Posted on 12/30/2012 7:39:02 AM PST by marktwain
If you’re reading this, you’ve probably had a conversation with someone in the last few days who asked, “Why do ordinary law-abiding people need those semiautomatic firearms with magazines that can hold more than ten cartridges?” There are lots of sound answers.
For one thing, defensive firearms are meant to be “equalizers,” force multipliers that can allow one good person to defend against multiple evil people. To allow one good person to defend against a single evil person so much stronger and/or bigger and/or more violent than he or she, that the attacker’s potentially lethal assault can be stopped. History shows that it often takes many gunshots to stop even a single determined aggressor. Most police officers have seen the famous autopsy photo in the cops-only text book “Street Survival” of the armed robber who soaked up 33 police 9mm bullets before he stopped trying to kill the officers. Consider Lance Thomas, the Los Angeles area watch shop owner who was in many shootouts with multiple gang bangers who tried to rob and murder him. He shot several of them, and discovered that it took so many hits to stop them that he placed multiple loaded handguns every few feet along his workbench. That’s not possible in a home, or when lawfully carrying concealed on the street: a semiautomatic pistol with a substantial cartridge capacity makes much more sense for that defensive application.
Semiautomatic rifles? Consider this heart-breaking, fatal home invasion in Florida http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Byrd_and_Melanie_Billings and ask yourself if it might have turned out differently had the homeowners been able to access and competently deploy something like, oh, a Bushmaster AR15 with 30 round magazine.
(Excerpt) Read more at backwoodshome.com ...
Saturday, December 29th, 2012
If you’re reading this, you’ve probably had a conversation with someone in the last few days who asked, “Why do ordinary law-abiding people need those semiautomatic firearms with magazines that can hold more than ten cartridges?” There are lots of sound answers.
For one thing, defensive firearms are meant to be “equalizers,” force multipliers that can allow one good person to defend against multiple evil people. To allow one good person to defend against a single evil person so much stronger and/or bigger and/or more violent than he or she, that the attacker’s potentially lethal assault can be stopped. History shows that it often takes many gunshots to stop even a single determined aggressor. Most police officers have seen the famous autopsy photo in the cops-only text book “Street Survival” of the armed robber who soaked up 33 police 9mm bullets before he stopped trying to kill the officers. Consider Lance Thomas, the Los Angeles area watch shop owner who was in many shootouts with multiple gang bangers who tried to rob and murder him. He shot several of them, and discovered that it took so many hits to stop them that he placed multiple loaded handguns every few feet along his workbench. That’s not possible in a home, or when lawfully carrying concealed on the street: a semiautomatic pistol with a substantial cartridge capacity makes much more sense for that defensive application.
Semiautomatic rifles? Consider this heart-breaking, fatal home invasion in Florida (link) and ask yourself if it might have turned out differently had the homeowners been able to access and competently deploy something like, oh, a Bushmaster AR15 with 30 round magazine. I teach every year in Southern Arizona, and each year I see more Americans along the border with AR15s and similar rifles in their ranch vehicles and even their regular cars. There have been cases where innocent ranchers and working cops alike have been jeopardized by multiple, heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers in desert fights far from police response and backup. A semiautomatic rifle with a substantial magazine capacity can be reassuring in such situations, as seen here: (link)
In the last twenty years, we have seen epic mob violence in American streets. During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, Korean storekeepers armed with AR15s kept their stores and livelihoods – and lives – from the torches of inflamed crowds because the mob feared their force multipliers. Read this, for a survivor’s account: (link). There have been bands of roving, violent predators as lately as this year during the Sandy storm. And the “flash mob violence” phenomenon of recent years has left many urban dwellers picturing themselves as the lone victim of a feral human wolfpack.
And, if you will, one more stark and simple thing: Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried. When the police carried .38 revolvers as a rule, the .38 caliber revolver was the single most popular choice among armed citizens. In the 1980s and into the 1990s, cops switched en masse to semiautomatic pistols. So did the gun-buying public. Today, the most popular handgun among police seems to be the 16-shot, .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic. Not surprisingly, the general public has gone to pistols bracketing that caliber in power (9mm, .40, .45) with similar enthusiasm. The American police establishment has also largely switched from the 12 gauge shotgun which was also the traditional American home defense weapon, to the AR15 patrol rifle with 30-round magazine…and, not surprisingly, the law-abiding citizenry has followed suit there, too.
The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .
Need ? Why do they keep framing the question as a discussion of "need"? It's not about hunting or target practice.
It is a right. "right of the people to keep and bear arms."
That would include the barrel, the trigger, the bullets, the magazines, etc. I don't see any limitations in the constitution.
The government has slowly been making "sensible" limitations to erode the clear language of the constitution in violation of their limited authority.
Nothing against semi-autos, I have six of ‘em in various calibers, but I prefer my .38 revolvers for protection. They don’t jam or break. Had a hammer spring break on one of my .380’s, that I conceal carry, and it’s a helpless feeling when nothing happens when you pull the trigger.
That experience convinced me of the need to protect oneself. That said, I too prefer a revolver. Autos look sexy, but I never felt that I could count on them, including my M-16 from 45 years ago.
The question should be framed thusly as How many tyrants or criminals who pose an imminent threat to life or liberty should I be able to shoot without relading and/or how rapidly?
I am a big believer in firepower. I have seen it work!!!
I am forsaking the usage of “assault” rifle to what I prefer to appropriately call a larger magazine fed .308 to “battle” rifle. The M1 Garand, the M14/M1A are battle rifles.
I wonder if taping two 15rd magazines together constitute a high capacity magazine? My dad has an M1 carbine with eight 15rd. mags.
It should be pointed out that there is no inherent moral value to the hardware.
They are indeed force multipliers, and as such they operate every bit as efficiently to allow one evil person to kill multiple good people quickly.
So if good people are going to have access to such force multipliers, we must accept that so will some evil people.
Had an interesting discussion with a psychologist I was working for the other day. Asked him if there was any reliable way in prospect to use mental health screening to prevent such atrocities. He said no, that any program that would have any effect at all would require locking up hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people because they - might - be dangerous at some future point.
He also said that living with such atrocities is part of the price we pay for living in a free society.
I loved the scene from “Salt” where Angelina uses an assault rifle with a four mag attachment, four mags mounted side by side. I have seen various versions of dual mags side by side and or opposed.
One of my friends was a Ranger in Korean War combat. He carried a Thompson, and said it was SOP to have two magazines taped together at the base, for quick change wearing gloves.
This is how I look at it. I don't care whether the criminal got his arsenal legally or illegally. He has it and I refuse to disarm unilaterally.
Massad Ayoob hits another bulls eye.
Every firearm is an assault weapon.
Great graphic. Thanks.
In the next LA riot there will be many a hubby who will run to the closet to get his firearm only to find that the wifey has turned it in to the LA police for a gift card.
Just talked to pops. He’s going to do that. Just wondering what’s the best tape to use. Surgical tape will dry out over time as will duct-tape. I’m thinking electricians tape???
Just talked to pops. He’s going to do that. Just wondering what’s the best tape to use. Surgical tape will dry out over time as will duct-tape. I’m thinking electricians tape??? Secondly which would be the best way to tape the second mag. for quick change, like which way should the bullets face in the second one.
>>> That said, I too prefer a revolver.
I own a Glock 9mm and am thinking of acquiring a “hammerless” 38 revolver.
I’ve been looking at the Ruger. Would you recommend it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
