Questions for the NRA

[krazen1211]

The practical use is incredibly obvious.

Multiple assailants.

[krazen1211]

You have to keep in mind these people's fundamental stance. From a 'sh**t-scared of almost everything in the world' perspective, the practical uses actually are, as krazen said, pretty obvious.

I would suggest that these NRA types, and, well, thousands of everyday law enforcement who use such magazines might not be afraid of a pacifist like Nathan, but might be afraid of a handful of gangbangers coming to rape their women and children.

[krazen1211]

You have to keep in mind these people's fundamental stance. From a 'sh**t-scared of almost everything in the world' perspective, the practical uses actually are, as krazen said, pretty obvious.

I would suggest that these NRA types, and, well, thousands of everyday law enforcement who use such magazines might not be afraid of a pacifist like Nathan, but might be afraid of a handful of gangbangers coming to rape their women and children.

Why does it have to be 'their' women as well as their children? Can women not themselves operate firearms or be members of the NRA or law enforcement officers or something? In any case, fixation on that fear isn't good for anybody. It really isn't. One or two Freudian temper tantrums about 'good guys with guns' are one thing, but when you're at the point where you've made your career and life as an activist out of it, it's probably reached the status of an unreasonably consuming terror. (Either that or you're acting in bad faith because you're in bed with arms manufacturers. Or both.)

Amazingly, even law enforcement in many other countries doesn't feel the need for 'such magazines' in most situations. Believe it or not, in many situations, if you shoot one or two gangbangers' kneecaps out, the rest will lose interest pretty quickly.

It doesn't have to be their women and children. It can in fact be any individual who is bearing arms, and anyone's women and children.

Law enforcement in the United States carry magazines, in the average handgun, of 10-20 rounds. The Secret Service can be included in that figure. The P228 for instance carries 13 rounds.

It is confusing to think that private citizens should be capped at 10 rounds, as per rwoy, when professionals get more rounds. I might add that it is not easy or natural to shoot a moving target in the kneecaps. Nathan and Jack Bauer might have such skill, but few do. Most shoot the torso.

[krazen1211]

Multiple assailants?  I promise you this, if multiple assailants come at you, all you need to do is threaten to shoot one and most will back off.  If there are more than 10 then you are f'd (even if you have a weapon with a mag with more than 10 bullets).

Is Rwoy a perfect shot somehow, capable of taking down 10 mobile adult men with 10 bullets, or does he have experience in this manner?


Are private sector citizens supposed to gamble their lives and the lives of their women and children on this theory?

[krazen1211]

Multiple assailants?  I promise you this, if multiple assailants come at you, all you need to do is threaten to shoot one and most will back off.  If there are more than 10 then you are f'd (even if you have a weapon with a mag with more than 10 bullets).

Is Rwoy a perfect shot somehow, capable of taking down 10 mobile adult men with 10 bullets, or does he have experience in this manner?

Nope, but then again if you reread my post I suggest that you only need to threaten to shoot one.  And if you can't hit someone with 10 shots then you shouldn't have a gun because clearly you aren't competent to operate one properly.  And again, lets remember that you can "reload".  If you are being rushed by 5 assilants you are f'd even if you have a weapon with a > 10 bullet mag.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not?  We've been gambling w/ our lives that somehow more weapons on the streets equates to a safer society.  But Canada, the UK, and Ireland (all nations which are VERY similar to ours except with stricter gun laws) all have less per capita crime and violence.  So .... why not give that a try for a change?

I am quite aware of your suggestion. The question is of course what is the basis of this suggestion, given that you admit you have no experience in the matter. It's ok if this suggestion is just conjecture and not borne out of any real life data.



The why to part 2 is obvious. See South Africa, Brazil, and Mexico. In any case your first post was about >10 round magazines, which you have arbitrarily deemed are not required for self-defense based on, well, this 'suggestion' of yours.


I would personally be quite interested in reading a single incident of the rwoy 'threaten 1 and rest back off' theory.

[krazen1211]

So krazen & DC Al both think that the United States is more like South Africa, Mexico, and Brazil than it is like Canada, the UK, and Ireland??  Honestly?  That is what you think?  Do I really need to go through the explanation of why that is ridiculous?

Now to respond to krazen's comment about where I get my conclusions about "threaten one and all will back down".  I get that from 2 places.  First is from the suggestion of a friend of mine growing up who is currently an instructor at the US Military Academy.  He said a standard method of crowd control isn't to threaten to kill everyone ... just one.  No one wants to be the "one".  Second is from common sense.

So you are not going to bother to demonstrate a single instance of this 'suggestion' working, and we are supposed to simply take your word for it, or, alternatively, the word of your alleged 'friend'?

OK.

I suspect that expert Rwoy should explain his common sense to thousands of law enforcement across the nation who use >10 round clips that he is correct and they are wrong, based on the above conjecture.

[krazen1211]

So you are not going to bother to demonstrate a single instance of this 'suggestion' working, and we are supposed to simply take your word for it, or, alternatively, the word of your alleged 'friend'?

How about I do you one better and give you an example of non-deadly force being used to stop a riot?

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/12/fort_worth_police_quell_small.php

Can you give me an example of someone in the United States needing more than 10 bullets to stop an assailant (or assailants)?  All we need is 1 example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be certain the firearm issued to law enforcement varies widely as does the size of the clip.  When a law enforcement officer must discharge his weapon he is accountable for every round he fires.  I believe the NYPD and Philly police force use the Glock 19 w/ a 10 rd mag.

Quite easy. Here the cops required 84 rounds. Contrary to rwoy's bizarre assertion that 'threatening' the assailant would lead to him surrendering, such a verbal warning led to the assailant attempting to shoot the cops.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_raining_lead_in_harlem_ISB87yqtPOQzqrT6ekPdGI

And of course your, err, conjecture, is quite incorrect. They use 15 round mags.



The police officer fired 45 shots — one round in his gun’s chamber, two 15-round magazines and all but one round in his third magazine. He told investigators he thought he was out of ammo. The sergeant also fired one shot he kept in the chamber, two 15-shot magazines and eight rounds from his third magazine, Browne said.




I would like for rwoy to explain how the people are supposed to survive with 10 rounds while more trained police, who are more prepared for armed violence at a given notice, are given 15 rounds.

[krazen1211]

Quite easy. Here the cops required 84 rounds. Contrary to rwoy's bizarre assertion that 'threatening' the assailant would lead to him surrendering, such a verbal warning led to the assailant attempting to shoot the cops.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_raining_lead_in_harlem_ISB87yqtPOQzqrT6ekPdGI

And of course your, err, conjecture, is quite incorrect. They use 15 round mags.

Interesting story.  From this link http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5468505-NY-cops-fire-84-shots-at-suspect-who-lives/ they say they hit him 14 times.  This tells me a few things.  First, if you only hit the target 16% of the time then there is a problem and these guys need to go back to the range.  Second, I seriously doubt that after being shot 10 times this guy was still going (I mean it sounds like this guy deserved to die, but I really don't think it takes 14 hits to stop ANYONE).

Well, unfortunately, the right of self-defense does not rely on rwoy's arbitrary designation of 'accurate' and 'inaccurate'. Nathan the pacifist might have the skill to take down such a shooter by hitting a 10 inch kneecap, but few do.


Setting aside Rwoy's conjecture, the record shows that the assailant still had a gun in his hand after such 84 shots and was still mobile. So there is no need to take Rwoy's false doubts into the equation over the record of the people who were there.


People of course get shot in every nation. You have still failed to demonstrate how to consistently take down multiple assailants with 10 shots. Especially, when, Rwoy is again implying that he can hit the assailant 10 times with 10 shots from a 10 inch magazine.

[krazen1211]

Police officers have to go into situations where being fired at is likely. Civilians generally don't.

Yes, they do. Which is why they are likely to have multiple magazines. A civilian threatened by an assailant is not unlikely to be in a situation where they have but a single magazine.


The training is for officers to shoot the assailant until the assailant does down. Hence of course the need for large magazines.

[krazen1211]

Multiple assailants?  I promise you this, if multiple assailants come at you, all you need to do is threaten to shoot one and most will back off.  If there are more than 10 then you are f'd (even if you have a weapon with a mag with more than 10 bullets).

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/12/22/police-say-1-dead-3-wounded-in-sac-home-invasion/

A suspect was caught and cuffed in connection with the deadly home invasion robbery. Police say the homeowner was rushed to the hospital after trading shots with several suspects and killing one of them.

Police say around 3:30 a.m. Saturday, armed suspects burst into a home on Haven Court, trying to rob those inside. Instead, one of the homeowners would grab a gun, and after an exchange of gunfire, the homeowner and two suspects would be wounded, while another suspect was shot dead.





Oh right. In the real world outside of the internet leftist bubble the hoodlums have a habit of continuing to attempt to shoot the people. Of course in New York you only get 7 shots to stop 4 hoodlums.

[krazen1211]

Quite easy. Here the cops required 84 rounds. Contrary to rwoy's bizarre assertion that 'threatening' the assailant would lead to him surrendering, such a verbal warning led to the assailant attempting to shoot the cops.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_raining_lead_in_harlem_ISB87yqtPOQzqrT6ekPdGI

And of course your, err, conjecture, is quite incorrect. They use 15 round mags.

Interesting story.  From this link http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5468505-NY-cops-fire-84-shots-at-suspect-who-lives/ they say they hit him 14 times.  This tells me a few things.  First, if you only hit the target 16% of the time then there is a problem and these guys need to go back to the range.  Second, I seriously doubt that after being shot 10 times this guy was still going (I mean it sounds like this guy deserved to die, but I really don't think it takes 14 hits to stop ANYONE).

Well, unfortunately, the right of self-defense does not rely on rwoy's arbitrary designation of 'accurate' and 'inaccurate'. Nathan the pacifist might have the skill to take down such a shooter by hitting a 10 inch kneecap, but few do.

It's more that the 'right' to self-defense doesn't apply to my daily life and I don't want it to, nor do most normal, peaceful folk without phallic obsession. And if it takes eighty-four rounds to kill somebody then these cops really should be trained better, size of the target notwithstanding.

Police officers have to go into situations where being fired at is likely. Civilians generally don't.

Yes, they do.

What kind of dystopian hellhole do you live in? I feel bad for you, man.

I'm confused. First, because 84 rounds (12x what the people are allocated) didn't kill the perp. Second, because whether self-defense applies to Nathan or not is really not determined by Nathan at all, unless of course Nathan is employing others to defend him. Third, since Nathan proposed shooting kneecaps I presumed that Nathan had some expertise in the matter.