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

[GeoLaureate8]

When confronted by a violent criminal, which tactic is the best response:

a. Fetal-position
b. Point a gun at them
c. Piss your pants, vomit, and allow the rape to continue to avoid possible death

Gun-free University of Colorado literally says choice c. in the case of a rapist attacker. Colorado College Advises Vomiting Or Urinating To Stop Rapists After Lawmakers Pass Gun Control Bills


.

 

[nitroz]

yes!



They were obviously protecting themselves and their stolen money from the police.

 

[earlycuyler]

When confronted by a violent criminal, which tactic is the best response:

a. Fetal-position
b. Point a gun at them
c. Piss your pants, vomit, and allow the rape to continue to avoid possible death

Gun-free University of Colorado literally says choice c. in the case of a rapist attacker. Colorado College Advises Vomiting Or Urinating To Stop Rapists After Lawmakers Pass Gun Control Bills


.

Still has to make the senate. Judging by the attitude of many CSU studants, particularly the women, I don't think it will pass.

 

[deltex1]

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.

We never had a maniacal moron for a President....until now.

 

[earlycuyler]

What ever happened to having them because you want them, and that being ok ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What ever happened to having them because you want them, and that being ok ?

The left believes the state should have a monopoly on force.
An armed citizenry gets in the way of that.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So, at about 300,000, in a nation of 300,000,000, that would be 1 in 100. 1 in 100 people will have to use a gun in self defense in a year. I live in a city of about 100,000. And I can guarantee...just by reading local news, that there are not 1,000 people in my city who've had to use a gun to defend themselves in the past year. If the number were that high, the media would be in hysteria about the massive crime wave.....but it is not, because it hasn't happened.

That stat is simply inaccurate.

Last I checked: 300,000 out of 300,000,000 is 1/1000 (one in one-thousand) not 1/100

/end thread

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think Koresh and the boys did at Waco.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What ever happened to having them because you want them, and that being ok ?

The left believes the state should have a monopoly on force.
An armed citizenry gets in the way of that.

That's what Koresh and company thought.

 

[MikeK]

What ever happened to having them because you want them, and that being ok ?

You've asked a very good question and it deserves to be more broadly considered.

Essentially, a firearm, which is an outgrowth of the human brain, is as much Man's natural weapon as the claws of a cat or the teeth of a dog naturally occur in those species. And in spite of the remarkable social and technological progress our genus has achieved since coming down from the trees there are certain primordial characteristics which most of us continue to genetically retain. One of which is our instinctual wish to remain armed -- which happens to be the very instinct and the cerebral ability that enabled our survival as a species.

Without the weapons our human brains were able to conceive and our hands able to create our kind could not have prevailed over the host of predators and aggressors we faced throughout our perpetually violent evolution. Above any other consideration we are here because Man is a weapon-maker. So the love of guns is in fact a primal memory which some, not all of us, have retained in the same way as new-born house kittens retain their stalking behavior. It is what has kept them alive.

There is little question that a disarmed man is analogous to a declawed cat. They will be fine so long as they remain safely indoors and protected. So the love of guns is an instinct, not a pathology or a defect.

 

[Politico]

You are either lying, or or you did not take a CCW class.

You just figured that out?

 

[Darkwind]

Not that it has never happened, but I fail to see the point. If no person has ever used more than 30 rounds, that does not mean that they should have their rights violated.

I'll also point out that the way the OP framed the question was dishonest. Militia ARE private citizens and they have expended thousands of rounds in self defense. Private Security Guards are also PRIVATE citizens, though I couldn't venture to guess if a rent a cop has ever used more than 30 rounds in self defense.

I would imagine that in any scenario other than armed conflict in a war situation, if you need more than 30 rounds.......

Ah...I just thought of one....LOL...

If you need more than 30 rounds to take out your attacker, you need much more time on the shooting range.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time the militia was called up? The Spanish - American War?

Who cares? You don't like the Right? CHANGE the ******* Constitution. You nor the Government get to pass laws in violation of said Constitution.

You are basing your right to carry hi capacity magazines based on the needs of a militia. Something that hasn't been utilized since America began maintaining a large standing Army. It is akin to having flood insurance in the Sahara desert.

 

[tjvh]

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time the militia was called up? The Spanish - American War?

Who cares? You don't like the Right? CHANGE the ******* Constitution. You nor the Government get to pass laws in violation of said Constitution.

You are basing your right to carry hi capacity magazines based on the needs of a militia. Something that hasn't been utilized since America began maintaining a large standing Army. It is akin to having flood insurance in the Sahara desert.

Sorry, It must be tough to flunk out of clown school... The fact is -America has a Constitution, and the fact that rational people don't readily buy into your absurdly kooky utopian dream is not going to be enough to make that Constitution disappear any quicker. But I suppose you can always drink from that oasis of reason if you get thirsty. NUT-JOB.

 

[westwall]

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.

Ask these guys......

 

[tjvh]

I think Koresh and the boys did at Waco.

Oh, you mean the people in Waco Texas Democrats incinerated so they couldn't have their day in Court. Not like that happened to that Obama supporter Chris Dorner... Oh, wait....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So, at about 300,000, in a nation of 300,000,000, that would be 1 in 100. 1 in 100 people will have to use a gun in self defense in a year. I live in a city of about 100,000. And I can guarantee...just by reading local news, that there are not 1,000 people in my city who've had to use a gun to defend themselves in the past year. If the number were that high, the media would be in hysteria about the massive crime wave.....but it is not, because it hasn't happened.

That stat is simply inaccurate.

Last I checked: 300,000 out of 300,000,000 is 1/1000 (one in one-thousand) not 1/100

/end thread

Seriously, when you need to violate the laws of mathematics in order to lie, you should seriously STOP posting. You thought we wouldn't notice that you dropped a zero?

You know what, I'm seriously starting to question why I am a liberal on so many other issues, maybe the right wing isn't a bunch of mean and deluded douche-bags. Congratulations, you're turning me into a Conservative, your thread is achieving the opposite result. As much as I love National Health Care, I'm starting to wonder if these Conservatives might actually be telling the truth, or least a portion of the truth.

Maybe Romney was actually right about his 47% comment, maybe the government wants to make your lives worse (economically), so you become more and more financially dependent on them, so that you become slaves to the federal government, who will have all the guns and you'll have none. If you step out of line with them, they'll threaten to take away your healthcare, your food stamps, your vote (oh they already take your right to vote away if you are a felon), maybe even... your life. Yes, they will deprive you of life, liberty and happiness, maybe even property, maybe they'll even vioalte the Corruption of Blood clause, since Obama is shitting all over Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution.

YOU KNOW WHAT, Go to CUBA where you have National Health Care and NO GUNS.

I am now a Conservative, welcome Conservatives (no I'm a neo-con, go screw yourselves, you are even more dangerous than libs).

As of December, I stopped watching MSNBC, I watched MSNBC for six years. No, I can't watch Faux news either, they are worse than MSNBC. If I ever watch anything, it will be CNN for now on. I seriously can't believe that I have my former favorite MSNBC Ed Shultz lying to face about why the 2nd Amendment was written. It was written, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, to protect against tyranny from your federal, state and local governements. Google THE BATTLE OF ATHENS TENNESSEE to see your 2nd Amendment in action overthrowing the state government of Tennessee in 1946. Notice how the federal government got serious about control ever since.

EDIT: Also, the media doesn't cover every crime and self defense thereof. Why? Because it's so common that it isn't worth reporting. They only report sensational stories or political agendas (right or left).

I voted for Obama twice, and now I want to revolt. I know what they are doing, and it frightens me, it frightens me dearly. I wish I knew this three months ago. I solemnly wish he attacked the 2nd Amendment BEFORE November, not after.

Another thing I've learned, since November, is that the 17th Amendment destroyed Federalism.

restorefederalism.org/

 

[The Professor]

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.

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.

I have no reason to doubt that what earlycuyler said is true. When I took my CCW instructions 20 years ago, I received the same advice from my instructor. My class was told in plain words that if we ever had to shoot a man to make damn sure he was dead. The reason given was that dead man can't testify against you in court. The instructor discussed a case in which a man was convicted of wounding someone and could have avoided a conviction if he had killed the person instead. I can't remember the case, but I will never forget the instructions.

I know from personal experience and from reading this and other forums that there are a number of people who would make certain that anyone they shot was dead; not just incapacitated, but dead. The reasons given were to avoid criminal charges or a civil lawsuit by eliminating a potential witness. Some have opined that killing an armed criminal would benefit society by making sure he would no longer be a threat to anyone. I will assume that at least some of these people were being truthful when they expressed their opinions.

The fact that the CCW instructions were irresponsible and contrary to the law in every jurisdiction does not mean they were not given. Apparently some CCW instructors are as fallible as the rest of us and let their personal opinions enter into their instructions. You are correct in that the use of deadly force is only permitted when there is a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, and once the threat no longer exists, the right to use deadly force no longer exists.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

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 **** up.

 

[editec]

"The National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate."
How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

National Safety Council: Guns Used 80 Times More to Save Lives Than Murder
National Safety Council



.

So, at about 300,000, in a nation of 300,000,000, that would be 1 in 100. 1 in 100 people will have to use a gun in self defense in a year. I live in a city of about 100,000. And I can guarantee...just by reading local news, that there are not 1,000 people in my city who've had to use a gun to defend themselves in the past year. If the number were that high, the media would be in hysteria about the massive crime wave.....but it is not, because it hasn't happened.

That stat is simply inaccurate.

Yup! That statistic does not pass the common sense test.

If 300,000 people a year had that experience, every one of us would know one of those people and every year we'd likely know another person with that experience.

Minor correctio, though...the stat would be 1 in 1000, not one in every hundred.

Still if its 1 per thousand we'd still all know one of those people either well, or peripherally.

Here's a thought...gun queers lie A LOT.