Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Incorrect. FBI statistics show that the average police officer involved in a shooting uses 8 rounds per perpetrator. NY's law makes you do a magazine change in the middle of the night after being woken up before you even match that figure. And as much as I like firearms I don't sleep with my gun belt on so that means grabbing a second and third magazine before being able to defend myself to police standards.
The basic facts are that the top 5 guns used in crime have a <10 round capacity to start (4 pocket pistols and a pump shotgun) while those people who are more likely to own a gun with higher capacity are infinitesimally contributing to any sort of crime.
The SAFE Act was just NY's heel grinding into the rights of the people. But hey, the 2nd Circuit got away with saying that the majority of crime is "imaginary" so who cares anyway.
If they need 17 rounds to hit one assailant they shouldn't have a gun, they are a danger.
great, then we need to start limiting all law enforcement to only a 6 round revolver. since 17 is too many, then 17 is too many for law enforcement to have too.
I agree: but the worse parts of Italy don't have crime and murder rates comparable to Georgia, Mississippi or Louisiana's ones
And the best parts of Italy have a worse crime rate than North Dakota, so what's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by italianuser
Well, hopefully sooner or later NYC will have gun laws as lenient as in the "great" state of Ohio.
More guns on the streets will make NYC as safe as Akron, Cincinnati, Dayton, Youngstown, Cleveland... oh wait... nevermind
There's only so much you can do with liberal cesspools. Maybe if they had more guns they would be as safe as Boise. NY only has a murder rate 12 TIMES as high.
How often does someone not in law enforcement require that many rounds. That is just one issue in the legislation.
How is it that someone in law enforcement would need more rounds than a civilian in a comparable self defense situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
If they need 17 rounds to hit one assailant they shouldn't have a gun, they are a danger.
#1 Then I guess you admit most police are a danger?
#2 Who said it'd only be one assailant
#3 Have you ever been in a situation where the use of a gun would be appropriate? Hve you any idea how stressful that kind of situation might be? Do you have any idea how hard it might be to hit a moving target after being abruptly awakened from a dead sleep possibly in a dark room? If you don't then you are no authority on this. What exactly qualifies you to make this kind of declaration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Police almost never use that many rounds.
I am sure there are instances but they are rare.
I swear, do you guys even research the claims you make before you make them or do you just fabricate them as you go along and hope no one cares enough to prove you wrong?
The police often need way more than that to hit one assailant.
But also.
What if it's more than one assailant?
What if a round or two FTF?
Since the 18-round capacity M9 replaced the 7-round capacity M1911 in the military, everyone is taught to "double-tap", or fire two rounds in rapid secession at one target (one in the chest, and one in the head). That is what happens when you reduce the caliber from .45 to 0.354331.
I hear the M1911 is making a comeback with the Marine Corps.
Personally, I carry a Mossberg with an 18.5" rifled barrel, and an extended tube magazine that holds seven .65 caliber sabot slugs. If I am attacked by a brown bear, you better believe I will be using all seven rounds at one target. More, if I have time to reload and the first seven did not finish the job. Which is why I always carry a back-up. A Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag with a special overpowered "bear load" silver-tipped hollow point. I may not have time to reload, and brown bears have been known to survive worse damage.
Thanks for posting this video.... It's a perfectly plausible situation and really puts in perspective how one might need more than 7 or 10 rounds to protect themselves. After watching this video, the debate as to whether or not to limit magazine capacity should be over...... sadly enough, it won't be.
I think your friend was a moron for registering their firearm in the first place. Your friend deserves to pay for the consequences of their abject stupidity. Had they not registered their weapon with government, then government would never know what kind, if any, weapon they had.
This is exactly why nobody with even a modicum of intelligence ever registers their firearms.
If they want to keep their firearms and not be a criminal now, they only have one choice - MOVE!
You have a valid point, and people in states where the Constitution is still currently upheld should consider that a change in the state government, such as happened in Colorado, makes concealed carry permit registers a handy tool for confiscation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
