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

[P@triot]

This is as a stupid as asking if a nuclear weapon has ever hit the United States? Ever?

The answer: what the fuck difference does it make? At the end of the day, what has NOT happened in the past is no indication of what COULD happen tomorrow.

Before 9/11, no planes had ever collapsed buildings any where in the world. That changed in the blink of an eye.

 

[RosieS]

Pistorius killed with 4. Actually 3 did the job, but he squeezed off 4.
.
Zimmerman killed with 1.

Averaging, that's 2.5. Rounding up, you get 3.

3 bullets are the ideal killing number

Regards from Rosie

 

[P@triot]

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.

That's because there is no statistics for the times when someone does require more than 20 rounds for "any single incident". And that's because, when the shit hits the fan that bad, even law enforcement heads for the hills (see countless riots - most recently Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans).

See, when people are firing more than 20 rounds at crowds of dozens or hundreds of people, there are no police officers around to count the shots and then file official police reports.

Furthermore, the fact that you specifically call out "a single incident" is a way to ensure that more than 20 rounds is highly unlikely. Even in the event of a riot, it is highly unlikely to require more than 20 rounds to end the threat from a crowd, but what happens when you turn the corner and the next wave of rioters are headed your way? You really comfortable with only being allowed to have 7 rounds in this scenario?

A little common sense goes a looooooooonng way my friend....

 

[P@triot]

Pistorius killed with 4. Actually 3 did the job, but he squeezed off 4.
.
Zimmerman killed with 1.

Averaging, that's 2.5. Rounding up, you get 3.

3 bullets are the ideal killing number

Regards from Rosie

Tell that to Reginald Deny you fool.....

Like the typical uneducated liberal discussing an issue they know absolutely NOTHING about (in this case - security), you make wild and irrational assumptions based strictly on TWO situations that neatly fit with your predetermined conclusion.

You start with your conclusion, then look for any "facts" that will support that conclusion. The world has been filled with millions of shooting since the beginning of time - perhaps you might want to explore data from more than TWO shootings that just happen to fit your agenda?

God almighty are you an idiot....

 

[RosieS]

Pistorius killed with 4. Actually 3 did the job, but he squeezed off 4.
.
Zimmerman killed with 1.

Averaging, that's 2.5. Rounding up, you get 3.

3 bullets are the ideal killing number

Regards from Rosie

Tell that to Reginald Deny you fool.....

Like the typical uneducated liberal discussing an issue they know absolutely NOTHING about (in this case - security), you make wild and irrational assumptions based strictly on TWO situations that neatly fit with your predetermined conclusion.

You start with your conclusion, then look for any "facts" that will support that conclusion. The world has been filled with millions of shooting since the beginning of time - perhaps you might want to explore data from more than TWO shootings that just happen to fit your agenda?

God almighty are you an idiot....

More than 6 bullets is called "overkill", moron. More than 10 bullets is called "self-proclaimed security expert overcompensating for a tiny penis", cretin.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Avatar4321]

Pistorius killed with 4. Actually 3 did the job, but he squeezed off 4.
.
Zimmerman killed with 1.

Averaging, that's 2.5. Rounding up, you get 3.

3 bullets are the ideal killing number

Regards from Rosie

And if you are being attacked by a mob. How many do you think you'd have to shoot to keep yourself from being hung up on a tree?

 

[Avatar4321]

I will fire as many shots as necessary be it 2 or 20.

But you don't need to. If you need to use more than 7, you should just do the right thing and let them kill you and your loved ones. I mean you shouldn't be protecting them to begin with. You should be watching them die while waiting for the so called "first responders".

 

[MisterBeale]

How can a government "govern" a population that outnumbers them and had them outgunned? Thats ridiculous.

The group with the most firepower WILL govern. Whether it is the govt, like here in the US, or it is the cartels...like Mexico...or it is the religous factions, like Afghanistan.

You anti-govt types think there is some freedom utopia where there are no rules or laws (well, at least nothing except the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-weed laws). But you are wrong. A population with a very weak government WILL be ruled by drug cartels and religious factions.

The whole point of government is to PREVENT a "Survival of the Fittest" scenario.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Pistorius killed with 4. Actually 3 did the job, but he squeezed off 4.
.
Zimmerman killed with 1.

Averaging, that's 2.5. Rounding up, you get 3.

3 bullets are the ideal killing number

Regards from Rosie

Tell that to Reginald Deny you fool.....

Like the typical uneducated liberal discussing an issue they know absolutely NOTHING about (in this case - security), you make wild and irrational assumptions based strictly on TWO situations that neatly fit with your predetermined conclusion.

You start with your conclusion, then look for any "facts" that will support that conclusion. The world has been filled with millions of shooting since the beginning of time - perhaps you might want to explore data from more than TWO shootings that just happen to fit your agenda?

God almighty are you an idiot....

Rott, don't even respond to these types, they are either very stupid, or a troll. Pretend they do not exist.

 

[MikeK]

I wouldn't know.

What I do know is that I carry 31 rounds with me whenever I leave the house. Even if I am just going to Wal*Mart.

My guess you will grow tired of that and will consider switching to a two-shot .357 derringer that fits in a side pocket of your shorts. That is a devastatingly effective self-defense weapon.

For the house, I can't think of anything better than a Remington 870 pump shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot.

 

[auditor0007]

Has a policeman ever fired more than 20 rounds in self-defense? Ever?

In February of 1999, four undercover NYC police officers fired a combined 41 shots hitting their target, an unarmed innocent man, 19 times. The parents of the gunned down innocent man settled their $61 million lawsuit for $3 million. Apparently, the dead guy would have preferred his life over the $3 million.

 

[P@triot]

Pistorius killed with 4. Actually 3 did the job, but he squeezed off 4.
.
Zimmerman killed with 1.

Averaging, that's 2.5. Rounding up, you get 3.

3 bullets are the ideal killing number

Regards from Rosie

Tell that to Reginald Deny you fool.....

Like the typical uneducated liberal discussing an issue they know absolutely NOTHING about (in this case - security), you make wild and irrational assumptions based strictly on TWO situations that neatly fit with your predetermined conclusion.

You start with your conclusion, then look for any "facts" that will support that conclusion. The world has been filled with millions of shooting since the beginning of time - perhaps you might want to explore data from more than TWO shootings that just happen to fit your agenda?

God almighty are you an idiot....

More than 6 bullets is called "overkill", moron. More than 10 bullets is called "self-proclaimed security expert overcompensating for a tiny penis", cretin.

Regards from Rosie

Really? So 6 bullets against a mob of 75 people is "overkill"?

God almighty are you a typical liberal broad. Full of penis-envy (hence the focus on that apendage when it is completely irrelevant to the discussion) creating a self-loathing inferiority complex, which in turn creates an irrational hostility towards men.

Do yourself a favor "Rosie" - either know what you're talking about before opening your mouth or just stick to your liberal day time shows that fill your head with irrational bullshit and leave the discussions to the rational adults.

 

[P@triot]

I wouldn't know.

What I do know is that I carry 31 rounds with me whenever I leave the house. Even if I am just going to Wal*Mart.

My guess you will grow tired of that and will consider switching to a two-shot .357 derringer that fits in a side pocket of your shorts. That is a devastatingly effective self-defense weapon.

For the house, I can't think of anything better than a Remington 870 pump shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot.

Close - but a Mossberg Persuader 500a loaded with 00 buck is the better choice!

 

[P@triot]

Pistorius killed with 4. Actually 3 did the job, but he squeezed off 4.
.
Zimmerman killed with 1.

Averaging, that's 2.5. Rounding up, you get 3.

3 bullets are the ideal killing number

Regards from Rosie

And if you are being attacked by a mob. How many do you think you'd have to shoot to keep yourself from being hung up on a tree?

Shhhh.... you cannot talk rational facts with Rosie the Radical Liberal. She's a typical liberal broad who believes that the profoundly stupid idiots on "The View" can provide her with better facts about guns and security (because they are talk show hosts) than people who actually work in the security industry...

 

[Wicked Jester]

Has a policeman ever fired more than 20 rounds in self-defense? Ever?

Yes. More times than I can link. The most famous is probably the North Hollywood shootout. The Pittsburgh SWAT team fired THOUSANDS of rounds in the shootout a few years ago. Several incidents here in South Carolina come to mind, including the Rock Hill bank robbery where they shot it out with a gun armed with a full auto AK. There is a key difference in police shootings. As the study says, most bad guys RUN when shot back at (cowards). But the police chase them to finish the job. Private citizens dont.

BTW, Im NOT for banning 30 round mags. But I love debate, and I cant find a single example to justify the true need for a private citizen to have one.

It is a virtual certainty that in a self defense situation, you'll likely need only 2-5 shots max, and the perp is likely dead or running at that point.

It's called freedom.....The only "example" that is necessary.

Case closed, period.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since the 2nd Amendment also pertains to the Militia, both organized and unorganized your point is meaningless. As a Militia the people need to have the same carry capacity as the military. Which is 30 rounds for the supposed assault weapons.

Yeah. Thats what South Carolina is trying to argue. But, to have the same capability as the military, we'd have to give every trailor park Bubba and section-8 Jerome the ability to own an RPG and some hand grenades. As a former cop, I say PLEASE GOD do not give the people in those communities that type of weaponry. They do enough damage with the bullshit High Point 9's.

 

[jtpr312]

Pistorius killed with 4. Actually 3 did the job, but he squeezed off 4.
.
Zimmerman killed with 1.

Averaging, that's 2.5. Rounding up, you get 3.

3 bullets are the ideal killing number

Regards from Rosie

Tell that to Reginald Deny you fool.....

Like the typical uneducated liberal discussing an issue they know absolutely NOTHING about (in this case - security), you make wild and irrational assumptions based strictly on TWO situations that neatly fit with your predetermined conclusion.

You start with your conclusion, then look for any "facts" that will support that conclusion. The world has been filled with millions of shooting since the beginning of time - perhaps you might want to explore data from more than TWO shootings that just happen to fit your agenda?

God almighty are you an idiot....

More than 6 bullets is called "overkill", moron. More than 10 bullets is called "self-proclaimed security expert overcompensating for a tiny penis", cretin.

Regards from Rosie

Wow! I've heard some really stupid things on this forum, but this definately makes the top 5 and your first comment makes the top ten for sure. Not bad, two of the top ten most ignorant, un-informed, stupid comments on the board in less than 10 minutes gotta be a world record. Guess every woman out there that owns a sidearm with a magazine capcity of more than ten is compensating for not having any penis at all huh, dumbass?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How can a government "govern" a population that outnumbers them and had them outgunned? Thats ridiculous.

The group with the most firepower WILL govern. Whether it is the govt, like here in the US, or it is the cartels...like Mexico...or it is the religous factions, like Afghanistan.

You anti-govt types think there is some freedom utopia where there are no rules or laws (well, at least nothing except the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-weed laws). But you are wrong. A population with a very weak government WILL be ruled by drug cartels and religious factions.

The whole point of government is to PREVENT a "Survival of the Fittest" scenario.

Sand Creek Massacre in Colorado. On the morning of November 29, 1864, U.S. Army soldiers brutally killed about 500 mostly women, children and elderly Arapaho and Cheyenne.
Edit Found another source that says the number is much lower. 160-165

 

[NoNukes]

I wouldn't know.

What I do know is that I carry 31 rounds with me whenever I leave the house. Even if I am just going to Wal*Mart.

Can I respectfully ask why?

I carry a Smith and Wesson M&P compact .40. 10 rounds. I have an extra 10 round mag in the truck, with an extra box of ammo (not loaded, dont want the spring to wear down). I've never felt under-armed for what I may realistically face (although unlikely).

I can carry two extra mags in the holster, so I do.

Just as when I get in the car, my gun comes out of the holster and under the handtowel I keep on the passenger seat. When I park the car, the gun goes back in the holster.

I won't get caught not being able to reach my gun again.

It must be terrible to live in such fear.

 

[RosieS]

Tell that to Reginald Deny you fool.....

Like the typical uneducated liberal discussing an issue they know absolutely NOTHING about (in this case - security), you make wild and irrational assumptions based strictly on TWO situations that neatly fit with your predetermined conclusion.

You start with your conclusion, then look for any "facts" that will support that conclusion. The world has been filled with millions of shooting since the beginning of time - perhaps you might want to explore data from more than TWO shootings that just happen to fit your agenda?

God almighty are you an idiot....

More than 6 bullets is called "overkill", moron. More than 10 bullets is called "self-proclaimed security expert overcompensating for a tiny penis", cretin.

Regards from Rosie

Really? So 6 bullets against a mob of 75 people is "overkill"?

God almighty are you a typical liberal broad. Full of penis-envy (hence the focus on that apendage when it is completely irrelevant to the discussion) creating a self-loathing inferiority complex, which in turn creates an irrational hostility towards men.

Do yourself a favor "Rosie" - either know what you're talking about before opening your mouth or just stick to your liberal day time shows that fill your head with irrational bullshit and leave the discussions to the rational adults.

Living in fear of "a mob" is rational. We are told to fear "the tyrants" of gov't who want to disarm then kill us; plus "a mob" (of 75 no less!!) who aim to kill us, too!!

And you jag-offs call yourselves "rational". Deluded is more like it.

I hope none of your loved ones has a gun accident. Gun accidents cause much more death and injury than imaginary tyrants and fake mobs do in any given year.

Grow the fuck up.

Regards from Rosie