Video demonstrates why we need high capacity mags for guns

OK, you're the right wing gun expert. Tell us what technique the homeowner was employing. Did he close his eyes because he was using "the force"? Zen? Biofeedback?

Looks to me like he blinked every time he pulled the trigger.
Which happens more then you would think. Next time you go to the range just watch.
Thats assuming you go to the range.

And again. Even trained shooters miss frequently under pressure. And thats a fact.
The cops in NY who shot all those civilians during a gunfight is a perfect example.
Had they hit their target every time it wouldnt of happened now would it.

And the women in Alabama who shot the guy five times only to have him get in his car and drive away.
Adrenaline does weird things. To the shooter and the person being shot.

The only thing he did wrong in my opinion was to use a 9mm. If you're a pro you might get away with it. But I prefer nothing less then a .357

Google Image Result for http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/3793114832/9445243/ce8f5a8a6f4b91eb0e1cce013934008a.jpg

Thank you for this well reasoned response.

When I watched the video, it appeared to me that the homeowner was pointing his pistol in the general direction of the thug, then closed his eyes, and fired without aiming.

Agree with you in regards to even trained marksmen missing shots under pressure.

I think this guy needs some instruction and range time to become more proficient with his weapon. I was thinking it was a .45, hence the limited ammo in the magazine. If he had a .357 revolver, he would have only had 6 shots and a greater need for accuracy.

A Glock .357 is capable of holding 13 rounds. The revolver 6. I am not a fan of revolvers for this very reason. (although they are fun to shoot)
And I think the point of the video is to show that a legal(low capacity) magazine wont cut it. He fired seven times,and it appears six more rounds would have done the trick.
 
The video shows exactly why that man should not have a gun.
He left a loaded weapon where kids may well have found it, had no real clue as to how to use it, closed his eyes as he was shooting, popped a couple of extra rounds into a man he'd already totally failed to kill at very close range with four rounds.
At that range, against a sitting duck, two centre mass and one in the head when he went down would easily have been enough with the only following trouble being the cost of cleaning the carpet.
He then went on to miss centre mass on another close range target and ran out of ammo because he's failed to count his rounds and prepare a second clip.
The second shot man was able to stand up straight and fire back ever after being shot.
Even with one shot in the criminal, the coward of a house owner went on to freeze like a rabbit in a car's headlights.
I'm amazed he didn't shoot his own family.
Highly unlikely scene.

Apparently you are blind, deaf, and stupid. He left the gun in a lock box in the closet so the kids could not get it, and it takes training to not close your eyes when you pull the trigger of a weapon because flinching is a normal reaction. I am amazed that you can post on a discussion board given your obvious physical limits.
 
I think the video demonstates a good real life scenerio.

The defender is panicked. He shoots.

A lot of shots are misses, and it often takes multiple shots to stop an intruder.

The big problem is what happens when he runs out of ammo?

Then his family and himself are dead.

that gun is 43 times more likely to kill a member of his family than a bad guy just by virtue of being in the house.

You really enjoy posting the same totally debunked thing over and over. Is that because you are delusional, or is it because you are a liar?
 
Has this scenario ever happened in this country in real life?

I mean I am sure you can provide several hundred examples..right?

Where heavily armed robbers got into a pitched battle with home owners.

At least 100..right?

Links..

So your saying nobody has ever died because they ran out of ammo? Ever?
God you're stupid.

No.

I'm saying the scenario is complete bullshit.

You can prove me wrong pretty easily.

In almost all cases where a home or business owner successfully fended off criminals, few, if any, rounds were exchanged.

You are right, it is complete bullshit, unless you live in a state that restricts magazine capacity and bans removable magazines, and actually obey the law.
 
I think the video demonstates a good real life scenerio.

The defender is panicked. He shoots.

A lot of shots are misses, and it often takes multiple shots to stop an intruder.

The big problem is what happens when he runs out of ammo?

Then his family and himself are dead.

that gun is 43 times more likely to kill a member of his family than a bad guy just by virtue of being in the house.

You really enjoy posting the same totally debunked thing over and over. Is that because you are delusional, or is it because you are a liar?
Never mind that even if it is true it is meaningless, as the number of bad guys killed is not a valid metric for determining the number of times a gun is used in self-defense.

But then, we expect nothing different from those who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
 
I think the video demonstates a good real life scenerio.

The defender is panicked. He shoots.

A lot of shots are misses, and it often takes multiple shots to stop an intruder.

The big problem is what happens when he runs out of ammo?

Then his family and himself are dead.

that gun is 43 times more likely to kill a member of his family than a bad guy just by virtue of being in the house.

The gun isn't likely to kill anyone.:eusa_shhh:

A person using a gun can kill a person, a gun can't kill anyone on it's own.
 
Based on a NYPD, in a gun fight, based on 2000 stats, the police have a gunfight hit probability of 9%. (page 4, it's in PDF so I can't copy and paste.

That means after shooting 100 times the probability of hiting what they are aiming for is only 9 of 100.

The same study said for the DC police out of 500 gun firearm incidents between 1994-1999, 126 times they fired six rounds or more, and 67 instances more than 10 rounds. (page 5).

These are trained police officers in the above examples.

What this shows is that in NYPD example only 9% of the shots hits the target. Therefore, people need to have large ammo capacity.

Once they are out of ammo, the fight is over. They are dead.

There is no legitimate reason to supress the ability to have as much ammo as wanted from honest citizens.

Also the DC part of the study shows that police fired 6 rounds or more 126 times, and more than 10 rounds 67 times in that year.


In short, limiting ammo will get people killed.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf
 
Last edited:
I think the video demonstates a good real life scenerio.

The defender is panicked. He shoots.

A lot of shots are misses, and it often takes multiple shots to stop an intruder.

The big problem is what happens when he runs out of ammo?

Then his family and himself are dead.

No.

This demonstrates one thing.

BUY A FUCKING SHOTGUN IDIOT.

What's ironic about the anti-gun ownership rights crowd is that they want to limit ammo capacity, but they want home defenders to use a shotgun, the most powerful firearm available.

How does this make sense?

What are the virtues of a shotgun as opposed to an AR?

A shotgun is heavier, more bulky, and with less ammo capacity than an AR.

Also a shotgun will overpenetrate much more than a shotgun.

I don't get their logic, or lack thereof.
 
Last edited:
I think the video demonstates a good real life scenerio.

The defender is panicked. He shoots.

A lot of shots are misses, and it often takes multiple shots to stop an intruder.

The big problem is what happens when he runs out of ammo?

Then his family and himself are dead.

Has this scenario ever happened in this country in real life?

I mean I am sure you can provide several hundred examples..right?

Where heavily armed robbers got into a pitched battle with home owners.

At least 100..right?

Links..

Of course not.

No home invader would invade a home and illegally carry a gun.

/sarcasm off
 
OK, you're the right wing gun expert. Tell us what technique the homeowner was employing. Did he close his eyes because he was using "the force"? Zen? Biofeedback?

Looks to me like he blinked every time he pulled the trigger.
Which happens more then you would think. Next time you go to the range just watch.
Thats assuming you go to the range.

And again. Even trained shooters miss frequently under pressure. And thats a fact.
The cops in NY who shot all those civilians during a gunfight is a perfect example.
Had they hit their target every time it wouldnt of happened now would it.

And the women in Alabama who shot the guy five times only to have him get in his car and drive away.
Adrenaline does weird things. To the shooter and the person being shot.

The only thing he did wrong in my opinion was to use a 9mm. If you're a pro you might get away with it. But I prefer nothing less then a .357

Google Image Result for http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/3793114832/9445243/ce8f5a8a6f4b91eb0e1cce013934008a.jpg

Thank you for this well reasoned response.

When I watched the video, it appeared to me that the homeowner was pointing his pistol in the general direction of the thug, then closed his eyes, and fired without aiming.

Agree with you in regards to even trained marksmen missing shots under pressure.

I think this guy needs some instruction and range time to become more proficient with his weapon. I was thinking it was a .45, hence the limited ammo in the magazine. If he had a .357 revolver, he would have only had 6 shots and a greater need for accuracy.

There are very few ranges where you can practice shooting moving targets.

Add in low light, and extreme anxiety, and it's easy to see how people will miss.
 
Apparently you are blind, deaf, and stupid. He left the gun in a lock box in the closet so the kids could not get it, and it takes training to not close your eyes when you pull the trigger of a weapon because flinching is a normal reaction. I am amazed that you can post on a discussion board given your obvious physical limits.

It takes training to handle a weapon but you seem to want untrained people to have them.
QED
 
Hang on.
Wasn't the limit going to be 10 rounds?

That makes this idiotic video even more stupid.
 
Apparently you are blind, deaf, and stupid. He left the gun in a lock box in the closet so the kids could not get it, and it takes training to not close your eyes when you pull the trigger of a weapon because flinching is a normal reaction. I am amazed that you can post on a discussion board given your obvious physical limits.

It takes training to handle a weapon but you seem to want untrained people to have them.
QED

I want people to have graduate degrees before they post on the internet, but it doesn't matter what I want, does it?
 
Hang on.
Wasn't the limit going to be 10 rounds?

That makes this idiotic video even more stupid.

It is only stupid if you ignore the fact that NY says you can only have 7 rounds.

There is no court that will uphold a conviction on that law when the gun is used inside the home. New York over reached big time on that one, they might be able to dictate ammo load for concealed carry, but not in the home.
 
Apparently you are blind, deaf, and stupid. He left the gun in a lock box in the closet so the kids could not get it, and it takes training to not close your eyes when you pull the trigger of a weapon because flinching is a normal reaction. I am amazed that you can post on a discussion board given your obvious physical limits.

It takes training to handle a weapon but you seem to want untrained people to have them.
QED

I want people to have graduate degrees before they post on the internet, but it doesn't matter what I want, does it?

The internet rarely kills anyone so education in its use may be a tad less important.
 
Apparently you are blind, deaf, and stupid. He left the gun in a lock box in the closet so the kids could not get it, and it takes training to not close your eyes when you pull the trigger of a weapon because flinching is a normal reaction. I am amazed that you can post on a discussion board given your obvious physical limits.

It takes training to handle a weapon but you seem to want untrained people to have them.
QED

Did you not read the hit miss statistics of cops? Looks to me like the guy did as well or better then the cops.
Maybe you should take up the training issue with your local police cause they cant hit shit.
I'm sure they'll appreciate your concern.
 

Forum List

Back
Top