Why a 10 round magazine limit is unreasonable for self- defense

[TPaine7]

Sometimes felons don't go down easily:

Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired. His autopsy revealed nothing more than a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream. Although Soulis could not have known it, Palmer was wanted for murder in a neighboring state.

http://m.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci

Even with excellent shooting, it can take more than 10 shots to stop the threat. And this officer was fortunate to be facing only one assailant. Who wasn't high. Many civilians have faced worse odds.

[shadowrider]

1. I'm on your side dude, but this is going to be entertaining

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[derby378]

8. Makes you wonder who came up with the 10-round limit, doesn't it?

A completely arbitrary limit, mind you, probably reached by nothing more taxing than counting one's own fingers and saying, "That should be enough for a civilian."

[shadowrider]

11. And a guy who came up with 10+1 (after 10 fingers were taken)

[rrneck]

14. You should thank him.

He's giving you something to do.

[DrDan]

24. you forgot the quotation marks around the word "logic"

[aikoaiko]

74. Yeah, gunz r the debil!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[rfranklin]

3. You must be prepared for that one in million moment!

Have you also stocked supplies for space alien invasion?

[shadowrider]

4. If that one in a million moment means I save my life, or my kids lives

You bet your bippy I'm prepared.

[Glassunion]

9. Funny, but the opposite 1 in a million moment is being exploited to limit magazine size.

[shadowrider]

19. One mouth, two tongues. Easier to talk out of both sides of their mouths n/t

[HankyDubs]

52. if only that were true.

80 people were killed by guns today. Another 80 will be killed tomorrow, and the next day...and the next...and the next.

[rl6214]

58. I thought it was

34?

[HankyDubs]

65. So

34 every day is ok?

[Glassunion]

75. Is over 1,300 defensive uses of firearms daily ok with you?

[HankyDubs]

82. I've heard lots of

claims made about DGU's. Most of them are based on studies conducted by biased individuals, and rely on distorted polling data (self-reporitng of the incidents, cherry picking of male heads of households) rather than crime statistics.

[Glassunion]

107. How about a study by the Department of Justice during the Clinton administration?

Or would you concider that biased as well? DOJ report: Guns in America: A National Survey of Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.

I used numbers from that report.

[shadowrider]

108. Unless it's from Brady or VPC, all sites

are RW, contain tainted data, have not been peer reviewed (pick one) yada yada yada

Do I need a tag here?

[YllwFvr]

140. i wonder why this got no reply

let me ponder it

hmmm.....

[Euromutt]

136. Evidently it is for you

If you thought 34/day was sufficiently dire, you would have used 34 in the first place, instead of more than double that number.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

111. He is just showing the Goebbels was right

If you tell a lie...

[krispos42]

79. 46 of which were suicides.

So, suicides and homicides are okay as long as they're not committed with a gun?

[HankyDubs]

84. no

my point is that we have soooo many of these incidents that it is no longer reasonable to refer to them as "isolated incidents."

The situation cited at the beginning of this thread implies that 15-20 (i forget the exact number) rounds is necessary for self-defense because of this one incident.

I'm wondering exactly how dangerous this cat really was after he had 10 rounds in him. Seems to me that such a person, bleeding out of a dozen or more holes in his body could have been subdued or escaped without pumping another zillion bullets into him.

[krispos42]

90. We live in a country with a lot of people in it.

We have, on a numbers-only basis, lots of gun-related deaths. That is why we use the "per capita" measurement. In the UK, gun-related homicides are at or near record lows, yet total homicides are at or near record highs. Is that better, somehow?



The hard fact is that when the shit hits the fan, you don't know how many rounds you will fire until it is over and done. Nobody does.

Yeah, there's a statistical curve to this, with 1 and/or 2 being the most common and, say, 50 being the least common. But there are so many variables involved that trying to pick out a number as "reasonable" falls flat.

How many attackers are attacking you? How sure are you of that number? Are there more that you are not aware of?

You're in close quarters, a house. Lots of cover, lots of places to duck behind. Things happen close and fast, and the attacker(s) are desperately trying to not get shot. What will your hit percentage be?

Of the hits you make, how many will be quickly (heart/lung/major blood vessel/spinal cord) or immediately (brain/upper spinal cord) incapacitation? How many will be flesh wounds? It takes a minimum of about 15 seconds to pass out from blood loss, assuming the heart or aorta is hit by gunfire; most incapacitation is psychological, not physiological. Hollywood gets it wrong all the time, unless it's a main character that gets hit.

The people attacking you... are they cool professionals out for a buck and not inclined to face down an alerted resident simply to steal a TV set? Or are they hot-blooded relatives or enemies, acting in an adrenaline-fueled and irrational manner? Or, are they drug-addicted amateurs, desperate to fuel their habit and violent as a matter of course?



I know that if, god forbid, I actually was in a situation where not only am I facing down one or more attackers with a gun in my hand, but I actually have to pull the trigger, I sincerely hope that I run out of targets before I run out of ammunition. And if you put yourself in that situation you'd feel the same way too.

To put it another way... somebody is breaking into your house. You grab a pistol from a drawer while your spouse dials "911". In the drawer are two magazines for your gun, a standard flush-fit magazine that is fully loaded with 15 rounds, and a post-ban magazine that is loaded with 10 rounds.

Which magazine do you load first?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

96. *bzzzzt* Wrong. That was true about when I was born.

Gerald Ford in '76! Woo-hoo!


But now... not so much.

[YllwFvr]

103. if you read the full article

after 10 hits he was still fighting

[PavePusher]

132. So, at that point (10 rounds) you should just wait for a while...

and see if the crim is still dangerous by... letting him/her continue to attack you?

:rofl:

Whut. Evah.

[KansasVoter]

73. Drama queen much?

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Far more common than that.

There were a bit over one million violent crimes reported last year. Our population is just under 310 million. I will let you do the obvious arithmetic.

[sharesunited]

5. Be happy with that many. Don't try the patience of the society you are putting at risk.

[rrneck]

16. How's the weather in authoritarian land? nt

[Glassunion]

43. It is whatever the "Dear Leader" wants it to be.

Today: Cloudy with a 87% chance of oppression.

[sharesunited]

17. Snow does more to suppress crime than guns and ammo in the hands of the public.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. I can't depend upon it snowing, especially in July in Dallas, TX.

But I can depend upon my guns, year round, all weather.

[sharesunited]

68. Dallas in July demonstrates perfectly what happens when the public has guns and ammo.

[spin]

32. I can't depend on snow in Florida ...

I can depend on my firearms and my ability to use them.

They are a damn good thing to have around in the aftermath of a hurricane.

[shadowrider]

34. Unless of course, they're confiscated after a hurricane.

But this is the USA. That would never happen.

:sarcasm:

[spin]

41. Hopefully this Florida statute will stop confiscation ...

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 870
AFFRAYS; RIOTS; ROUTS; UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES

View Entire Chapter
870.044

Automatic emergency measures.
—

Whenever the public official declares that a state of emergency exists, pursuant to s. 870.043, the following acts shall be prohibited during the period of said emergency throughout the jurisdiction:
(1)

The sale of, or offer to sell, with or without consideration, any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.
(2)

The intentional display, after the emergency is declared, by or in any store or shop of any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.
(3)

The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official or person in military service acting in the official performance of her or his duty.

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the seizure, taking, or confiscation of firearms that are lawfully possessed, unless a person is engaged in a criminal act. emphasis added
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0870/Sections/0870.044.html

[sharesunited]

69. Armed and desperate doesn't sound like domestic tranquility to me.

[beevul]

70. Disarmed and at the mercy of the desperate does? N/T

[sharesunited]

71. Lets see how Australians deal with each other in the aftermath of Cyclone Yasi.

A little gun control laboratory populated with the desperate.

[spin]

120. People who have the sense to be armed are often not desperate either ...

We had a generator, water and food after the last hurricane I went through. It's called "being prepared".

Florida without air conditioning can be a pain, but we also had a air conditioned motor home to sleep in.

[rrneck]

44. Then make it snow

the next time somebody gets mugged.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. The only thing at risk is the anti rights activists being fingered for what they are

Magazine capacity is not a valid issue and it certainly is not your chief complaint

[oneshooter]

46. Are you going to add magazines to the items

that the Mexican and Canadian army's are going to remove from America?

By the way, how are the arrangments for that going?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rl6214]

59. We are sorry master

is there anything we can get you?:sarcasm:

[TPaine7]

98. You are the one trying society's patience...

Gun banning (directly or through your fantasy of attrition) and its political advocates have been relegated to the political wilderness.

Yet the gun ban movement continues to make noises, that are indeed starting to try America's patience.

[thereismore]

6. I need an RPG.

And when thugs get RPG's, I want a cruise missile.

[geckosfeet]

7. Law enforcement is clearly a legitimate exception.

Jeezuz.

That reads like a crime/action/jerk off novel.

[shadowrider]

12. Even when they punch out and are off duty?

[Glassunion]

13. Why?

What is it that a police officer will encounter that a citizen will not where a police officer will need more than 10 rounds in their firearm?

I'm all for the limiting of magazines if it encompasses the police as well.

[X_Digger]

50. Even after they retire? (As is the case in HR 308, the current bill) n/t

[YllwFvr]

104. if the people I served were limited to 10 rounds

I would feel it was right to also be limited to 10 rounds. Cops generally carry three mags thats 30 rounds. Plus a shotgun, and depending on the department, an AR in the trunk.

[JackintheGreen]

10. Well, so long as there is a single case, let's all go bonkers

I am not anti-gun, but 1 is a piss-poor sample size. How many assailants have been brought down by fewer than ten shots (shots, not hits)? How many shooters are as accurate under pressure as Soulis? 22 hits out of a clip of...30+? That's seriously good shooting. But not even most police officers shoot that well.

Curiously, not even the article you cite arrives at the same conclusion. Unless you show a large sample to the contrary, 10 is "reasonable" by the very definition of the word.

[beevul]

21. And standard capacity flush fit magazines aren't?

"Unless you show a large sample to the contrary, 10 is "reasonable" by the very definition of the word."

And standard capacity flush fit magazines aren't?

[shadowrider]

22. I love the anti's thinking process

1. 10 is reasonable by the very definition of the word (because I say so)

2. Unless YOU show a large sample to the contrary (leaving them to judge thumbs up or thumbs down on your sample)

I say what's reasonable and offer no proof it actually is, but I demand you prove it isn't.

As my grandmother used to say, and she was Slovak, "Oy vey".

[JackintheGreen]

29. And mine would say "piesawa mie dupa." She was Polish

1. Definition: "Within the limits of what it would be rational or sensible to expect; not extravagant or excessive; moderate." (Oxford English Dictionary, def. 5, first used in this way in 1391)

2. The OP offered as "proof" a single example, an outlier, the tail-end of a rather large bell curve

The OP expects us to swallow the ridiculous assertion that a standard, flush-fit clip is not enough for self-defense based on a sample size of ONE. Apparently you think that's good statistics (psst...it isn't).

The OP wants us to buy his conclusion, it is HIS responsibility to offer evidence, not mine.

It is "reasonable" to expect that most shooters will need fewer that 22 hits to bring down a target. How many people did Loughner bring down with 31 shots? Nineteen? Six fatally?

There. By your logic I have also offered a single example, equal to the OP's single example, in which more than 10 people were "stopped" by a single clip. Does that mean that I win? We're using your rules, remember.

How about Howard Unruh? He killed 13 people with 14 shots. That is, but my calculation, just over one shot per person "stopped. So is that 13 more examples in my favor (remember, I am arguing that the example used by the OP was extreme, unexpected, not usual. "Unreasonable" even, insofar as it contradicts the definition cited above as NOT sensible to expect), or only one?

So, by your measure, I have offered examples of 32 people being "stopped" by less than 10 shots, versus the OP's single example of one person not being stopped by more than 10. I will admit that it is still anecdotal. I will admit that the sample size is too small to be of any statistical significance. But are you likely to admit that your response was dismissive, a bit jackassy, and frankly wrong. Somehow I doubt it. I've seen too many of these discussions on DU.

Anyway, fire back amongst yourselves how wrong I am, how I must be an anti (though I am not, never suggested I was, nor even insinuated such a position), and how somehow the tools of logic escape me. Go ahead. Have fun. But by your rules, I'm up 32 to 1.

[beevul]

40. By that definition...

1. Definition: "Within the limits of what it would be rational or sensible to expect; not extravagant or excessive; moderate."

By that definition, ten rounds magazines are on the low end of the scale.

By that definition, standard capacity flush fit magazines are reasonable.

I made a mental note about what you said about not being anti-gun in your original post. Note that I have not called you such.

[JackintheGreen]

47. Noted and appreciated

My response was directed more towards shadowrider, who didn't seem to pay the least bit of attention to what I posted and instead decided that I was just some nutter anti that he could dismiss out of hand. That cheesed me a bit.

I grew up around smaller guns, mostly rifles and revolvers (but who hasn't fired a M1911A1?), but I agree that a standard flush fit clip is reasonable. Remember that Taurus and Kel-Tec both make 7 round 9mm, but I do tend to forget that many clips now hold 15+ rounds standard. I'm ok with that. But I read the OP as saying "here's a case that proves incontrovertibly that such clips are too small." It is that assertion that I took issue with.

[beevul]

51. We are some what conditioned...

We are some what conditioned, to respond sometimes, the way we do, If I were to guess, I'd guess he missed what you said.

On edit: I thought about it, and decided it would be better to explain.

The current argument revolves around the talking points of banning "extended capacity" magazines. Thats is, those are the arguments used.

The effort, while based on those talking points, is to ban any magazines over ten rounds.

This being the current atmosphere, makes some of us a bit jumpy. I admit, I'm guilty of that as well, from time to time.

[shadowrider]

54. Went straight over my head n/t

[PavePusher]

77. Here's my offer...

If you are going to be around to provide the 11th, 12th, 113, etc, shots, should they be needed, I will consent to letting you limit my magazine capacity.

Sound fair?

[X_Digger]

55. Your own statement works against you..

"How many shooters are as accurate under pressure as Soulis?"

So if your average person's likehood of getting that many center-mass shots is less, wouldn't that mean that citizens shouldn't be required to use fewer rounds?

[JackintheGreen]

62. No, I argue only that this case is an outlier

in EVERY respect.

MOST people do not need to be shot 22 times (17 center mass) to be stopped.

MOST people do not have a 77% accuracy rate when firing under stress (and here I define accuracy as hitting center mass and assume that Soulis only fired 22 times. I did not take into account any misses, which would drop his accuracy a bit).

Therefore is is "unreasonable" to use this example as proof of the OP's premise, namely that 10 round clips are "unreasonable for self-defense."

Your average person is not "required" to take any shots at any dangerous person, so arguments against limiting their access in those terms in specious in the extreme. If the average self-defenser cannot drop or drive away an *average* attacker with a single clip of 7-10 rounds, maybe they don't have any business shooting at him in the first place.

[X_Digger]

64. And if there is more than one attacker?

"You in the back, there.. wait a minute, I need to go get another magazine."

Average hit rate for all cops is on the order of 30-40%

Here's an article on NYC cops- 28%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?_r=1

If it takes three shots to stop an intruder, with a less than 30% hit rate, that means you're screwed if there is a second attacker, and all you have is a 10 round magazine, no?

eta: left out a clause.

[JackintheGreen]

85. And here comes the IF parade

Construct a sound argument to begin with and it won't need qualification once people start attacking it.

I know what the hit rate is. There have been enough stories on DU this month alone, even if I hadn't known them before. And cops are supposed to be trained. What's the hit rate under stress for regular schmucks with concealed carry? There is no argument here based on numbers alone.

"So wait," says your opponent, "in a 15 round clip a COP is only gonna hit 5-6 times max?!? And you think this is an argument to let regular people carry extended magazines? Where the fuck are those bullets gonna go?"

[X_Digger]

86. There's no 'if' about it.. check this very forum..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=371045&mesg_id=371045

3 attackers.

[JackintheGreen]

112. This wasn't the case in question

or the case under discussion.

[TPaine7]

102. I guess you didn't notice that the OP mentioned the possibility of facing multiple assailants

as part of the initial argument?

"Construct a sound argument to begin with..."

[JackintheGreen]

114. No, the OP used the case of a single attacker

to make a point about clip size.

If he wanted to make a broader case he could have. Others have already included links. But he did not. He chose to make a tenuous conclusion from this particular case, which I critiqued. As you so rightly quoted:

"Construct a sound argument to begin with..."

Why don't any of you get that I am not attacking the argument writ large (clip limits are stupid) but only this specific argument?

[TPaine7]

126. I did mention multiple assailants:

From the OP

"And this officer was fortunate to be facing only one assailant. Who wasn't high. Many civilians have faced worse odds."

[JackintheGreen]

127. I disagree

You mentioned the abstract possibility of multiple assailants. You used this case specifically, in which a single assailant acted, as evidence for the absurdity of clip limits, as per your title. At this point the critique has become niggling indeed, as the debate has expanded and other examples have been offered. But my original comment was the 10th, so pretty early in the discussion. I stand by my comment in the context in which it was written.

I do, however, wish to apologize to you for speaking around you for the duration, referring to you as OP and never directly engaging with you. This oversight has now been remedied, I trust.

[TPaine7]

67. This was never intended nor presented as a statistical sample.

It is a well-documented example of a fact too few people are aware of--attackers don't always drop on the first, second or even third solid hit.

Your implication that police are better in shootings than civilians is mistaken. The evidence has been cited here frequently.

[JackintheGreen]

81. Where did I ever say, or even imply, that police had a better hit rate?

You may have inferred it, but you did so incorrectly. I cited the case used by the OP, stated as much, figured his hit rate, AND THEN CALLED IT AN OUTLIER, an exception, unreasonable.

You and others in this thread have been projecting your own fears an insecurities regarding possible gun regulations onto what I have said and done so WITHOUT due cause. Please, I welcome your comments, but comment on what I say, not on what you think I say or are afraid I meant. Beevul is the only one who seems to have actually read what I said then clarified his position in regards to mine (which, for the third time, is not to regulate magazine size).

For the third time, I am calling into question the OP's use of single anecdote to "prove" a point. If I can deconstruct the argument, so can people who actually disagree with you.

[TPaine7]

97. You appeared to imply it, but you are free to help me see the correct interpretation.

...22 hits out of a clip of...30+? That's seriously good shooting. But not even most police officers shoot that well...

Not even most police officers shoot that well indicates to me that police officers shoot better than others. That's the only way the sentence makes sense to me, as a comparison between "even most police officers" and other people. You know, as if I heard someone say "even most Olympic swimmers can't swim a lap that fast" I would take it as an indication that ordinary mortals couldn't come close.

For the third time, I am calling into question the OP's use of single anecdote to "prove" a point.

The single anecdote proves nothing except what is possible:

Even with excellent shooting, it can take more than 10 shots to stop the threat.

The anecdote proves that definitively, wouldn't you agree?

As far as it being a statistical sample, of it showing what happens in most shootings or anything of the sort, if you see that in the OP you are reading into it. I made my main point in the first sentence: "Sometimes felons don't go down easily."

It is unreasonable to limit people to 10 round magazines because sometimes people (or animals) are hard to stop. The story is simply a dramatic, real-life example to help refute of the commonly received wisdom--garnered from scientific study of movies and TV--that people fall dead within milliseconds of being shot. I didn't intend it as a statistical sample or a scientific study.

The story also shows what is possible when one faces a single determined adversary with only a little alcohol in him. Obviously things can be worse with multiple assailants and/or people on drugs--as the OP points.

To interpret the OP as an attempted scientific proof of average experiences in gunfights based in a sample of one is a gross misreading.

[JackintheGreen]

116. A good critique

Point 1: "even most police officers..."

I agree with you here, but there is a common perception among regular folk that police officers are better trained and more accurate that your average Sunday shooter. I was not attempting to compare the facts of the matter, merely the perception, which in a gun control argument is often more important. You were right to underscore my lack of clarity. I hope I have made my intent plainer.

Point 2:

The OP implies by his title that he offers proof: "Why a 10-round limit is unreasonable for self-defense"
But he offers only a single example (which you rightly point out shows what is possible), where I offered 32 examples - in two mass shooting incidents - in which each of 32 people was brought down by a single bullet, or in one case 2. He offers it as proof. His subject head says as much. Which brings me to

Point 3:

I disagree that mine is a "gross misreading." While I cannot get into the OP's head, his title suggests that this exactly what he was using the anecdote for (see above). This is a gross misuse of data. That is all my responses have taken issue with. He did not offer any other data points to prove "why a...limit is unreasonable." Others have as if that makes the OP's argument. It does not. The OP's argument was flawed, I challenged him on it, and now I am taking flak.

I agree that a 10-round limit is a useless measure, but there are stronger grounds upon which to make the argument. So far I have seen mostly straw men.

My beef here is not the OP's chosen issue itself but the more functional issue of how he chose to argue it. I hope you can see that.

[TPaine7]

125. I can get in the OP's head; as a matter of fact, I'm there now.

The OP writer--that would be me--did not intend the anecdote to be proof of anything except what is possible. I will endeavor to be clearer in the future.

[JackintheGreen]

129. I already responded to your other comment to me

but this is all my comment was meant to do. I agree with you in substance, just not in the way you originally framed it.

[TPaine7]

99. You also implied it even more directly in post 85:

I know what the hit rate is. There have been enough stories on DU this month alone, even if I hadn't known them before. And cops are supposed to be trained. What's the hit rate under stress for regular schmucks with concealed carry?

You obviously believe that "regular schmucks" are no match for police, who "are supposed to be trained." Why run from your (at least apparent) beliefs?

Honestly, are you not anti-gun in the same way that that sentence didn't imply what I am "reading into" it?

[JackintheGreen]

117. Point taken, but dealt with in #116 (?)

I was treating popular perceptions by the public with whom this argument is an issue. I know the numbers, but many do not, so they cannot argue them. They deal largely in perceptions. e.g. "they are police; the carry guns for work; they must be better trained."

I was unclear, and I hope I have clarified.

I still don't read that as anti-gun. Anti-schmuck, perhaps, and that was poorly thought out. I got no problem with schmucks. And I honestly do not know what the hit rate for, shall we say, non-professional shooters in stress environments. I know some damn fine shooters on the firing range, but I think we can agree that that is a much different environment. But I still can't figure how that quote can be read as anti-gun. It was not my intent.

(and I meant schmuck in the most tender of Yiddish senses. Maybe schlemiel would have been better, as in, the concealed carrier at the Tuscon shooting who admitted to almost shooting the wrong guy - that poor schlemiel, I feel for him...)

[appal_jack]

92. OK, how about another?

See the grim story of a McDonald's robbery and shoot-out here:

http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-17/news/mn-4191_1_mcdonald-s-restaurant

As the article in the LA times notes, the robber died in the shoot-out against an off-duty officer who was concealed-carrying (the officer was unhurt, but a child was killed by the robber's errant fire).

The (unverified, but plausible) back-story of that officer's experience can be found here:

http://www.theakforum.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=145222&hilit=mcdonald

(Yes, this is a gun forum, specifically one geared toward collectors and enthusiasts of Kalashnikov-pattern rifles; so not an unbiased source, but one with a fair degree of intelligent discussion. Worth a look around if you've got an open mind.)

According to the officer's narrative at the link above, he fired eleven shots in under two seconds in order to incapacitate only one assailant, who lived for some time after that. A second armed robber would have changed the equation considerably.

-app

[TPaine7]

100. Safety related devices and precautions should not be based on averages.

Even in designing a chair, you wouldn't design for the average sitter.

Even non-safety features aren't based on averages. Is your car's horsepower, fuel capacity or top speed limited to the needs of the "average" trip?

It is not reasonable to base a safety related device on averages--be they average loads, average temperatures, or average requirements. No one in a gunfight ever regrets having too many bullets.

[JackintheGreen]

118. Nor was "average" the term in question

"Reasonable" was. And it is entirely right to design laws and safety measures for what is "reasonable" to expect.

It is reasonable to expect that kids will fall down on the playground. Good response: change the play surface to grass/shredded rubber/etc. Bad response: remove all the playgrounds (this actually happens).

And chairs are designed for sitters within a segment of the bell-curve. Why do you think they have disclaimers on them now "do not exceed 300#) for example. Motorcycles have weight limits based upon average power v. reasonable expectations of usage. Cars/trucks have limitations placed on them for towing. You are seeing "average" as a single definable thing. An average trip for people in central Illinois might be a two hour highway trip between Springfield and Peoria. In the northeast corridor it might be a two hour trip in heavy traffic from one side of Philadelphia to the other. But it's all taken care of on the bell curve.

Unfortunately safety is all to often NOT based on reasonable expectation any longer.

[Make7]

15. So this police officer had a 22 round magazine? ( n/t )

[Glassunion]

18. Most likely a 15 round magazine. Comes standard with the model 22. nt

[Make7]

31. So I guess this case proves that a 15 round magazine is adequate for self-defense. ( n/t )

[Glassunion]

35. I would state that a "Standard" size magazine is adequate.

Standard magazines that come with Glock firearms:
9x19mm Glock 17 = 17 Rounds (Standard)
.40S&W Glock 22 = 15 Rounds (Standard)
.45ACP Glock 21 = 13 Rounds (Standard)

Here is where you will get many differnt opinions... What is better? 17 rounds of 9x19mm, 15 rounds of .40S&W or 13 rounds of .45ACP?

[Make7]

63. I suppose that is why some people would prefer to put an exact number on it.

If a law were to be enacted (and not expire or be overturned shortly thereafter) limiting the size of a handgun's magazine to what comes as its "standard" capacity then I would expect gun manufacturers to eventually design new handguns with larger and larger capacity magazines - an arms race of a sort. Of course the political climate in this country is such that pretty much any legislation dealing with firearms is unlikely to progress very far anyway.

It would be nice for the dialog concerning this issue to be based on some sort of empirical data rather than anecdotal evidence. Perhaps actual numbers might demonstrate the merit of folly of a particular position.
 

[Glassunion]

66. Therein is my problem with 10. It is an arbitrary number concluded without study.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=366728

[Make7]

133. The choice of the number 10 seems to have no basis as far as I can tell.

I'm just not sure how limiting magazine capacity will do much of anything. Can't someone just use multiple clips, multiple guns, or an extended clip acquired before the legislation would go into effect? If the goal is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries due to gun violence, I would think a law limiting magazine capacity would be much less effective than some other proposals I have heard.

What I would like to see is for policy to be based on data from statewide and/or nationwide databases of firearm incidents. If it can't be shown that there is some basis to believe a policy will accomplish its goal, why should it be supported? And conversely, if there is a statistical basis that a reasonable measure could reduce death and injuries from firearm incidents then why would it be opposed?
 

[Glassunion]

138. I agree. Well said.

[PavePusher]

78. Two of them, at least....

as he demonstratably had to have reloaded.

[flamin lib]

20. So you're saying a gun can't protect you?

I mean, if the cop was an excellent shot and fired two 15 round magazines, and the bad guy still didn't go down, what good was having a gun? What he really needed was a claymore . . .

[laconicsax]

25. +1

[spin]

33. A handgun is a defensive weapon ...

a rifle or a shotgun is an offensive weapon.

[Glassunion]

37. Especially when they put a "Blackwater" logo on it... Truly offensive.

[markpkessinger]

42. This is one of the most ricidulous statements I've heard anywhere

Anything that can be used as a weapon, be it a handgun, rifle, shotgun, knife, rock, stick or what have you, can be either a defensive or offensive weapon, hence no particular type of weapon can be labeled as being one or the other. The terms "offensive" and "defensive" are descriptions of the context in which a particular weapon is used in a particular event and the intent of the person wielding the weapon.

[spin]

53. The statement is a description of the primary purpose of a class of weapon ...

Handguns are often considered self-defense weapons for use under 50 yards (46 m). While a handgun in the hands of an experienced shooter may be effective at distances greater than 50 yards (46 m), a handgun cartridge is much more limited in its energy capacity than many long gun cartridges. Many handgun cartridges are optimized for best performance<11> from shorter barrels than typically found in rifles.

Many rifles are able to achieve bullet velocities of over 3,000 feet (914 m) per second, but rounds for handguns are rarely capable of achieving velocities over 1,500 feet (457 m) per second. Thus, long guns are generally more powerful at any range, and especially more effective at longer ranges than handguns.

A shooter is generally able to achieve considerably greater accuracy with a long gun than with a handgun. This is due partly to the longer distance between the rear and front sights, partly due to a more stable hold attainable with a long gun, and partly due to the higher muzzle velocity, which reduces the bullet travel time and thus reduces external effects on the bullet such as gravitational drop and wind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun

My point is that most individuals carry a handgun because of convenience and because they really doesn't expect to have to use it. Handgun rounds are underpowered and often fail to stop an opponent let alone kill him. If a person seriously expects to have to use a firearm, a far better choice than a handgun is a rifle or a shotgun.

True, anything can be misused as an offensive weapon. You can kill a person with a hammer or a screwdriver, but that's not their prime purpose. A handgun's prime purpose is for self defense.

[markpkessinger]

57. Here in NYC, those who carry handguns likely do so expecting to use them n/t

[spin]

119. Do you mean the rich, the celebrities and the politically connected who carry legally ...

in New York City?

Lifestyles of the rich and packin': High-profile celebrities seeking gun permits on the rise
Monday, September 27th 2010, 4:00 AM


Never fear J.Lo - your husband Marc Anthony is one of dozens of celebrities authorized to carry a concealed weapon in New York City.

J.Lo and her 2-year-old twins can rest easy at night: Daddy is packing heat.

Singer Marc Anthony is one of dozens of celebs, millionaires and high-profile athletes authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the city, records show.

"We have seen an increase in celebs seeking their own permits," said John Skylar Chambers, a lawyer who has helped New Yorkers get gun permits for more than 20 years.

"They can get their own security, but with the Internet, it is much easier to find people. They don't want to find someone on their lawn at 5 in the morning."

Other big names licensed to carry a gun include actor Robert De Niro, shock jock Howard Stern and supermarket mogul John Catsimatidis. Billionaire Donald Trump and his son, Donald Jr.; celebrity lawyer David Breitbart, and artificial-heart inventor Robert Jarvik can also carry steel, police records reveal.

Mets third-baseman David Wright has a permit to keep a gun in his city penthouse. Martha Stewart's daughter, radio host
Alexis Stewart, also has a permit.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/27/2010-09-27_celebrities_seeking_pistol_permits_on_the_rise_in_the_city_lifestyles_of_rich_n_.html#ixzz1CumJbEja

Of course, we have to realize that such people are better than you or me and being superior deserve the right to own or carry firearms. The average person who lacks money and influence obviously also doesn't have the intelligence to carry a concealed firearm or in most cases to own one. When he falls prey to the criminal element, it just is an example of culling the herd.

[HankyDubs]

48. tell that to loughner's victims

I guess he was defending himself from Gabby Giffords, a nine year old girl, and a bunch of senior citizens.

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. Thank you, Mrs. Lovejoy. Glad to know you're thinking about the children.

[oneshooter]

91. A handgun is what you use till you can get to your rifle/shotgun. n/t

[spin]

121. Exactly! (n/t)

[happyslug]

23. The old saying, is only three things can stop a "enraged" attacker

A blast from of Shotgun, being cut in half by a Machine gun (NOT a submachine gun), or being stabbed by a Bayonet or pike. Nothing else is guarantee. During the infamous duel in the Mississippi sand bar Jim Bowie was shot and hit on the head by a pistol, yet afterward killed one man with his knife. Nothing bigger then a pistol was used, and thus you had people already killed, killing other people (i.e. their wounds were fatal, but that did NOT prevent them from having enough life left in them to kill another human bring).

This same level of threat was noted in the Island Warfare of WWII, the Japanese would get in close to the American Lines and do a charge, many would die, but many also reached the American lines where it become a bayonet to bayonet fight (This brought in a Conflict with the Army in Europe and the US Navy, do to WWII the US had a severe Steel storage, Battleships, even through viewed as still needed, were put on stand by do to the steel storage. The US Army agreed to go from a 11 inch bayonet to a six inch Bayonet to save Steel, the army even agreed to replace the Stainless Steel caps on their Canteens with plastic caps so save steel, the problem was the Marines and Army Troops in the Island after having to deal with the Japanese mass attacks wanted th3 11 inch WWI bayonets not the Six inch bayonets, do to the extra length it gave the rifle if they had to face a bayonet charge AND it was not stopped by machine gun fire).

Thus the problem is NOT that the Officer needed 10 shots to stop this attacker, but that the officer's weapon was NOT capable of stopping that person even if it has a 20 round magazine. What Stopped the attacker was he finally ran out of blood, and that could have been the result of the first bullet that hit him (or the last bullet, we may never know). As the article says, the attacker noticed the Officer had changed magazines and the attack saw this as the time to further the attack. That final attack is when, either the last bullet stopped him, or the first bullet damage finally did enough damage to stop him.

Sorry, this is NOT evidence for the need of a 10-20 round magazine, but the need for everyone is such a fire fight to make sure their seek cover at the same time as the fire fight starts. In Truly dangerous situations the Shotgun should come out, first do to its higher blast level and second for the fact it can be used as a club in hand to hand combat.

[shadowrider]

28. Let me get this straight

By your own admission, it may have taken 22 bullets to inflict the fatal shot.

And you want to limit to 10. Now, praytell, I don't carry a shotgun, and if my first 10 don't hit anything vital, what do I do, yell at him, "Quit, or I shall say quit again???????????"

Your example is the PERFECT reason why more than 10 MAY be necessary.

[happyslug]

38. I also said, the fatal bullet may have been the first one fired.

It just took that long to KILL the attacker. The subsequent bullets may or may NOT have had an affect. People can kill AFTER their have received a FATAL Wound. Under the Common law this was so while known that if you died of a wound within A YEAR of it being inflected, the wound was grounds for a murder charge.

People can survive minutes, hours and even days after receiving a fatal wound. During that time they can have enough power to kill someone else.

My point was the need for the extra bullets is NOT proved by this case. The Fatal Bullet may very well be the FIRST BULLET FIRED (at the same time it may not be, I do NOT have the lab tests to make that determination AND NEITHER DO YOU).

If the fatal bullet was the First bullet to hit the attacker then all the extra bullets had no affect on the fact when the attacker stopped his attack. You can only die once, and if the first bullet killed the attacker, then it was the only bullet needed.

The chief problem with relying on a pistol for any stopping power is the lack of power such pistols can project, the limit on stopping power is that fact pistols barrels must be short and thus always produce reduced speed compare to Rifles and shotguns, AND to provide a decent level of power given the short barrel have heaver bullets then Rifles. Shotguns provide more power do to their longer barrel AND the ability to file a much larger load for about the same distance as a pistol (In most police situations, we are NOT talking about upland games in this case).

All I am saying is we have a long history of pistols NOT providing the power needed to knock someone on their ass. 10-20 rounds from a pistol may not provide the power needed to knock someone on their ass BEFORE those same bullets killed the person hit with those bullets. This is why Armies use rifles instead of pistols (Pistols and Hand grenades look extremely effective on film, but ineffective in real life).

Thus it is very possible the first bullet that hit the attacker was all that was needed. That bullet may have caused the internal injuries that killed the attacker in the end and thus all that was needed.

My point is this case proves nothing, except that in a stressful situation a police officer can put a lot of bullets in his target. That, by itself, does NOT show the need for this many bullets being fired (and the reverse is also true, it does not prove that the number of bullets were necessary to stop this attacker). In simple terms, except for the ability of the officer to hit his target, it proves nothing.

[shadowrider]

39. We'll never know, but it COULD have been rounds 11-22

So, why should I be limited to 10?

[happyslug]

45. Because in the vast majority of cases, the number of rounds fired is under 3 rounds.

Virginia Police associations report about 2-3 rounds per gunfight:
http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/shooting/Combat.htm

3.6 rounds per NYC police:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html

A Slight increase is noted with the widespread adoption of Automatics over Revolver among some Police Departments (But NYC notice no such increase in bullets fired):
http://www.securitymanagement.com/article/security-industry-shooting-dark-lessons-florida-007606?page=0%2C2

An author in Handgun Magazine reported two interesting facts, one that if a bullet does NOT hit a vital organ, the person shot will survive (and may stay dangerous). On the other hand if a vital organ is hit, that tends to incapacitate the person shot (i.e. one bullet is enough IF it hits someone vital):

http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics_training/what_happens_gunfight/index1.html

Another study has indicated that even under control conditions, many police officers will continue to fire until they run out of ammunition NOT when the threat is neutralized (i.e. will continue to fire EVEN after the person being shot is flat on the ground dead):
http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2010/03/force-science-news-144-%E2%80%9Cexcessive%E2%80%9D-shots-and-falling-assailants-a-fresh-look-at-ois-subtleties/

The temple Study on excessive bullets being fired:
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/tempestudy.pdf

Just an observation that the above support the fact that a six shot revolver may be all an officer needs. With the drop in Police Shootings over the last 30-40 years we have also seen a movement to automatics. When Police had a greater possibility of actually being in a shoot out, Police preferred a Revolver (The main reason being, if you had a misfire, all you had to do was pull the trigger and the Revolver would revolve a new round under the hammer and that round to be fired, with Automatics if you had a mis-fire you had to manually operate the weapon, which required a different set of actions then just pulling the trigger again).

[shadowrider]

49. I truly appreciate your post without insults, insinuations or derogatory comments

straight up opinion and site references.

Refreshing to say the least.

[HankyDubs]

56. maybe you'd like to stop insinuating

that every gun control advocate is associated with Pol Pot. Nah...

[cleanhippie]

60. And in chimes the hyperbole king.

[beevul]

61. You consider every gun control advocate an expert on gun control?

You consider every gun control advocate an expert on gun control?

[happyslug]

87. We all want Gun Control, the dispute is what level

Even the NRA wants Felons, Drug addicts and Mental incompetents not to have guns. All I was pointing out was that the "need" for high capacity magazine FOR PISTOLS is NOT proved by this case. I can make the point that given the nature of most police work, police are better off with a six shot revolver then a 15 shot Semi-Automatic Pistol. The rationale is simple, the police are responsible for every round fired down range, with six you have to be trained to be careful on bullet placement, with 15 the tendency is to substitute accuracy with fire power.

What the studies have indicated that for Police work, six rounds are enough. If the officer needs more, he should opt for a Shotgun or M-16 type rifle (Yes, I like the idea of a M-16 in every police officer trunk). I prefer the M16 to heavier weapons (Such as the M14) for the same reason I want police officers to have Revolvers, 5.56 mm has very little penetration ability, thus will be stopped by most walls, thus no bullets through walls killing innocent third parties. In Rural areas I would give the Police the option of an 7.62 NATO weapons, do to the possibility of the officer having to deal with animals that the M16 is to weak to handle cleanly.

Remember, police have to worry about third parties. When the police officers went after Bonnie and Clyde, he had dismissed an previous ambush spot do to the fact a school was nearby and he was worried about killing the children in the school. Between that effort and his final effort, Clyde killed two officers in cold blood (They is a dispute if Bonnier was involved, the nearer wittiness said, no it was the two men, another witness almost a mile away said it was Bonnie, the Police and the Press accepted the second man's story, through they is no evidence that was the opinion of the Police chasing Bonnie and Clyde). In the Final Ambush the Police used Shotgun and a BAR. The BAR fired 30-06 RIFLE Ammunition, i.e. it was a Machine Gun, we would now call it a Squad Automatic Weapon. The Police had used a Thompson against Clyde and the steel and iron in the car and engine provided enough protection for Bonnie and Clyde to escape. In the final ambush, the BAR had more then enough power to penetrate the doors and engine of the Car Clyde was driving.

My point is simple, Police have to be careful when they use weapons, in the right location and situation machine guns are called for (Through the main use of Machine Guns has been against Strikers, technically the Strikers were armed with Rifles, but had never used them not had them on them when Machine Guns were used against such Strikes. Most of these incidents were pre-1930s, and brought with them massive opposition to use machine guns by law enforcement. Right location, Right situation it is what is needed, but 99% of the time it is overkill, as are most automatics pistols.

Yes, I rarely go into the Gun Dungeon anymore, it is to much, "I am against Gun Control" and "I am for gun Control" and then both groups call each other position "Stupid" and worse. No debate, no exchange of facts, just insults and people taking a position. Rarely is any facts, statistics or law actually discussed.

[TPaine7]

109. I have no insults for you. Just see post 100. And it's getting better here. On both sides. n/t

[PavePusher]

83. I do not intend to be prepared for only the "average" confrontation. n/t

[Glassunion]

76. Does not matter. The most important round was number 22. That was the round that stopped the threat.

[happyslug]

89. Did it? Could the attacker just die from the first bullet, when the last bullet hit him?

I do NOT know, and neither do you, it is unknowable. All I was pointing out that the reason 22 rounds were fired, was the Police officer could fire that many NOT that any bullet after the first one did any good. All this proves is the Police Officer in Question had enough Training to hit his target more times then he missed it.

[Glassunion]

113. My point was that it took 22 rounds to "stop" not kill.

"The first missed, but the second hit Palmer in the upper back, driving his head forward into the steering wheel. That seemed to have done the trick, but then Palmer sat up again, dropped the transmission into reverse, and started backing up. With no time to ponder how Palmer had absorbed so many hits, Soulis took aim and emptied the magazine into his assailant."

<snip>

"After watching Palmer long enough to make sure he didn't get up again, Soulis called for backup and waited for help to arrive."

You do realize that Palmer did not die for another 4 minutes, but was "stopped" after being hit 22 times. That is my point. The man had "stopped" his attack on the officer. Personally I would have liked for Palmer to live to face trial, but sadly that was not the case.

You are correct, and I completely see and agree with your point that the first round could have very well been the one that killed him. I was not disagreeing with that point at all.

[happyslug]

122. And my point is the first bullet had a good chance of being all that was needed

Just because someone stops moving after the last bullet is fired, does NOT mean that bullet was the bullet that stopped him. The first bullet may have taken that long to do what it needed to do to stop the attack and thus every bullet afterward had no affect on the person's attack for they whatever they did, the first bullet did first.

This is a concept people do not like accepting, the concept that just because X occurred after Y, does NOT mean X did NOT do all the work, and Y added nothing to that work.

If fact reading the Article, the officer reported he believed his change of clips was seen by the attacker, and the attacker thought it meant the officer was out of ammunition and thus thrust home his attack on the Officer. That king of work against the argument that 14 rounds was enough, for the officer needed to change clips (The article said, the Officer exchanged clips BEFORE he had fired all the rounds from his first clip just to be safe with a full clip in the pistol).

As to stopping the attack, there is nothing in the report that indicate that the attack was stopped by any of bullets, fired, not the first, not the 20th. The attacker just stopped attacking for the affect of his wounds (Which includes the first wound) finally put him out of action. Thus the stopping of the attacker had more to do with time then extra bullets hitting the attacker which still leaves open the possibility that the Officer may have faced the attacker AFTER shooting all of the rounds in his Pistol (And missing the attacker) sees the attacking fall at his feet from the first bullet finally taking affect.

My point that this case proves nothing, except that this officer can hit his target. The first bullet may have been all that was needed to stop this attacker BUT IT TOOK AWHILE TO TAKE AFFECT, and the subsequent bullets had not ADDITIONAL affect in stopping the attack.

[X_Digger]

124. So what's a person to do while waiting for the first bullet to take effect?

Beg and plead?

[Glassunion]

130. Sudoku?

[Glassunion]

128. So... He should have stopped shooting and did not need anything after the first round?

[PavePusher]

80. "I also said, the fatal bullet may have been the first one fired."

Very possible... but I am under no legal or moral requirement to wait for a while to find out.

[gravity556]

134. re:I also said, the fatal bullet may have been the first one fired.

Sure, the first round fired may have been the one that caused his death, but in a defensive shooting you aren't shooting to kill the other guy, you're shooting to STOP THE THREAT. If you're in a situation that requires deadly force, half measures and guesses shouldn't come into play. I'm not going to suppose that the first round worked if the individual who is the threat is still doing whatever it was he was doing that led to me shooting him-I'm going to shoot him again. And again. Until he stops being a threat.

As to cops and their training, most cops shoot twice a year to keep up their qualifications. The folks who I know who are CCW holders (myself included) try to hit the range at least once a month. I've taken some of my cop friends out shooting, and the lack of practice shows-shooting is a frangible skill. If you don't practice, you lose a bit of edge.

And 22 rounds is at least one reload, and possibly 2. Accuracy tends to go downhill when someone is shooting back. There was an incident in NYC a few years back, where a cop and a crook got into a shootout on a fire escape. they were 7 feet apart, both emptied their guns (30 or so rounds fired total), and neither of them hit anything. 7 feet-about the length of a couch.

Mag capacity is an important issue for a regular Joe-Officer Friendly has the benefits of a kevlar vest as well as a radio, with which he can call all of his buddies and they will haul ass to help. We have 911, so we get to talk to the dispatcher, then they contact PD, and THEN the cops are on their way. And even with their resources, I have never once heard any cop state that they wish they didn't have to carry around all that ammo. The idea of someone who has their own security detail who sport actual machine guns with 30 round magazines telling someone who does not have a security detail that 10 rounds is plenty is absolutely ridiculous.

The AWB didn't eliminate standard (more than 10) round magazines (NOT clips). It simply made them more expensive. It didn't ban "assault weapons", it simply forced some cosmetic changes. Cosmetic changes that didn't alter a single thing about how the gun functioned, other than removing the ability to adjust the length of pull for smaller shooters (oh, scary collapsible stocks!} and making them more difficult to shoot in low light conditions (flash hiders don't hide the muzzle flash of a gun, they just keep it from blinding the shooter) and removed the bayonet lug on some rifles. And we all know about the rash of drive by bayonettings in the pre-ban days. Wait...don't think there's ever been a drive by bayonetting. But a gun with a knife on the front looks scary.

So I'll keep my "high capacity" magazines, thank you very much. Unless everyone gets a cop to keep in the linen closet. Then I might be persuaded otherwise. But probably not.

:)

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

88. Why have a limit at all? n/t

[TPaine7]

101. Exactly. n/t

[provis99]

93. Ann Coulter agrees with you.

http://nation.foxnews.com/ann-coulter/2011/02/02/coulter-op-ed-what-liberals-dont-know-about-guns-chapter-217

[X_Digger]

95. Oh look, an association fallacy! n/t

[RSillsbee]

105. I don't care if 10 rounds is reasonable or not.

Because once they get it (and it has zeroeffect on crime)they'll scream for 8.

[parkia00]

106. Cherry Picking Facts

If you really really want to, and have lots of time you can dredge up some facts that goes against the majority of other established facts. There are many "in some cases" scenarios. If you present these odd instances has being the norm then even the most level headed explanations can be swept away. Generally if a person is shot in the temple, you expect that person to go down. Yet I'm sure there are instances that some have not. Same scenario is a reckless driver crashes their car going 150 mph, flips the car multiple times, hits a tree or road divider and comes to rest upside down. That driver walks away from the crash with only a few small scratches. Now, does that mean that the make of vehicle is very good that drivers can always walk away from 150 mph wrecks? Of is this just a case of plain luck. A one chance out of a 100 scenario? And if that same driver was not wearing a seat belt, does that mean now that seat belts do not actually save lives? Of is it more likely "in this one case".

[TPaine7]

110. See post 100. Safety isn't based on norms. n/t

[Euromutt]

135. Anecdotal evidence does not support rules, but it can disprove them

One argument that has been used in the push to prohibit magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds is that nobody ever has a legitimate need for one. A single example of someone needing more than 10 or 11 rounds proves that claim false. It might not happen often, let alone all the time, but it does happen more than "never."

[DainBramaged]

115. There are people who spend their days minding their own business

and then there are people who spend their day trying to impose their views on everyone else because they think everyone needs to think like them.


Which one apples to this thread?

[aikoaiko]

123. I'm glad to see that you've come to realize that you don't have to impose your views on others

There's hope for you.

[PavePusher]

131. Uh, you do.

Cheers!

[Howzit]

139. The average american commutes 40 miles per day. Why then does anyone need a 20 gallon gas tank?

Surely large capacity gas tanks enable suspects to continue running from cops for longer at higher speeds and result in a larger fire risk in the event of a crash?

If 10 rounds were enough for defense, then cops' magazines would not hold twice that.

[YllwFvr]

141. yours holds 20? is your duty pistol a Five seveN?

You lucky fool!

[RSillsbee]

142. CZ makes a polymer gun that holds 18 9mm NT