5 reasons why 'high' capacity mags are essential for self defense

Nordberg said:
Cops are trained professionals. You gun lusters are not.
Click to expand...
the cops in uvalde, the memphis 5, countless other incidents involving multiple officers and you want to call them 'trained professionals'??? whereas MILLIONS of veterans, with training, do not qualify? your judgement is skewed

Nordberg said:
The point is cops who go into the worst circumstances and meet the worst people rarely have to pull a gun out., Even fewer have to shoot them But you guys think you require military weapons and huge clips for safety. Of course, a gun in your home makes it more likely a family member will be shot.
Click to expand...
more debunked crap and you still refuse to accept the premise of freedom from the founders.
 
personally I think a handgun like the Judge is sufficient for self defense......it will hold either .410 shotgun shells or 45 caliber bullets.......a couple shotgun blasts for warning......if not sufficient, stopping power......
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the cops in uvalde, the memphis 5, countless other incidents involving multiple officers and you want to call them 'trained professionals'??? whereas MILLIONS of veterans, with training, do not qualify? your judgement is skewed


more debunked crap and you still refuse to accept the premise of freedom from the founders.
Click to expand...

You accept the NRA interpretation of the 2nd because you want to. That is a bad interpretation and you are unable to understand it. I provided a quote by the chief justice saying that and you continued onward.
Yes, cops are trained professionals. They go to police academies and have to retrain regularly. If you were in the service 20 years ago, you are not trained. Those days are long gone. However, nearly every cop is an ex-GI. They are not only vets, but trained vets.
 
Nordberg said:
You accept the NRA interpretation of the 2nd because you want to.
I accept the words of the founders because it's true. I am not a member of the Negotiate Rights Away club.

Nordberg said:
That is a bad interpretation and you are unable to understand it. I provided a quote by the chief justice saying that and you continued onward.
Click to expand...
you provided a quote from a SINGLE court justice that cannot EVER override the dozens of ratification era quotes i've put on here, NOR has there EVER been a supreme court case that opined that the 2nd was anything OTHER than an individual right, despite the numerous federal and state court cases that said it is, no militia membership necessary. Sorry, but you are the one refusing to understand that.

Nordberg said:
Yes, cops are trained professionals. They go to police academies and have to retrain regularly. If you were in the service 20 years ago, you are not trained. Those days are long gone. However, nearly every cop is an ex-GI. They are not only vets, but trained vets.
Click to expand...
so your opinion is that all vets go to a special medical facility that deletes all the training that they ever received ROFL.

no, dude, you are simply refusing to accept reality that the founders intended for the people to always be better armed and more powerful than the necessary evil of government.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Nordberg said:
You accept the NRA interpretation of the 2nd because you want to.
I accept the words of the founders because it's true. I am not a member of the Negotiate Rights Away club.


you provided a quote from a SINGLE court justice that cannot EVER override the dozens of ratification era quotes i've put on here, NOR has there EVER been a supreme court case that opined that the 2nd was anything OTHER than an individual right, despite the numerous federal and state court cases that said it is, no militia membership necessary. Sorry, but you are the one refusing to understand that.

so your opinion is that all vets go to a special medical facility that deletes all the training that they ever received ROFL.

no, dude, you are simply refusing to accept reality that the founders intended for the people to always be better armed and more powerful than the necessary evil of government.
Click to expand...
You are not close to making sense. A single Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That deserves respect. It squeaked through the Supremes with a 5 to 4 vote. He was not the only one. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856/
You should be able to understand how the horrible gun laws have made America into a shooting gallery. We do not have to live this way. Nor do we have to teach our children active shooter drills. Kids know there will be more school shootings. They just hope it is not theirs.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Click to expand...
high-capacity-magazines-color.png

f32604e542892d495fab7b6852c43a9d.jpeg
 
Nordberg said:
You are not close to making sense. A single Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That deserves respect. It squeaked through the Supremes with a 5 to 4 vote. He was not the only one. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856/
Click to expand...
when his opinion goes directly against what the founding fathers intended, he does not deserve respect. If he can't understand that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, the he shouldn't have been on the court.

Nordberg said:
You should be able to understand how the horrible gun laws have made America into a shooting gallery.
Click to expand...
YOU should be able to understand that it's the horrible gun laws that prevent decent law abiding people from being able to defend themselves and the public from people who disregard those laws.

Nordberg said:
We do not have to live this way. Nor do we have to teach our children active shooter drills. Kids know there will be more school shootings. They just hope it is not theirs.
Click to expand...
then stop infringing on the peoples right to carry a gun for defense. stop infringing on the parents ability to protect their kids in school. we have to live this way now because YOU made it that way.
 
Nordberg said:
Yes, cops are trained professionals. They go to police academies and have to retrain regularly. If you were in the service 20 years ago, you are not trained. Those days are long gone. However, nearly every cop is an ex-GI. They are not only vets, but trained vets.
Click to expand...

I just felt the need to point out your hypocrisy

Nordberg said:
I have no idea what percentage of police are good people. I think it is low. The ethos of the police and us against them eventually takes over. The cops I knew said they should be cop, judge, and jury. They advocated street justice. In the 1960s they told me they were not wounding "perps" anymore. They were going to empty their guns in them. Then they did. They said now it was their word against nobody. yeah, I knew a lot of them and I am not a big fan. They talked about carrying an unmarked gun, drugs or a knife that they would put on the guy they shot.
Click to expand...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Revolvers hold typically 6 rounds. Semi-automatic pistols hold anywhere from about 7 to 15 depending on the size and caliber of the pistol. A typical 9mm full size pistol holds 15 rounds in a magazine.
Click to expand...

Which from a self-defense viewpoint is more than enough. I know of no home invasions where the owner fired more that 15 rounds, like wise with mall shootings. The only time you hear of numerous shots being fired is the cops trying to take down a perp.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
Which from a self-defense viewpoint is more than enough. I know of no home invasions where the owner fired more that 15 rounds, like wise with mall shootings. The only time you hear of numerous shots being fired is the cops trying to take down a perp.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you look at police shootings where there are multiple cops involved the average shots fired by any single officer is between 3 and 6. Sure, 6 cops fired because they were all present and had their weapon out. Doesn't change that any single one only fired a few rounds.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
Which from a self-defense viewpoint is more than enough. I know of no home invasions where the owner fired more that 15 rounds, like wise with mall shootings. The only time you hear of numerous shots being fired is the cops trying to take down a perp.
Click to expand...

Argument of ignorance fallacy.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
Which from a self-defense viewpoint is more than enough. I know of no home invasions where the owner fired more that 15 rounds, like wise with mall shootings. The only time you hear of numerous shots being fired is the cops trying to take down a perp.
Click to expand...

While I agree, the more important point, IMO, is when Americans start defining our rights by "need". You don't "need" a semi-auto rifle. You don't "need" a magazine with more than 5 rounds. You don't "need" a 300HP automobile. You don't "need" to be able to post on Twitter without proper education. You don't "need" a 2000 sq foot house for a family of two.

Our ancestors fought to preserve our rights and modern Americans, are willing to give those rights back because they're too fat, lazy and stupid to defend it so they punt to government.
 
One example;

Laredo, TX Cops Fire 60 Shots at Armed Perp, Fist-Bump After Homicide

"Investigator Joe Baeza, the Laredo, Texas, police spokesman told the NY Daily News.” Sounds like a good shoot. Except for the large number of bullets sent in Mr. Garza’s direction – unleashed by six officers in six seconds"

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/laredo-tx-cops-fire-60-shots-armed-perp-fist-bump-homicide/


(Yes, I know this is an old link, but 60 rounds form 6 officers is 10 rounds average per cop.)

_____________________

"To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.

https://www.nola.com/news/crime_pol...cle_ae82835c-0212-5e50-a175-85601a1ed8bb.html

"...because many of the gunshots generally miss the target."

Hmmm...flying lead that misses the intended target is extremely dangerous to the general public.

_________________________

Now, from another perspective;

“Even law enforcement officers have a 39 percent probability to hit a target in a high-stress situation,” he continued. “This, combined with the fact that each hit with a handgun or intermediate cartridge has only an approximate 22 percent chance to stop the target, explains the need for larger magazines. From this, we can extrapolate that a novice law enforcement officer (likely more experienced than the average American) would need about 12 shots to reliably stop a single attacker.”

I reached out to Matt to get his sources for those percentages. Numbers were plucked from a 2015 study by the International Journal of Police Science & Management, which found hit probability for novice shooters, intermediate shooters and expert shooters at typical engagement distances (3 to 75ft). Per the study:

Novice Shooter: 39 percent hit probability
Intermediate Shooter: 48 percent hit probability
Expert Shooter: 49 percent hit probability

(One-in-six gun owners have used a gun to defend themselves, according to Pew Research. Defending oneself with a firearm is way more common than the mainstream media lets on. But that’s a conversation for a different day.)

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/how-many-rounds-you-need-carry-gun/



Looks to me like lots of people (and cops) need more time at the range...
 
Doc Dutch said:
While I agree, the more important point, IMO, is when Americans start defining our rights by "need". You don't "need" a semi-auto rifle. You don't "need" a magazine with more than 5 rounds. You don't "need" a 300HP automobile. You don't "need" to be able to post on Twitter without proper education. You don't "need" a 2000 sq foot house for a family of two.

Our ancestors fought to preserve our rights and modern Americans, are willing to give those rights back because they're too fat, lazy and stupid to defend it so they punt to government.
Click to expand...

Good solid point I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top