Defensive Carry banner

Seriously intense. Are you prepared?

3K views 38 replies 18 participants last post by  DG 
#1 ·
In federal Judge Benitez' recent ruling that shot down the CA 10-round magazine limit (only to have a temporary stay on that ruling, also by him), the judge used a few examples where that 10-round limit actually endangered the law-abiding. Think about just how prepared you and your family would be in those circumstances.

Here are a few links:

Susan Gonzalez, 1997: Susan Gonzalez - Anti-Gun Mom Turned Survivor*****by Lyn Bates - We are AWARE

Melinda Herman, 2013: https://townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/2013/01/15/obamas-disarm-the-victim-movement-n1489366

Feng Zhu, 2016:
 
#4 ·
There is a significant benefit to the judge’s inclusion of examples of an ammunition deficiency in a violent confrontation. He has put those examples on public display, and in doing so provided pro 2A folks the the means to counter the Anti’s cry that no one needs more than ten rounds.
 
#5 ·
I guess me and my Glock 30 don't stand a chance.

The needed number of rounds can be argued ad nauseum, but I don't like arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions on anything.
 
#32 ·
I guess me and my Glock 30 don't stand a chance.

The needed number of rounds can be argued ad nauseum, but I don't like arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions on anything.
The argument against mag limits needs to be no more compelling than that.
 
#6 ·
No argument here in NJ......our delusional Govenor Murphy says....anything more than 10 rounds makes us dangerous to society.

"Don't Come Here...there's nothin' here for ya" !!!
 
#10 ·
No argument here in NJ......our delusional Govenor Murphy says....anything more than 10 rounds makes us dangerous to society.
The judge put a lot of time in his decision to illustrate how too little capacity puts the law-abiding at great risk while unnecessary (unused) capacity by the law-abiding puts nobody at risk. The reality is that nobody knows how many rounds are needed until after a shooting has ended. If the law-abiding (the victim) is dead or seriously wounded and his/her firearm is empty, any law that placed a limit on ammunition capacity needs to be reconsidered as a threat to the safety of law-abiding gun owners.
 
#7 ·
I am against mag limits, but I think we use irrelevant, rare events to try to make the case against restrictions, which actually weakens our arguments. All of these incidents were crap-shows of bad marksmanship and tactics. More rounds would not have made a difference in any of them if the defenders could't get good hits. All of them make a better case for carbines than hi-cap pistols.

The gal in the video had to load her gun first and then, obviously started spraying rounds all over the place. The gal with the six shooter did stop the attack and was close enough for a headshot, which she obviously didn't get. And I always hear this trope, "Well what if he had accomplices?" As Grant Cunningham says, "Well, what if a platoon of N. Korean paratroopers lands on your lawn?" The researched history is that accomplices almost always bolt after the first shot.

In the case where the gal had a 10 round mag, she emptied it to get two hits on one guy then she had nothing left for the other guy. History shows that if she if she had a 15 round mag, she would have probably emptied that on the first guy and had nothing left. And she didn't want to shoot the other guy for fear of hitting her husband, but then she allows him to get shot twice by the bad guy. Like I said, all crap-shows where accuracy and tactics were to blame, not round count.

If in any of those situations, you had "every round hitting its target" or "a shotgun" you would have had better outcomes than if you had 15 round magazines. Again, I am all for hi-caps for people who feel they need them. I just think that more rounds is not the solution to "spray and pray."
 
#31 ·
I am all for hi-cap (their term) magazines because they are what came with the guns when I bought them. Making me subject to a quarter-million dollar fine and ten years in prison for possessing them, like they did with bump stocks will do absolutely nothing to make society safer. Turning previously-law-abiding citizens into instant felons with the passage of a law is tyrannical government, plain and simple, regardless of ostensible good intentions. Turning Americans into felons by crossing a state line does nothing to make that state safer.
 
#8 ·
Quote: jmf552 "If in any of those situations, you had "every round hitting its target" or "a shotgun" you would have had better outcomes than if you had 15 round magazines. Again, I am all for hi-caps for people who feel they need them. I just think that more rounds is not the solution to "spray and pray."

Tell that to the NYC PD ......my god, they have spent more ammo in most cases than one could believe....but, in their defense, when the SHTF it's not like shooting at the range...yup we practice but it's hard to get one's adreniline pumping to the degree of an actual assault...I guess now I believe more is better....never heard anyone complain about having too much ammunition.
 
#11 ·
So your argument can be summarized as follows: Defenders, even cops, can only get hits on the range. Real situations are too stressful for marksmanship. So the solution is more ammo for them to miss with. Did I get that right?
 
#9 ·
The truth about magazine limits: A citizen's ability to effectively defend against multiple violent criminals is severely impaired. However, a criminal's ability to wreak havoc on the innocent is not impaired since they meet little or no resistance. This has been proven over and over again but the Left intentionally keeps the blinders on and denies the truth for the sake of their agenda.

We really need to determine exactly what the end game of the Left truly is. Do they want to disarm citizens in order to remove any means of resistance? Or, do they push for "Gun Control" because it sounds warm and fuzzy to the sheeple and wins their votes? Most definitely the latter, and in some extreme cases, maybe the former as well. Every underhanded, backward, polarizing and anti-freedom stance the Left takes is designed to appeal to peoples' emotions in an effort to win votes. They want to get people riled up, because when people are emotional they lose the ability to think and act rationally. That's the primary function. Truth is secondary to their insatiable thirst for power and control. The twisted mental gymnastics and anti-logic required to justify their positions should set off alarms for anyone with critical thinking skills, but again, emotional people tend not to think rationally.

Just as we must train our body and mental focus to be able to act appropriately in times of crisis, we must train our minds to defend against falsehoods and to be able to think critically. These skills are not being taught by public education, from elementary grades all the way through college. We now have at least one, maybe two or three, generations of citizens who have never learned this skill, except a lucky few who either learned it from their parents or have miraculously discovered it on their own.

We can strengthen our arguments with truth and real-world examples until we're out of breath, and it will make no difference, I'm afraid. Our only hope is that there are enough people left in this society who are able to think critically and accept truth. I feel the number of such people is rapidly declining, and time is running out to stop the prevailing insanity from destroying this great country.
 
#15 ·
@jmf552 I think you are making some generalizations that are completely foreign to the facts:

If in any of those situations, you had "every round hitting its target" or "a shotgun" you would have had better outcomes than if you had 15 round magazines. Again, I am all for hi-caps for people who feel they need them. I just think that more rounds is not the solution to "spray and pray."
Exactly who do you feel "sprays and prays?" Military combat units? They all carry well in excess of normal limits, but I wonder why you think their method is spray and pray? Or police officers? Do you really think they desire to spray and pray when every round fired has a lawyer tied to it? Not the situation? So, we've eliminated professionals as spray and prayers.

There are many civilians who carry more than 6 rounds (or 5). Is it your contention that those who carry 6 rounds will be 100% accurate in a firefight? Or that those who carry 6 rounds will be more accurate than those who carry 20 or 30 rounds? Or how you can guarantee that those who carry 6 rounds will never be guilty of spray and pray in a life and death situation? Where are the facts to validate any of those assumptions?

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but it seems you're using a broad brush to paint a huge variety of gun owners. And in all truthfulness, until you've actually had someone try to kill you standing 10 feet away with a gun, you don't know how you will react or how you will perform.

@Bikenut Exactly right. Assuming that people miss in actual life and death situations is almost exclusively the province of those who have never been in those situations themselves. They truly believe what they do on a range, shoot house, training class, or competition is the same as real combat. And they tie all those assumptions up in the myth that carrying more ammo means you'll just use suppression fire to try and stop an attack. I didn't have to shoot back, but I'm sure I'm not alone when I testify that when the bullets zip past just over your head and you realize someone is actually trying to kill you, it is just a bit different.
 
#16 ·
I sume this up as a need for anyone in the house hold to know how to shoot and be prepared. The pistol Susan had only held ten rounds. We don’t know how we will react to the same situation. If it had been a perfect situation she would of had a higher caliber weapon, several more mags. The well prepared might have not survived with a 30 round mag.
 
#17 ·
@OldChap: You are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am saying:
  • If we are going to use anecdotes and arguments to argue against mag limits, why don't we use effective anecdotes and arguments, rather than obtuse ones like in the OP? I am a pro-gun activist. I have had these discussions with anti-gun politicians and activists face to face. If you have an argument they can pick apart, they will. There are good arguments and anecdotes for high capacity, so why do we settle for bad ones?
  • Accuracy beats capacity. Only hits count.
  • Adrenaline levels do diminish accuracy, but that's the situation we're training for. We need to expect it and account for it or all is for naught. It can't be an excuse, only a factor. We had a saying the Navy, "They go where you point 'em." That is just as true for people who are punching paper, facing bad guys, people with experience in gun fights, people without, LEOs, military and civilians. If the sights are on target when the gun goes off, you get a hit. As Cooper said, "Blessed is HE who in the face of death thinks ONLY of the Front Sight!" If the real problem is accuracy, why does that discussion morph into a capacity argument? This is what we accuse the anti-gunners of. Taking an argument or anecdote that is not on point and twisting it into something it is not.
I am incredulous that anyone disagrees with any of that.
 
#22 ·
@OldChap: You are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am saying:

If we are going to use anecdotes and arguments to argue against mag limits, why don't we use effective anecdotes and arguments, rather than obtuse ones like in the OP? I am a pro-gun activist. I have had these discussions with anti-gun politicians and activists face to face. If you have an argument they can pick apart, they will. There are good arguments and anecdotes for high capacity, so why do we settle for bad ones?
I could care less what motivates politicians. I KNOW what motivates the majority of politicians - a large wad of untraceable cash. Or the prospect of not getting re-elected. I don't need to adopt obtuse tactics used to argue what I know to be true with politicians. Why do you think everybody needs to use the weird tactics you need to use with a tiny segment of the world that most of us will never come in contact with? Use what you need. Just don't expect me to use the same tactics. If I were going to argue with politicians, or anti-gun activists, I know the best way, and I won't need to say a word. Come ride in a patrol car with me on Saturday night.

Accuracy beats capacity. Only hits count.
And the corollary is that misses don't save lives or stop threats. However many shots it takes, stop the threat.

Adrenaline levels do diminish accuracy, but that's the situation we're training for. We need to expect it and account for it or all is for naught. It can't be an excuse, only a factor. We had a saying the Navy, "They go where you point 'em." That is just as true for people who are punching paper, facing bad guys, people with experience in gun fights, people without, LEOs, military and civilians. If the sights are on target when the gun goes off, you get a hit. As Cooper said, "Blessed is HE who in the face of death thinks ONLY of the Front Sight!" If the real problem is accuracy, why does that discussion morph into a capacity argument? This is what we accuse the anti-gunners of. Taking an argument or anecdote that is not on point and twisting it into something it is not.

I am incredulous that anyone disagrees with any of that.
Who exactly is making excuses? Strawman? Yes. It is a reality that everybody misses now and then - even pilots dropping "smart' weapons. That IS reality. You cannot train and expect to achieve perfection. You may strive for it and come close, but when your life is on the line, most of us have to deal with the reality that you could miss. We do try to hit the exact spot necessary to stop the threat with every shot. Nobody that I'm aware of has ever made the excuse that they need lots and lots of rounds to hit the target because they are such bad shots. Only people who like to talk about spray and pray state that.

The people I hope to protect deserve the best of me. I used to not miss much. There are lots of competitors, military members included, who could attest to that. But I never was perfect, and now am even less so.

The reality is you prepare for the possibilities - not because of Las Vegas odds, but because sometimes the worst thing imaginable, the thing you least expected happens. I saw that over and over and over and I heard people say repeatedly, "We never thought this could happen." That isn't something politicians or activists want to hear. I could care less. Nor will their tone deafness stop me from preparing for the worst (missing the threat) and praying for the best. If I need more ammunition than they deem reasonable, it will happen.

My well thought out argument is that my family will survive. I could care less what politicians think about that.
 
#18 ·
I see you do understand what I posted.......just lookin' for an argument I guess.
 
#20 ·
No need to argue, nit-pic or trifle over each others perspective....you have more important things to do......carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShooterGranny
#25 ·
Columbine proved that long ago.

1. One of the killers had a pistol with several 30+ round magazines, five years into the nationwide ban on manufacture of such. This demonstrates how passing a law does not make objects disappear. And even if it could, it's not that hard to make a box with a spring in it.
2. The other killer had a carbine for which only ten-round mags were ever available, yet he fired more rounds during the shooting that the one with bigger mags (93 vs 86, I believe). Nobody "rushed him while reloading," as the politicians suggest will happen, despite having at least nine opportunities to do so.

Only willful blindness keeps the issue alive.
 
#24 ·
Chen Fengzhu for Congress!
She wasn’t scared. She just loaded the pistol and fired it at the bad guys while on the phone to 911.
Now that’s multitasking!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#26 ·
Personally, I believe arguments for when good guys might need larger mags is a futile one. The fact that eliminating them will do nothing to actually reduce gun deaths is the one to hammer on.

Firearms suicides will not decrease at all if we adopt a two-round firearms capacity limit nationally.
 
#29 ·
i say to the left, FIRST, you must PROVE that ALL criminals are disarmed or limited to low capacity mags. THEN you can talk about infringing on 2A. This is the standard we should use against the left. Put the burden of proof on THEM. Shift the narrative using Alinsky tactics.

They should have their collective noses rubbed in every single story where a law abider saved their own life or others.

how many violent criminals have legal guns and a permit? it's got to be miniscule. That fact should be repeated ad nauseam.
 
#33 ·
Just my opinion, but it's all what I call "creeping legislation". Just baby steps. OK, we're going to limit magazine capacity, perhaps certain types of firearms, perhaps a certain color, a certain type of grip, maybe certain calibers, barrel lengths, whatever. The generic legislation may appeal to most people. After all, how can you argue against "common sense" gun legislation? The mere fact that you are arguing implies that you have no common sense......and therefore, your opinion is worthless. You're just another knuckle dragging gun nut.

What's the solution? I honestly don't know. But limiting magazine capacity, "assault rifles", silencers, bump stocks, scopes or whatever won't fix it.

Once again, just my opinion. I could be wrong, won't be the first time.
 
#35 ·
Knowing full-well that their "yeah-but-it's-a-good-first-step" nonsense will generate no desired results in the reduction of gun-related crime, the next step and the one after that will follow, leading to the criminalization of ALL firearms possession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snub44
#34 ·
Yup, boilin' frogs is what they're doin'. Gettin' us used to them tellin' us what to do...just like bullies have always done. Gonna take a smack in the nose to make them stop. I doubt the resolve is still present in most gun owners to do it. That's what they're counting on.
 
#36 ·
Yup, boilin' frogs is what they're doin'. Gettin' us used to them tellin' us what to do...just like bullies have always done. Gonna take a smack in the nose to make them stop. I doubt the resolve is still present in most gun owners to do it. That's what they're counting on.
If five percent of all gun owners tell them to stick it, we should be good. Let the Fudds stand in line and trade in for food cards. Rock and Glock says it best, with the only sticker appearing on either of my vehicles:

Font Graphic design Logo Graphics Animation
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snub44
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top