The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 19, 2013, 07:17 AM   #26
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 854
Read what you will, believe what you want

Such an eye opener, Mr. Ayoob/Russian Reporter, and the all and sundry posters.

We carry a pistol, here in Florida, because we can.

The reality of the use of a carry pistol to fight for your life, defend your Wife, etc.
You carry what you can carry every day, so it must be light, lots of effective cartridges, be accurate (good night sights) reliable!

After a lifetime of study of fights with weapons, and being involved with more than enough violent confrontations, any less than 16 rounds of effective 9mm cartridges, is silly.

(reference .38/.40/.45 ACP instead of 9mm, fill your boots)

Why 16 rounds? I think the Glock 19, is the best CCW fighting pistol in the World! So that is what I carry. You? carry what you want.

No one can show me, and it is me communicating here, that flooding an aggressor with these wimpy pistol rounds, all of them, 9/40/45 is not a great idea!

To shoot a lot, you need a lot to start with.
Brit is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 07:24 AM   #27
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
It never hurts to demonstrate to a person that one of their preconceived notions is badly in error. If that person is at all disposed to rational thought, such a demonstration will force them to acknowledge that there is a possibility that their other preconceptions may also be wrong.
Excellent point.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 07:33 AM   #28
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,005
David Kopel addressed the issue of magazine capacity in this youtube interview: The Second Amendment in 2013 (David B. Kopel) .
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995
Bud Helms is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 01:07 PM   #29
LRChops
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2013
Location: Placer County
Posts: 125
IT IS SIMPLE, we need high cap mags and ammo because we are subject to the same dangers as cops and the military. Terrorism, criminal element, civil unrest, and the right to protect our families!

Don't live in denial!
__________________
May God make smooth the path you follow!
LRChops is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 02:57 PM   #30
223 shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 391
Quote:
5 guys kicked their way through my front door one morning
If they had been determined to hurt us, I would have wanted far more than 10 rounds to deal with the threat of 5 people.
Totally agree. This same scenario occured at my sister's last year with the exception that the 5 were right where they intended to be. Her husband was held at gunpoint and her 19 year old son was nearly beaten to death.

After a home invasion like this it sickens me that some politicians have the gall to harass law abiding gunowners on the number of rounds their guns should hold.

There are situations where a 16 round pistol or 20 round rifle are nice to have on hand as opposed to something like a 5 shot J-frame.
223 shooter is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 05:48 PM   #31
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 1,977
I think the poster before who suggested avoiding the argument of needs said it best. I think the best way to accentuate that is to go down the car, or food route.

Meaning....why do you need all this food?
To feed my family.
Do you need this much?
Uh yea.
Why?
Because we would lose weight.
Could you live at a lower weight?
Yes.
So you need less food. Let me have this food. (Pick out steaks and beer)
No, I bought it...I need it.
No, you need some food.
Maybe you could give your entire food budget to the government and they give you back something with nutritional value in the amount they determine you need.
How is this related to 30 round mags?
Guns, yes the entire gun, including mags, ammo, sling, etc are all protected rights by the second amendment. Food, especially the good food is an unprotected product that you have NO fundamental right to. If we accept removal of rights, how do we protect ourselves from a government who might try to manipulate us with food.
You're nuts!
Point out a dictatorship who's dictator is full after each of his 3 squares, but many of his people starve to death. Really, you can point to most countries on the globe. You could point to the USA. Diverting corn to fuel makes people not afford food in the USA everyday.

Most likely you will be done.

If not, point out how the New York law prevents police from having more than 7rds. The police are going nuts and the governor is making laws with his mouth to make 30 rd mags ok for police....hmm wish he support his constituents like that. Wonder why the police and his security team need 30 rnd mags?
Nathan is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 12:27 AM   #32
kjm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: College Station, Texas
Posts: 1,871
When I went to PLDC (sergeant school in the Army) way back when, I found it interesting that they teach that after a firefight, you check your men and yourself for "leaks", because men are often shot and don't know it. In fact, do a search for Medal of Honor narratives and you'll find hundreds of men who were grievously wounded, shot many times, yet survived to defend their buddies or take down that machine gun nest. Roy Benevidez looked like a postage stamp after being perforated so many times yet rescued many men and documents. It is a Hollywood myth that people just fall down after being shot. It just don't happen like that.
__________________
COME AND TAKE IT!!!
kjm is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 06:41 AM   #33
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 854
Welcome back KJM,

So true, the human body can take so much more punishment, and still carry on, it is in our nature.

The brain is a wonderful organ, and with the right motivation can push us on, to unbelievable heights.

My Glock 19, with 16 rounds is more of a comfort than a pistol with less!
Brit is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 07:05 AM   #34
shafter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2009
Posts: 1,119
I think it's a mistake to try to argue based on what we "need". In all likelihood none of us will ever "need" a firearm that fires more than 10 rounds. The point here is that whether we need them or not the 2nd Amendment makes no stipulation on what citizens may own or not own.

If you stick up for me and my single action revolvers and lever action rifles Ill stick up for your Glocks and AR's.
shafter is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 07:31 AM   #35
chucknbach
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2011
Location: Gillette, WY
Posts: 135
All you have to do is ask the Koreans that defended their businesses with assault weapons during the LA riots if they would have rather had 10 round mags.

What happens when you have to defend against an angry mob?
chucknbach is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 09:13 AM   #36
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
Once you begin trying to justify "need" you have lost the argument.
The only "need" for certain firearms is to be able to protect ourselves from a well equiped government gone bad. That is also the basis of the 2ndA.
We have the right to own, keep and bear these firearms and items. Your desire to have them is the only justification required.
Rifleman1776 is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 09:32 AM   #37
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 638
I think that if it happened that a licensed concealed carry owner was killed during a robbery or other assault after emptying his gun, the media would make a big deal out of it to "prove" that concealed carry by citizens was not the answer to crime. That said, I cannot recall ever reading/hearing about such a scenario in the real world. Even today many folks, including off-duty LEO's carry j-frame snub nose revolvers with only 5 rounds. I have nothing against large capacity magazines, but personally I feel pretty safe if I am carrying a small semi with 6 to 8 rounds or my j-frame with 5. On the other hand, I know of at least one person in my pistol club who routinely carried 3 handguns plus several extra magazines when he carries. Maybe he envisions the possibility of being attacked by an entire gang of criminals. If you like larger capacity mags, fine, but you probably won't convince anyone that you "need" them.
vito is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 09:51 AM   #38
tirod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,207
Playing into justifying "hi cap" mags is the point - a 30 rounder is standard. Ten is a low capacity hunting magazine.

Capacity isn't a real issue anyway - one of the Columbine shooters had a weapon with 17 TEN round magazines, and it didn't seem to impede him any. The Newton shooter changed mags repeatedly, leaving partially filled ones scattered thru out the building.

If someone asks why I need a "hi cap" mag, I'm now likely to ask why they need a 24 pack of beer, or a carton of cigarettes, or more than ten gallons of gas.

The concept of magazine capacity is a deliberate ploy to suck you into bargaining about what you can get by with - any limitation is exactly that, and a victory for them.
tirod is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 11:19 AM   #39
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
I'll go back to my dog example.

Dogs maim and kill mostly young children. To the tune of millions a year in liabilities. (Lots of trial lawyer links with google for stats.)

But young children die, so why do you need dog.

Oh, but my dog is different, you say. Well, owning a dog contributes to the dog culture. By merely owning a dog you make it easier for irresponsible dog owners to leave loaded dogs near children.

So by banning dogs we can save lives and millions p dollars worth of years destruction.

Police and military could still have dogs. They're trained to handle dogs.

But you're little FiFi is a menace to society and needs to be put down.

Sorry. It's for the children.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 01:59 PM   #40
chucknbach
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2011
Location: Gillette, WY
Posts: 135
Quote:
Once you begin trying to justify "need" you have lost the argument.
You are right but keep in mind we are dealing with people who couldn't care less about the 2nd amend, some gun owners included. Beat them on 2 fronts I say.


Quote:
It's for the children
LOL. I've been using this quote for everything lately.


Vito, you can not predict the future. Government collapse, economic collapse, nuclear terrorism strike, natural disaster, UN take over, another world war. Will any of these things happen tommorrow? Don't know, probably not. In 50, 100 years. We do not know but lets give our children a fighting chance. It's for the children!

Last edited by chucknbach; January 21, 2013 at 02:09 PM.
chucknbach is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 04:05 PM   #41
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucknbach View Post
..but lets give our children a fighting chance. It's for the children!
I've used this reasoning on a few people, and boy does it get some stern reaction. Which I like.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 05:29 PM   #42
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,452
I've come to realize that in attempting to "justify" my need for anything, I've generally lost an argument.

I stick to the old stand by of
"I am a free American citizen and can own whatever the hell I feel like so long as my budget and current law allows."

But to the above, I can atest to not realizing you are hit until much later.

It took Doc pointing out to me that I was bleeding and I had a shredded knee pad before I realized my knee was hit. I thought I just banged it getting out of the Humvee.

But regardless of combat effectiveness, my right to own what I want to is not subject to the whims of the Brady Campaign, Piers Morgan, or MSNBC nor thier loyal subjects.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 09:56 PM   #43
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 854
Working at the Cavern Club of Beatles fame (1960 till 1964) one Rather hectic night, some older customers were let in, newer staff.

Fight started, I got what I thought was a punch in the back, carried on fighting.

Threw the offenders out in the street, myself and another older person (almost thirty!) resumed our stint on the street entrance.

My partner on the door said, "What's that on your back?" the whole of my shirt was dark, the lights made it look black.

When I started going weak, off to the Emerg. Small wound, to the left of my right kidney!

Dr. said "Inch to the right, you could have had in a big problem"

I got stabbed twice in those 4 years.
Brit is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 09:32 PM   #44
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 984
Unfortunately, I'd have to say that this argument could be equally effective to gun control advocates in swaying people toward their ideals. For instance, we say that 5 extra rounds doubles our chances of successful self defense, but someone like Piers Morgan may say that 5 less rounds would reduce victims of gun violence by 50%. This isn't to say that I don't agree with the OP's statistically sound basis for contradicting the round limitation argument, but I just wanted to point out that this could be swung both ways. I know that I would feel much safer with as many rounds as I could reasonably have in a magazine than naively hoping that criminals actually have only 10 rounds in their magazines.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 09:48 PM   #45
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,420
Quote:
...someone like Piers Morgan may say that 5 less rounds would reduce victims of gun violence by 50%.
They could, but they would be hard pressed to back it up with facts.

In an offensive situation, at least to some extent, the shooter can plan his reloads as Cho did in his shooting at VA Tech. He would go to the door of a classroom and shoot from the door until his gun ran dry. Then he would withdraw to reload, backing up his empty gun with a second one that was loaded in case anyone tried to exit the room. When reloaded, he would resume.

In a defensive encounter, one doesn't have quite the same luxury because it's not generally possible to withdraw to safety to reload--especially with multiple armed attackers.

Cho, killed more college students using only 10 round mags than Lanza was able to kill elementary students using full-capacity magazines.

Anyway, the point wasn't that the calculation results would end the debate once and for all, the point was to provide a reasoned response when people ask the question about why a law-abiding person could possibly need more than 10 rounds.

The argument will never be cosed because it's not always about the facts. Still, it never hurts to be able to provide a sound response when a question is asked by the opposition.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 09:56 PM   #46
Ralgha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHE3PDOG View Post
Unfortunately, I'd have to say that this argument could be equally effective to gun control advocates in swaying people toward their ideals. For instance, we say that 5 extra rounds doubles our chances of successful self defense, but someone like Piers Morgan may say that 5 less rounds would reduce victims of gun violence by 50%. This isn't to say that I don't agree with the OP's statistically sound basis for contradicting the round limitation argument, but I just wanted to point out that this could be swung both ways. I know that I would feel much safer with as many rounds as I could reasonably have in a magazine than naively hoping that criminals actually have only 10 rounds in their magazines.
Except that criminals don't care about magazine limits and would have 30 round mags if they wanted them regardless of what the law said.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.
Ralgha is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 11:10 PM   #47
chucknbach
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2011
Location: Gillette, WY
Posts: 135
Quote:
Unfortunately, I'd have to say that this argument could be equally effective to gun control advocates in swaying people toward their ideals. For instance, we say that 5 extra rounds doubles our chances of successful self defense, but someone like Piers Morgan may say that 5 less rounds would reduce victims of gun violence by 50%. This isn't to say that I don't agree with the OP's statistically sound basis for contradicting the round limitation argument, but I just wanted to point out that this could be swung both ways. I know that I would feel much safer with as many rounds as I could reasonably have in a magazine than naively hoping that criminals actually have only 10 rounds in their magazines.

You took to long to say they don't listen to reason and are completely ignorant.
chucknbach is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 11:42 PM   #48
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 984
John, that is a pretty good point. I'm not really sure how well you could convince gun control proponents of that concept, but that seems like solid logic which, as Chuck pointed out, most gun control advocates don't really understand; they would rather hear ill-conceived emotional outbursts. I'm sure that for every argument we can think of, regardless of how soundly lodged in statistics or facts it is, there is an opposing one built upon misconceptions.

As previously stated, I'm not for this kind of illogical thinking (gun control); I'm just trying to think about it from both angles to look for holes that can be exploited with undesirable results. I know I don't want to lose my current or potential future firearms because of the bad deeds of a few evil or insane men.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 12:05 AM   #49
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,420
Quote:
I'm not really sure how well you could convince gun control proponents of that concept...
Those who have made up their minds can not be convinced. But there are many who have not made up their minds.

The information in the first post can be used to:

1. Silence those who are only parrotting a question they've heard others ask and who are expecting to get no response.

2. Convince those who haven't made up their mind.

3. Demonstrate that there is a rational reason based on realistic situations for having more than 10 rounds.

As I said before, this won't end the debate, and that's not why I posted it. I posted it because it's always better to be able to answer a question intelligently than to respond with silence and a blank look.

There is no magic bullet and no magic shield. Just as in the world of weapons and countermeasures, when someone develops a weapon, a countermeasure to defend against it usually isn't too far behind and a new weapon that defeats that countermeasure will be on the horizon. But that doesn't mean it's pointless to develop countermeasures--in fact it's critical to do so.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 12:11 AM   #50
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 984
Agreed, on all accounts. I had not really thought of the "parroting" bit, but that is very true. Someone who is just spouting off information that they have memorized without their own introspection into how they really feel about the issue may very well be offset by statements like this, and that is a good thing for us.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13901 seconds with 9 queries