Some of you have been asking why anyone needs a gun with ten bullets for self-defense purposes. Why isn't 5 enough? Well, I was reading a story, about an infamous incident that happened in the 80s, and a connection occurred to me. The man in this incident was surrounded by four young men who were attempting to rob him. One of them seemed to be getting ready to reach for something, possibly a weapon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting It was widely believed by the public that the man defending himself overreacted. But consider this: The gun he had only held five bullets. There were four attackers surrounding him. He couldn't afford to waste any of those bullets. And as a result, he probably inflicted more damage on his targets than he otherwise would have had to. I know a lot of people may have trouble understanding this, but really give it some thought. What if he had, for example, shot two of the attackers in a part of their body that would be less likely to seriously hurt them or disable them, but would cause serious pain? Well, for one thing there is a higher chance of missing the mark when aiming for some extremity (like an arm or leg) than aiming towards the center of the body. For another thing, what if the first shot did not end up stopping the attacker and they still came forward, trying to attack and grab him? He would have had to shoot those same targets again. Only, he may not have had the luxury of doing that. In this story, one of the shots did end up missing and not hitting anyone. Four targets, four bullets. He could only shoot each one once, so he had to make those shots count. Otherwise there might still be one of them lunging forward at him. And that could put him in a very bad situation if he did not have any more bullets to shoot. Especially if one of them was carrying a weapon. I would argue that these young robbers would have been likely to suffer less harm if that man, who was being robbed, had not had to worry about whether he had enough bullets to deal with them all. The way that man describes the story, he knew he only had five bullets, there were four robbers surrounding him, and he didn't have very much time to react. If he had waited or given them more time, it could have been too late for him. He needed to act decisively, and make all of his shots count, incapacitating the gang that posed a threat around him. Also, if he had waited and the attackers were suddenly leaping towards him from multiple directions, the accuracy of the hits would probably have been much lower. That could have either resulted in much higher chance of fatal injury, on the one hand, or alternatively a shot into a part of the body that would have been less effective, that would not stop them. Or possibly a missed shot altogether. Something he could not afford. He probably did not want to kill them. He just wanted to make sure they couldn't rob or attack him. But if you have to shoot where it counts to make absolutely sure that a target is going to be incapacitated with one hit, there is going to be a high chance of death. In this particular story, one of the perpetrators ended up suffering life-long disability. Some gun control people have been advocating laws making guns illegal if they can hold more than a certain number of bullets (some of them asking why anyone would need more than 4 or 5). I believe you need to take this into consideration.
Those who support the notion of magazines being limited to no more than ten rounds of ammunition, have been unable to explain how the amount was reached in the first place. Thus making it entirely arbitrary and capricious, and thus a violation of the Heller ruling by default, which spoke against arbitrary and capricious restrictions.
Umm... I hate to disagree with you, but those two are not exactly the same type of "arbitrary". I think it is a bit of a stretch for you to try to make a connection there. I'm just going to be honest and say your argument is actually basically pretty disingenuous. Not sure if you realized that. Supreme Court precedent is, in reality, very contextual, and doesn't truly set down any exact literal law. Precedents and written opinions have contradicted each other all the time, or been logically inconsistent. They don't really care, they can just draw from whatever past precedent they want to justify whatever their present opinion is on the matter. I wish there was some way to guarantee rights and freedoms, but looking to Supreme Court precedents in this overly literal and nitpicky way is not the right way, nor will it be effective.
For heavens sake, why is is the 'magic' number 10? The vast majority of self defense shootings (civilian and police) involve fewer than 4/5 rounds fired at distances of less than 3 to 4 meters. Carry 500 rounds if you must. You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than you have of ever being called upon to use even 1% of that load out.
The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such actually make? If ten rounds of ammunition were truly suitable in all situations and circumstances, detachable magazines would have never been constructed to hold far more than such, as it would simply be deemed a waste of material by the manufacturers.
Here's why... https://www.foxnews.com/us/vicious-new-york-city-mugging-caught-on-video-nypd Sometimes, even 20 isn't enough.
In the intensity of such situations, most round miss altogether. Training doesn't change that as much as one might think- cops not only tend to dump their 17 round magazines, but miss as often as they hit. Here's one example- "The California police officers who killed Willie McCoy, a 20-year-old who had been sleeping in his car, fired 55 bullets at him in 3.5 seconds – which was “reasonable”, according to the city of Vallejo’s hired consultant." as quoted in the Guardian. That's over 700 rounds a minute; an M-16 machine gun can't fire that fast. IF you wind up having to defend yourself against armed thugs- you may need all the firepower you can get. One of my carry guns is a PMR30- small but potent caliber (.22 magnum) but carries 30 rounds and is still lightweight. Of course the problem is not the gun or the size of the magazine- it's the kind of person holding it that determines what happens. Sadly, the anti-gun people seem to be unable to understand that concept.
Then there are incidents such as the following: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nypd-84-shots-brooklyn_n_55ec4b31e4b093be51bbb978 An attempted murder suspect who fired at New York police was apprehended only after police engaged him in a gun fight, firing a barrage of bullets. Of the 84 total shots cops fired, one struck the suspect. Early Friday morning, 27-year-old Jerrol Harris ran from police after allegedly robbing a Brooklyn man, then shooting the victim in the arm as he fled, according to multiple news reports. When police identified Harris, the suspect immediately began to fire on the cops, police said. “He fired at them, and they fired back,” NYPD Deputy Commissioner Stephen Davis told the New York Daily News. “That’s when he was hit.” The incident took place in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn at about 1:15 a.m., starting when 52-year-old Leon Faison discovered Harris inside his car attempting to steal items, ABC 7 reported. Harris then shot Faison in the arm before running off, according to police. Despite being wounded, Faison managed to alert police on the street, who found Harris a short time later, after he allegedly fired at them with his black .40-caliber Taurus Millennium pistol, according to the New York Times. Davis told the NYDN that four officers fired back, letting off 52 rounds, all which missed. A bullet from Harris’ gun managed to hit an unmarked police car, Davis said. The suspect then took off before being spotted by officers Wanda Crooks and Alem-Tsehay Clarke. The cops each fired 16 rounds at the suspect, with one of the bullets striking Harris in the calf and bringing him down. “I couldn’t believe how long it was going on,” a resident told ABC 7. “It just kept coming and kept coming and I was like, ‘is this really happening?’” The suspect has 12 prior arrests, including four robbery arrests and a gun possession arrest. Harris now faces several counts of first-degree and second-degree attempted murder, among other felony charges. Eighty four rounds of ammunition discharged by law enforcement officers, and only one round actually struck the suspect. A ninety-nine percent failure rate.
Based on the above, I think 20 shots would be the miminum, plus 4 spare magazines, giving a total capacity of 100. That's the perp and 99 onlookers. I'm really glad I live somewhere where I don't have to do these kind of calculations, sit and count how many people I may have to kill.
It is not a matter of needing to calculate how many individuals will be in need of being killed. Rather it is a desire to not be forcefully crippled and/or limited to artificial and arbitrarily determined amounts of ammunition, presented by elected officials who believe their opinion is applicable in all circumstances by everyone, when they in fact have no understanding of what subjects they attempt to speak about.
I too am glad I live in a area where I don’t have to worry about carrying an arsenal to be comfortable enough to go out in public.
That means the homeowner is taking fire and trying to eliminate the source of that incoming fire, and that may require way more than one shot per intruder.
Good for you, however that is not an available option for a majority of people who live in urban s-holes.
For seven years I lived in South Boston close to Dorchester, which is a s/hole. Oh and at the end of my street was a low income housing tenement and was never scared to go out in public without an arsenal. That being said, I support anyone who needs to carry all sorts of guns and ammo if that helps them feel safe going out in public.
It is not a matter of feeling safe. It is a matter of actually being safe, and having the ability to meaningfully resist being victimized by others.
no one has ever lost a gun fight by having more than enough ammunition. When the anti gun extremists can guarantee you will never need more than 10 rounds in a home invasion defense, etc, then their schemes might be seen as something other than "criminal safe work place" laws.
Given I never said or even indicated I believe such, why would you ever ask such a question? Try reading the words I actually post instead of what you think I post. K?