Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Thank you for exemplifying precisely what I'm talking about.

I suggest going back and reading your own posts. You spent quite a bit of time questioning why anyone would possibly need more than ten rounds.

I provided examples, and now you're writing drek like this:

You're incapable of holding a discussion without reducing things to polarized strawmen, aren't you? Have you honestly never noticed that I have never once made a statement to the effet of "done in one"? I simply question the need for excessive magazine sizes, as I consider the fear that "I may be beset upon by a small posse of determined attackers" to be an unreasonable -to the point of mental ilness- fear.

I just showed you multiple examples involving only one attacker, after you scoffed at the notion someone could possibly survive and continue to fight through being shot more than a couple times. Please stop being disingenuous if you want to continue this discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So we are arguing that we need high capacity magazines because we are bad shots and need to be able to send 12 shots into whatever happens to be around our target (walls, animals, bystanders, kids) so that we can hit them 4 times?

No, I'm arguing for standard capacity magazines, for a lot of reasons. People are demanding evidence, and then ignoring it when it doesn't fit their preconceived notion of what they think should happen based entirely on watching TV.

Just another day in OT.

I was just replying to the post that Frazzled made.

What would you consider a standard capacity magazine? I know that for my LCP 6 would be a "standard" capacity, but it's a pocket gun so that is understandable. I would think that 17 or 19 would easily be a standard magazine for different models of Glocks as an example. Having a hard number and saying that "x is a high capacity mag" would ignore that there are different guns for different reasons.

 d-usa wrote:
I was just replying to the post that Frazzled made.

What would you consider a standard capacity magazine? I know that for my LCP 6 would be a "standard" capacity, but it's a pocket gun so that is understandable. I would think that 17 or 19 would easily be a standard magazine for different models of Glocks as an example. Having a hard number and saying that "x is a high capacity mag" would ignore that there are different guns for different reasons.

Standard capacity is whatever the gun was designed around. For a Glock 17, it's a 17-round mag. For the HK P30, it's a 15-rounder.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I was just replying to the post that Frazzled made.

What would you consider a standard capacity magazine? I know that for my LCP 6 would be a "standard" capacity, but it's a pocket gun so that is understandable. I would think that 17 or 19 would easily be a standard magazine for different models of Glocks as an example. Having a hard number and saying that "x is a high capacity mag" would ignore that there are different guns for different reasons.

Standard capacity is whatever the gun was designed around. For a Glock 17, it's a 17-round mag. For the HK P30, it's a 15-rounder.

So would you consider any magazine that extends past the grip "high capacity"? Or would you use a different definition?

 d-usa wrote:
So would you consider any magazine that extends past the grip "high capacity"? Or would you use a different definition?

I would say "high capacity" magazines don't exist for most firearms. I would consider them to be things like 33-round Glock mags (or the absurd 50-round Glock drum), AR drum mags, etc.

Could someone please clarify for me... When someone has a gun for 'defence', what does that actually mean? For the ordinary family man (I.e. none police/security) what exactly are you defending against?

I mean here if you live in a gakky neighbourhood, or you are worried about home invasion, you just get bars on your windows. Which to me sounds much more secure than sleeping shifts next to the gun incase someone sneaks in. What good is owning a gun if the criminals already have the drop on you? It seems to me that for most situations... mugging, armed robbery, being woken up by rapists etc... The criminals will already have the drop on you, so you won't be able to get to your gun anyway. Is it really that useful?

I looked up some numbers before. 100-120 people die each day in the USA in vehicle accidents... wheres the hate... wheres the rage?

 Smacks wrote:
Could someone please clarify for me... When someone has a gun for 'defence', what does that actually mean? For the ordinary family man (I.e. none police/security) what exactly are you defending against?

I mean here if you live in a gakky neighbourhood, or you are worried about home invasion, you just get bars on your windows. Which to me sounds much more secure than sleeping shifts next to the gun incase someone sneaks in. What good is owning a gun if the criminals already have the drop on you? It seems to me that for most situations... mugging, armed robbery, being woken up by rapists etc... The criminals will already have the drop on you, so you won't be able to get to your gun anyway. Is it really that useful?

Home intruders: Usually make noise when they break in, so there will be notice. I have seen too many people burn to death in houses that had bars in windows to ever consider that. If you have no weapon to defend yourself, you will never be able to defend yourself. If you have a weapon there might be a chance to defend yourself.

Muggers, armed robbery, etc: A gun will be almost useless unless you have situational awareness. Know what is going on around you at all times. Situational awareness often lets you avoid a situation where you would have to pull a gun to begin with and give you enough notice to be able to defend yourself. And having a gun doesn't always mean you have to use it. I can imagine that there are situations where it might just be safer to hand over a wallet than trying to defend yourself. Personally for me, the gun is to protect me and not the property. (Kind of related: I am a fan of carrying a "stunt wallet").

 d-usa wrote:
Muggers, armed robbery, etc: A gun will be almost useless unless you have situational awareness.

I don't agree with that, though I do agree that situational awareness is a damn good idea.

It's not a all difficult to hop onto even YouTube and find plenty of videos of armed robbers completely losing their gak when they encounter armed resistance. Even where someone "has the drop" on an armed citizen, they most often don't know the citizen is armed, and certainly don't expect a fight. A lot of the time, the result of getting one is fleeing, surrendering, or dying.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Muggers, armed robbery, etc: A gun will be almost useless unless you have situational awareness.

I don't agree with that, though I do agree that situational awareness is a damn good idea.

It's not a all difficult to hop onto even YouTube and find plenty of videos of armed robbers completely losing their gak when they encounter armed resistance. Even where someone "has the drop" on an armed citizen, they most often don't know the citizen is armed, and certainly don't expect a fight. A lot of the time, the result of getting one is fleeing, surrendering, or dying.

I was mostly thinking about scenarios where somebody has a knife and can easily stab you before you ever pull out a gun, or a situation where somebody already has hands on you before you know what is going on. I admit that I was probably a bit too "black/white" with that statement.

 d-usa wrote:
Home intruders: Usually make noise when they break in, so there will be notice. I have seen too many people burn to death in houses that had bars in windows to ever consider that. If you have no weapon to defend yourself, you will never be able to defend yourself. If you have a weapon there might be a chance to defend yourself.

I can see how some bars could hinder escape from a burning building, but I don't think they need to. They are also not the only way to secure a house. Personally I would rather be safe in a secure building with the criminals outside, and waiting for the police to turn up. Than have the criminals inside and have to shoot it out with them myself in my underwear.

 Seaward wrote:
It's not a all difficult to hop onto even YouTube and find plenty of videos of armed robbers completely losing their gak when they encounter armed resistance. Even where someone "has the drop" on an armed citizen, they most often don't know the citizen is armed, and certainly don't expect a fight. A lot of the time, the result of getting one is fleeing, surrendering, or dying.

On the flip side there are probably just as many shop keepers who were gunned down when they escalated things by going for a weapon. Many armed robbers carry weapons for intimidation with no intention of using them. Escalating the situation probably isn't sensible (edit: in the case where someone has the drop on you)... Even if some people get away with it and look like heroes on youtube.

 Smacks wrote:
On the flip side there are probably just as many shop keepers who were gunned down when they escalated things by going for a weapon. Many armed robbers carry weapons for intimidation with no intention of using them. Escalating the situation probably isn't sensible (edit: in the case where someone has the drop on you)... Even if some people get away with it and look like heroes on youtube.

Personally speaking, if someone's holding a gun on me, I'm not going to put my faith in their benevolent intentions.

 Seaward wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
On the flip side there are probably just as many shop keepers who were gunned down when they escalated things by going for a weapon. Many armed robbers carry weapons for intimidation with no intention of using them. Escalating the situation probably isn't sensible (edit: in the case where someone has the drop on you)... Even if some people get away with it and look like heroes on youtube.

Personally speaking, if someone's holding a gun on me, I'm not going to put my faith in their benevolent intentions.

If someone has a gun on you then your options might be somewhat limited though. if you have a 90% chance of getting shot, while making a mad dash for your shotgun, versus an unknown chance of getting shot if you wait and see... it's kind of a tough call.

 Smacks wrote:
If someone has a gun on you then your options might be somewhat limited though. if you have a 90% chance of getting shot, while making a mad dash for your shotgun, versus an unknown chance of getting shot if you wait and see... it's kind of a tough call.

I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.

Seaward wrote:
Personally speaking, if someone's holding a gun on me, I'm not going to put my faith in their benevolent intentions.

Seaward wrote:
I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.

Whatever you say, Wild Bill.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Personally speaking, if someone's holding a gun on me, I'm not going to put my faith in their benevolent intentions.

Seaward wrote:
I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.

Whatever you say, Wild Bill.

It can be fairly fast, also keep in mind that if somebody is trying to rob you they will expect you to get your wallet. So the slow movement into a pocket to "get your wallet" will be expected and they would not react to that part of the draw. The only unexpected draw is from pocket to shooting position.

 Seaward wrote:
I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.

Now hold on.. I was primarily talking about non police/security personnel owning a weapon for home defence, and how useful it really is. I did mention armed robbery which I concede does imply business defence. But now you are talking about concealed weapons. I'm not an expert on this, and I'm sure the rules vary from state to state... but I thought people who were licenced to carry concealed weapons usually had to have a reason (dangerous job etc...). I think that falls outside the boundaries of someone who just wants a gun for personal defence, who may not even be permitted to carry it on the street.

 Smacks wrote:
Now hold on.. I was primarily talking about non police/security personnel owning a weapon for home defence, and how useful it really is. I did mention armed robbery which I concede does imply business defence. But now you are talking about concealed weapons. I'm not an expert on this, and I'm sure the rules vary from state to state... but I thought people who were licenced to carry concealed weapons usually had to have a reason (dangerous job etc...). I think that falls outside the boundaries of someone who just wants a gun for personal defence, who may not even be permitted to carry it on the street.

No. In fact, the last holdout state that refused to issue concealed carry permits to average citizens - Illinois - has recently been forced by court order to come up with concealed carry legislation. That makes all 50 states where a citizen has the right to carry a firearm concealed if he or she so chooses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Whatever you say, Wild Bill.

What exactly are you doubtful about?

 Seaward wrote:
No. In fact, the last holdout state that refused to issue concealed carry permits to average citizens - Illinois - has recently been forced by court order to come up with concealed carry legislation. That makes all 50 states where a citizen has the right to carry a firearm concealed if he or she so chooses.

Okay. I stand corrected then.

So anyone can pull a gun on you at any time? That's the scariest thing I've ever heard!

 Smacks wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
No. In fact, the last holdout state that refused to issue concealed carry permits to average citizens - Illinois - has recently been forced by court order to come up with concealed carry legislation. That makes all 50 states where a citizen has the right to carry a firearm concealed if he or she so chooses.

Okay. I stand corrected then.

So anyone can pull a gun on you at any time? That's the scariest thing I've ever heard!

You wear a seatbelt when you drive so that you don't die in a crash? So a car can pull out in front of you at any time and kill you? Driving is the scariest thing I've ever heard!

The thing about the magazine capacity is that it is a red herring for both sides of the argument.

The key problem is that so many gun woundings are done with pistols. It doesn't matter much the magazine capacity. If we want to reduce gun woundings, we need to find a way to reduce pistol use per se.

Fewer bullets might in some cases avoid more woundings, but it might result in more cases where an attacker was successful because he was not stopped by only six, or 10 hits.

Concentrating on this narrow aspect of the debate avoids the core matter.

 d-usa wrote:
You wear a seatbelt when you drive so that you don't die in a crash? So a car can pull out in front of you at any time and kill you? Driving is the scariest thing I've ever heard!

I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?

I agree that cars are dangerous, but they also serve an important transport purpose. It would be better if they drove themselves, humans are clearly the weak link in the decision making process. Edit: Which is the main reason I worry about letting them have guns.

 Smacks wrote:
I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?

This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.

 Seaward wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?

This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.

Given the number of readily available weapons in America and the large number of gun related deaths compared to here. I'm forced to conclude you are right.

Certainly there are "rage" attacks in the UK. We read about them in the paper because they are rare and shocking.

Most incidents presumably are limited to shouting, but some escalate to punches or worse, and when serious injury results it gets reported.

It would be useful to get hold of some solid information regarding the number of such incidents in various countries.

 Seaward wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?

This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.

I concur. I carry every day, I doubt any one around me has a clue I have a weapon on me. I have arguments just the same as any one else... but why would I shoot them if I'm just explaining they're an idiot? I'd rather avoid making a complete ass of myself and getting into a fist fight but you know, I suppose if that's just the cultural thing for the English, go to the pub have a pint, chat up a girl, buy her a strongbow, punch someone for the hell of it, you do what you do.

I personally don't buy the "escalation" theory by and large, because with the sheer amount of firearms in American hands, the population of this country would at least be reduced by half by this point.

It's also worth noting that every time you drive a car you're taking the absolute power of life or death into your hands... or clench your firsts, or pick up a bat (cricket, baseball, take your pick), hammers, handle any form of sharp object etc. We're remarkably fragile creatures. Take some basic medical classes, it's surprising. Eight pounds of pressure to snap a human neck, get a cut in the right extremely shallow place and you bleed out in second and so forth. So I suppose the real question for the commonwealth side of this particular argument, if the power of life and death over others is such a massive deal, why are you constantly terrified of the world around you, and have you considered a gerbil for your national mascot instead of a bulldog along with some downers to relax you?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?

This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.

I concur. I carry every day, I doubt any one around me has a clue I have a weapon on me. I have arguments just the same as any one else... but why would I shoot them if I'm just explaining they're an idiot? I'd rather avoid making a complete ass of myself and getting into a fist fight but you know, I suppose if that's just the cultural thing for the English, go to the pub have a pint, chat up a girl, buy her a strongbow, punch someone for the hell of it, you do what you do.

I personally don't buy the "escalation" theory by and large, because with the sheer amount of firearms in American hands, the population of this country would at least be reduced by half by this point.

It's also worth noting that every time you drive a car you're taking the absolute power of life or death into your hands... or clench your firsts, or pick up a bat (cricket, baseball, take your pick), hammers, handle any form of sharp object etc. We're remarkably fragile creatures. Take some basic medical classes, it's surprising. Eight pounds of pressure to snap a human neck, get a cut in the right extremely shallow place and you bleed out in second and so forth. So I suppose the real question for the commonwealth side of this particular argument, if the power of life and death over others is such a massive deal, why are you constantly terrified of the world around you, and have you considered a gerbil for your national mascot instead of a bulldog along with some downers to relax you?

If it's that easy to defend oneself, why do you need guns?

It isn't about defence. It is about cultural beliefs and attitudes.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It's also worth noting that every time you drive a car you're taking the absolute power of life or death into your hands... or clench your firsts, or pick up a bat (cricket, baseball, take your pick), hammers, handle any form of sharp object etc.

Those things don't represent absolute power. A person has a chance of being able to defend or flee from any of the weapons you mention. (Edit: also you are not permitted to carry hammers or knifes for defence here either) And this drawing parallels with cars is a nonsense fallacy. Cars can kill and injure people, as can many things, but it is not their intended purpose. In fact the opposite, cars (and even roads) are designed to try and keep people safe. I would guess that well over 99% of driving related injuries and fatalities are accidents. That is pretty key.

Guns are weapons, designed to kill and injure. That is their purpose. And they are really good at it. Then we have statements like these... "

 Seaward wrote:
I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.

I'm sure you would be surprised if you just got shot 3 times. Hope you deserved it.

So I suppose the real question for the commonwealth side of this particular argument, if the power of life and death over others is such a massive deal, why are you constantly terrified of the world around you, and have you considered a gerbil for your national mascot instead of a bulldog along with some downers to relax you?

That isn't really the real question at all. It just sounds like ad hominem. People from the commonwealth threaten your ideas so you call them sissy. Why even go there? If anyone lives in fear it's the guy who is too afraid to step outside without a carrying a gun.

 Smacks wrote:
Guns are weapons, designed to kill and injure. That is their purpose. And they are really good at it.

Yes, and there are 300 million of them in this country. Simply declaring them to be icky does not magically make them disappear. Protesting that you do not believe in firearm violence is a pretty low percentage shot in terms of dissuading an armed attacker.

Then we have statements like these... "

 Seaward wrote:
I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.

What's wrong with that statement?