Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 03, 2013, 02:52:15 AM
-
Return to the Article
January 3, 2013
Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
By William A. Levinson
Senator Dianne Feinstein's latest divide-and-conquer attack on the Second Amendment has made even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) a sucker for the argument that private citizens do not need high-capacity magazines. These include not only 30-round rifle magazines, but 17-round magazines for handguns like the Glock.
Why does anybody need a high capacity magazine? If Senator Manchin were to educate himself by, for example, attending Front Sight's four-day defensive handgun class, he would learn the two primary answers:
(1) Failure to stop the aggressor, and
(2) Multiple aggressors
Failure to Stop
The classic .38 caliber revolver, with a capacity of six rounds, was the standard sidearm of the United States Army during the Moro insurrection in the Philippines. The Army found at least one dead Army officer with an empty sidearm, and his head split open by a machete or similar weapon. They also found the soldier's killer, who had finally bled to death. Six rounds of .38 were therefore not enough to convince even one determined attacker.
Police instructor Masaad Ayoob's The Truth About Self Protection adds an incident in which a female police officer saw a crazed gunman murder a woman, who then shot her as well before she could do anything. "She lay helpless as she watched a neighbor empty a .22 rifle into the killer; the neighbor then had to club the madman down with the empty rifle, again and again, before he succumbed."
Ayoob does not report the size of the .22's magazine, but the Moro insurrection exemplifies why even a 30-round rifle clip might not be enough to stop a crazed and determined attacker, such as one hopped up on a drug like PCP. "He had 32 Krag balls through him and was only stopped by the 33rd bullet -- a Colt .45 slug through both ears." The Krag-Jorgensen's 30-caliber cartridge was far more powerful than the .22 in Ayoob's example, but not sufficiently powerful to civilize this particular attacker even when fired in mass.
Colonel Jeff Cooper's To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth adds the case of a man who was prosecuted for shooting his attacker eight times with a .380 automatic pistol. The prosecutor admitted that the dead man had been the aggressor, but argued that the shooter had taken the law into his own hands by continuing to shoot an adversary who had "obviously" been disabled. Cooper, whom the defense called as an expert witness, cited a suicide in which "the deceased shot himself amidships four times with a .380 Webley. Presumably the first three hits did not convince him."
The .45-caliber Automatic Colt Pistol was the Army's specific solution to the "failure to stop" problem in the Philippines. A single hit from a .45 caliber bullet will (per Cooper) stop the aggressor 95 percent of the time. This does not mean, however, that 7 or 8 rounds are enough for all conceivable defensive scenarios. Front Sight teaches students to change magazines in (ideally) less than two seconds. The other issue that Senator Manchin fails to recognize is that of multiple attackers.
Gang Bangers and the Knockout Game
Front Sight's 4-day defensive handgun class included scenarios with multiple aggressors, including four gang bangers on a street and five or more in a house (along with innocent bystanders). Front Sight's standard doctrine is to fire a controlled pair into an aggressor's thoracic cavity and, in the event of failure to stop, another into his cranio-ocular cavity to take out his central nervous system.
In the street gang situation, though, one shot is fired into each gang member due to the need to economize on both time and ammunition; only those that don't go down (or flee) then get "seconds." You might conceivably stop four gang members with seven or eight rounds of .45 ACP; that is what the cartridge was designed to do. A small man or woman who can handle only a 9 mm comfortably might not be able to end the incident even with 15 or 17 rounds, unless he or she can make the far more difficult head shots. It is particularly telling that most police officers carry either .45s or high-capacity 9 mm sidearms.
Then there is the knockout game, in which a street gang selects a victim at random, knocks him or her down, and then maybe beats him or her to a pulp. Here is an example that involved six individuals; only one struck a blow, but the others seemed to approve. Although the Web page and the book it promotes focuses on black racial violence, there is similar Caucasian-on-black crime, such as that perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan. In any event, if there are six (or more) bad guys, you are obviously going to need far more than six bullets.
The anti-Second Amendment camp may argue that the teacher who was assaulted in this video would not have had time to defend himself with a firearm or anything else, because his attacker hit him by surprise. (While use of a firearm in response to a fist might normally be considered excessive force, multiple aggressors, even unarmed ones, create a disparity of force situation that might indeed justify a lethal response. The same applies if a single unarmed aggressor is much younger, bigger, and/or stronger than the victim, e.g. a teenage punk against a senior citizen or woman.) This is where the five conditions of mental awareness, as taught by Front Sight, come into play.
States of Mental Awareness
The knockout game victim was in what Front Sight calls Condition White, which means he was not paying attention to his surroundings. Front Sight recommends living in Condition Yellow. This does not mean a state of paranoia but it includes, for example, not getting too close to alleys or other positions from which you can be ambushed. It also means looking around you when you are handling your car keys in a parking lot. Violent criminals often avoid people who are clearly alert; they, like all predators in the animal kingdom, don't want to take a chance with anybody or anything that might hurt them.
Condition Orange means you have identified a potential threat. Had the teacher been in Condition Yellow, he would have seen the six young males in time to recognize them as such. Condition Orange can prevent a confrontation before it even becomes a confrontation. You don't get hurt, and you don't have to explain to the police why you hurt somebody else.
Condition Red means a known threat is in front of you. In the case of an imminent "knockout game," you have laid out in your mind how you are going to put the gang bangers down if they escalate to Condition Black by initiating hostilities.
Senator Feinstein's latest attack on the Second Amendment relies entirely on public ignorance of firearms and their legitimate uses, and this ignorance extends even to many people who support the principles of the Second Amendment. Education is the cure for ignorance and Front Sight, along with Gunsite (founded by Colonel Cooper) offers some of the best.
William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/01/why_does_anybody_need_a_30-round_magazine.html at January 03, 2013 - 04:49:35 AM CST
-
fucking great post, spot on.
-
The letter follows Joshua's posting to CNN's iReport:
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-joshua-boston-sen-feinstein-gun-control-legislation-california-cnn-ireport-2013-1#ixzz2GvWSJnJR
-
Op/Ed
|http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/28/assault-weapon-is-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible
12/28/2012 @ 9:23AM |61,891 views
'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible
Piers Morgan (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has announced that she will be introducing legislation to reenact the ban on so-called assault weapons that she authored in 1994. The evidence is in on the effect of her previous assault weapons ban: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. The ban made no perceptible difference in the gun violence statistics when it went into effect, and no perceptible difference when it was allowed to expire 10 years later, in 2003.
That is because the term “assault weapon” is just a PR stunt that fools the gullible and easily deluded. It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun. We tried it, conservatives said it wouldn’t work, and it didn’t work. Yet, it is the liberal answer to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn.
Why do the hard work of actually making a difference, when with no work at all you can perform a meaningless and irrelevant gesture that won’t make any difference? A Connecticut state law already banned assault weapons. The difference that made in stopping the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes.
The sharpest analyst in America, and probably the whole world, on the issue of guns and crime is economist John Lott, the author of the classic book, More Guns, Less Crime. Early in his career, Lott served as an economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which adopted uniform, mandatory, criminal sentencing guidelines for the federal courts. That led to his subsequent career as the world’s foremost expert on statistics relating to violent crime and guns.
Now in its Third Edition, Lott’s book is neither an opinion piece nor a lawyer’s brief. What it does is present highly sophisticated regression analysis of copious data relating to violent crime and guns city by city, county by county, and state by state, for several recent decades. Lott’s regression equations,
“
“account for not only all the law enforcement variables (arrest, execution, and imprisonment rates), income and poverty measures, (poverty and unemployment rates, per capita real income, as well as income maintenance, retirement and unemployment payments), the thirty-six measures of demographic changes, and the national average changes in crime rates from year-to-year and average differences across states …. In addition, the [regressions] account for the difference in various concealed handgun laws and other types of gun control laws.”
In short, this is the most sophisticated and comprehensive presentation of the data relating to violent crime and guns in the world.
This and similar work relating to other countries worldwide shows that where the local population owns more guns, there is less crime. That it is because criminals avoid victims who are or might be armed, and prefer to prey on the defenseless and unarmed, such as in “gun-free” zones. And because the presence of guns that can be used in self defense stops the commission of the more violent crimes, such as murder.
This unparalleled scholarship has swept the states with newly enacted “concealed carry” laws. These laws require local authorities to issue permits to carry concealed handguns to those who meet the specified qualifications, known as “shall issue” laws. Alternative state laws authorize local authorities with the discretion to issue such concealed carry permits, known as “may issue’ laws. In the early 1980s, just 8 states had any such right to carry laws. Today, 39 states have shall issue laws and 9 more have may issue laws. That leaves just two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, that completely ban citizens from carrying concealed handguns, and the Seventh Circuit just ruled the Illinois ban to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
As a result, by 2007 about 5 million Americans held permits to carry concealed handguns. Lott’ s Third Edition published in 2010 includes regressions that show these concealed carry laws result in:
“
“large drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect. In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law. The murder rate for these right to carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states.”
Lott summarizes,
“
“All the results indicate that violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are passed …. There is a large, statistically significant drop in murder rates across all specifications. The before-and-after average comparison implies that right-to-carry laws reduce murder by roughly 20 percent. In all cases, right-to-carry laws cause the trends in murder, rape, and robbery rates to fall.”
As David Kopel explained in the Wall Street Journal on December 17, armed permit holders often serve as the first line of defense against mass murderers:
“
“The media rarely mentions the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney Restaurant in Anniston, Ala (1991 ), the high school in Pearl, Miss. ( 1997), the middle school dance in Edinboro, Penn. ( 1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others. At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw that a shopper, who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him. The murderer’s next shot was to kill himself.”
Israel, which can’t afford the weak minded irrationality of American liberals, has learned from all this and its own experience to stop terrorist attacks in its schools by arming its teachers. That has worked spectacularly to shut down terrorist attacks in Isreali schools, without a single accident or misuse of guns.
But CNN anchor Piers Morgan showed recently that he does not learn from experience when he unprofessionally attacked Gun Owners of America President Larry Pratt on the air as “an incredibly stupid man” because Pratt was aware of the above evidence, while Morgan was not. Morgan, who demonstrates on air every day why people have said that America and Britain are two nations separated by a common language, ignorantly insisted that America adopt the benighted gun control laws of his formerly great country of Britain.
George Mason Law School Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm, author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Harvard, 2002), explained why Morgan’s position was so silly in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal. In March, 1996, Thomas Hamilton, known to suffer mental illness, shot and killed 16 young children and their teacher in a primary school in the Scottish town of Dumb lane, wounding 10 other children and 3 more teachers before killing himself. That resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, “which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.”
The results of that law, which would be unconstitutional in the U.S. no matter how many guests Piers Morgan calls stupid on his show, were:
“
“Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.”
Lott adds, “The evidence should make gun control advocates pause, as all the gun bans that I have studied show that murder rates increase after the ban is enacted.”
The draconian British law nullifying self defense in that country did not end mass shootings there. In June 2010, “Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.”
Based on all the evidence and experience above, what would work to stop tragedies like Sandy Hook Elementary is to offer a bonus of $2,500 a year to all teachers who obtain a conceal and carry permit, which requires training in every state, and who bring their gun to school every day, where it would be available in case of emergency. That would deter even mentally ill people from even trying mass murders at schools.
Lott explains that mass murderers choose so-called gun free zones such as schools or movie theaters or shopping malls where guns are prohibited because they know they can carry out their plan for mass murder there without being stopped. All gun free zone signs should be required to include a skull and crossbones with the admonition to the innocent “Enter at your own risk.”
Lott adds that these mass murderers are consciously choosing to commit suicide in carrying out their crimes. But they don’t want to go out quietly. They want to go out with a big bang to draw national and even worldwide attention to their pain and their plight. This is all a reflection of their mental illness.
Only the above policy of arming the teachers can stop such crazed madmen. The government does not even have the power to take away guns from dangerous criminals and insane mass murderers. We can’t even stop drugs and illegal aliens from crossing the border, and drugs and illegal guns even show up in prisons. Guns will always be available to those who want to obtain them. Legally mandated helplessness by the victims and those who could protect them only results in maximum vulnerability, as at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Moreover, Kopel also reports in Monday’s Journal, “A 2011 paper by Steven P. Segal at the University of California, Berkeley, Civil Commitment Law, Mental Health Services, and U.S. Homicide Rates, ‘found that a third of the state-to-state variation in homicide rates was attributable to the strength or weakness of involuntary civil commitment laws.” Wednesday’s Journal notes that a Hartford, Connecticut Judge Robert K. Killian, Jr. has been arguing for Connecticut to adopt stronger civil commitment laws, based on his own experience with repeat offenders. But the ACLU
was focused on protecting Adam Lanza’s civil liberties to mow down kindergarten students at Sandy Hook Elementary, so the Connecticut legislature never acted.
The same paper editorializes that a better solution would be mandatory outpatient treatment laws for the mentally ill who are a danger to others without taking their medication, which has “shown results in limiting violence among the mentally ill.”
These policies would constitute a complete and effective program to prevent the next Sandy Hook Elementary atrocity. But they are based on evidence and reason, not mindless emotion, so don’t expect any “liberal” support.
-
They have so hijacked this topic it's not even funny... we need large mags and assault weapons because the government has them... not to stop a home invasion. FFS what part of that don't libtards get? WE NEED TO FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT IF THEY TRY TO TAKE OUR FREEDOM HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU DO THAT WITHOUT ASSAULT WEAPONS.
This topic is just like seperation of church and state... been high jacked to be no religion at all. But the original intent was the government can't force a certain religion on you. If an individual poloitician makes his decisions based on his or her religion THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT DON'T FUCKING VOTE FOR THEM IF YOU DISAGGREE.
Yes libtards make me meltdown. I feel like shaking you fucking morons.
-
If the police feel they need 30 rd mags to deal w the criminal element the rest of us have to deal with and live next to - why should they have means to deal w the thugs and the law abiding citizen not?
-
They have so hijacked this topic it's not even funny... we need large mags and assault weapons because the government has them... not to stop a home invasion. FFS what part of that don't libtards get? WE NEED TO FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT IF THEY TRY TO TAKE OUR FREEDOM HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU DO THAT WITHOUT ASSAULT WEAPONS.
This topic is just like seperation of church and state... been high jacked to be no religion at all. But the original intent was the government can't force a certain religion on you. If an individual poloitician makes his decisions based on his or her religion THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT DON'T FUCKING VOTE FOR THEM IF YOU DISAGGREE.
Yes libtards make me meltdown. I feel like shaking you fucking morons.
wow - retarded much
the government has a lot more than 30 round magazines
shouldn't you also need drones, heavy artillery, and even nuclear weapons
I mean if you actually think you're going to be fighting your own government you're a absolute fool if you think a 30 round magazine is going to do you any good
-
We outnumber them idiot. Why do think they want to disarm us? If you aren't willing to participate in the system the founders set up... freedom by being armed against the gov...move somewhere where you can't fight back and accept your a bitch ass pussy who accepts what is given to you. Now go kill yourself.
-
We outnumber them idiot. Why do think they want to disarm us? If you aren't willing to participate in the system the founders set up... freedom by being armed against the gov...move somewhere where you can't fight back and accept your a bitch ass pussy who accepts what is given to you. Now go kill yourself.
paranoid much
no one is trying to disarm you though from your posts it seems like it would be a good idea
you really think your 30 round magazines are going to do you and a handful of other nuts any good against the military.
think about it for more than a few seconds before answering
-
paranoid much
no one is trying to disarm you though from your posts it seems like it would be a good idea
you really think your 30 round magazines are going to do you and a handful of other nuts any good against the military.
think about it for more than a few seconds before answering
This the problem...we are nuts for wanting to defend our families freedoms... but knuceheads like you are willing to toss your freedom away so easily... your completely normal. Give me a fucking break. If they don't want to disarm us for the reasons I said, please enlighten us with your wisdom of why they do. I'm sure it will be so brilliant you'll change my mind.
-
This the problem...we are nuts for wanting to defend our families freedoms... but knuceheads like you are willing to toss your freedom away so easily... your completely normal. Give me a fucking break. If they don't want to disarm us for the reasons I said, please enlighten us with your wisdom of why they do. I'm sure it will be so brilliant you'll change my mind.
you're nut for thinking a 30 round clip is going to do you a damn bit of good
you're also nuts for thinking it's more likely you'll need to defend yourself against your government than it is that another mentally ill person will use that high mag clip to execute another 20 to 30 innocent people
I'm also thinking you're just plain old nuts and probably more likely to be the next "crazy shooter" than freedom fighter
-
you're nut for thinking a 30 round clip is going to do you a damn bit of good
you're also nuts for thinking it's more likely you'll need to defend yourself against your government than it is that another mentally ill person will use that high mag clip to execute another 20 to 30 innocent people
I'm also thinking you're just plain old nuts and probably more likely to be the next "crazy shooter" than freedom fighter
Nice way to dodge the question. It starts with a clip it ends with unarmed citizens, which is the end of rule by the people. Believe what you will.
-
you're nut for thinking a 30 round clip is going to do you a damn bit of good
you're also nuts for thinking it's more likely you'll need to defend yourself against your government than it is that another mentally ill person will use that high mag clip to execute another 20 to 30 innocent people
I'm also thinking you're just plain old nuts and probably more likely to be the next "crazy shooter" than freedom fighter
So why stop at 30 and not go for the 10 round too?
-
LOL @ actually fighting the gov't through physical means and conflicts.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA AAA
-
LOL @ actually fighting the gov't through physical means and conflicts.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA AAA
Good thing you were not around in 1776.
-
Good thing you were not around in 1776.
Good thing you were not either. Or else you would have been curled up in the fetal position crying about the thugs. Since your usual method of Cut-N-Paste hadn't been invented yet.
-
LOL @ actually fighting the gov't through physical means and conflicts.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA AAA
What part of we out number them don't you get? They could drop every nuke and we still outnumber them. Just look at this year you moron. Did Egypts people fight thier gov? Syria? Libya? You dumb shit laughing about the people fighting the gov when it's in the news every day. You look like a fool for even saying this. I ask again.... Why do you think they want to disarm us? Why does any gov want to disarm its own people?
My answer is SO YOU CAN'T DO WHAT EGYPT AND LIBYA JUST DID THIS YEAR YOU FUCKING JACKASS. What's your answer?
Seriously do you even comprehend how bad I just owned you?
How bad you owned yourself with thus dumbass post? Now go get your shine box. You are now my bitch.
-
What part of we out number them don't you get? They could drop every nuke and we still outnumber them. Just look at this year you moron. Did Egypts people fight thier gov? Syria? Libya? You dumb shit laughing about the people fighting the gov when it's in the news every day. You look like a fool for even saying this. I ask again.... Why do you think they want to disarm us? Why does any gov want to disarm its own people?
My answer is SO YOU CAN'T DO WHAT EGYPT AND LIBYA JUST DID THIS YEAR YOU FUCKING JACKASS. What's your answer?
Seriously do you even comprehend how bad I just owned you?
How bad you owned yourself with thus dumbass post? Now go get your shine box. You are now my bitch.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
Meltdown.
That was more entertaining than "fight your own gov't". Next you will be claiming that Obama is sending black helicopters to get your guns. One thing for sure, he must have already someone to get your brains. Evident by the stupidity that reeks from your keyboard.
Keep crying though.
-
Nice way to dodge the question. It starts with a clip it ends with unarmed citizens, which is the end of rule by the people. Believe what you will.
I certainly don't believe that nonsense
you sound seriously paranoid
-
Straw/Lurker just curious if it was possible to get a total ban of all guns through would you guys support it?
If not where do you draw the line?
-
Straw/Lurker just curious if it was possible to get a total ban of all guns through would you guys support it?
If not where do you draw the line?
Where did you ever get the notion I was anything but pro-guns?
::)
-
Straw/Lurker just curious if it was possible to get a total ban of all guns through would you guys support it?
If not where do you draw the line?
I would not be in favor of that
I'm pretty sure I've said that more than a few times
-
ok, well then where would you draw the line?
-
Return to the Article
January 3, 2013
Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
By William A. Levinson
Senator Dianne Feinstein's latest divide-and-conquer attack on the Second Amendment has made even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) a sucker for the argument that private citizens do not need high-capacity magazines. These include not only 30-round rifle magazines, but 17-round magazines for handguns like the Glock.
Why does anybody need a high capacity magazine? If Senator Manchin were to educate himself by, for example, attending Front Sight's four-day defensive handgun class, he would learn the two primary answers:
(1) Failure to stop the aggressor, and
(2) Multiple aggressors
Failure to Stop
The classic .38 caliber revolver, with a capacity of six rounds, was the standard sidearm of the United States Army during the Moro insurrection in the Philippines. The Army found at least one dead Army officer with an empty sidearm, and his head split open by a machete or similar weapon. They also found the soldier's killer, who had finally bled to death. Six rounds of .38 were therefore not enough to convince even one determined attacker.
Police instructor Masaad Ayoob's The Truth About Self Protection adds an incident in which a female police officer saw a crazed gunman murder a woman, who then shot her as well before she could do anything. "She lay helpless as she watched a neighbor empty a .22 rifle into the killer; the neighbor then had to club the madman down with the empty rifle, again and again, before he succumbed."
Ayoob does not report the size of the .22's magazine, but the Moro insurrection exemplifies why even a 30-round rifle clip might not be enough to stop a crazed and determined attacker, such as one hopped up on a drug like PCP. "He had 32 Krag balls through him and was only stopped by the 33rd bullet -- a Colt .45 slug through both ears." The Krag-Jorgensen's 30-caliber cartridge was far more powerful than the .22 in Ayoob's example, but not sufficiently powerful to civilize this particular attacker even when fired in mass.
Colonel Jeff Cooper's To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth adds the case of a man who was prosecuted for shooting his attacker eight times with a .380 automatic pistol. The prosecutor admitted that the dead man had been the aggressor, but argued that the shooter had taken the law into his own hands by continuing to shoot an adversary who had "obviously" been disabled. Cooper, whom the defense called as an expert witness, cited a suicide in which "the deceased shot himself amidships four times with a .380 Webley. Presumably the first three hits did not convince him."
The .45-caliber Automatic Colt Pistol was the Army's specific solution to the "failure to stop" problem in the Philippines. A single hit from a .45 caliber bullet will (per Cooper) stop the aggressor 95 percent of the time. This does not mean, however, that 7 or 8 rounds are enough for all conceivable defensive scenarios. Front Sight teaches students to change magazines in (ideally) less than two seconds. The other issue that Senator Manchin fails to recognize is that of multiple attackers.
Gang Bangers and the Knockout Game
Front Sight's 4-day defensive handgun class included scenarios with multiple aggressors, including four gang bangers on a street and five or more in a house (along with innocent bystanders). Front Sight's standard doctrine is to fire a controlled pair into an aggressor's thoracic cavity and, in the event of failure to stop, another into his cranio-ocular cavity to take out his central nervous system.
In the street gang situation, though, one shot is fired into each gang member due to the need to economize on both time and ammunition; only those that don't go down (or flee) then get "seconds." You might conceivably stop four gang members with seven or eight rounds of .45 ACP; that is what the cartridge was designed to do. A small man or woman who can handle only a 9 mm comfortably might not be able to end the incident even with 15 or 17 rounds, unless he or she can make the far more difficult head shots. It is particularly telling that most police officers carry either .45s or high-capacity 9 mm sidearms.
Then there is the knockout game, in which a street gang selects a victim at random, knocks him or her down, and then maybe beats him or her to a pulp. Here is an example that involved six individuals; only one struck a blow, but the others seemed to approve. Although the Web page and the book it promotes focuses on black racial violence, there is similar Caucasian-on-black crime, such as that perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan. In any event, if there are six (or more) bad guys, you are obviously going to need far more than six bullets.
The anti-Second Amendment camp may argue that the teacher who was assaulted in this video would not have had time to defend himself with a firearm or anything else, because his attacker hit him by surprise. (While use of a firearm in response to a fist might normally be considered excessive force, multiple aggressors, even unarmed ones, create a disparity of force situation that might indeed justify a lethal response. The same applies if a single unarmed aggressor is much younger, bigger, and/or stronger than the victim, e.g. a teenage punk against a senior citizen or woman.) This is where the five conditions of mental awareness, as taught by Front Sight, come into play.
States of Mental Awareness
The knockout game victim was in what Front Sight calls Condition White, which means he was not paying attention to his surroundings. Front Sight recommends living in Condition Yellow. This does not mean a state of paranoia but it includes, for example, not getting too close to alleys or other positions from which you can be ambushed. It also means looking around you when you are handling your car keys in a parking lot. Violent criminals often avoid people who are clearly alert; they, like all predators in the animal kingdom, don't want to take a chance with anybody or anything that might hurt them.
Condition Orange means you have identified a potential threat. Had the teacher been in Condition Yellow, he would have seen the six young males in time to recognize them as such. Condition Orange can prevent a confrontation before it even becomes a confrontation. You don't get hurt, and you don't have to explain to the police why you hurt somebody else.
Condition Red means a known threat is in front of you. In the case of an imminent "knockout game," you have laid out in your mind how you are going to put the gang bangers down if they escalate to Condition Black by initiating hostilities.
Senator Feinstein's latest attack on the Second Amendment relies entirely on public ignorance of firearms and their legitimate uses, and this ignorance extends even to many people who support the principles of the Second Amendment. Education is the cure for ignorance and Front Sight, along with Gunsite (founded by Colonel Cooper) offers some of the best.
William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/01/why_does_anybody_need_a_30-round_magazine.html at January 03, 2013 - 04:49:35 AM CST
To kill kids?
-
If the police feel they need 30 rd mags to deal w the criminal element the rest of us have to deal with and live next to - why should they have means to deal w the thugs and the law abiding citizen not?
they are the police, you are not
hope this helps
-
they are the police, you are not
hope this helps
And this matters how? Are you suggesting that citizens should be helpless as and only the police should be able to defend us?
-
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
Meltdown.
That was more entertaining than "fight your own gov't". Next you will be claiming that Obama is sending black helicopters to get your guns. One thing for sure, he must have already someone to get your brains. Evident by the stupidity that reeks from your keyboard.
Keep crying though.
Did I say you can post more in this thread bitch? You got wtf owned so bad you now speak when I tell you to bitch. Open your piehole again out of turn and my fist will be in it bitch.
-
Did I say you can post more in this thread bitch? You got wtf owned so bad you now speak when I tell you to bitch. Open your piehole again out of turn and my fist will be in it bitch.
Oh look. Another internet tough guy. Sudden influx of testosterone is throwing his hormones into an uproar.
You know if you would just spit instead of swallow you could avoid this problem. "Bitch". Now please carry on. Your stupidity is quite amusing to say the least.
-
And this matters how? Are you suggesting that citizens should be helpless as and only the police should be able to defend us?
It's our responsibility to defend ourselves FROM the police amongst others... I can't believe that in this world I even have to have this discussion.
Fuck... This shit has happened over and over for the past century and every time the government turned on the people and if you didn't follow them, you were executed.
HOW ARE PEOPLE SO FUCKING BLIND!?!?!
-
It's our responsibility to defend ourselves FROM the police amongst others... I can't believe that in this world I even have to have this discussion.
Fuck... This shit has happened over and over for the past century and every time the government turned on the people and if you didn't follow them, you were executed.
HOW ARE PEOPLE SO FUCKING BLIND!?!?!
Conditioning by politicians, media, tv, academia, etc.
-
Conditioning by politicians, media, tv, academia, etc.
I don't get it man... I'm a college grad, and no one will ever convince me that any form of gun control is anymore than a way to start the slow spiral towards oppression of the people.
These academics should know HISTORY... HISTORY has shown us what happens.
-
I don't get it man... I'm a college grad, and no one will ever convince me that any form of gun control is anymore than a way to start the slow spiral towards oppression of the people.
These academics should know HISTORY... HISTORY has shown us what happens.
Many academics actually favor totalitarianism since they believe all the power and decision making should be in the hands of a small few elite with the citizen helpless to depose these leaders when they object to the social and fiscal tyranny and impositions.
-
Many academics actually favor totalitarianism since they believe all the power and decision making should be in the hands of a small few elite with the citizen helpless to depose these leaders when they object to the social and fiscal tyranny and impositions.
They are the first people who get rounded up and sent off to the work camps though... They are idiots.
-
Saying banning guns will eliminate murder is like saying banning porn will eliminate rape.
It just ain't happening.
-
Once again the topic of banning high capacity magazines somehow turns into a talk about total ban of all guns
-
Sorry, was addressing the comments of others.
-
Once again the topic of banning high capacity magazines somehow turns into a talk about total ban of all guns
Why stop at 30 and not go for 10 rounders?
-
Sorry, was addressing the comments of others.
no worries
It started early on page 1
It just seems like any discussion of any form of gun legislation always devolves into total disarmament which is something no one is suggesting (at least no one is suggesting is seriously possible).
We have this ridiculous either/or arugment
Either we have no restrictions whatsoever or any restriction must eventually lead to total ban on guns
It's just a way for gun nuts to deflect from having a real dialogue
-
Why stop at 30 and not go for 10 rounders?
the first new rule should be that people suffering from paranoid delusions should not be allowed to have any guns
-
the first new rule should be that people suffering from paranoid delusions should not be allowed to have any guns
How about you answer the question?
-
How about you answer the question?
I've answered it many times before
what are you thoughts on not allowing paranoid delusional people to have guns
-
ok, well then where would you draw the line?
Bump for an answer or this for both magazine capacity and gun bans...
-
I've answered it many times before
what are you thoughts on not allowing paranoid delusional people to have guns
STFU and stick to the thread topic.
Why stop and 30 and not ban 10 rds too and who are you to judge whether one needs a 30 or a 10??
-
Bump for an answer or this for both magazine capacity and gun bans...
I've answered your gun ban question yesterday so why are you asking again
I'm fine with the standard size clip
Now, what are you thoughts on not allowing paranoid delusional people from having guns
Don't you think that would be a good thing and a direct benefit to the public
-
I've answered your gun ban question yesterday so why are you asking again
I'm fine with the standard size clip
Now, what are you thoughts on not allowing paranoid delusional people from having guns
Don't you think that would be a good thing and a direct benefit to the public
LOL!!!!
What is a "standard clip"?
My G17 takes both a 10rd and 15 rd MAGAZINE
-
LOL!!!!
What is a "standard clip"?
My G17 takes both a 10rd and 15 rd MAGAZINE
fine
keep the 10 round
now answer my question
-
I've answered your gun ban question yesterday so why are you asking again
I'm fine with the standard size clip
Now, what are you thoughts on not allowing paranoid delusional people from having guns
Don't you think that would be a good thing and a direct benefit to the public
No you didn't you said you weren't in favor of a total gun ban. I'm asking bc I assume you support a new AWB, if so you do agree with some sort of gun ban so where would you draw the line? If I'm mistaken and you're not in favor of any gun ban please correct me.
Lol what do you consider a "standard clip"? What capacity?
I've said from the beginning that addressing mental health is the thing that needs to be concentrated on. That would actually address the root problem remember, you and Albert tried to make fun until I cited a study to show it works?
-
No you didn't you said you weren't in favor of a total gun ban. I'm asking bc I assume you support a new AWB, if so you do agree with some sort of gun ban so where would you draw the line? If I'm mistaken and you're not in favor of any gun ban please correct me.
Lol what do you consider a "standard clip"? What capacity?
I've said from the beginning that addressing mental health is the thing that needs to be concentrated on. That would actually address the root problem remember, you and Albert tried to make fun until I cited a study to show it works?
Answer my question or stop asking me any more questions
-
Answer my question or stop asking me any more questions
Yes - we all want mentally ill people armed to the teeth Straw.
::) ::)
-
Answer my question or stop asking me any more questions
i answered your question, if they are clinically diagnosed as delusional with paranoia of course they should be allowed to own a gun.
Now answer the question I've asked 3 times now, where would you stop on a gun ban?
-
Yes - we all want mentally ill people armed to the teeth Straw.
::) ::)
so the problem is simply identifying these people before they snap
given that almost everyone has an online presence these days and it's basically the same as ranting and raving in public shouldn't we be using online resources to help identify these SICK people and protect not only ourselves but them (remember these nuts often wind up killing themselves after their shooting spree) by taking their guns away and constantly monitoring them to make sure they have no access to guns
-
i answered your question, if they are clinically diagnosed as delusional with paranoia of course they should be allowed to own a gun.
yet that would have done nothing to prevent Loughner, Lanza or that guy in Aurora
how about some proactive research of the nuts before they snap
Now answer the question I've asked 3 times now, where would you stop on a gun ban?
WTF man
you asked me that question on the first page of this thread
I don't have any summary opinion on the exact specifics
I'd start with all the proposals supported by NRA members and I'd look at any other specific suggestions and let you know when I have an opinion
-
yet that would have done nothing to prevent Loughner, Lanza or that guy in Aurora
how about some proactive research of the nuts before they snap
WTF man
you asked me that question on the first page of this thread
I don't have any summary opinion on the exact specifics
I'd start with all the proposals supported by NRA members and I'd look at any other specific suggestions and let you know when I have an opinion
No, more leeway in committing Those with mental illness of all the ppl you mentioned others had felt they had to some extent would. More education on mental illness an the symptoms would also.
LMFAO NO IT'S NOT THE SAME QUESTION!!!
I asked if you were in favor of a total gun ban, you said no...
This question is if you're in favor of any gun ban and if so where do you draw the line.
Are you telling me you're not in favor of any gun ban at all?
-
No, more leeway in committing Those with mental illness of all the ppl you mentioned others had felt they had to some extent would. More education on mental illness an the symptoms would also.
LMFAO NO IT'S NOT THE SAME QUESTION!!!
I asked if you were in favor of a total gun ban, you said no...
This question is if you're in favor of any gun ban and if so where do you draw the line.
Are you telling me you're not in favor of any gun ban at all?
I haven't given it any thought other than the things I've already mentioned (repeatedly)
if you have a specific suggestion then feel free to ask if I feel like it I'll respond back
-
i answered your question, if they are clinically diagnosed as delusional with paranoia of course they should be allowed to own a gun.
Now answer the question I've asked 3 times now, where would you stop on a gun ban?
You really want crazy people armed? Or is this a typo?
-
You really want crazy people armed? Or is this a typo?
I assumed that was a typo (I do plenty of those myself)
-
You really want crazy people armed? Or is this a typo?
hahah typo I'm typing on my phone
-
I assumed that was a typo (I do plenty of those myself)
Biden is armed right?
-
Straw would you be in favor of banning all assault rifles?
-
Straw would you be in favor of banning all assault rifles?
what is an assault rifle?
-
Straw would you be in favor of banning all assault rifles?
what's your definition of an assault rifle?
-
what's your definition of an assault rifle?
No such thing as an assault rifle.
That is a leftist emotional baby definition
-
No such thing as an assault rifle.
That is a leftist emotional baby definition
so you're calling Tony a leftist emotional baby
isn't being an emotional baby more your thing?
-
so you're calling Tony a leftist emotional baby
isn't being an emotional baby more your thing?
No that is your thing.
If I shoot you in the head w my Ruger 10/22 is that no an assault rifle?
-
No that is your thing.
If I shoot you in the head w my Ruger 10/22 is that no an assault rifle?
aren't you the one always pissing and moaning about the new rules and now you're making person threats too
Mods?
-
aren't you the one always pissing and moaning about the new rules and now you're making person threats too
Mods?
No - was making the point that by nature all guns can be considered assault rifles given the nature in which they are used.
-
No - was making the point that by nature all guns can be considered assault rifles given the nature in which they are used.
Mods ?
-
Mods ?
LOL!!!!!
-
no worries
It started early on page 1
It just seems like any discussion of any form of gun legislation always devolves into total disarmament which is something no one is suggesting (at least no one is suggesting is seriously possible).
We have this ridiculous either/or arugment
Either we have no restrictions whatsoever or any restriction must eventually lead to total ban on guns
It's just a way for gun nuts to deflect from having a real dialogue
But it IS either or... As I stated somewhere else... IN NO OTHER AMENDMENT does it say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
It puts it RIGHT THERE... The founding fathers said, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should we INFRINGE on our ability to have ANY firearm.
So yes... it is ALL or nothing... That's the precedence of the 2nd amendment.
-
LOL!!!!!
you're the one constantly pissing and moaning about the new rules
why don't you try following them yourself
-
But it IS either or... As I stated somewhere else... IN NO OTHER AMENDMENT does it say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
It puts it RIGHT THERE... The founding fathers said, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should we INFRINGE on our ability to have ANY firearm.
So yes... it is ALL or nothing... That's the precedence of the 2nd amendment.
haven't we been over this before
if it's All or Nothing then anyone who wants it should be allowed heavy artillery, rocket launchers, drones, nuclear weapons etc..
Are you fine with letting anyone have a shoulder mounted rocket launcher
Sure, it may get in the hands of some crazy person and they can shoot down an airplane but that's just the price of freedom right?
-
you're the one constantly pissing and moaning about the new rules
why don't you try following them yourself
I didnt threaten you Mary.
-
haven't we been over this before
if it's All or Nothing then anyone who wants it should be allowed heavy artillery, rocket launchers, drones, nuclear weapons etc..
Are you fine with letting anyone have a shoulder mounted rocket launcher
Sure, it may get in the hands of some crazy person and they can shoot down an airplane but that's just the price of freedom right?
Why not? Under proper conditions, I dont have a problem w a citizen owning one.
-
I didnt threaten you Mary.
sure you did and you also called Tony an emotional baby
typical coming from you
always crying about the rules but the first one to break them
-
what's your definition of an assault rifle?
hahah easy fellas it was a little trap that straw side stepped
Would you be in favor of banning semi automatic rifles, specifically the AR-15
-
haven't we been over this before
if it's All or Nothing then anyone who wants it should be allowed heavy artillery, rocket launchers, drones, nuclear weapons etc..
Are you fine with letting anyone have a shoulder mounted rocket launcher
Sure, it may get in the hands of some crazy person and they can shoot down an airplane but that's just the price of freedom right?
Technically not firearms. Those are explosives.
-
Technically not firearms. Those are explosives.
Thank you!
Someone gets it.
-
Technically not firearms. Those are explosives.
where does The Constitution say FIRE ARMS
they had explosives back then too
-
where does The Constitution say FIRE ARMS
they had explosives back then too
They say ARMS... ARMS... ARMS!!!
No one ever calls them explosive arms...
-
and they were referred to as explosives, guns are what was being referred to as arms....
ever heard the military term "shoulder arms"
they werent talking about cannons...
-
so straw do you support a ban of semi automatic rifles, specifically the AR-15?
-
They say ARMS... ARMS... ARMS!!!
No one ever calls them explosive arms...
ARMS = armaments which is exactly what a well regulated militia would need
-
ARMS = armaments which is exactly what a well regulated militia would need
so when the military says in drill commands to "right shoulder arms", "left shoulder arms" and they are specifically referring to rifles....
-
so when the military says in drill commands to "right shoulder arms", "left shoulder arms" and they are specifically referring to rifles....
The Constitution doesn't make any such distinction
It just says Arms
-
The Constitution doesn't make any such distinction
It just says Arms
agreed, either way doesnt matter technically we have the right to own explosives, cannons, grenades etc. you just have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops.
back to my question, would you support a ban on semi automatic rifles specifically the AR-15?
-
The Constitution doesn't make any such distinction
It just says Arms
Who care if they are not anyway? Let's say it makes ZERO distinction... Either way... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... Apparently that part escapes people.
-
Who care if they are not anyway? Let's say it makes ZERO distinction... Either way... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... Apparently that part escapes people.
so again then, any weapon (arm) should be available to anyone (assuming not a convicted felon, mental patient, etc...)
correct ?
-
so again then, any weapon (arm) should be available to anyone (assuming not a convicted felon, mental patient, etc...)
correct ?
My belief on it is as I've said very conflicted... While I would not exactly say "yes", I would err to that side much more than to ban any weapon... I always lean toward liberty over tyranny.
Since you keep asking the question, then I simply ask you... What do YOU believe should be banned?
You keep asking everyone else, but I've yet to see you take a firm stand... I've seen you say rifles, then I've seen you see that more handguns cause deaths, so then you are ok with me keeping my semi-auto rifle or my assault rifle and giving up my 9MM?
You tell me what YOU think should be banned?
Only large clips? I mean, I can have 50 small mags and that will work as well as 10 large ones... and yes, you can carry that many... I've seen it done.
-
agreed, either way doesnt matter technically we have the right to own explosives, cannons, grenades etc. you just have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops.
back to my question, would you support a ban on semi automatic rifles specifically the AR-15?
please quit dodging my question straw
-
please quit dodging my question straw
Why answer it? It causes a loop... he says yes, and we mention hammers kill more... then he says, well, I'll take the handguns, to which you say, well, why handguns now? 3 months ago they weren't a problem... Nor do the legislature say they are a problem... Even though they do all of the killing... Which then starts the fine... handguns... So you say, then I can keep my rifles because they aren't killing all of the people.
...and you see how this goes.
-
Why answer it? It causes a loop... he says yes, and we mention hammers kill more... then he says, well, I'll take the handguns, to which you say, well, why handguns now? 3 months ago they weren't a problem... Nor do the legislature say they are a problem... Even though they do all of the killing... Which then starts the fine... handguns... So you say, then I can keep my rifles because they aren't killing all of the people.
...and you see how this goes.
well I have a figure he isnt answering it b/c he doesnt want to pin down his position to much but Im not doing it to trap him.
Im geniuenly curious to what extent he feels gun control should be allowed.
I dont care about the hammers, I think it highlights the emotionally retarded pygmy of an argument that ppl who feel banning semi automatic rifles have though.
I really am curious to what extent straw feels gun control is ok.
-
back to my question, would you support a ban on semi automatic rifles specifically the AR-15?
come on straw your posting in other threads, why not answer this question...