why you need semi-auto and large capacity mags

[Mystic]

Several years ago they did limit magazine capacity in semi-autos to 10 rounds (except military and police). If I can have only ten rounds in a semi-auto I would prefer either a revolver like a .357 magnum or else a 1911 .45.

Actually I would not mind having both in addition to my 9 mm.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: Rock_Hudstone
In this case it seems a good old fashioned revolver did the job just fine, all the comments to the contrary not withstanding.

However, I disagree with suggestions the intruder should have been killed, justified self defense should be in proportion to the threat.

Apparently this guy was merely a common burgular who got nasty surprize, otherwise he wouldn't have rang the bell first.


An intruder, any intruder should not arbitrarily be killed. He/she should be stopped if warranted. If they die, then it is what is.

In this case the revolver did do the job of stopping the threat, but lets net wave flags of victory, proclaiming that revolvers are more than adequate. Just because this guy had no more will to keep going, doesn't mean that he couldn't. Remember that he did in fact get back up, leave the house and drive off AFTER being shot in the face, neck, stomach, lung and liver. If he could do that, then he could have easily pursued the attack given the right opportunity.

Now, since the woman had expended all rounds in her revolver (5 or 6), she would have been less able to defend against another attack. If he had been armed with any sort of a weapon and possessed the will, that situation could have gone entirely and terribly different.

What if there had been two intruders? Then what?

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Donald
She used the wrong gun. A 410 shotgun would have been better. The police get about 25% of their bullets on target so imagine the % for a homeowner with a rifle or pistol.


I don't doubt the difficulty, though I hope to never have to try in a real situation.

But it's funny that we must show proficiency of operating a motor vehicle under certain at least somewhat challenging scenarios and conditions that are death of you screw up, yet nobody has to show any proficiency with a firearm.

And it's also funny that the same folks that complain about heavy, tech filled cars which are designed to assure safety of incompetent drivers will demand 15+ shot capacity to protect the self.

Few, if any on here would be targets for real, professional crime, and if you have the means, you likely can afford better security than demanding a 30 round rifle for protection.


JHZR2, you seem to want to play the odds all the time, saying that it's unlikely that a person will be attacked by a "mob" or multiple persons... But are you really going to gamble your own life, and the lives of your family on those odds. Multiple attackers do exist. All it takes is 1 time being wrong. I'd much rather have 15, 20, or 30 rounds to face 3 attackers in an home invasion (3 attackers in a home invasion? Yes, it has happened), than 5 or 10.

If you open the door, everyone with a beef, opposing opinion or some skewed sense of morality will come charging though. 30 will be 15, will be 10, will be 5 or 6. Why do you think that so many cite "The slippery slope"?

 

[Fleetmon]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
I just love the way a lot of people talk about the killing power of firearms and/or they should have shot them in the head, etc, etc, etc.

The primary purpose of a self-defense firearm is to STOP the intended attack, not necessarily to kill. Same with the military.....you STOP the advance. Besides, a wounded soldier is more of a burden than killing them outright.

IMO, her shooting did EXACTLY what it was intended to do, it STOPPED Slater's advance and made the little wimp run away. It IS a shame he didn't die and surely he and his family will sue this woman for all she's worth but a career criminal such as Slater will not stop at this, will acquire a larger, more lethal firearm for his next criminal venture because of what he "wins" via lawsuit and will ONLY be stopped permanently by someone else that may be a better shot and/or handles a very stressful situation more calmly....something most of us cannot do:

I am fortunate to have passed the background investigation (and I can guarantee the FBI could tell you the color of my poop in my first diaper) and have the means to afford to own and shoot full-auto firearms but those firearms would be the LAST choice for self-protection. Attorneys would have a field day with me for the use of a full-auto to stop a criminal. To me, a .50 BMG is not near large enough to deal with a criminal but 20mm's are too expensive to waste on a POS and they are difficult to handle in the close confines of a house/auto. So, I settle on what I can comfortably carry on any given day, be it a 380, 9mm, or. 45acp.


A very reasonable and practical response.


JHZR2 - please do not respond to any of my posts....I do not care to hear what anti-gunners like or dislike concerning anything I type. Don't need it and don't want it.

Also, you indicate you are building an AR-15 lower.....how many rounds will YOUR magazines hold?? Without pictures of your "lower" then it ain't real.....probably just like you. You walk the streets in NJ and feel safe??? Your time is coming ....it's not a matter of "if" but rather, "when".

 

[Fleetmon]

"After all they are criminals and will do whatever they can to steal from you and take your life."

I think you contradicted yourself JHZR2....re-read some of your earlier posts....

Please don't get me wrong...I have zero issues with you personally but I also think you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Let me guess....you're a politician aren't you? Or better yet, you went to school to be an attorney?

 

[Fleetmon]

My wife just reminded me I need a muzzle to keep my mouth shut.....consider me shutted upped.

My apologies for the attack on JHZR2.



Note: I hope this black eye heals soon....that woman has a mean left hook!

 

[JHZR2]

Whether you believe I own what I do, which I will not define on an open public forum, is of no consequence to me. I am neither a politician, attorney or any such thing, but I choose not to live in the fear of a boogeyman coming to get me.

What you perceive as conflicting statements is likely part of the discussion of sarcastically discussing the 150 million or so criminals that are lurking in the shadows.

My time is coming? LOL. Yours is too. Living is dangerous and there are far greater chances of death and injury than theft and criminals. Im not downplaying the danger of the criminal element, nor am I downplaying the importance of allowing the population to own firearms, etc.

But go back to my basic premise - a .223 isnt a useful weapon for home defense or personal carry protection... and that there are very few engagements where large capacity (>15 rounds per the laws where I live) are necessary. I posted the FBI data for shots fired from the FBI. At least I provided something rather than speculation on the boogeyman with a machine gun.

If I cant safely survive in the USA without a semi-auto gun and extra ammunition on my person at all times, then the USA has devolved to be El Salvidor, and that is sad on so many levels...

But again, my main disgust is the incompetence on part of a huge number of gun owners that 200k guns are stolen each year. This fuels the criminal element that everyone is so scared of. "Need" 30 rounds or more? Then when the criminals and crazies get them, because the gun owners have indicated their incompetence as validated by the FBI stats, then they have even more firepower to use in drive by shootings and school massacres. These things are all about how much effect you can deliver in as short a time as possible, and reloading slows down that delivery.

But until some personal responsibility is shown and the stats change, nobody can deny there is a problem. Unfortunately again this irresponsibility is driving the criminal element, and giving the anti gun folks, of whom I am not one, more basis on which to remove all of our rights...

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


But go back to my basic premise - a .223 isnt a useful weapon for home defense or personal carry protection... and that there are very few engagements where large capacity (>15 rounds per the laws where I live) are necessary. I posted the FBI data for shots fired from the FBI. At least I provided something rather than speculation on the boogeyman with a machine gun.

If I cant safely survive in the USA without a semi-auto gun and extra ammunition on my person at all times, then the USA has devolved to be El Salvidor, and that is sad on so many levels...

But again, my main disgust is the incompetence on part of a huge number of gun owners that 200k guns are stolen each year. This fuels the criminal element that everyone is so scared of. "Need" 30 rounds or more? Then when the criminals and crazies get them, because the gun owners have indicated their incompetence as validated by the FBI stats, then they have even more firepower to use..


Hogwash. This type of thinking illustrates why I will not have someone else tell me what to do. The fact that you cannot foresee a use for the 223 does not mean its not an incredibly useful weapon.

What about self defense during a riot? For gods sake, an unarmed mob is stunningly dangerous.

I was in a riot in Jakarta Indonesia. They tried to overturn our taxicab. Our only recourse was to attempt to run over rioters. We narrowly escaped. Thanks to our driver. Others were not so lucky.

Wha

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: DB_Cooper
a 223 would not be the best home defense weapon.. because if they're at 10 feet, they're probably closing the gap... the handgun goes anywhere my hand goes... not so for the rifle.

A pistol is like a close quarters fighting tool. A rifle..it keeps the perp away/down at long range.

In a closet when the door is opened and a intruder standing there with a crowbar..well anything is better than nothing..a pistol..perfect.

Yeah, that's why you see SWAT teams with pistols as the primary....

Most entry teams are going away from the 9mm submachine gun and going to the 5.56.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Cujet


Hogwash. This type of thinking illustrates why I will not have someone else tell me what to do. The fact that you cannot foresee a use for the 223 does not mean its not an incredibly useful weapon.


Where did I say it wasnt useful? I didnt. Its amazing that we have to keep drumming up more and more dire, improbable circumstances to justify ownership of something.

So presumably you carry a rifle over your shoulder in any circumstance you can? After all, you may happen upon a riot or a band of blood thirsty criminals around any corner.

And how many rounds do you carry when you go jogging?

Riots? Seriously?

Indonesia? LOL. If the USA becomes Indonesia, Im gone.

Where were the widespread riots during Hurricane Sandy? My parents are surrounded by Manhattan, Passaic, Patterson, Jersey City, Newark, etc. Somehow there were no angry, machine-gun armed mobs cruising the streets. Go figure.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Riots? Seriously?

Ask the Korean store owners in the LA riots what they have to say....

And no, it's not practical to carry an AR on you shoulder down the street, but police carry them in their car and if they see a need, I don't see why a citizen should be any different.

 

[jjjxlr8]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
...
DC V. Heller verified that firearms for self defense is a valid use given that the words that many forget is the well regulated militia part... With that, I highly doubt that any semi-auto handguns would be banned. >15 round magazines perhaps. Because when the criminals and crazies steal them from the gun owners, then they can unload many more rounds on the public and kill more people in one nonstop firing without changing out or reloading... Which is where the fear that some people have...


Two things:

1) The limit that the gun grabbers want(for now) is 10 round magazines.
2) Criminals that want to kill lots of people go to "gun free" zones where they have plenty of time to reload. They will not be restricted by magazine capacity, anyway, since, they are CRIMINALS.

 

[JHZR2]

I don't deny that. But tell me where the criminals are getting their guns and high capacity mags?

 

[supton]

Where do drunks get their cars from? Where do unlicensed drivers get their cars from? What about people who steal cars for joyrides or to send to a chop shop? Where did those cars come from? Aggressive drivers? Slowpokes?

We must have reasonable limits on car ownership! And those who already own clearly must use more devices to secure the vehicle for the public good. Clearly that is required.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I don't deny that. But tell me where the criminals are getting their guns and high capacity mags?

Criminals have a super-secret superpower that makes guns and high capacity magazines appear out of thin air. That's how they always have guns.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: supton
Where do drunks get their cars from? Where do unlicensed drivers get their cars from? What about people who steal cars for joyrides or to send to a chop shop? Where did those cars come from? Aggressive drivers? Slowpokes?

We must have reasonable limits on car ownership! And those who already own clearly must use more devices to secure the vehicle for the public good. Clearly that is required.

Considering that motor vehicles are necessary for most people, I'd say our limits on car ownership are quite reasonable.

Gun ownership is a right for everyone, but it's not a necessity for most people.

 

[surfstar]

What if they simply had a security system and/or a dog or two?

More than one way to solve this problem. However, I am glad to see bad guys get their due.

 

[Fleetmon]

I think a large number of them are stolen from the police and military and sleazy gun shops.

Most RESPONSIBLE owners have gun safes that at least deter a thief...I'd like to see someone steal one of mine....the smallest safe I have weighs 1200 lbs and the largest is, well, it's a safe room that would be impossible to carry off. Plus, while they are hooking up the tow truck to pull it through the wall, the alarm is constantly blaring and video has already captured their every move.

I live at the end of a very isolated 850' driveway and my house is only visible by air. We do have warnings everywhere though....y'know, the flukey "We don't dial 911", "please leave your next of kins name and contact information" (I was actually asked if I had that information by the police), Smile, you're on camera", "Trespassers will be shot, survivers will be shot again", and etc, etc. The warnings were installed based on the advise of an attorney.

I have only been in the position to defend myself once (actually, I was defending my wife's life) and I can tell you it is nerve racking to say the least but the outcome went well for the two of us....not so with the other two. Yes, we were sued, but our homeowners covered legal expenses and eventually we won. It was clearly a case of self defense although we thought it better to relocate after that one incident since one of them had a herd as a family....the courtroom was packed!

If there are gun owners in here that do not own a safe, get one. Can't afford it? Sell a firearm so you CAN afford it. There is NO excuse for not having a safe....even the cheap Homak gun lockers are better than nothing. At the very least you should have trigger locks but they are quickly defeated with bolt cutters, particularly the cheap ones they provide with firearms. If you think your firearms are hidden well....hire a professional and it will surprise you how quickly they are located.

I'm sure most of our neighbors are terrified of us when we practice and practice sessions are only an hour or so but we built our range to accomodate what we shoot. They hardly wave but I'm sure our gunfire is nowhere as bothersome as their kids dirt bikes with the obnoxious mufflers. It's just the idea that it's a "GUN". Once hello comes to visit though, I bet they're knocking on our door....I hope I remember who they are....lol!

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

1) Where did I say it wasnt useful? I didnt.
2)Its amazing that we have to keep drumming up more and more dire, improbable circumstances to justify ownership of something.
3)So presumably you carry a rifle over your shoulder in any circumstance you can?
4)After all, you may happen upon a riot or a band of blood thirsty criminals around any corner.
5)And how many rounds do you carry when you go jogging?
6)Riots? Seriously?
7)Indonesia? LOL. If the USA becomes Indonesia, Im gone.
8)Where were the widespread riots during Hurricane Sandy?


1) I semi concede that one. You simply said a 223 was not useful for certain things. A matter of reading comprehension.
2) Not drumming up anything. Real risks exist without any need to embellish.
3) Reductio ad absurdum. I don't tote around my tool box expecting to repair my car every day, but there are times I need tools.
4) Reductio ad absurdum again. That's a poor method of argument.
5) I can't jog. I have heart damage from a virus. Can't make it 50 feet.
6) Again, riots are a risk. We had a 70 person ethnic riot here last week. Look around and WAKE UP. If you'd like some examples, I'll gladly provide them.
7) If you don't perceive a decline in the average American's overall benevolence, I think you are missing the big picture. I, for one, see a potential for disaster. Not Doomsday junk, but real world, economic decline, government financial woes and pent up anger. Could that lead to civil unrest? I certainly hope not, and will do what I can to hire others and not be part of the problem.
8) Super storm sandy was a minor storm, that, in essence flooded low locations, and knocked out power, the aftermath, as bad as it was, WAS NOT A DISASTER. Katrina was a moderate Cat 2-3 storm that created a real disaster, with TONS of bad behavior. Hurricane Andrew was Horrific. With destruction beyond understanding. Weapons were essential during Andrew's aftermath.

Look around a bit.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d


Gun ownership is a right for everyone, but it's not a necessity for most people.


Well, the states have the final say in that one. And you're right, it isn't a necessity for most people. I'll add that there are people who shouldn't even have one. (Like my ex gf, who, when handling my unloaded CX-4, put it *on top* of her shoulder. Or the one I took to the range, who when asking me a question, turned towards me with the *cocked* pistol in her hand.)

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Considering that motor vehicles are necessary for most people

So then is car ownership and the ability to drive them a right?


Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Gun ownership is a right for everyone, but it's not a necessity for most people.

Only so long as there are uncorrupted police around, and there are plenty of cases where police are not close at hand. This is showing a normalcy bias.