Tweet
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.
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.
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. 
Comment