Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

    According to Boone County, Indiana's Sheriff Ken Campbell:

    Why Do You Need More Than Ten Rounds In A Magazine?

    Civilians defending themselves from a violent attack frequently do so under conditions similar to those experienced by police officers.

    Most US law enforcement agencies have shifted to firearms with larger capacity magazines because:

    75-80 percent of rounds fired by police officers in lethal force encounters miss the intended target.

    Many rounds that do hit the target fail to achieve immediate incapacitation (i.e., the threat continues).


    How Many Rounds Do The Police Need?

    Nationally, 75-80 percent of rounds fired by police officers in lethal force encounters miss their intended target entirely.

    NYPD officers fired 368 rounds in 2010 to stop 24 attackers (a 6.5 percent effective hit rate); in 27 percent of the encounters only one shot was fired.

    However, In one encounter inside an apartment, four officers fired a total of 21 rounds (16 by one officer) and struck the target subject three times (14 percent hit/86 percent miss).

    In August 2010, four officers fired 46 rounds, hitting one subject four times and another 21 times (and three bystanders and one police officer one time each).

    What this means for a civilian...

    If armed with a firearm containing 16 rounds (15+1 in the chamber).

    12-13 rounds may miss the target entirely.

    Of the 3-4 that hit some portion of the attacker's person, none may be effective in stopping the attack immediately.

    Hit's to vital areas may eventually cause the death or incapacitation required, but, it's the effect on the attacker in the first few seconds that determines whether the attack the attack is stopped.

    Numerous law enforcement post-shooting studies have shown that multiple well-placed hits may be required to end an attack.

    So, if attacked while armed with a 10-round handgun, a civilian may miss with all ten rounds or hit with only one or two rounds and be unable to stop the attack in time to avoid death or serious injury.

    And, would magazine restrictions really make us any safer?

    Does it take significantly longer to fire the same number of rounds from smaller capacity magazines?

    Does the need to change magazines sooner in a mass shooting really create opportunities to tackle the shooter?

    See the demo from Boone County Indiana's Sheriff Ken Campbell:

    http://www.nranews.com/resources/vid...res-around-u-s

    Conclusion:

    The proposed restrictions on magazines do not pass the common sense test.

    The magazine restrictions don't create realistic opportunities to tackle active shooters during reloads.

    The magazine restrictions do make it harder for civilians to defend themselves from violent criminal attacks.

    And there are already millions of high capacity magazines out there.
    JER 14:13 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them: Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.'
    JER 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke I unto them; they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.

  • #2
    Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

    I don’t know; while I agree the restriction to magazine capacity is useless since the only ones who would abide by that restriction are law abiding citizens while criminals would go to even larger ones because of a perceived advantage it would give them.

    This article speaks very loudly (in my opinion) to the point that perhaps officers need to spend a bit more time on the firing range.
    Originally posted by dan View Post
    Most US law enforcement agencies have shifted to firearms with larger capacity magazines because:
    75-80 percent of rounds fired by police officers in lethal force encounters miss the intended target.
    Nationally, 75-80 percent of rounds fired by police officers in lethal force encounters miss their intended target entirely.
    However, In one encounter inside an apartment, four officers fired a total of 21 rounds (16 by one officer) and struck the target subject three times (14 percent hit/86 percent miss).
    In August 2010, four officers fired 46 rounds, hitting one subject four times and another 21 times (and three bystanders and one police officer one time each).
    These statics are disturbing and indicate that if I have an intruder in my house and the police arrive to take care of the situation I am as much in danger of being shot by them as I am by the intruder. I realize there are budget issues, not only in the base amount but also how it is allocated. But the risk to themselves and bystanders with so many rounds missing the intended target I think justifies moving more money into more or better training in this area.

    Originally posted by dan View Post
    What this means for a civilian...
    This is only assuming that a civilian does know how to handle a firearm any better than the officers. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that if the civilian is going to purchase a firearm, he or she will take some time to learn how to use it effectively. But then there are plenty of people who probably assume a firearm is more like a point and shoot camera and if pointed in the general direction it will hit what you “want” it to hit.

    Background checks I agree with but I think is that in addition if you buy a fire arm it is mandatory you not only pass a firearm safety course (already mandatory I think) but spend a min number of hours at a shooting range firing a min number or rounds in order to gain a certain predetermined level of proficiency with its use. I don’t want to stop people from buying guns but if they do they need to be held accountable to learn how to use it.
    "He's wild, you know. Not like a tame lion."
    C.S. Lewis, "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe."

    "Oh, but sometimes the sun stays hidden for years"
    "Sometimes the sky rains night after night, When will it clear?"

    "But our Hope endures the worst of conditions"
    "It's more than our optimism, Let the earth quake"
    "Our Hope is unchanged"
    "Our Hope Endures" Natalie Grant

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

      If you make guns or high capacity magazines illegal, the only people with them will be the hoods, crooks, murderers and criminals.

      Dravenhawk
      Will you choose your own path or will you have it chosen for you?

      A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the people than a standing army -- Thomas Jefferson.

      When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic -- Benjamin Franklin.

      "Re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again" -- Unknown author. -- >> Psa. 109:8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

        Originally posted by Old man View Post
        I don’t know; while I agree the restriction to magazine capacity is useless since the only ones who would abide by that restriction are law abiding citizens while criminals would go to even larger ones because of a perceived advantage it would give them.
        Touche'.

        Originally posted by Old man View Post
        This article speaks very loudly (in my opinion) to the point that perhaps officers need to spend a bit more time on the firing range.
        Interesting observation, but, some cities won't allow that for fear of the police becoming too good at shooting.

        Some cities, I've been told, like Columbus, Georgia, for example, have a required ratio of 'gun nuts' to officers that have no interest in shooting. One to ten, in the case of Columbus.

        Other cities, like LA, found that officers, 'didn't expect to fire their weapon', on duty and many refrained from it even in a gunfight, I am told. To combat this, every officer now fires his weapon through two magazines before every shift. Their hit ratio is, now, over seventy percent, I'm told.

        Originally posted by Old man View Post
        These statics are disturbing and indicate that if I have an intruder in my house and the police arrive to take care of the situation I am as much in danger of being shot by them as I am by the intruder. I realize there are budget issues, not only in the base amount but also how it is allocated. But the risk to themselves and bystanders with so many rounds missing the intended target I think justifies moving more money into more or better training in this area.
        That is why most gun savvy types solve the problem before calling 911, but, in those types of situations, the bad guy isn't giving you a choice either.

        For 1996, I believe it was, a police administrator released some statistics that aren't often heard. He claimed that, for the whole country, civilians had killed the wrong man in shootouts 33 times for that year, and that police had done it 331 times in the same year.

        Originally posted by Old man View Post
        This is only assuming that a civilian does know how to handle a firearm any better than the officers. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that if the civilian is going to purchase a firearm, he or she will take some time to learn how to use it effectively. But then there are plenty of people who probably assume a firearm is more like a point and shoot camera and if pointed in the general direction it will hit what you “want” it to hit.
        Civilian hit probability is over 75 percent, last I heard. But, it appears that civilians have at least two advantages:

        Those that carry CARE about their abilities, and, the bad guy's identity is obvious to them.

        Originally posted by Old man View Post
        Background checks I agree with but I think is that in addition if you buy a fire arm it is mandatory you not only pass a firearm safety course (already mandatory I think) but spend a min number of hours at a shooting range firing a min number or rounds in order to gain a certain predetermined level of proficiency with its use. I don’t want to stop people from buying guns but if they do they need to be held accountable to learn how to use it.
        Criminals have been using phony ID to buy guns for years. The criminal element steals ID's, or, uses real names and stats to buy real ID for this very purpose.

        Training has, so far, proven itself to be, mostly irrelevant.

        But, in some cases, God has obviously been watching over some of these people.

        Perhaps you noticed that George Zimmerman WAS held accountable TWICE in a case that never should have generated a second review.
        JER 14:13 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them: Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.'
        JER 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke I unto them; they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

          Originally posted by dan View Post
          According to Boone County, Indiana's Sheriff Ken Campbell:

          Why Do You Need More Than Ten Rounds In A Magazine?

          Civilians defending themselves from a violent attack frequently do so under conditions similar to those experienced by police officers.

          Most US law enforcement agencies have shifted to firearms with larger capacity magazines because:

          75-80 percent of rounds fired by police officers in lethal force encounters miss the intended target.

          Many rounds that do hit the target fail to achieve immediate incapacitation (i.e., the threat continues).


          How Many Rounds Do The Police Need?

          Nationally, 75-80 percent of rounds fired by police officers in lethal force encounters miss their intended target entirely.

          NYPD officers fired 368 rounds in 2010 to stop 24 attackers (a 6.5 percent effective hit rate); in 27 percent of the encounters only one shot was fired.

          However, In one encounter inside an apartment, four officers fired a total of 21 rounds (16 by one officer) and struck the target subject three times (14 percent hit/86 percent miss).

          In August 2010, four officers fired 46 rounds, hitting one subject four times and another 21 times (and three bystanders and one police officer one time each).

          What this means for a civilian...

          If armed with a firearm containing 16 rounds (15+1 in the chamber).

          12-13 rounds may miss the target entirely.

          Of the 3-4 that hit some portion of the attacker's person, none may be effective in stopping the attack immediately.

          Hit's to vital areas may eventually cause the death or incapacitation required, but, it's the effect on the attacker in the first few seconds that determines whether the attack the attack is stopped.

          Numerous law enforcement post-shooting studies have shown that multiple well-placed hits may be required to end an attack.

          So, if attacked while armed with a 10-round handgun, a civilian may miss with all ten rounds or hit with only one or two rounds and be unable to stop the attack in time to avoid death or serious injury.

          And, would magazine restrictions really make us any safer?

          Does it take significantly longer to fire the same number of rounds from smaller capacity magazines?

          Does the need to change magazines sooner in a mass shooting really create opportunities to tackle the shooter?

          See the demo from Boone County Indiana's Sheriff Ken Campbell:

          http://www.nranews.com/resources/vid...res-around-u-s

          Conclusion:

          The proposed restrictions on magazines do not pass the common sense test.

          The magazine restrictions don't create realistic opportunities to tackle active shooters during reloads.

          The magazine restrictions do make it harder for civilians to defend themselves from violent criminal attacks.

          And there are already millions of high capacity magazines out there.
          Need is not relevant in this discussion. The Second Ammendment plainly gives us the right to have military weapons. We should not settle for anything less.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

            Originally posted by Reynolds357 View Post
            Need is not relevant in this discussion. The Second Ammendment plainly gives us the right to have military weapons. We should not settle for anything less.
            True!

            But I have a need, sometimes, to rebuke incorrect arguments.
            JER 14:13 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them: Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.'
            JER 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke I unto them; they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

              Originally posted by dan View Post
              True!

              But I have a need, sometimes, to rebuke incorrect arguments.
              If you are saying you are rebuking Reynolds argument that need is irrelevant in this discussion. The Second Amendment was indeed designed to keep government honest by insuring the citizenry was armed on par with any military of the day. So it goes without saying that any kind of military hardware the Army, Navy, Air force or Marines use should be available to the citizens as well.

              Reynolds statement is in no need of rebuking.


              Dravenhawk
              Will you choose your own path or will you have it chosen for you?

              A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the people than a standing army -- Thomas Jefferson.

              When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic -- Benjamin Franklin.

              "Re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again" -- Unknown author. -- >> Psa. 109:8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

                Originally posted by Dravenhawk View Post
                If you make guns or high capacity magazines illegal, the only people with them will be the hoods, crooks, murderers and criminals.

                Dravenhawk
                ITA. And if guns were totally deleted from our citizens, bad folk would find other ways to murder--even a spike heel will kill.
                Here for a season, then above.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

                  Originally posted by cindyt View Post
                  ITA. And if guns were totally deleted from our citizens, bad folk would find other ways to murder--even a spike heel will kill.
                  What you illustrate here is mans default condition to always do evil. "the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth" see Genesis 8:21 for more details.

                  Dravenhawk
                  Will you choose your own path or will you have it chosen for you?

                  A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the people than a standing army -- Thomas Jefferson.

                  When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic -- Benjamin Franklin.

                  "Re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again" -- Unknown author. -- >> Psa. 109:8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

                    First, all restrictions or attempted restrictions by liberals in government makes perfect sense when viewed from the proper perspective. That perspective is this: they want absolute control over the citizenry and the constitution, personal freedom and liberty and rights mean nothing to them.

                    Now I'm not saying this because of my feelings towards these liberals but because I truly believe what I am saying to be true. And every now and again one of them will open their mouth and say something to prove what I believe to be true.

                    Until they find that certain something to enable them in one fell swoop to disarm the citizenry all at once, they will chip away at it until they get it anyway - eventually. It is in their nature and they cannot do anything else. It is also my believe that if we lose our second amendment right, then we will in very short order lose the rest.

                    Of course to many, some on this board, I am merely being foolish and silly. Sure I am, but I suppose to those paying attention, when the likes of bloomburg want to tell you what size pop you can buy, well, think about it and get a clue.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

                      Originally posted by Dravenhawk View Post
                      If you are saying you are rebuking Reynolds argument that need is irrelevant in this discussion. The Second Amendment was indeed designed to keep government honest by insuring the citizenry was armed on par with any military of the day. So it goes without saying that any kind of military hardware the Army, Navy, Air force or Marines use should be available to the citizens as well.

                      Reynolds statement is in no need of rebuking.

                      Dravenhawk
                      I never said I was rebuking Reynolds. I meant the whole high capacity mag argument.
                      JER 14:13 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them: Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.'
                      JER 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke I unto them; they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

                        Originally posted by dan View Post
                        True!

                        But I have a need, sometimes, to rebuke incorrect arguments.
                        We should never let the anti gun crowd paint us into a "needs based box." Our reason for owning arms is the Second Amendment gives us the right to own them. We will always lose the needs based argument in the long run.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

                          Originally posted by Reynolds357 View Post
                          We should never let the anti gun crowd paint us into a "needs based box." Our reason for owning arms is the Second Amendment gives us the right to own them. We will always lose the needs based argument in the long run.
                          I will, still, expose the weaknesses whenever I can.

                          We can't lose, just because of the Constitution.

                          But it never hurts to show how weak their argument is on it's own merits.

                          Besides, if you can't get a bunch of soldiers to attack the man that's shooting at them, what are the chances?
                          JER 14:13 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them: Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.'
                          JER 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke I unto them; they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

                            "I'm not going to shoot this person, my magazine only holds 15 rounds. "

                            Said nobody, ever.

                            That's not liberal, that's just illogical!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Why Magazine Restrictions Can't Work To Reduce Violence

                              Originally posted by A Seeker View Post
                              "I'm not going to shoot this person, my magazine only holds 15 rounds. "

                              Said nobody, ever.

                              That's not liberal, that's just illogical!
                              We should let people have chain guns because ammunition has nothing to do with people getting shot and the 2nd Amendment says we can have chain guns!
                              我们有这盼望,就像灵魂的锚,又稳当又坚固,通过幔子直进到里面。
                              This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and reliable...
                              (Hebrews 6:19 CNV / NASB)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X