why you need semi-auto and large capacity mags

[JHZR2]

Stop telling me that Im trying to mandate anything. Im not. Get off your blame game just because I question something.

I have every right to question the practicality of needing >15 rounds for most any situation. Its a valid question and open to valid discussion. Feed us stats to indicate how many crime-related guns have more than 15 rounds, and how many violent crime instances involve an "assault" rifle, machine gun, uzi or whatever else is fed to you in the movies.

I dont buy the boogeyman criminals all over with machine guns argument.

And remember that with 200k legally owned guns stolen every year, the irresponsible gun owner with 30 rounds is the enabler to the criminal having it. These things dont just magically exist. And they arent all coming from Mexico or Yugoslavia.

But Im sure youre against someone having recourse against gun owners when their irresponsibility lets a criminal steal your gun and then kill someone else.

Because not all of them are going to have hero CCW person come to save the day...

And for all the "public safety" arguments chasing some boogeyman with a machine gun, I wonder how many of the people arguing the necessity of having huge numbers of rounds for self defense are obese, overweight, smoke, drive too fast, etc. That's as much a public safety risk as anything else.

Surfstar said it well in another thread...

Originally Posted By: surfstar
If someone really wants you dead - good luck defending yourself. Heat of the moment / passion / etc - adding another gun to the mix does not always make for a better outcome.

...

If you look at the chance of you getting attacked / robbed / etc or the victim of a public shooting vs the likelihood that you will die in a car accident or of heart disease...
YOU WOULD STOP DRIVING YOUR CAR, PUT DOWN YOUR BURGER AND NEVER LEAVE YOUR HOUSE.

This whole 'debate' is so overblown on each side. Its not life or death each time you leave your house - its a horrible freaking tragedy that has an incredibly small chance of happening to you. I prefer to spend my time on things that make me happy and not worrying about the bad things in this world.

I blame the media. 24 hours is a lot of time to fill. Please stop watching and they will not have a voice anymore.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: supton


AFAIK the "designed to wound and clog up their support" is a myth. It's a nice idea, but ignores that fact that it's still pretty easy to shoot to kill.


If its pretty easy to shoot and kill, and few, if any will even encounter an army of criminals coming to rob their home... That implies that large quantities arent necessary for most any reason for normal use.


The military likes to engage at distances vastly longer than self defense distances. In those cases it's a bit easier to engage in head shots. Also, with selective fire, a three round burst to the chest is going to be on the deadly side. None of which is applicable to the typical self defense. Unless if you need to defend yourself from mobs, and/or have firearms that can't be sold to the public anyhow.

Regarding your other responses: you're ok with pistols with >15 round capacity, but not ok with an AR with 10 round capacity? Or is it just 30 round mags? I'm not entirely sure of your stance here. Are you against AR's because they are great offensive weapons, and as such, unsuitable for public usage/ownership, regardless of magazine capacity? [Sorry, playing catch up on this thread at the moment.] Are you saying that since most of us here are in agreement that an AR in 223 is a lousy defense rifle, it shouldn't be owned by the public?

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

And remember that with 200k legally owned guns stolen every year, the irresponsible gun owner with 30 rounds is the enabler to the criminal having it. These things dont just magically exist. And they arent all coming from Mexico or Yugoslavia.


Who's fault is that? Are you saying that, if I am to own an lowly single shot rifle, I ought to have a safe rated at x hours of attempt? [Sorry, I don't recall the term, but I think there's a rating regarding how hard a safe is to defeat.] That it's my fault my things were stolen?

[I suppose I should put in some sort of smiley icon here or something, as I don't think you are saying that.]

 

[stumpman]

Looks like you and surfstar have it all figured out.

There are either no boogeyman or either there is no way of stopping the boogeyman.

but the most important fact is that Americans are too obese & stupid to be trusted with high cap weapons.

Kumbaya and flee is a much better idea than having access to high cap weapons.

 

[Robenstein]

These threads are beyond silly.

We have a second amendment, upheld by the Supreme Court (read the opinion of Heller vs DC) that said its a right to defense(against threats from individuals, and foreign and domestic threats) and an individual right.

Most of the people talking about what someone "needs" are ill informed. Start reading the works by Dave Grossman and see how it becomes very difficult to fight in a real life situation. Pick up an American Rifleman and read the "Armed Citizen" section and you will time and time again people saving their and other peoples lives with the use of these guns some are so eager to ban.

Being pro gun is not about being a "gun nut", IMHO it is about preserving innocent life by allowing the innocent to efficiently protect themselves. There are plenty of cases out there where bad guys have taken huge numbers of bullets before going down. Telling us we can only have 5, 6, 10 bullets to confront any situation is crazy. There are different types of guns with pros and cons for a reason. There is no one gun that fits all situations. I will tell you that in the real world your biology and body works against you when threatened. I know people..especially a few women...who cant shoot a pistol worth a darn at the range, and are so small a 12ga or even a 20 is just too much for them. They have an AR15 or a Mini 14 because of that at their homes. They can shoot them well, they dont kick, and even if they panic....30 rounds has a much better chance of finding the bad guy than 10 do.

The FBI stats even show more people get killed from common household hammers most years then by a rifle of any type, let alone an "assault rifle"

Why we cannot just stick to pure and fair (not biased) facts, statistics, and the good old bill of rights is beyond me.

 

[mikefxu]

Obesity kills 10 times more people than guns every year, these are rough numbers. Why do we need fast food or soda. If we want to save lives lets start from the top and work our way down.

 

[MrHorspwer]

Quote:
The FBI stats even show more people get killed from common household hammers most years then by a rifle of any type, let alone an "assault rifle"


I am decidedly pro-gun, but I despise propaganda half-truths.

What you post is a half-truth. It is (mostly) true in direct quote, but it in lacking in scope.

The FBI data in question numbers "blunt objects", not hammers in particular, as being responsible for 496 deaths in 2011. This is compared to 323 rifle deaths in the same year. So, yes, blunt objects (including, but not limited to, hammers) were responsible for more homicides than rifles. The same could be said for human hands, since they also cause more deaths than rifles

Of course, the sentiment doesn't point out the other 8,200 deaths attributed to handguns, shotguns, and other unidentified firearms.

If effect, putting a laser focus on a single type of firearm, a particular lobby can spin the data to make a sensational headline while ignoring a very large and very related number.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

No, my point is that I think it is outside the realm of any relevant situation to need to have to carry huge numbers of rounds for self protection.

15 rounds in a pistol? I get that. And that's what we have and that never went away.


Uh, not quite. The AWB banned mag capacity that high. MA, perhaps NJ, CT certainly, banned the importation of magazines over 10 rounds. The magazine capacity restrictions would apply to both AR's and pistols.

Quote:
Needing 30-100 rounds and a bushmaster to protect yourself? LOL. I think people are watching too many movies, or are caught up in drug trade and crime and are afraid to admit it.

When people are willing to talk about secondary and ternary effects of firing off that many rounds, then we can talk.

Or are you OK with others coming out and shooting you in cold blood because you missed in your intent of self protection and hit someone or something in their household with your 30 round salvo which apparently you were incapable of hitting the intruder 29 times? After all, the guy across the street may think he is under attack and start returning fire.


You're confusing "capacity" with "actual rounds fired". Just because a gun holds x rounds does not mean x rounds will be fired. As I have read, nobody who came out of a gunfight ever wished to have a gun that held less rounds.

Also, if anything were to go down around me, I'd be one of the first to either duck and run, or otherwise find suitable cover (cover, not concealment--something that can stop rounds). Yes, misses are dangerous, but the vast majority of misses don't hit people.

Quote:
Its starting to sound very wild west, yet the biggest argument for guns is that crime has DROPPED and there isnt a felon with a machine gun in every shadow waiting to shoot you, steal your posession and rape your wife.

This is a question of large capacity. Is 5 rounds too few? Sure, perhaps so... though Ill bet it has been more than sufficient plenty of times (including in the title story). But does everyone need to carry around LARGE capacity? If so, society is so far gone that its just disgusting.

And at that point, weve departed the civilized world and become El Salvidor. No thanks...



So... what is your safe capacity number then?

A few years ago, when I was looking into these issues myself, the statistic was, in the states that were "shall issue" (shorthand: very easy to obtain a concealed weapon permit) only about 10% of the population pursued that option. Out of those persons, maybe half carried with any regularity. I do not know how that stat has changed since then. But in the 20+ years since Florida got the ball going, has the blood flowed in the streets, as was predicted by those staunchly against CCW permits?

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Quote:
The FBI stats even show more people get killed from common household hammers most years then by a rifle of any type, let alone an "assault rifle"


I am decidedly pro-gun, but I despise propaganda half-truths.

What you post is a half-truth. It is (mostly) true in direct quote, but it in lacking in scope.

The FBI data in question numbers "blunt objects", not hammers in particular, as being responsible for 496 deaths in 2011. This is compared to 323 rifle deaths in the same year. So, yes, blunt objects (including, but not limited to, hammers) were responsible for more homicides than rifles. The same could be said for human hands, since they also cause more deaths than rifles

Of course, the sentiment doesn't point out the other 8,200 deaths attributed to handguns, shotguns, and other unidentified firearms.

If effect, putting a laser focus on a single type of firearm, a particular lobby can spin the data to make a sensational headline while ignoring a very large and very related number.


Question: that 8,200 deaths, was that homicide, or homicide+suicide? I'm 99% sure it's just homicide, and not including the suicide numbers, but so many reporters like to include the two (so as to make guns look evil) that I like making the distinction. [Another distinction would be to question how many are gang on gang violence related, but that's probably impossible to find out.]

 

[stumpman]

Well stated, supton! But using logic is really unfair to JHZR2.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: supton

Regarding your other responses: you're ok with pistols with >15 round capacity, but not ok with an AR with 10 round capacity? Or is it just 30 round mags? I'm not entirely sure of your stance here. Are you against AR's because they are great offensive weapons, and as such, unsuitable for public usage/ownership, regardless of magazine capacity? [Sorry, playing catch up on this thread at the moment.] Are you saying that since most of us here are in agreement that an AR in 223 is a lousy defense rifle, it shouldn't be owned by the public?


Im not against ARs at all. In fact I have a lower that Im going to build at some point.

I do question its utility both in terms of .223 and in terms of using a rifle for self defense both in the home and out on the street. I find it an incorrect tool for those applications.

I just find it questionable that having >15 rounds is going to substantially improve the chances of success if under major attack by the boogeyman criminal with a machine gun when youre robbed at midnight. I find it funny that there is an implied necessity to have 30 or whatever rounds to protect onesself. Amazing that so many people are alive since next to nobody carries huge quantities of ammo, and with all the criminals lurking in every shadow, you'd think that everyone that doesnt carry is dead.

The law of diminishing returns applies here like everywhere, and I dont see the necessity for having such huge quantities of rounds in a magazine because I doubt that the self defense scenarios justify it typically. The bigger problem is that the potential rate of release of weapons with that capability enable criminals when they are stolen, and also are trouble in the hands of crazies, like in Newtown.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: stumpman
Well stated, supton! But using logic is really unfair to JHZR2.


JHZR2 is a gun owner. He may not be on the same exact page as you or I -- but -- be careful. People who are anti-gun like to splinter the gun owners group. By making any group smaller it becomes easier to defeat them. Same here.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: supton

So... what is your safe capacity number then?



I dont have one. I never said I did, though others try to imply this without basis. I started in this thread asking questions, because of my doubt that an AR15 with 30 rounds is really an ideal home self-defense weapon.

What is the number? As I said elsewhere, Im sure there is a law of diminishing returns here. Obviously 5 was fully functional to get the job done in the original story, as the lady and her kids were not harmed and the perp left; but perhaps 6 or a few more would be more ideal. The situation was stopped with 5. Would I be happier if the perp was dead on site? Sure. But at the end of it all, the situation was ended.

The ideal number is between 1 and n. There are practicalities of how much one can carry, the unintended effects of stolen items getting into criminals (who are likely more willing to use them) and crazies on their shooting sprees, etc. What is that number, I dont know. But Im not going to buy some excessive bias in either direction.

Originally Posted By: stumpman
Well stated, supton! But using logic is really unfair to JHZR2.


So your logic that everyone should be toting 100 rounds on their person so that they can have a 0.00000000001% chance of improved success is ideal, but my logic that nobody needs 30+ rounds and a bushmaster to adequately self-defend is somehow wrong? Give me a break. Sounds more like you dont have a rational basis besides the notion that if we spray everyone with bullets, maybe one will hit. Yeah, great logic there!

You realize that commentary like yours just gives the anti gun types, the moms scared for their kids and the media more fodder for which to attempt to limit our actual rights... Great going... Yep, lets just give everyone 100 rounds to carry in their backpack and blindly assume all is well.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Im not against ARs at all. In fact I have a lower that Im going to build at some point.


Cool. I am so kicking myself for not buying a receiver. I feel obligated at the moment to have one, but, fear that chance is over with.

Quote:
I do question its utility both in terms of .223 and in terms of using a rifle for self defense both in the home and out on the street. I find it an incorrect tool for those applications.


Fair enough. I think we're all in agreement that high capacity AR's aren't the right tool for typical self defense scenarios.

Problem is, are all situations the same? I don't see the government going belly up. But in the last 10 years or so we have seen some pretty large widespread catastrophes. Hurricane Sandy was bad, but oddly not as dangerous as Katrina. Are you 100% sure that being armed in those situations wouldn't be a good thing? I don't have the source, but there is a report that, during the LA riots one Korean store owner used an AR to defend his store. I don't think he fired a shot.

Also, if we give an inch, what could be next? Today it's 30 round magazines, tomorrow it could be 10 round magazines. I just read an article on TTAG that the Newton shooter was reloading after firing only 15 rounds or so, perhaps less.

Quote:
I just find it questionable that having >15 rounds is going to substantially improve the chances of success if under major attack by the boogeyman criminal with a machine gun when youre robbed at midnight. I find it funny that there is an implied necessity to have 30 or whatever rounds to protect onesself. Amazing that so many people are alive since next to nobody carries huge quantities of ammo, and with all the criminals lurking in every shadow, you'd think that everyone that doesnt carry is dead.

The law of diminishing returns applies here like everywhere, and I dont see the necessity for having such huge quantities of rounds in a magazine because I doubt that the self defense scenarios justify it typically. The bigger problem is that the potential rate of release of weapons with that capability enable criminals when they are stolen, and also are trouble in the hands of crazies, like in Newtown.

 

[JHZR2]

The link below is an interesting read. One comment of interest, as Id like to find the stats for real and what else is in there is this:

Quote:
Accordind to Mike Rayburn who travels all over the country teaching cops and civilians the latest techniques and has written 3 books on the subject. the latest FBI stats are 2 shots in less then 2.6 seconds, between 12-2 A.M , less then 7 yds.


http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=296477

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The link below is an interesting read. One comment of interest, as Id like to find the stats for real and what else is in there is this:

Quote:
Accordind to Mike Rayburn who travels all over the country teaching cops and civilians the latest techniques and has written 3 books on the subject. the latest FBI stats are 2 shots in less then 2.6 seconds, between 12-2 A.M , less then 7 yds.


http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=296477


Nice read.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


15 rounds in a pistol? I get that. And that's what we have and that never went away.



Actually, it went away from 1994 to 2004, when the Clinton-era magazine ban went into effect. During that period, you could only buy 10 round magazines...

So, for my S&W 5906, which came from the factory with three 15 round magazines, I was only able to buy 10 round magazines...

That ban expired 9 years ago...but I am certain that it is coming back...

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
.... Beyond that, getting shot isn't like the hand of God coming down and flipping off the switch. 80% of gunshot wounds are survived. Most wounds are not head shots. Unless two organs are damaged, a massive majority of center-mass shots are non-lethal. Hits to the extremities, pelvic region, and butt are almost always survived. ....


Yes, I have a client who was shot twice in the leg, in and out, with a 9mm, and he didn't bother to go to the hospital for several hours. It took that long for the blood loss to get to him.

On the other hand, in a later incident, one .45 Auto Hydrashok, fired from a full size 1911, flat lined him three times on the way to the hospital and left him permanently injured.

I would never presume to tell another law abiding person what they could or could not use to defend their person, family, or property. Telling somebody else what they "need" is just wrong.

 

[Mystic]

Somebody here at bitgo said that the most effective deterrent is to tape a target to a window that a possible criminal will see when he tries to break into your house-a used target from a really good day at the range when you shot very well. I like that idea! I think I might do that.

I think the current powers that be will try to outlaw handguns ( and so-called assault rifles) if they can. In the very least they will try to limit how many rounds a semi-auto can carry. In the end what is important is to be able to defend yourself and to be able to stop an intruder. Obviously you will dial '911' first but if the intruder gets in very quickly you might not have time to do that. A handgun or shotgun or rifle of any kind will help to make self defense possible. I don't like the idea of rifles in a urban environment too much however because the rounds could go completely through a wall and kill an innocent person. Be sure you can get to the weapon quickly if necessary but also be sure that children cannot get to the weapon.

I have a semiauto that carries 17 rounds in the magazine. I am not going to surrender those magazines unless they force me to. In fact I might buy some extra magazines before they outlaw high capacity magazines except for the military and the police (and criminals of course, because the criminals will hardly obey the law).

It is important to practice, obey safety rules, and be able to shoot effectively and accurately. A revolver can be effective and it is simple, not likely to malfunction, and easy to understand. Even if they limit magazine capacity in the future the important thing is to shoot accurately and stop the attack. I like both revolvers and semi-autos. If they limit magazine capacity in the future I kind of think a revolver might be preferrable. A revolver is easy to maintain, and not likley to malfunction. Although somebody trained with using a semi-auto can handle most malfunctions quickly.

In the future I might buy a .357 magnum. Although I like semi-autos very much I still like a revolver in a lot of ways. A criminal that breaks into your house might think twice and leave just looking down the barrel of a revolver (or a semi-auto). A 125 grain JHP will stop any human being, and the right .38 rounds can be effective also.

I have a 9 mm semi-auto right now which I will certainly keep. But if they limit magazine capacity in the future another thing to consider is a 1911 .45.

 

[JHZR2]

A target taped to a window tells a criminal that you have firearms in the house, and thus your home is a bigger target for theft, as stolen firearms are a great moneymaker.

For all the doom and gloom and scares over criminals lurking in the shadows waiting to shoot you, Im surprised anyone would advocate such a thing. After all they are criminals and will do whatever they can to steal from you and take your life.

DC V. Heller verified that firearms for self defense is a valid use given that the words that many forget is the well regulated militia part... With that, I highly doubt that any semi-auto handguns would be banned. >15 round magazines perhaps. Because when the criminals and crazies steal them from the gun owners, then they can unload many more rounds on the public and kill more people in one nonstop firing without changing out or reloading... Which is where the fear that some people have...