Has any private citizen EVER fired more than 20 shots in Self-Defense? EVER?

[SuMar]

I want some facts and truthiness. Has ANY private citizen (not a cop, solider, militia, security guard)....EVER needed more than 20 shots for any single incident of self-defense? I tried researching it, and I cant fine a single incident. Ever. I found one website with a lot of good stats from the NRA's own sources: The Thinking Gunfighter: Self Defense Findings

How many self defense situations required a "reload"? : About 1/2 of 1% it says, so, 0.5%.

How many shots are fired by the defender? : In most cases, about 2. Yes, TWO.

The average number of shots fired by the defender? 2. The median? 2.

It says the majority of cases where more than 2 were fired were the defender simply shooting the gun until empty, out of reaction, not necessity.

Out 482 shooting incidents studied (By the NRA), only 3 required a reload. 1 of the 3 was to kill a Lion (like the cat) who escaped, and a large cal revolver was used, needing 13 shots to kill the animal.

The largest number of "attackers" reported, across the country, was 7...where 7 men tried to do a home invasion. The home owner fought them off, killed 2, wounded 1................with a SHOTGUN.

Im trying to find an example. And I cant. I cant find one single example of a private citizen needing a 30 round magazine to fight off intruders or attackers. Not one. Not one single incident. In fact, every single incident seems that a 15 round magazine would be PLENTY to get the job done....yep, even if the attacker is an African Lion.

Im a gun rights supporter, but I also try to see both sides of all issues. Well....Im having trouble justifying the need for 30, 45, 50, or 100 round magazines in the hands of private citizens. Should they be banned? I dont think so. It wouldnt change anything except add more work for the understaffed PD's to enforce yet another law. But, is there a justified NEED for them? Absolutely not.

The only time I fired more than 20 shots consecutively was at a gun range.

 

[P@triot]

In a 14-minute instructional and debunk clip, Campbell narrates why a ban on high-capacity magazine sizes is ineffective, showcasing — through examples — the idea’s purported deficiencies.

“I think it’s a great fallacy to believe that it would,” he said candidly. “You’ve got a standard capacity versus a 10 round. From a citizen standpoint…all we’re doing is making it more difficult for [people] to defend themselves against bad guys.”

He said that those who break the law aren’t concerned with abiding by regulations, so creating magazine capacity restrictions simply doesn’t make sense. The law abiding will follow, but criminals, naturally, won’t.

“By limiting the access to standard magazines…I think you are restricting a good American’s opportunity to protect himself and his family,” the sheriff continued

The clip concludes by noting that proposed magazine size changes don’t truly pass “the common sense test.”

Yes, but when has an ignorant dumbocrat policy ever passed the "common sense test"? The next time will be the first time.

It just makes sense that when it comes to firearms, we should listen to firearms experts and law enforcement instead of liberal bureaucrats who have never even held a firearm in their life.

Sheriff Debunks Gun Magazine ?Fallacies? in This Viral Vid (Plus: His Response to Biden?s Shotgun Advice) | TheBlaze.com

 

[Redbone]

I dont know what they teach now, but when I took my CCW, we were told that when we shoot, to keep shooting until the bad guy was down, that it was necessary to eliminate the threat by making sure it was killed, and to prevent the possibility of legal action from the bad guy after you shoot them.

A CCW instructor TAUGHT you to unload the whole mag, and to ensure the guy is dead to avoid lawsuits?

Holy Christ. Either you are lying and didn't take a CCW class.....or, that instructor is going to get living shit sued out of HIM when one of you kills someone.

You shoot to stop the threat, and ONLY to stop the threat. NOT to 'kill', and certainly not to 'kill so I wont get sued by a living witness'.

That is terrifying. So if after the 1st shot, the guy drops the gun and falls, but is alive, you were taught to keep firing until empty to be sure he is A) Dead and B) Not gonna sue anyone????

WOW. Just wow.

OMG a person who claims to be an ex cop who says you don't shoot too kill. Why are police trained to shoot center mass? Police are not trained to shoot warning shots, nor are they trained to shoot to maim, just shut the fuck up.

Common sense tells one that if it is necessary to shoot a person to avoid being killed then shooting to only wound is sheer stupidity.
I agree the poster claiming to be a cop and putting forth that crap should just shut the hell up.
If I ever have to shoot a person it will be not only with the intent to kill that bastard it will be with the determination to do so at all costs. Should that require emptying an entire mag into him so be it.
I'd much rather possibly be judged by 12 than carried by 6!