It might take 2 or 3 rounds to stop each attacker.
Let me get out my calculator....
4 people assault homeowner during invasion | ksl.com
Let me get out my calculator....
4 people assault homeowner during invasion | ksl.com
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Without good examples of where 8 rounds was insufficient, it's a difficult argument.
Without good examples of where 8 rounds was insufficient, it's a difficult argument.
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?"
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?
Excuse me sir, do you have time to learn about the Kingdom of Heaven?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.