. Without any way of combatting it, we automatically begin each argument and every debate skewed to the right.
David Koch
Son of Erik thought Trump went over the line by talking about a person’s menstrual cycle.
Those were just words, yet Son of Erik freaked out, saying we can’t expect to win talking like that.
Trump should have shot up a photo instead – that he would be okay with.
redshirt
We are losing a large percentage to the right wing Wurlitzer. But no more than 27%.
The rest can be talked to, reasoned with, begged, please, don’t destroy America.
redshirt
I’d also say Erick son of Erick is actively encouraging shooters with this piece.
David Koch
Women look great wearing heels. Wearing AK-47s – not so much.
bago
@redshirt: Alas, Trump is breaking the crazification barrier. He’s a full-on fascist with no metal to stop the pushing of his pedal. He’s the scream of your facebook friends who finally realized that a negro became President and they have to be nice to fags now. The sort of people who are waking up to the fact that having a gun, a truck, and wrasslin on the TV isn’t the nadir of civilization.
As has been said, he is post-truth.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-donald-trump-post-truth-2016-candidate-n468111
divF
My sciatica started to flare up just looking at that photo.
MattF
So… ah… Erickson demonstrates how shooting stuff up is the correct response to arguments you disagree with. As in ‘Bang bang bang bang bang I win’. Where have I heard that before?
Anne Laurie
@David Koch: But if it’s a hot chick clutching that AK-47, Ammosexuals never have to admit what they’re really using for fap targets.
Amir Khalid
@David Koch:
Maybe it’s just me. But when I look at stiletto heels, I don’t think, “Sexy!” I think, “Ankle injury waiting to happen.”
joel hanes
@redshirt:
We are losing a large percentage to the right wing Wurlitzer. But no more than 27%.
That number again. The
Allen Keyes crazification factor.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html
Data :
https://web.archive.org/web/20091226120911/http://pollkatz.homestead.com/files/approval-data_files/zzzmainGRAPHICS_14808_image001.gif
opiejeanne
@David Koch: Really? You’re looking at her feet?
Amir Khalid
@opiejeanne:
The last time he posted a link to this picture, he was drawing attention to her chest.
opiejeanne
@Amir Khalid: I remember the picture, didn’t remember who posted it.
Skippy-san
It always amazes me, how hypocritcal wingnuts can be. Imagine if I posted a tweet of a picture of Erik Erikson with 10 bullet holes in it-how totally crazy he and his wingnut followers would become. I could caption it “This is what I think of Erik Erikson.”
The worst thing is, people give him money to spout this bullshit….
David Koch
@Amir Khalid: I was debating whether to use a photo of Samantha Power, Susan Rice or Christine Lagarde who has incredible style, but Sarah is so funny.
Anne Laurie
@Amir Khalid:
Yeah, they’re referred to (in polite company) as “photo pumps” or “red carpet heels” — unless you’re very young & very fit & quite desperate for attention, they’re really only meant to be worn for having one’s picture taken.
It’s nice to be taller, but I could never stand up in heels much over 2″. (It didn’t help that I have fat little paws, not just wide but with almost no arch & a very high instep.) These days, my maximum is 1-1/2″, and that’s for formal occasions. Happily, one of the few perks of being a back-end Boomer is that, as my older cohort sisters age, there are plenty of attractive options available, even in orthopedic-adjacent styles…
quaker in a basement
Is that image supposed to be the newspaper he “shot with a gun?” Looks more like he poked it with a sharp pencil.
Anne Laurie
@quaker in a basement:
Or an air pistol – I doubt his wife trusts him with a real gun.
In an earlier thread, Adam Silverman & some other commentors who know about guns were being quite uncomplimentary about Erickson’s mad shooter skillz, if he did use an actual weapon.
amk
paper thin pencil head grifter.
Frankensteinbeck
Because gun hoarding in the US is overwhelmingly something white Christians do, Bill.
Jerzy Russian
Christ, what an asshole (Mr. Erickson, that is).
Zinsky
When I saw Erickson’s tweet, I thought, “What an infantile asshole!” That’s how a 13 year old boy would act and think that he was being clever. Clearly no one else does. This obnoxious sphincter obviously stopped maturing somewhere around eighth grade. (For the record, I find every part of a woman to be sexy, including their feet in high heels, although those shoes must be torture to wear…).
Steve from Antioch
The only interesting thing about the San Bernardino shooting is that the shooting wasn’t even over before people were either calling for more gun control or more Muslim control – depending on which of the jerk off circles they belonged to.
It used to take almost a full news cycle before people started trotting out their favorite grievance ponies. Now it’s instantaneous.
Xenos
@Steve from Antioch: If you wait a couple days to air your grievance pony then three new shooting sprees will come up in the interim and your grievance pony gets superseded.
Derelict
@Steve from Antioch:
Yeah, how gauche for the more-gun-control people to not even wait a full news cycle before calling for more gun control. I mean, they act there had just been another mass shooting a couple days before! Really, how ridiculous for pro-gun-control people to call attention to the latest mass shooting when they could have shown some taste and waited until the next mass shooting (which happened the very next day). But then they’d have had to wait until the mass shooting after that, which happened the very next day again.
So I guess the pro-gun-control people should just STFU because they can’t complain about gun massacres until the massacres stop and there’s a “decent interval” for retrospection.
Betty Cracker
@Steve from Antioch: Yes, poor misunderstood guns are just as discriminated against as Muslims. And there’s nothing else remotely interesting about an atrocity that killed 14 people, except that people might say mean things about your Precious.
JMG
So this is a guy who’s scared to go to the movies in Macon, Georgia because terrorism? And now it appears he’d lose a gunfight with a newspaper. So the fear’s genuine at least.
bs
To be fair, he did only shoot the scary scary words, but he avoided the pretty pictures, which he can understand (more or less).
bs
Ben Cisco (onboard the Defiant)
@Steve from Antioch: Seriously? “Both Sides!” is some serious bullshit.
RSA
So, metaphorically, Grace and Erickson did the same thing.
gene108
Because there are no liberal billionaires willing to lose millions of dollars per year to fund propaganda outlets, like the Right has done with newspapers and magazines for decades and even Fox News, in the 1990’s, as it worked to build up ratings.
Kay
@Steve from Antioch:
The response to this week’s mass shooting will be more regulation of people who don’t own guns. More metal detectors. More security checks. More training on how we’re to respond when a gun owner goes nuts. It’s a lie that there’s “no” response to these shootings. There’s a response. The response is to tighten up security for the rest of us in order not to inconvenience gun owners.
Do you think maybe gun owners could accept a teeny tiny bit of regulation so the rest of us don’t have to live on lock down? Thanks in advance.
PaulW
My take on Erickson’s attempt to silence the First Amendment: http://noticeatrend.blogspot.com/2015/12/man-shoots-first-amendment-to-prove.html
More people need to take Junius’ quote about Imposters to heart. It explains our modern troubles with a Republican Party owned by those Imposters.
amk
@Kay:
Good question.
Also. Too. So many innocent deaths including kids. And yet gun nutz have to be treated with kid gloves.
Marc
@Kay:
Being awash in guns is making us objectively less safe, and the further we go into the fantasies of the gun culture the worse the death toll gets. This shouldn’t be a “chocolate or vanilla” sort of thing.
Like what Steve said or not, however, there is a depressing tendency for people to run absolutely everything through a team red / team blue filter. I haven’t seen *any* articles about people who have changed their minds about things like gun control, which absolutely used to be one where Republicans and Democrats had similar views. If we want real change we are going to have to change minds, and that starts with attempting to persuade other people.
I’d really like to start pushing on the whole do-you-want-terrorists-to-have-easy-access-to-guns approach, because it really does highlight how extreme the gun lobby has become. There is a chance that this could start to peel people away and move us from where we are.
Kay
@amk:
I heard one of them deflecting with the mental illness dodge. They want to tighten up regs on mentally ill people, ya know, get ’em off the street. It’s interesting that such brave defenders of freedom are more than willing to curtail the freedom of other people. When you undergo a full body search before entering your company Christmas party you’ll know who to thank.
How do you think it’s going to go for the people who work in and attend that center for the developmentally disabled after this? Think their workplace will turn into a “secure facility”? I do. We’ll regulate the hell out of them before we’ll go near the “protected class” of gun nuts. THEIR rights and quality of life remain untouched while the rest of change our behavior to kowtow to them.
Derelict
@Marc: But that’s just it: Gun control actually isn’t a “Team Red/Team Blue” thing. In the wake of Newtown, polls consistently showed 85- to 90% or more support for gun-control legislation. Today, polls still show overwhelming support for some kind of gun control. So it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of people don’t need persuading.
But we have an extremely powerful lobby that is pro-guns (the NRA, Gun Owners of America, etc.) that is able to bribe, cajole, and browbeat mostly Republican senators into fighting even the most mild and common sense legislation.
dstraws
@Kay:
An excellent observation which I had not heard before. I will use this idea in my discussions of this topic.
Derelict
@Kay: Well, at least until those two things conflict. It will be pat downs and metal detectors until some gun-rights dolt gets a job at the Center. Then, such security will have to be removed because it infringes a tiny bit on his right to open-carry everywhere.
Honestly, I’m surprised that the GOP-controlled Congress has not been bribed into allowing open-carry in the Capitol Building and on the floors of the House and Senate.
satby
@Derelict:
Never happen, because they realize that it puts them at risk. Risk for thee but not for me, my fellow American.
Kay
@Marc:
You’re right that this isn’t going to persuade them and I admire your effort to do so. I don’t think it’s true that we “don’t do anything” after shootings, however. Sure we do. We tighten “security” for everyone else. We defend, and each time we defend we move a little further back and they impose their guns further and further into our lives. We’re losing, because we’re changing our behavior to accept their terms. Even if there isn’t a gun or a shooter in the room we all have to act as if there is, always, everywhere. I think about it now when I have distraught people in my office, which is every day, I (now) wonder if they’re armed. Many of them probably are, judging by the number of CC permits they’re handing out like lollipops.
gf120581
@Derelict: How fabulous would that be. It’d be like the pre-Civil War days when every other Senator or Rep was packing heat and drawing guns on each other in the chamber.
BruceFromOhio
Behold the insipid moron class behaving consistently – dislike or fear a race, religion, country, idea, or even a newspaper article, shoot at it with your gun.
Marc
@Derelict: That’s historically been true, and on some issues it still is. But it’s really striking how far opinion has moved over the last two decades:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Some highlights:
56% of people have a mostly favorable opinion of the NRA, 35% unfavorable
By 63-30, people think that having a gun in the house makes it safer (vs. 42-52 in 1993).
Do you want gun control laws to be more strict, the same, or less strict is 55-11-33, which looks good until you compare it to 1990 and 78-2-17.
People rank easy availability of guns as a factor roughly as important as violent video games.
What’s really striking is that all of this movement has been among republicans, while democrats have been more or less stable in gun control views. Gun fanaticism is now republican orthodoxy, like climate change denial.
Betty Cracker
@Derelict: Exactly right. Pro-gun rights extremists make sensible compromise impossible. At this point, I expect them to continue to do so until the situation becomes so untenable that their worst fears — mass confiscation, etc. — come true. It will take a horrific series of incidents to focus the minds of the middle toward that end, but a few hundred kooks with unfettered access to assault rifles could provide the necessary carnage.
Davebo
@Betty Cracker:
Never going to happen Betty. We could have a Sandy Hook every month for a year and it would still never happen. There would be some tweaking around the edges like banning 30 round magazines and the like but that’s about it.
fermion t. clown
@Steve from Antioch: The day of the San Bernardino shootings, two other mass shootings were reported, one in Georgia, the other in Houston. Mass shooting databases show that mass shootings in America occurred on average more than once a day in 2015.
“Wait a news cycle”? Then what? Wait another day? Wait until there’s a day when no mass shooting occurs? What on earth are you saying?
Your “argument” makes even less sense if you are aware that victims of mass shootings are a tiny fraction of all gun violence victims.
As Paul Waldman noted at Plum Line here, mass shootings, bad as they are, account for a small fraction of gun violence in this country… mass shooting victims account for less than 1.5% of all gun violence victims, 4.5% of gun homicides.
Are you ignorant, stupid, or malicious?
Matt McIrvin
@Derelict:
It doesn’t matter, because of intensity of support. Gun people care about nothing more than guns. They are single-issue voters who will help primary candidates out of contention solely because of their stance on the subject.
Gun-control supporters are not like this. Heck, I don’t feel that way myself: I won’t refuse to vote for an otherwise good candidate just because they’re a little soft on guns. Guns are a huge problem, but they’re actually not the biggest or even deadliest problem in America, and dealing with them is a very long game.
So the gun advocates win.
Betty Cracker
@Davebo: The issue is that for the gun nuts, guns are the only thing that matters. For the vast majority who favor common-sense gun control, such as a ban on military-style weapons, high-volume magazines, stockpiling weapons and ammo, etc., gun control isn’t the top priority at the ballot box.
I can easily envision a situation where heavily armed kooks make life so miserable for the majority that they say enough is enough and make gun control their top priority. The only question is what would it take to reach that tipping point.
I agree it’s horrendously high — Sandy Hook taught us that. But the homegrown jihadi angle has the potential to change that calculus, probably more than a series of Sandy Hooks. If incidents like San Bernardino become commonplace, in addition to the usual lone-nut outbreaks, I could see people getting angry enough to foment a backlash.
meander
@Kay: Didn’t take long to move the conversation at my office/factory. Last Friday’s weekly safety meeting wasn’t about typical topics like forklift safety, protecting eyes from welding arcs, or other industrial dangers, but was about how to react to an active shooter. One of the ammosexual on staff thought it would be a good idea to have a few concealed carry holders on staff, “just in case.”
In a previous discussion, a different ammosexual at the office said that he had a large personal arsenal to “defend against tyranny.”
No mention, however, about what to do in an open carry state — is that person walking around with a gun in front of our building a “good guy” or a “bad guy”?
Matt McIrvin
@Betty Cracker: They’ll round up all the Muslims into concentration camps first.
Stella B
My husband owns a lot of guitars. It seems like a healthier obsession.
There are so many things that can kill you ; two guys racing on the freeway, the flu, the weirdo down the street who walks around talking to himself about shooting Democrats, falling off the ladder while cleaning the gutters. ISIS, not so much.
Matt McIrvin
@Betty Cracker: Also, heavily-armed kooks make life so miserable for people trying to argue with them that the temptation to give up is intense.
Marc
From the Gallup polling data it appears that 9/11 moved opinion away from gun control by quite a bit, God knows why, and the 2012 slaughter of kids moved the needle back a bit, but not as far. So events do change things – just not overnight.
And, yes, the sheer weight of dealing with the gun people and their insistence on imposing their views on the rest of us may be the single factor that pushes things the other way. They have to be culturally marginalized first, however, or things will get very bad very quickly.
Peale
@Betty Cracker: I don’t think it will make a difference until lawful gun owners start to be killed in greater numbers. Specifically sellers. Right now the victims are easy to blame because they should have been protecting themselves by carrying. Until we get the gun owners shooting each other and not non gun owners, it won’t matter. Outrage doesn’t seem to be translating because victim hood isn’t falling on the people who sell arms.
Adam L Silverman
@Anne Laurie: given the size of the holes, eyeballing it it’s either 9mm, .380, or .38. If he was shooting a snub nosed revolver that could explain the spread on the grouping. 1 to 2 inch barrels aren’t intended to produce tight shot groups by the average shooter.
If I had to speculate, he likely has a gun for self defense. If he goes enough to stay proficient – as in can hit what he’s aiming at – and he follows the four basic safety rules, he’s likely safe enough. Though anyone who pulls a stunt like this for effect should have a good talking to by someone a bit more responsible.
smintheus
The Left does have propaganda outlets. They’re just not as large, as well funded, as ubiquitous, or as successful as the propaganda outlets of the Right.
Frankensteinbeck
@Betty Cracker:
Until this latest shooting, I would have said that we are making no progress. I still think that no single incident will change this, no matter how big, who the victims are, or who the perpetrators. For all the GOP’s terror of blacks, a large black militia insurrection would just confirm for them all the reasons they think they need guns. And as you say, they are utter zealots.
But now, I think something is building on the anti-gun side. That it took this long for the NYT op-ed to happen shows that their priorities are changing, because now they did it. The GOP wanted the public debate over this latest shooting to be ‘Are Muslims coming to kill us in our homes?’ Instead it’s ‘Is it mean and unfair to call Republicans hypocritical gun-worshiping assholes because all they offer are prayers?’ The social pushback is building. How it goes with the other side being frothing madmen I don’t know, but the disengaged are starting to care.
smintheus
@Frankensteinbeck: Gun control was very much in fashion among Republicans during the ’60s because they feared militant black groups like the Panthers. The NRA was also in favor of responsible gun ownership and safety, before it started to go around the bend in the ’70s.
Frankensteinbeck
@smintheus:
Yeah, but this is not the 60s. If this were even the 90s I think a ‘militant black group’ scare would work, but they’ve already decided the blacks are coming to drag their women out of their beds, and only being heavily armed themselves will help. They have finished going around the bend! And (and this is important) a much larger segment of Republicans would theoretically like gun control, but there will be no compromise with liberals. None. Even on stuff they want. That’s been the story of every budget negotiation.
Citizen_X
Everybody’s assuming Erickson shot the paper. I say he fucked it. With his needle dick.
(And there’s my new bumper sticker/song lyric: “50 caliber/is still a needle dick.”)
sukabi
@Derelict: really, they’re not THAT stupid. If there’s one thing they understand it’s self interest. THEIR wellbeing supercedes all else.
Eric U.
@sukabi: for a gun owner, the catch phrase, “an armed society is a polite society” means that everyone listens to them very politely for fear of being shot
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Kay:
This right here. Gun nuts demand that the rest of us adjust to accommodate their dangerous obsession and scream about their “right” to terrorize and intimidate their fellow citizens.
Apparently there’s some jackass white dude in Ohio who’s wandering around black neighborhoods and business districts with a rifle slung across his back, getting into arguments with local business owners. The business owners keep being told by police that Ohio’s open carry law allows the jackass to do this. I find it fascinating that white guys can walk around in public with rifles and the police aren’t allowed to ask for ID, but John Crawford III and Tamir Rice can be shot on sight if they have a gun. One of these things is not like the other …
AMinNC
With this issue, like so many others, we need to be able to play the long game. The percentage of Americans owning guns has been decreasing significantly over time, even as numbers of guns being acquired is increasing. There is an increasingly small number of super-dedicated gun fetishists who hold all of the political power thanks to the gobs of cash coming from arms manufacturers via the NRA and their own intense activism for their side.
If we can continue to shame, mock, and tighten the screws on the gun fetishists, the next generation, and the next, and the next will have fewer and fewer people who prioritize guns, and the momentum will shift to where we can get more laws passed for the public’s safety. Not to mention buy-backs where we can start getting some of these weapons off the streets as younger people are no longer interested in keeping Uncle Joe’s arsenal. In the meantime, we need to continue to advocate, continue to make a big public stink, continue to challenge these gun fetishists so that regular people become more invested in voting on the gun issue.
What we can’t do is to continue let the pro-gun folks define the terms of the debate.
Thor Heyerdahl
The rational left tend to mock and ignore pundits who are incorrect in their predictions every single time, while the right (rational or not) champions them.
Steve from Antioch
@Ben Cisco (onboard the Defiant): That’s exactly what both “sides” invariably say. Get out of your bubble.
Steve from Antioch
@Betty Cracker: The problem is that people arguing for “common sense” gun laws often don’t have much “common sense.”
Take the “stockpiling ammunition” thing you complain about. Yes the San Bernardino shooters did leave behind thousands of rounds of scary, scary bullets in their and at their house. I don’t think those rounds are going to hurt anyone, do you?
I haven’t seen a round count yet, but I’d wildly guess that they shot less than 200 rounds, total.
So how many rounds are stockpiling? 100? Is that what you think?
Clueless.
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Steve from Antioch:
Why does your right to own a gun outweigh my right to not have to go through a metal detector at work?
The Other Chuck
@Betty Cracker:
Already the case with me. I started out hoping to seek a compromise position. Now I very seriously want the whole fucking second amendment repealed. It isn’t protecting us from tyranny, it IS tyranny.
Liberal With Attitude
@The Other Chuck:
This is where I am at.
What is the moral logic for the existence of a right to own a deadly weapon?
Why do we all accept that there is no right to a full automatic weapon, yet somehow believe that the “right” to a semiautomatic is beyond question?
Betty Cracker
@Steve from Antioch:
Since the cops killed the murderous fuckstick owners of those rounds before they could be used to kill even more people, no. But do you really want to argue that it was okay that those ISIS wannabe assholes were able to accumulate 4K rounds?
Thanks for proving my point — you’re exactly the kind of gun-fondling idiot who makes compromise impossible.
Steve from Antioch
@Betty Cracker:
Talk about the point sailing over your head.
Lanza shot 154 rounds at Sandy Hook which was the worst mass shooting in quite a while.
Are you saying that 154 rounds is too many for a private citizen to have?
The point here is that it doesn’t matter if Lanza had 200 rounds or 2000. He only fired 154. Fretting about all of the unfired rounds he had is just silly. Its the result of being frightened by the very idea of ammunition.
It would be nice if you would try and look at this rationally rather than just waving your hands around like you always do.
villageidocy
@David Koch: And how many folks can you kill with a large shoe collection all at once, or even one set of shoes at a time? I mean, take off a high heel and land a sharp smack to the temple with the stiletto end – it works one person at a time, but it’s not all that efficient, is it?
Betty Cracker
@Steve from Antioch:
Yes, I am saying that. There’s a link between stockpiles of weapons and ammo and the capacity to kill a lot of people. Only a fool would deny it. I realize most weapon and ammo hoarders don’t go nuts and kill a lot of people, but they should be prevented from owning arsenals for the same reason it’s illegal to build a bomb in your garage for fun; it’s a public health hazard.
If it were up to me, no weapon would be able to fire more than six bullets before reloading, and you’d buy your bullets one dozen at a time and have to return the spent shells to purchase another 12, unless you had a very compelling reason that an exception should be granted. And no private citizen would own a military style weapon, period. If that would inconvenience you or interfere with your hobby, tough fucking shit.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@David Koch: ye of little faith in google
steverinoCT
@Betty Cracker: Just for reference, back in the day I had a lot of fun at the range shooting my .45 Colt semi-auto. For each excursion I bought a box of ammo and pretty much used it up, and I was done. That’s 50 rounds (a magazine would carry seven rounds plus one in the chamber, but thanks to my Navy training I only loaded five at a time. Old habits…) .
I sold the pistol a few years ago after not using it for about 20 years. No reason to keep it, and plenty to not have it. Target shooting was fun for me as bowling is fun for me, but I’ll stick to my non-lethal ball.