How many bullets does one need for self defense?

[ArcticFox]

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)

The argument I've heard is funds are needed to defend oneself or one's home.

I can't think of a time that I heard of anyone having to shoot more than a few shots in such a situation.

Does anyone really need more than ten rounds in a magazine?

Edited for the answer: Only a few. If you can't stop someone with a few rounds, you're either likely to hit innocent people with you 83% of misses (based on replies to the thread), or you won't stop the evil-doer before it (zombie, in this case) gets you. If a horde comes after you, it won't make a difference if you had 5 shots or 20; if they want you bad enough to come in high numbers, they'll get you.

[Glaug-Eldare]

1. As many as it takes, I guess.

There's no telling in advance what the situation is going to be, and the Police Policy Studies Council has a study out indicating that police officers miss about 85% of the time. Let's take Joe Shmo protecting his house during an aggressive home robbery. Suppose he has a ten-round magazine. Unless his marksmanship is superior to the police (which it may or may not be), you can count eight of those as misses if he expends the entire magazine. So he's got two shots that will hit. Will that be enough? Depends where he hits, and how many attackers there are. Let's say two. One hit each might scare them off, but it might not. Maybe they'll want his gun badly enough to stick around. Maybe he's a worse shot than the police, and he can only score one hit. I'd rather have more gun food than I need.

[gejohnston]

2. that's a hard question

One can say what the most likely need is, but I don't think anyone has any business (especially someone who is not an expert but looking at it from a political point of view) telling anyone what they "need" for something that dire for the lack of a better word. In other words, an opinion by someone like Massad Ayoob would carry infinity more weight than some talk radio pundit or politician.
My view on pistols is that it should be whatever can fit in the grip of a standard pistol (target pistols like the Walther GSP or antique Mauser C-96s are a different discussion). If your 1911 can hold only seven rounds, it is seven round limit. If your Walther P-99 is 15, then 15 is your limit. In short, standard magazines for that gun and no mall ninja clown car shit. I'm not a fan of arbitrary numbers.

[tortoise1956]

6. I agree as far as handguns

If they're designed to hold 10 or 12 or 15, then that should be acceptable.

The issue of magazine size arises when dealing with semi-automatic rifles. For example, there is no "standard" magazine size for an AR-15 that I'm aware of. AFAIK, the military generally uses 30 round magazines, but that's an arbitrary number.

[ManiacJoe]

7. 30 rounds is not really arbitrary.

The military and the manufacturers have found that mags that hold more than 30 rounds become noticeably less reliable than the 20 and 30 round mags.

[tortoise1956]

8. I was thinking of the number 30

IT doesn't really match up with anything else. Typically, ammunition is sold in lots of 20, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, etc. 30 rounds doesn't fit very well into any of these numbers. 10, 20, or 25 round magazines would be a better match. IIRC, the M-14 I shot in the 1970s had 20 round magazines. Of course, that was the Navy...

I think I'll dive into the net and see what I can find on the origin of 30 round magazines.

[ManiacJoe]

11. 20 is a good number for the AR-based rifles.

It matches the number of rounds per box.
It does not stick out of the gun so far, making it easier to shoot prone and snagging on less things.

All my AR mags are 20s.

The mags for the M1A (semi-auto M-14) are still 20. Seems like all the .308 rifles are that way.

[Glassunion]

18. It's also IMO the best size if you're bench shooting.

[Glassunion]

17. The rifle ammunition that I recently bought

Was in strips of 10 that were boxed in threes. - 30 rounds

[oldhippie]

30. And those "strips" were actually "clips" ...

... to get the nomenclature right.

[Glassunion]

31. I was keeping it simple.

I've always called them "stripper clips".

[oldhippie]

32. Me too!

Which is what they are. Didn't mean to dump on you, it's just some some in the media purposely misuse the terms and it bugs my sense of order in the word.

I liken it to an avid golfer hearing his prized putter called "that stick thing."

[tortoise1956]

9. What I found

The original design for the M-16 called for 20 round magazines. The earliest 30 round magazines I can find are from circa 1968.

http://www.rawles.to/AR-15_M16_Magazine_FAQ.html

The AK-47 was originally outfitted with 30 round magazines. The Army probably started migrating to 30 round mags because of the need to change out 20 round mags more often than an enemy using standard AK-47s. (Can you say Vietnam?)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. You bring up a good point

The spring within the magazine must push the rounds loaded up quickly enough such that the top round is chambered. The force developed by a spring is inversely proportionate to its deflection so the spring is pushing twice as hard when 8 rounds are loaded compared to when 4 rounds are loaded. This difference is offset by the difference in the mass of the rounds. A manufacturer of a quality pistol balances the spring force and capacity of the magazine for the greatest reliability. I would tend to believe that it may be the best idea to use mags built by the guns manufacturer rather than a higher capacity mag made by a third party.

I've done nearly no pistol shooting and wondered if you'd had any experience with this.

Thanks

[Lurks Often]

33. Depends on the firearm

There are some very high quality aftermarket magazines makers out there: Wilson & Chip McCormick for 1911's, Mec-Gar in general, Mec-Gar also makes OEM magazines for some gun companies.

Usually a couple of minutes searching will give you a good idea of whether a particular aftermarket make is producing a quality product or junk

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Thanks

I rather suspected, as with many products, owner reviews and comments would help sort the useful from the useless. With most firearms I'd also recommend a trying before buying. I suspected that it's less likely that the firearm manufacturer would make a substandard mag.

[ManiacJoe]

75. This is where product reliability comes in.

For the standard size handgun magazines (fits flush with the grip), things work great.

For the extended handgun mags that hold 30 or more rounds, the reliability of the mag noticeably drops. This is not a big deal for range work, but for self-defense it can be a problem. As some of the more recent public shootings show, some of the Bad Guys find out the hard way when their extended mag causes a jam which allows him to be disarmed by his potential victims.

[tortoise1956]

3. I'm not sure any more

I used to think that 30 round magazines were a good cutoff. Personally, I believe that my AR-15 mags are 10- and 20 round capacity.

I could probably support a 10 round maximum, but I don't think the capacity will make much difference. A determined individual can empty 3 10 round magazines in almost the same time period as 1 30 round mag. I'm guessing it will probably only add about 10 seconds total, less if they practice.

If I ever do get a CCW, my weapon of choice would be a wheel-gun. If one round doesn't fire, pull the trigger again...no FTEs, no FTFs. Besides, if I need more than 6 shots, I'm really deep in the shit!

[ManiacJoe]

4. The most often quoted stat is

that the average self defense shooting is 2-4 rounds. (I don't remember the exact number.) For that to be the average, some are less and some are more.

The more important question is, why would you want to handicap someone with a handgun magazine that has been artificially limited to an arbitrary number like 10? What is wrong with letting the user have a normal handgun magazine that fits flush with the grip and holds whatever count of rounds that naturally fits?

Rifles using detachable box magazines don't really have a natural size, just standardized conventions:
5 rounds for hunting
20, 30 based on military specs

Rifle magazines that hold over 30 rounds are noticeably less reliable and are not normally used for anything other than range work, for those users wanting the "looks cool" gimmick.

[Rtalon]

5. Rtalon

It depends on how good a shot you are.but you have to carry a gun to shoot.

[southerncrone]

10. Probably 5 or 6 should do it, IMHO.

[sarisataka]

12. One...

or a lot. How good are you and how lucky/unlucky are you? One assailant or a riot?

[former-republican]

13. impossible to answer on the basis of need

[Callisto32]

14. What caliber, how dark is it, how much cover is available, is the attacker using it.....

Surely you see the problem with your question.

[farminator3000]

41. is the attacker using it? there is also a problem with your question

if the attacker is using your gun, you are in a little too deep.

instead of caliber, maybe how good a shot are you?

you might add where are you? at home? in a war?

but i think you answered your question with your mistake- "the attacker" meaning ONE person?

if you need more than 2 bullets for one person, maybe hire a bodyguard?

[guardian]

64. "if you need more than 2 bullets for one person, maybe hire a bodyguard?"

You've been watching too many movies. See post 62 in this thread for REAL information.

[farminator3000]

70. on what planet is this real information?

Every source I read has different recommendations. Some say Marshall's data is genius. Some say it is statistically impossible. Some like big heavy bullets. Some like lighter, faster bullets. There isn't any consensus. The more I read, the more confused I get.

One thing I remember reading that made a lot of sense to me was an article by Massad Ayoob. He came out with his own stopping power data around the time Marshall published Handgun Stopping Power. In the article, Ayoob took his critics to task. He suggested that if people didn't believe his data, they should collect their own and do their own analysis. That made sense to me. So that's just what I did.

how is data collected by one guy who is nuts about guns real?

[guardian]

84. Nice deflection. Care to get back on point?

It's more real than comments from the antis who wouldn't know the difference between a grapefruit and a .50 BMG

[farminator3000]

88. that would be great. so what is your point?

bullets come in different sizes.

so....

your point is "i know how to paste things?"

[leveymg]

15. Calculate the zombie/shooter ratio. How many zombies will be attacking your house?

Gotta shoot them in the head. Splatter, splatter.

[ileus]

16. Trained pros like cops and military have something like a 17%

Hit percentage.

10's better than nothing but not as welcome as 17 or 30.

My personal favorite is 20's the perfect length to carry while hunting or plinking, however if I sit the AR bedside it's a fully loaded pmag in the lower.

[safeinOhio]

19. How many times a year have firearms

been used successfully in self-defense? Lots. How many times have more than 10 rounds been used in self-defense, by nonmilitary or police? I'd bet between never and .0001 % of the time.

There are movies, fantasy and then reality.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. How many times are firearms used in self defense without a shot fired?

You might ask LAPD and NYPD about that...they have been known to shoot more than that

[farminator3000]

43. oh snap!

i'd say in reality, if you get mugged by a gun toter, you are more likely to become a homicide than pull out your gun like wyatt earp.

but that statistic doesn't seem to exist.

i will add that a gun is a gun, a mugger isn't going to ignore your gun because it is only .22 cal

so i'm saying however many there are, the guns not fired sucessfully in defense are probably mostly small handguns

therefore, you don't need an AK47 for self defense

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. Or shotguns according to some

Today the most self defense handguns are not little, starting at 380 and going up. They tend to be semi automatic pistols. Those that carry concealed may have a single stack, but they too will start at 380 caliber.

I teach firearms mostly to GLBTs and women for that reason. They are often reluctant gun owners but have come to the realization that until things change in the US, they have little choice. The police cannot be there in real time, and are sometimes part of the problem. These are not people in bad neighborhoods participating in questionable activities. Sometimes it follows them home. T*s are being slaughtered in some cities and NOTHING IS BEING DONE. These are not gun nuts. They will probably never by any kind of long gun, AR, AK, or otherwise. They will disarm when the threat passes.

Maybe you can be the one standing over them telling them that it was better they get their brains bashed in or got tortured and shot rather that own an evil pistol. I however, will continue to help them until the threat passes. It seems the progressive thing to do.

[farminator3000]

72. pump your brakes, buddy

i said "the guns not fired sucessfully in defense are probably mostly small handguns "

meaning when you pull out your gun and the guy runs away.

i said " you don't need an AK47 for self defense"

meaning a handgun is fine

i didn't say anything about taking away anybody's handgun. i did not say 'evil pistol'.

i think it's cool that you teach to GLBTs and women.

but calm down. if T*s means thousands you are a little off there, also vague. it makes it sounds like there are some cities where thousand are being killed, but you don't give a time period, so..

and things are being done. nobody wants to take a gun away from a GLBT or woman defending themselves

"you don't need a AK for self defense" in no way means "take away everybody's gun"

[farminator3000]

42. i totally agree with you

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/19

except they aren't used that much in self defense. 600 or so justifiable homicides a year.

i'd say in reality, if you get mugged by a gun toter, you are more likely to become a homicide than pull out your gun like wyatt earp.

also, i looked up that 600 on the fbi's site. they wanted me to participlate in a customer survey!

"did you find the murder statistics you were looking for?"

[gejohnston]

44. that is just where someone is killed

wounded is ten times that. Using the gun in self defense ranges from 80K to a couple of million depending study. DoJ came to 100K.

[farminator3000]

47. so if you go with 100K

how many were ak-47 types?

i'll guess- 768?

[gejohnston]

48. who knows

but since AK-47s, being an automatic weapon, have been taxed and registered since 1934, I would say zero. My guess most of them are pistols.
Even if you are counting the semi automatic clones, that would still be ten to 100 times the number used in murders in a given year.

[farminator3000]

49. stop picking ma nits

i said ak-47 type, meaning assault weapon.
i'm aware machine guns are illegal, thanks.
so what-
a semi-auto clone holds the same amount of bullets and is more accurate.

what is your point? great- have a handgun with 6 bullets for self defense, that's all you need.

so the estimated number for self defense is bigger than the known total of homicides?

and?

[gejohnston]

50. Many don't know that

Unless you are a police instructor, or recognized expert on the subject, your opinion of what anyone "needs" is well, meaningless.
You asked.

[farminator3000]

55. so that's why you are being condescending? you are an 'expert'?

what is your point?

more guns are used in self defense than murders, gotcha.

and?

i didn't ask what you thought of my opinion, i said you only need a normal 6 shooter for self defense. i don't care what you think about that

what i asked was asked again in this post.

[hack89]

20. One more than the bad guy. nt

[Hangingon]

21. It is not a question of how many rounds are needed to stop a goblin.

The question is how many practice rounds do you need to stay proficient.

[Kaleva]

22. Instances of a homeowner firing more then a few rounds are very rare.

There are many posts here about homeowners who drew and fired a gun in self/home defense and if someone had the time and interest, they could research all those stories to get an idea of how many rounds were fired before the situation was resolved.

[Remmah2]

23. What's the current limit on people permitted to participate in a home invasion?

What's the legal ratio of attackers to defenders?

In using a shotgun with 2-3/4" buckshot w/each pull of the trigger 9 to 12 spherical projectiles are released. Each ball is capable of inflicting a mortal wound. Six shots from a field grade Mossberg 500 suggests that 72 projectiles are available. A 72 round magazine would be the numerical equivelant. At 20-30 rounds for a magazine limit that seems to be a reasonable compromise to me.

Compromise is the operative word.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. The real scoop from a pro-gun person.

Here's the truth of the matter:

A gun is only useful as long as it is loaded. Thus the more bullets it holds, the longer it will remain useful when you are using it.

No one ever came out of a self-defense shooting saying, "Man, I just had too many bullets!"

But here's the other truth of the matter:

The technology that is enabling these mass shootings is high capacity magazines and detachable, easily replaceable magazines.

These people could not do what they are doing with a revolver. Oh, yes, there are some very specialized, highly trained people who can use a speed loader to reload a revolver faster than most people can even draw a semi-automatic out of a holster. But this is incredibly rare. Most people are going to be thumbing in those bullets one at a time, and it takes about 20 seconds to empty and load up a revolver that way.

Most self-defense shootings are probably over in 2-3 shots.

I think we need to tightly control semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines.

Revolvers will be fine for self-defense, and the M1 Garand will suffice for militia duty.

If you want to own a detachable magazine semi-auto, spend $200 on your tax stamp and wait six weeks to buy one.

[Recursion]

27. I like more and more the idea of rescheduling semi's with detachable mags as Class 3 weapons

Particularly if we could re-open the registry, and make a "mini-FFL" class of license for people who just want to buy them but not resell them. The heavy lifting would be compliance with registration, but despite my usual pessimism I think we're in a cultural place where that could be done, particularly with smart privacy safeguards.

[Atypical Liberal]

29. That is exactly what I am thinking.

A new class of FFL.

"Super" gun owners, with a specialized license.

[Eleanors38]

36. I would be open to some reg like this if...

The definitions are tightened up.

The magazines (once a cap. is defined) are not limited in number sold.

That any classification scheme NOT embody government registration; transfer by NICS-type system with every transfer.

No onerous fees and taxes

No silly limits/taxes on ammo amts.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

74. What is the problem with

registering your guns?

[Eleanors38]

85. It gives government(s) de facto access to my guns

should our political system destabilize, and those in power feel threatened enough to seize them. Further, government could feel emboldened to take authoritarian actions they might not otherwise take, given their "shopping list."

Hubert Humphrey -- "Mr. Liberal" in his time -- acknowledged the unlikely chance of such a scenario, but also acknowledged that this was a core purpose of the Second. I agree with him.

It is not at all extremist to say that "gun control" groups seek eventual total bans; this is why they want access to now-anonymous NICS data, and why they want registration: It is an infrastructure-in-waiting.

I would seriously consider a new class. for the STILL poorly defined "assault weapon" which might require more extensive BG tests to possess, with such data stored in non-gov. data storage, accessible by warrant. I would support "universal NICS" and BG checks with every transfer (without violating commerce clause).

May I ask? With the whole family of semi-auto weapons (rifles, handguns, shotguns) so poorly understood & definitions so easily gotten around, how would any proposal really prevent relatively obscure "mass shootings?" This is why I (and others) have posted for beefed-up, full-time security at schools. But I'm afraid many in this hateful dialogue have other goals in mind.

Thank you for your thoughtful question.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

87. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

While there was a time when I would have found your concern about a destabilized government laughable, the example of today's dysfunctional Republican Party makes the possibilities of such destabilization less comical. I suspect if the GOP succeeds in destroying itself, there are many on the left who will, indeed, call for the confiscation of all guns. I am not one such, but I recognize there are plenty of them. I think the problem may be the use of the ill-defined "gun-control groups" and the equally ill-defined "second amendment freaks" The entire conversation is taking place on the extremes, never a good thing for any society that hopes to survive. I would never want to disarm everyone. I don't own a gun myself, I have no need for one, but I have family members who are hunters, and while I may question their overall intelligence, (which has nothing to do with their gun ownership) they are not murderers.

Those of us who are not part of the gun culture have little understanding as to the types of weapons that have proven to be so dangerous. I have only the words of Sen. Joe Manchin as to how many rounds he needs and it was far fewer than 100 or even 30. I think your idea of a non-governmental data storage system, accessible only by warrant has much merit. Of course, anyone who purchases their weapons or ammunition on the internet has already given up their privacy...but that is their problem.

As to full-time, beefed-up security for schools....who is going to pay for that? School budgets have been cut to the bone already.... Would you support a separate tax on guns and ammunition to pay for it? Every right does carry a corresponding responsibility, after all.

Perhaps if we began conversations with "I recognize something must be done" and "I recognize your right to own guns" we would make better headway.

You live in Florida, correct? Nice seeing you again. I really do like your idea about the non-gov't data storage.

[Eleanors38]

91. Thank you once again. I have lived in Texas for 40+ yrs, but

was born & raised in FLA, and go back twice ea. Yr. On the ammo idea, this may be the hardest thing to control; I usually have a few hundred rds, mainly for the range (practice, sighting) and bird hunting. It is really not much, even for a duffer.

Magazine size, which I won't stand in front of, seems such a symbolic issue. A 30 rd mag is merely 3x10-rd "legal" mags.

Most folks don't start these discussions with a definition of the social prob and possible aporoachs. They start with gun control as if this is the only game im town. My idea for school security was for the fed. gov to fund grants so schools could use $ for security measures. The burden would fall on all Americans, .not just ea. school. Personally, I favor training existing, trusted staff in the use of arms. The expense would be far less than hiring LEO.

If I don't get back to you by Sunday (going deer hunting) Merry Christmas!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

94. I love the merely Eleanors38

it still takes time to reload no?

When was the last time you walked through a school? Here in Florida, at least in Palm Beach Cty, they are sprawling affairs with numerous entrances and exits. It would take a platoon to guard the average high school here. The elementary and middle schools are almost as bad. One estimate was $6 billion a year to guard all the nation's schools adequately. But I think that was based on the old style of of one building with multiple floors. The problem with using "trusted staff" is that in an emergency the gun would have to first be removed from it's locked storage facility. Not terribly efficient. There is also the issue of placing the onus on someone who doesn't want it. For some reason gun owners all seem to think they could shoot and kill someone without any qualms. I tend to doubt that. I think most people would have a real problem actually pulling the trigger...certainly the people who have devoted their lives to teaching children would. So I think any attempt to 'guard' the schools would have to be carried out by professionals. Even then, we have the Ft. Hood experience which clearly demonstrates that one determined killer can take out any number of people while surrounded by professionals.

The high schools here have a police officer assigned to them, but one officer is fairy useless. My daughter was outside for lunch one day when a bullet whizzed by her head. The school reacted by locking all the students in the cafeteria for lunch period. Literally...locking the doors. I couldn't wait for her to graduate and go off to college. I kept thinking of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire.

Merry Christmas yourself....And happy hunting!

[gejohnston]

95. one quick correction

the soldiers were unarmed at the time, which is usually the case in garrison.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

96. Well, that explains a lot. Thanks.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

89. One other thing I forgot to mention....

In 1985 (I think) I visited Acapulco, Mexico. Every corner was patrolled by a soldier armed with an automatic weapon...the ex recognized the weapons....The beaches were similarly patrolled. I can tell you it was very unnerving and I vowed to never return. The anxiety produced by feeling that at any moment a gunfight could break out and I'd be trapped in the middle, is not something I would want for young children. In fact, you might want to read up on the anxiety inner city kids experience knowing they could be shot going to or from school.

[Eleanors38]

92. I wouldn't want street patrols by armed military either.

I have indeed read about the anxiety kids have going to and fro school. This seems to be worse in big cities where gangs are literally vying for power. Chicago comes to mind most starkly. The cartels of Mexico support many of them. I guess you know those guys are the ones with guns.

[Lurks Often]

34. Nonsense

Yes, I know the poster has been PPR'd, but people are missing the point.

I know dozens of people who, while they would never do such a horrifying thing, have the skills to do as much or more damage with a 6 shot revolver or 5 shot pump shotgun.

Based on years of competive shooting and watching other shooters I would put the average reload time for a revolver 3-5 seconds, average reload time to fill the 5 round tube on a shotgun 10-15 seconds.

[jpak]

38. Then an AR15 with a 100 round clip makes your home invincible!

you win

LOL

[atreides1]

26. Usually one

Most times one is enough to discourage an attacker...maybe two for someone who has a death wish.

[Eleanors38]

35. I purchase hand-gun ammo in 50/100 boxes

All of it for practice, and the gun loaded fully when it is in "duty" mode.

What is "needed" for SD, I don't know. Incidentally, I have several hundred rounds available for all my firearms, including hunting weapons. This is the problem with ammo "limits."

When does my Stevens 2 bbl go from birds mode to SD mode? I have hundreds of rounds for that gun.

[RoccoR5955]

37. One.

A shotgun with buckshot in it will do the trick!

[jmg257]

40. 2x the number of attackers, plus 1.

Not sure about need, but if 6 is good, 12 is better, and 15+1 is a wonder.

[slackmaster]

46. Too many is always better than not enough

[Kaleva]

65. Has anyone ever been killed for not having enough?

Maybe there has been but off the top of my head, i can't recall any stories of a person who was defending him or herself wit ha gun but ended up being killed because they had run out of ammo.

[slackmaster]

73. About 100 Texans come to mind

In the Battle of the Alamo in 1836.

[ArcticFox]

86. Wasn't that akin to a military battle?

The topic is self defense in the present.

[Iggy]

51. ANSWER: As Many Bullets as it Takes...

THIS is not the issue.

If a hunter or collector who is NOT mentally ill has hundreds of rounds of ammo locked away, I don't care. it's not a problem.

Mentally ILL people cannot have easy access to guns and ammo.. purchasing these themselves or having access to their parents', siblings', friends', etc. guns and ammo.

[Glaug-Eldare]

57. Look at the DSM manual.

You need to be specific when you talk about mental illness.

According to the American Psychiatric Association:

Anorexia is a mental illness.
Bulimia is a mental illness.
Anxiety is a mental illness.
Phobias are mental illnesses.
Erectile dysfunction is a mental illness.
Hypochondria is a mental illness.
Attention Deficit Disorder is a mental illness.
Insomnia is a mental illness.
Stuttering is a mental illness.

Yes, some people with mental illness are unfit to own guns because of it. Most are completely fit for every right, privilege, benefit, responsibility, or duty extended to those who've never dealt with mental illness. The distinction must be made, because it is as significant as the distinction between late-stage prostate cancer and 20/50 nearsightedness.

[Iggy]

58. Here We Go Again.....

weak, very weak.

I'm not interested in pretending Sandy Hook is the only rampage killing to occur in the last ten years and that we need to spend six months defining what "mental illness" is related to those prone to commit rampage murders.

The fact is that even a cursory look at these rampage killers reveals several definite, quantificable markers: young white males, socially isolated and/or with parental problems, they are using legal or illegal drugs.. the legal ones already being suspect in terms of causing the user to be psychotic, anti-social and so forth.

let's stop wasting time on semantics... unless you're OK with seeing more little kids with their brains blown out by an armed madman.

[Glaug-Eldare]

59. Then use those markers.

Just falling back on the term "mental illness" when you really mean "dangerous mental illness" reinforces false and damaging stereotypes about people who need or seek psychiatric care. It encourages legislation that deprives the mentally ill of due process, and discourages people who need care from seeking it.

I am not OK with children being slaughtered. I am not OK with scapegoating a wide swath of harmless people over it, either.

[Iggy]

61. I GET IT, But Please Get Real Here

please send me the link-- showing where a person with a food addiction couldn't buy the four double-cheeseburgers they wanted... so they got pissed, went home and got their mom's Bushmaster rifle, and murdered 26 people.

[Glaug-Eldare]

67. Huh? That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

You're arguing my side, here -- mental illness covers a very wide range of conditions, and only very few of them make a person more dangerous to public safety than anyone else. Somebody with a food addiction should not be lumped in with somebody suffering from severe paranoid psychosis.

[Jamastiene]

52. One.

If they need to use two or more, chances are, that self defense attempt is going to end in their own death by the person they were trying to defend themselves from in the first place. Once you fire at someone, it's on, so to speak. So, you had better make that one shot count or else you are in trouble.

[Speck Tater]

53. If you're defending yourself against the whole U.S. Army you're going to need a shit load. nt

[Kaleva]

66. ROFLMAO! Okay! That was funny!

[Democracyinkind]

54. Since many seem to have them for the coming showdown with a tyrannical gov

I'm guessing the answer to your question starts at "arsenal" and ends at "grass roots skynet".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. First I prefer to rephrase the question...

...as "How many bullets can one use for self defense?" because the answer is that one can only use the bullets one has. Tactically it's better, during an extended exchange of fire, to change for a full mag when cover is abundant than to chance needing to switch mags when cover is scarce or non-existent.

[guardian]

62. How many bullets? More than you might think.

It is not unusual to need 2-3-4+ hits to stop a threat. Depending on the size of the assailant, where they are hit, and whether or not they are in a chemical fueled rage, an assailant could still have the wherewithal to kill or maim you after being shot. Okay they might die from wounds later, but you and your family are still dead.

So lets say it takes 2-3 HITS to stop an attacker. Remember this is hits. How many of your shots will miss? And let's say that you miss with 1 or 2 of your shots because the target isn't standing still, or you are shaking, or running for cover, or it's dark, etc. That means you need an average of 3-5 shots to stop one attacker. What if there are two attackers? How about three attackers? Now answer your own question, "Does anyone really need more than ten rounds in a magazine?"

Below is some data on stopping power and average number of rounds (i.e., hits only) needed to stop a threat (missed shots don't count). Note that even with a 12 GA shotgun the average number of shots/hits needed to incapacitate a threat is greater than one!


http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power

.22 (short, long and long rifle)
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38

.380 ACP
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.76

.38 Special
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.87

9mm Luger
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.45

.357 (both magnum and Sig)
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.7

.45 ACP
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08

.44 Magnum
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.71

Shotgun (All, but 90% of results were 12 gauge)
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.22

[Kaleva]

68. Going by that data, a .22 caliber handgun is just as good, if not better, then anything else.

Another advantage of a .22 caliber semi-auto handgun I imagine is that the magazine for it can hold many more rounds.

[guardian]

83. Not really

The linked article discusses this in more detail. Below is just one paragraph of a full page discussion about this part of the data.

"Some people will look at this data and say "He's telling us all to carry .22s". That's not true. Although this study showed that the percentages of people stopped with one shot are similar between almost all handgun cartridges, there's more to the story. Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. ..."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. Warren Zevon knows

[krispos42]

69. Tough question

Defensive handgun doctrine says to double-tap or triple-tap when shooting defensively. Handguns are not nearly as effective as rifles or shotguns in incapacitating people. With the latter two, the shock of impact not only stuns the attacker physically, it also delivers a mental shock that cuts through emotions and adrenaline.

Handguns don't generally have that kind of impact. Its much more sporadic because it depends so much on bullet placement and the state of mind of the person being shot.

In a fast-moving self defense situation I can see 10 rounds going awfully fast. Remember, there will be a lot of misses once people start running and ducking and dodging behind barricades.

[jeepnstein]

71. 87

[Marblehead]

76. i like

it

[Historic NY]

77. Since some like to quote Israel ...

Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.

Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.

In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense.

Other groups of Israelis, such as professional hunters and sharpshooters, or people transporting dangerous goods, may also own firearms. And Israelis may keep unloaded guns they inherited or received as a gift.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/24/3101546/despite-militarized-society-israels-strict-gun-laws-keep-civilian-violence-down

[gejohnston]

78. it's also a theocracy

note the term is "privilege" that same privilege does not extend to Muslims or Christians. If you are limited to a box a year, none of those people can be proficient enough enough to hit a target.

[slackmaster]

79. Israel is a lot of things, but it's not in any way a theocracy

It's technically a parliamentary democracy.

[gejohnston]

80. technically yes

However, the fact that large parts of Israeli life is governed by religious laws instead of secular, means that many forms of discrimination of women are legally allowed in Israel, which is a continued matter of concern to the U.S. State Department, as described in their annual International Religious Freedom Report, most recently in their 2009 report:

in practice, it isn't on my list of model liberal democracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Israel#Freedom_of_speech_and_the_media

Also, we view it as a right, they view it as a privilege.

[Historic NY]

81. Actually thats not true either they serve in the army...

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/933/features/minorities-in-the-idf/

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/number-of-muslim-christian-arab-volunteers-in-idf-growing-1.145565


http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/IDF.htm

[gejohnston]

82. looks like I stand corrected

[SEMOVoter]

90. You don't need bullets, you need brains.

When all one knows how to use is a hammer, everything looks like nails.

[safeinOhio]

101. You get my vote for best reply.

Prevent. Secure your home and place of work.

Avoid. Stay away from risky situations.

Escape. Some times the best defense it to get away fast. A moving target is more difficult to hit than one facing you with a gun.

You are correct about those that only think about firearms when it comes to safety. While I'm not against having a gun in the home or in public if licensed, but if you use the prevent, avoid and escape, you'd be less likely to fire a gun and still live. Real life is not like a movie.

[SEMOVoter]

102. Exactly my point

Guns are impulse weapons.

Controlling guns also means controlling the impulse to use one.

[Howzit]

98. The arguments about magazine capacity

can be countered with; it is better to have more ammo than you need to stop the criminal or criminals, than to run out. How many rounds are enough? Consider this:

When teams of cops go to engage a violent criminal, each cop has multiple full capacity magazines on hand, just in case. When a home owner faces the same criminal single handedly, why should he or she be handicapped by some arbitrary limit on magazine capacity – either it is legally justified to shoot an aggressive intruder or it is not?

[L0oniX]

99. Just as many as the police need in their Glocks or SWMP9.

[krispos42]

100. We really need a baseline before getting a number.

10 is arbitrary, because, I would assume, we have 10 fingers, so why not?


I would like to see the average number of rounds fired in legitimate self-defense situations regardless of outcom, with the caveat that the defensive shooter did not run out of ammunition.


So you're looking at situations where the intended victim used a gun, and the gun did not run out of ammunition.


Take that as the average, then we can say "Okay, 2 times this average should be our magazine limit".



Think anybody will fund such a study???

[Dash87]

103. I would like to a see a 5 round limit for magazines - all guns.

I don't understand why anyone would need 30 bullets for self-defense or hunting. There's almost no situation when it's necessary.

[gejohnston]

104. false choice

most if not all states have hunting regulations that limit magazine capacity. Should cops go back to only revolvers? Do you have a background in investigating self defense shootings, like police Internal Affairs?
I think there should be governors on all cars to prevent it from going over 70 mph. There is no situation where it is necessary.

[Dash87]

105. Reply

Comparing cars to guns is pointless because cars are not made to harm things.

Police officers are trained by the state or town to handle guns. Civilians are a different group that should be more restricted, imo. No civilian needs over 5 bullets in a magazine.

[gejohnston]

106. many nonLE shooters are better trained

than cops. They are certainly generally more proficient. Most cops do the bare minimum to qualify. Many private individuals go to the range regularly because they want to. The average NYPD cop would not have the slightest idea how to properly handle gun I own because they are not any issued to NYPD. The average 12-14 year old gets same level of training for his first hunting license.

Unless you are in the military, you are a civilian. When we use "civilian cop", it is not an oxymoron.

Cars do a better job of death and destruction than guns.

[Dash87]

107. Being able to shoot a target is only one part of the equation.

There's also the mentality that cops obtain from training that keeps them from doing something stupid. I have no doubt that some non-cops would be better shooters than cops, but they don't know the laws and aren't trained to deal with emergency situations.

Car deaths shouldn't be compared to guns, imo. That's like comparing aspirin to guns, because aspirin has been known to kill people too. It makes no sense.

Basically, what I mean is, real life situations can't be trained for in a shooting range. Being a marksman doesn't mean someone won't crack under the pressure of a dangerous situation and get themselves or others hurt or killed.

[gejohnston]

108. but if you look at the actual statistics,

cops tend to do more stupid stuff than nonLEs. LEs shoot more bystanders. The only laws that a nonLE would need to know would be appropriate use of force. Comparing the two are not alike. If you happened to be wrong place wrong time, or are a home invasion victim, there is no doubt who the bad guy is. Cop shows up before its over, which is rare, they have to figure it out. That make the cop more likely to error.
You don't seem to have any evidence or expertise to back up what you claim. Police firearms training, outside of SWAT teams, are basic marksmanship and safety for their issued weapon and nothing else. Most of their training is learning various laws, how to investigate, and rules of evidence.

Cars are simply kill more people not including the effect emissions have on public and planetary health.

[Dash87]

109. Reply

"Stupid stuff" in my mind would be not handling yourself correctly in a situation that calls for discipline and training. I just don't think the normal, average, every-day gun owner would be as efficient as a cop, and would be more prone to error. I have no statistics to back that up, though. Feel free to educate me.

The second part, about cops showing up and having to find out who the bad guy is, is necessary. Usually they just put both people in hand cuffs, right? It's probably more for their own safety. If you and the robber are hand-cuffed, and you eventually prove that you're the homeowner, what's the big deal? It's a minor inconvenience.

As for the "which one do I shoot?" problem, I'm not a cop, so I can't claim to know what to do in that situation. They would obviously want to resolve that peacefully, leading to both being hand-cuffed, and try to avoid that situation as much as possible.

By the way, I'm a rocket scientist by day, international spy / detective / weapons expert by night. This is the internet, after all.

[gejohnston]

110. cool

"Stupid stuff" in my mind would be not handling yourself correctly in a situation that calls for discipline and training. I just don't think the normal, average, every-day gun owner would be as efficient as a cop, and would be more prone to error. I have no statistics to back that up, though. Feel free to educate me.

Cops are held to a lower standard, but IIRC, the difference is 20 percent vs 2.

The second part, about cops showing up and having to find out who the bad guy is, is necessary. Usually they just put both people in hand cuffs, right? It's probably more for their own safety. If you and the robber are hand-cuffed, and you eventually prove that you're the homeowner, what's the big deal? It's a minor inconvenience.

the chances of cops showing up in the nick of time happens on TV.

As for the "which one do I shoot?" problem, I'm not a cop, so I can't claim to know what to do in that situation. They would obviously want to resolve that peacefully, leading to both being hand-cuffed, and try to avoid that situation as much as possible.

I'm speaking specifically of life or death assaults, home invasions, rapes etc. that are over before the cops show up. I am not talking about looking seeing kids grabbing a car stereo though the bedroom window.

By the way, I'm a rocket scientist by day, international spy / detective / weapons expert by night. This is the internet, after all.

Cool, I'm a brain surgeon, faith healing televangelist, and the most fascinating person in the world.

[iiibbb]

111. Where I hunt there are packs of feral dogs.

My rifle is a single shot rifle. I am more than a mile from my vehicle. If something happens I am on my own.

I carry a 9mm with a 15 round magazine. I do not carry a spare magazine or rounds as I want it to be self contained and lightweight.

Why do police carry 15 and 17 round magazines?