I'm A Gun Owner

There are plenty of situations in which the defender needed more than 10 rounds and more than just a revolver and/or a shotgun. Google it!

 

Analysis
As might be expected, the majority of incidents (52%) took place in the home. Next most common locale (32%) was in a business. Incidents took place in public places in 9% of reports and 7% occurred in or around vehicles.
The most common initial crimes were armed robbery (32%), home invasion (30%), and burglary (18%).
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters.

Reloading was required in only 3 incidents. One of those involved killing an escaped lion with a .32 caliber revolver, which was eventually successful after 13 shots.

 

The Supreme Court suggested in it’s Heller ruling that there were regulations presumptively lawful the state could utilize. The state hasn’t tested them but my point is the SC has already told use there is latitude when it comes to regulations and the 2nd Amendment. It is not as absolute as many gun owners tend to believe.

 

And a future SCOTUS could make a new ruling that expands individuals rights and diminishes the power of Federal/State regulations.

 

Works great in a mall or school as well...for those very reasons

 

Source?

 

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/

 

C

Cool, I noticed you cherry picked and did not include this, it supports that it is a good idea to have extra rounds handy.

When multiple conspirators were involved, the first tier was a two man action team. If another member was available, he was usually the driver of the getaway car and remained in the car. If a fourth conspirator was involved, he was stationed immediately outside the target location as a lookout for the police or other possible intervening parties. The outside conspirators do not generally appear to be armed. It does appear that the trend over the period has increased from one weapon in the action team to two weapons.

 

Hahahaha...I noticed you ignored...”The average and median number of shots fired was 2.”
Carry on.

 

Actually the government banned assault weapons for a while. It didn't make a difference in anything so the federal government ended the ban. You can't fix bad parenting and a confused national culture with legislation.

 

Thank you.
Actually, I've thought about what you said earlier and feel that you were right the first time.
I feel like I should believe what others claim about themselves unless it's absolutely absurd and with millions of guns in America, I'm sure that countless individuals including the Poster could possess unused firearms in obscure corners of their homes.

Since this is a debate forum, I should address the issues raised by the Poster rather than the claims he makes about himself.
His argument seems to be that no one "needs" a semiautomatic rifle or carbine with a 30 round magazine.

Others have already made compelling cases against his argument to which I can add a two word reason an AK-47 or AR variant might be essential for self defense:
Body Armor.

"Killers in Kevlar"
How many gun-toting criminals are wearing body armor?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...r-how-many-felons-wear-bulletproof-vests.html
EXCERPT " But armor, like guns, is easy to get, and bad guys are catching on."CONTINUED


Additionally, there are numerous places and scenarios in which possession of an AK, AR variant etc may be essential but the Bill of Rights is build on "rights", not "needs".

Finally, a far more effective way to address America's homicide rate is not attempting of ban plentiful inanimate objects but to make mental health care in America more accessible and affordable for all.

America has a violence problem, not a gun problem

 

The mass shootings problem is a behavior and mental health problem made more profound with the proper tools guns. So a logical argument can be made that mass shootings are a complex problem. That is the position that I have taken here.

Making mental health care more accessible and affordable is a "nice " liberal progressive aim but I say that you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

How do we make those who need mental health care "drink"? Do we force them against their beliefs and wishes? How? Do we violate their privacy and first amendment rights? Do we suspend the Constitutional rights of mental cases and just incarcerate them in government run "psychiatric" hospitals? That is what the Soviet Russians did.
Do we want to be like Russia? I do not!

How do we make health care more affordable? Do we tax the rest of us to pay for the nut cases? Do we expect the market to respond and make health care more affordable? No! We tried that already.

Obviously using the gun that has a good rate of fire and large magazine capacity is the "best tool" for the job that mass killers like to do. So the radical gun banners would ban all new gun acquisitions and confiscate existing ones. That is about as realistic and practical as us identifying and exporting all illegals and their kids out of the country.

Restricting certain weapons is as unconstitutional as banning all guns.
Voting nut cases and potential nut cases to get mental health or just locking their asses up is unconstitutional.

In practical terms can we really identify and gather up all nut cases and potential nut cases( like nut cases in training) even if we want to violate their Constitutional rights? I think not.

I have already said that confiscating all guns is stupid and not practical and of course unconstitutional.

So where does that leave us?

 

You posed several questions in your thoughtful Post so I will try to respond to at least 3 of them:

Most states already have a process by which an individual who is a danger to himself or others can be incarcerated against their will.

I certainly would not support such a system. Political beliefs have no place in determining if a person is a danger to himself or others.

As I've said, no solution to the phenomenon of our recent mass killings is going to be as cheap or easy as passing additional laws that are already ignored by criminals so, yes, Americans would have to pay more for more accessible and affordable mental health care or accept the status quo.

You're right in that our recent phenomenon of mass shootings is a complex problem that's not going to be solved by feeling that if you simply ban certain inanimate objects you will change human behavior.

 

Intelligent thoughtful comments. Commendable! We can make access to medical care including mental health care but One - we cannot make people participate in health care and Two - we cannot always Identify the potentential nut case who is a future mass killer.

You are correct that there are states that allow someone via legal process incarcerate a suspected nut case. Yet I am not convinced that we have all the mechanisms in place ( or even the will) to ID and lock up a potential nut case. Furthermore not all states have such laws and the ones that do I am pretty dire that the laws are not comparable.

Our choice is to make it a Fedeal mandate a law that allows us to ID and lock up a potential nut case mass killer. How will that sitvwith our ardent states rights people? I know!

Just another word on making health care ( including mental care) accessible to all that is we would have to make health care manditory.
Are we going back to trying to establish a Obama Care on steroids?
Only the progressives, liberals, and socialists are for universal mandatory healthcare including mental care. The only way to make that possible is to have your choice government paid for or mandatory private . But we would need to make the coverages equal between government sponsored and private.

I always say that the solution to a complex problem is almost never simple.

 

And that's the problem. Any gun that is suitable for self defense is also suitable for offense. Considering almost no ARs are used in offense, they should not be banned. All rifles of which ARs are a subset were involved in around 400 murders in 2017 (and those stats include both Orlando nightclub and Sutherland Springs, TX church shootings). That is in comparison to about 700 murders involving just hands and fists, and about 1600 murders using knives/cutting instruments. It's irrational to ban a gun that is rarely used in murder.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

 

Prime example that happens every day. Best defense, Sig P226 w/spare mag.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/minneapolis-slides-downhill.php

 

1) That's dicta 2) which is why they are presumptively lawful because all laws are presumptively lawful unless directly before the Court and challenged with specificity. The Court does not simply expound on things not before it.

 

Not true.

You can defend yourself just fine with a 12 guage pump shotgun or a .357 revolver (or even a 9mm). Those are far less effective for mass shootings than an AR15

 

Why do you say: "Not true" when "perdidochas" posted a credible source to support his assertions?
Do you dislike ARs etc so much that you're willing to ignore the facts?

Additionally, I'm afraid that neither a 12 gauge pump shotgun nor a .357 revolver/9mm would be effective against the body armor used by more & more murderous miscreants these days so an AR seems like a reasonable choice for home & especially farm defense unless you live in a densely populated apartment building.


"Killers in Kevlar"
How many gun-toting criminals are wearing body armor?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...r-how-many-felons-wear-bulletproof-vests.html
EXCERPT " But armor, like guns, is easy to get, and bad guys are catching on."CONTINUED

 

Specifically tell me what I said that's not true. I'm quoting FBI statistics and provided the link. It is absolutely true that rifles (of which ARs are a subset) are responsible for less murders than hands/feet or cutting instruments.

12-Gauges and 9mms have been used in numerous mass shootings. In fact, the worst mass school shooting in U.S. history used a 9mm and a .22 (Virginia Tech).

 

Yet, banning abortion clinics designed to kill lots of unborn people is not the same logic to people who think like you. Unreal. The fact that you can't see your own circular logic is astounding to behold.

Except the rabbit. And, if you were a rabbit, you'd be asserting the same logic from above while claiming that rabbits have rights to ban weapons designed to kill rabbits very quickly. Not only is this circular logic, it is also relativism at its core. When you combine circular logic with relativism in the same person, you end up on a place called amnesia and a failure to exhibit common sense.

You need to do more homework on Home Defense Strategies and Tactics:

The historical evidence supporting a multi-intruder home invasion scenario is growing in empirical intensity each year in the United States. The historical evidence supporting multiple rounds being necessary to end the threat of great bodily harm and/or death presented by an assailant remains extant and true. Multiple assailant scenarios. Multiple rounds necessary to halt an assailant's forward press. These two things are primary causes for having magazine capacities necessary for the purpose of self defense under such scenarios.

The fact that you do not understand any of what I just said is patently obvious, but I make the point only to demonstrate just how corrupt your intentions are at the core. You wish to make people like me more unsafe and unable to defend against an armed assailant and that is something that I find (personally) to be an abomination of moral character. Yours.

So shall it be written. So shall it be done. If that's the way it has to be to remain free and to sustain the republic then so be it. However, on a side note, I find it very telling that you would inject "attack helicopters" as the weapon of choice that Ultra Liberals would prefer be used against those of us who support and defend the United States Constitution.

Your attitude sickens me to no end.

 

I responded to the same post and am in complete agreement with your sentiments relating to the very possible & realistic need for an AR15, AR variant or similar rifle/carbine.
An American citizen should certainly have the right to protect him or herself by whatever legal means possible and those who would impede his ability to do only aid and abet the violent predators like the ones in the 3 videos you cited.

I would, however, try to avoid negative references as to the moral character of misinformed individuals who unknowingly work to empower violent criminal gangs.

Since you and others have already provided sound justifications for the private ownership of semiautomatic rifles/carbines, I can only add that more & more criminals are wearing body armor(1) that will deflect almost all handgun rounds and all shotgun pellets but rarely ever deflect a rifle round.

"Killers in Kevlar"
How many gun-toting criminals are wearing body armor?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...r-how-many-felons-wear-bulletproof-vests.html

EXCERPT " But armor, like guns, is easy to get, and bad guys are catching on."CONTINUED

 

when shotguns are used in those kinds of attacks the carnage is invariably less but you do make a good case for banning magazine fed semi-autos

 

No, that's not a good case for banning anything. Stop being scared of inanimate objects

 

Those kids in Sandy Hook were damned scared. The kids in Parkland as well