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.
I suspect that if I'm ever in a panic situation where I need to fire more than 10 rounds, I'm probably going to hit other family members, pets, passing cars, the neighbors, the neighbors' pets, airplanes passing overhead, and the Avon lady before I nail the intended target. Jus sayin'.
I remember going bow hunting for deer... The deer were the safest things in the woods.
I suspect that if I'm ever in a panic situation where I need to fire more than 10 rounds, I'm probably going to hit other family members, pets, passing cars, the neighbors, the neighbors' pets, airplanes passing overhead, and the Avon lady before I nail the intended target. Jus sayin'.
New York Police Department Annual Firearms Discharge Report.
In 69% of officers discharging their firearms during an adversarial conflict the average number of shots fired were 1-5.
In 19% of the cases officers fired 6-10 rounds.
In only 11% of the cases did officers fire 11-16 times with no incidents of reloading.
The report goes on to state that two outlying incidents skewed the statistics upward when in one incident eight officers discharged 73 round and in another when eight officers fired 45. Both incidents involved active shooters firing on police or civilians.
There are some differences though. First, police spend much more time practicing than most. In most cases, they have not just woken up with someone barging into their home. Last but certainly not least, it would make sense that less shots would be required because people are less likely engage in an exchange with an officer and the fact that police officers tend to be on the scene with other police officers while the guy in his living room is on his own. Finally, why should a person have to bet their life and that of their family on not being one of 11% of cases?
1. What percentage of intruders use a full-auto with unlimited rounds?
2. The pro-gun crowd keep claiming that mag capacity limits are unnecessary because the time required for a magazine change is insignificant (ignore what happened in Arizona) and thus a shooter will do as much damage with six 10-round magazines, as he would with two 30 round magazines. So why wouldn't a law abiding citizens have multiple 10 round magazines if it was absolutely necessary for defense?
1... criminals tend to have full auto and/or high capacity weapons. I live in LA where gang members are better equipped than law enforcement. Look for "Hollywood Bank of America Robbery" as an example. Criminals do not care about laws, that's why they are called CRIMINALS!
2... the limitation of clips to 7 rounds will follow the limitation to 10 rounds. This is the stepping stone to banning all handguns except revolvers. See "Georgia woman shoots home invader": she emptied her .38 revolver in the guy, and it wasn't enough. Georgia Mom Hiding With Kids, Shoots Intruder - ABC News
He managed to flee the house and get away.
How does logic dictate that forcing law abiding citizens to jump through hoops deters violent crime? Answer; It Doesn't! The gun-nazis don't even bother to challenge this truth, because the ultimate goal is to disarm citizens, not make them safer.
1... criminals tend to have full auto weapons. I live in LA where gang members are better equipped than law enforcement. Look for "Hollywood Bank of America Robbery" as an example. Criminals do not care about laws, that's why they are called CRIMINALS!
Just to be fair, criminals using full auto is an extremely rare event even BEFORE 1934 when the full auto was put under heavy regulation (NFA), a practical ban.
I believe Washington Journey even ran a report saying the only thing achieved in the the NFA was infringing the right to keep and bear arms. Not curbing crimes, not saving lives.
I suspect that if I'm ever in a panic situation where I need to fire more than 10 rounds, I'm probably going to hit other family members, pets, passing cars, the neighbors, the neighbors' pets, airplanes passing overhead, and the Avon lady before I nail the intended target. Jus sayin'.
If you are ever in that situation the invaders will thank you for taking into account everyone, but them.
Just to be fair, criminals using full auto is an extremely rare event even BEFORE 1934 when the full auto was put under heavy regulation (NFA), a practical ban.
I believe Washington Journey even ran a report saying the only thing achieved in the the NFA was infringing the right to keep and bear arms. Not curbing crimes, not saving lives.
This is why I said, "and/or high-capacity weapons." Criminals are routinely better armed than law enforcement. This doesn't mean they need full auto to be so.
Washington Journal? Yes, this would be the case. The truth is it will not curb crime or save lives, making the reasons far more sinister.
Even those who hate guns should be questioning why rights are being targeted for destruction.
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.
