And Dems still think a 7 round magazine is enough

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
1,512
Likes
645
So much fail. You ain't getting in my house at anytime day or night unless I know you personally, nevermind 12 anything am with clearly a BS excuse. God it's amazing how stupid people can be.
 

Jsfitzgerald85

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
8,709
Likes
1,033
Location
New Bedford
such B.S. everyone knows its like the movies or Call of Duty, one carefully aimed shot at each persons big toe definatly takes them out..............4 people, 4 shots. All those high capacity clips, THINK OF THE CHILDREN GODDAM IT.........

In all seriousness, it does amaze me when people think like this. They think 2 shots can take down someone no problem. The guy in Georgia was hit 5 times in the neck and face with a .38 and i believe drove himself to the hospital.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
33,185
Likes
16,310
Location
PREM
A while back a worcester leo was in hot water for a while after emptying his pistol into a giant hopped up on pcp.

Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
33,185
Likes
16,310
Location
PREM
Without good examples of where 8 rounds was insufficient, it's a difficult argument.
By that, do you mean the examples cited in this thread are not good examples, or are you suggesting the examples should have been given when the law was debated?

Similar good examples WERE offered during the 10 or 15 minutes of debate before the chowder heads in NY passed the law.

They simply ignored common sense, practical experience and the Constitution because none of those things suited their agenda.
 

Jsfitzgerald85

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
8,709
Likes
1,033
Location
New Bedford
Without good examples of where 8 rounds was insufficient, it's a difficult argument.
well if 5 rds of .38 to the head and neck barely did the job on 1 person, its not hard to argue that 8 would be insufficient against 4 individuals. Just look at police, dont they typicaly fire more then 7 rds at someone to stop the threat?
 
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
30,781
Likes
8,653
Location
free hampshire
12AM pounding on my door if i do not know you will be met with a firearm pointed in your general direction and a friendly greeting of "what the **** do you want?"
 

NewGuyRay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
993
Likes
531
Location
Just North of Boston
well if 5 rds of .38 to the head and neck barely did the job on 1 person, its not hard to argue that 8 would be insufficient against 4 individuals. Just look at police, dont they typicaly fire more then 7 rds at someone to stop the threat?
This has been out a while and probably referenced here before but very well covers the "Myth of the One Shot Stop".
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2004-pdfs/oct04leb.pdf

A perfect example is the dead marathon bomber. He was wounded at least 7 or 8 times and was still able to charge and attack a police officer at the scene of the shootout.

The only ways I am aware of to "stop" someone immediately with one shot is a well placed shot that severs the spinal cord just below the brain stem or one that penetrates the skull in about a 4 inch circle centered around the eye sockets. Neither of which are easily makeable shots in the heat of a gun fight. I may be forgetting another one but every other wound location, even if eventually fatal, will require some amount of time to end the threat. A shot that impacts and destroys the heart could even leave as much as 30 seconds where the threat could continue to function. 30 seconds in a gun fight can literally be a lifetime.

There really is no minimum number of bullets required to end a threat. In one instance, 1 hit could be sufficient and in another 15 hits may not immediately end the threat.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
2,327
Likes
394
Location
The Black Lodge
They don't care. They don't want anyone to have guns.

One world government is their goal. Everything will look like the Apple Store and taste like tofu.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
513
Likes
73
February 5, 1995, Dianne Feinstein is quoted on 60 minutes stating if she could get the votes she would push for a complete ban on firearms. Make no mistake, it isnt about 7 rounds, her goal is complete disarmament. And, she is not alone.
 

Keeper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
752
Likes
194
Location
North of Boston
Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job

Shootout lasted less than a minute. One assailant, and he was hit 14 times with .45ACP, 6 of which would have EVENTUALLY killed the guy. But, the assailant continued to fight. Until he was hit with multiple head shots. And still lived, only to die in the hospital. Guy was dead sober and all those "kill" shots couldn't stop him immediately.

This is just one, easy-to-find, good examples. Even without examples, there is no argument to be made; you either have a right or you don't. You either shoot those who try to disarm you, or you eat cake with the rest of the proles.
I'm familiar with the article, and it was the only good article I could find. But, no civilian should be chasing bank robbers. I'm entirely opposed to magazine limits, but is there ONE example of a civilian who needed more than eight rounds?

I want to make the best case possible for eliminating magazine limits, but I don't think referencing law enforcement situations is going to do it. The example where the homeowner above didn't have a gun at all doesn't make the case either.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 2, 2013
Messages
251
Likes
69
Location
Central MA
I'm familiar with the article, and it was the only good article I could find. But, no civilian should be chasing bank robbers. I'm entirely opposed to magazine limits, but is there ONE example of a civilian who needed more than eight rounds?

I want to make the best case possible for eliminating magazine limits, but I don't think referencing law enforcement situations is going to do it. The example where the homeowner above didn't have a gun at all doesn't make the case either.
I think this incident is helpful to your argument:

DGUOTD: Atlanta Mother Shoots Burglar Edition | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns

Woman with a six round .38 hits intruder 5 times, he escaped and ended up in the hospital later.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
33,185
Likes
16,310
Location
PREM
I'm familiar with the article, and it was the only good article I could find. But, no civilian should be chasing bank robbers. I'm entirely opposed to magazine limits, but is there ONE example of a civilian who needed more than eight rounds?

I want to make the best case possible for eliminating magazine limits, but I don't think referencing law enforcement situations is going to do it. The example where the homeowner above didn't have a gun at all doesn't make the case either.
Without even trying, here is a case that happened a couple months ago. A woman at home with her children shot an intruder. She ran out of ammunition and bluffed her way out. Thankfully she lived.

Georgia woman shoots intruder 5 times | Amarillo Globe-News

Now I suppose you will conclude that obviously she only needed 5 rounds because thats how many she fired. No. She stopped at 5 rounds because she ran out and got wicked lucky.

The man, IIRC, was healthy enough after five hits to drive away.

She needed enough rounds to stop that aggressor. If he had decided to keep coming after her, SHE and her kids could be dead today.

It really isn't difficult to find similar situations where civilians defend themselves using firearms. You just won't find them in the Boston Globe.
 
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
1,046
Likes
263
I want to make the best case possible for eliminating magazine limits, but I don't think referencing law enforcement situations is going to do it. The example where the homeowner above didn't have a gun at all doesn't make the case either.
Are you aware of the statistics for the average number of shots that someone gets on target during a self defense situation? I think its around 30 percent for people who have been trained such as LEOs, and closer to 20 percent for everyone else. If you've got 10 rounds, thats 2 hits.
 

Keeper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
752
Likes
194
Location
North of Boston
Are you aware of the statistics for the average number of shots that someone gets on target during a self defense situation? I think its around 30 percent for people who have been trained such as LEOs, and closer to 20 percent for everyone else. If you've got 10 rounds, thats 2 hits.
The only "stat" I could find was 2.5 rounds per attacker and that was anecdotal. If you can cite a reference that would be helpful.
 

Keeper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
752
Likes
194
Location
North of Boston
Without even trying, here is a case that happened a couple months ago. A woman at home with her children shot an intruder. She ran out of ammunition and bluffed her way out. Thankfully she lived.

Georgia woman shoots intruder 5 times | Amarillo Globe-News

Now I suppose you will conclude that obviously she only needed 5 rounds because thats how many she fired. No. She stopped at 5 rounds because she ran out and got wicked lucky.

The man, IIRC, was healthy enough after five hits to drive away.

She needed enough rounds to stop that aggressor. If he had decided to keep coming after her, SHE and her kids could be dead today.

It really isn't difficult to find similar situations where civilians defend themselves using firearms. You just won't find them in the Boston Globe.
Actually, it is difficult. That's my point. Hypothetically, she may have needed more rounds, but she didn't.
 
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
1,046
Likes
263
The only "stat" I could find was 2.5 rounds per attacker and that was anecdotal. If you can cite a reference that would be helpful.
Its FBI stats. You can do it. Came up for me within the first few results of the first search I made.

Also, you are the one with the burden of proving why my fundamental right to use the best tool possible for self-defense should be taken from me. So, why don't you start citing reasons for limiting my capacity to 7 rounds.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
974
Likes
128
I'm familiar with the article, and it was the only good article I could find. But, no civilian should be chasing bank robbers. I'm entirely opposed to magazine limits, but is there ONE example of a civilian who needed more than eight rounds?

I want to make the best case possible for eliminating magazine limits, but I don't think referencing law enforcement situations is going to do it. The example where the homeowner above didn't have a gun at all doesn't make the case either.
Wtf ? Are you serious ? Tell you what you carry only eight rounds so you can feel good about yourself and let everybody else make there own decision.

Know your not trying to make the best case possible, your believing their bullshit arguments.
 

Keeper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
752
Likes
194
Location
North of Boston
Its FBI stats. You can do it. Came up for me within the first few results of the first search I made.

Also, you are the one with the burden of proving why my fundamental right to use the best tool possible for self-defense should be taken from me. So, why don't you start citing reasons for limiting my capacity to 7 rounds.
Wtf ? Are you serious ? Tell you what you carry only eight rounds so you can feel good about yourself and let everybody else make there own decision.

Know your not trying to make the best case possible, your believing their bullshit arguments.
You guys are making assumptions. I'm not nor do I need to make any case to have your rights taken away from you. That work is already in progress. 10 in MA. 7 in NY.

Nor, did I find any stat on multiple searches. If you have a link or stats, just do everyone like me a favor and post it.
 

Keeper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
752
Likes
194
Location
North of Boston
Well, police ARE civilians despite what they lead people to believe. They are people with a government job much like the DPW - they just have a different job description. Also, the rest of us civilians who aren't cops don't have to be chasing an armed and dangerous criminal in order to have a deadly encounter with one. Fact is, non-LEOs are usually the first to have an encounter with criminals, where the police are merely the 2nd responders. So, whatever a LEO would need to defend themselves, we would also need - in spades - because the average citizen is more likely to happen upon an armed criminal before the police are.



Any situation that a LEO would face that would require them to legitimately defend themselves is a situation that a non-LEO is more likely to face first. Like I said above, if LEOs are justified in having the SD tools they have, non-LEOs are even more justification.
I agree with the logic, but if it's really true where are the civilian examples illustrating the point.
 
Top Bottom