Citizens with guns

In the wake of the recent act of terrorism in San Bernardino, the California legislature is currently considering a number of new gun control measures. Some I believe are way too strict and unenforceable anyway, but there are some good ideas being presented as well.

My favorite proposal looks to restrict the ammunition and clip size rather than the gun itself. People often site the need to protect and defend themselves as justification for gun ownership. This is a fair argument most of the time, but how many bullets do you really need to defend yourself? And do they need to be hollow point? Is an assault rifle with twenty round clips overkill? In my opinion, if you need a clip with more than nine rounds or a shotgun with more than two, you are no longer defending yourself. You're in a war at that point.

And what kind of gun is most effective for self defense? A small handgun could work well in properly trained hands, but you really shouldn't need any more than one clip of standard ammunition to get the job done. I own a handgun and a rifle that I use to target shoot at the range, but they stay locked and unloaded when not at the range. I have a shotgun in my house for protection because my wife is not comfortable training with a variety of firearms, but she can point it down the hallway and pull the trigger with a high likelihood that she will at least wound whomever is on the other end. Just the sound of racking a shotgun will typically send a strong message to an intruder.

The point being, an assault rifle with a huge clip is a weapon for war, not self defense. If you want to collect one, you don't need extra clips or larger magazines. Honestly, you don't need the ammunition at all. There should never be a time that armor piercing rounds would be needed by the general public. We should at least be able to agree that attempting to eliminate access to larger clips and highly sophisticated ammunition is a step in the right direction to making mass shootings more difficult to perpetrate.

If you want to collect one, you don't need extra clips or larger magazines. Honestly, you don't need the ammunition at all

I dont need a lot of things.

Some people just like to go to the range, and not think about self-defense exclusively.

In one school shooting a kid fired 6 times an killed 9 people.

Restrict ammunition and clip size, but that will not end killings with guns by irresponsible people.

If anything, they may modify not unlike the North Hollywood shootout, in which they modified there guns for full auto, etc.

Necessity, is mother of invention.

Senan wrote: In the wake of the recent act of terrorism in San Bernardino, the California legislature is currently considering a number of new gun control measures. Some I believe are way too strict and unenforceable anyway, but there are some good ideas being presented as well.

My favorite proposal looks to restrict the ammunition and clip size rather than the gun itself. People often site the need to protect and defend themselves as justification for gun ownership. This is a fair argument most of the time, but how many bullets do you really need to defend yourself? And do they need to be hollow point? Is an assault rifle with twenty round clips overkill? In my opinion, if you need a clip with more than nine rounds or a shotgun with more than two, you are no longer defending yourself. You're in a war at that point.

And what kind of gun is most effective for self defense? A small handgun could work well in properly trained hands, but you really shouldn't need any more than one clip of standard ammunition to get the job done. I own a handgun and a rifle that I use to target shoot at the range, but they stay locked and unloaded when not at the range. I have a shotgun in my house for protection because my wife is not comfortable training with a variety of firearms, but she can point it down the hallway and pull the trigger with a high likelihood that she will at least wound whomever is on the other end. Just the sound of racking a shotgun will typically send a strong message to an intruder.

The point being, an assault rifle with a huge clip is a weapon for war, not self defense. If you want to collect one, you don't need extra clips or larger magazines. Honestly, you don't need the ammunition at all. There should never be a time that armor piercing rounds would be needed by the general public. We should at least be able to agree that attempting to eliminate access to larger clips and highly sophisticated ammunition is a step in the right direction to making mass shootings more difficult to perpetrate.

You have just cited almost every gun myth about self defense in one post. First of all most people shot with a pistol are not stopped by a single round. Secondly many people miss under stress. Third the fact is that the ability to to keep firing without reload can mean the difference between life or death in a gun fight. Yes statistically most self defense gun fights are fought at less then ten feet and over in two to three shots. HOWEVER that does not mean all will be.
So let us say four men break your door in at five am. You grab the two round shotgun you mentioned and fire hitting both times. Guess what now you are dead because the other two got to you. Now lets say its the pistol you fire all nine rounds hitting each person twice and missing only one. Well statistically it takes more then one pistol round to stop a person and most often they do not put people down for good. Oh and you said no hollow points so two of these guys shots are through and throughs well again you are dead because no more rounds to keep up the fight. And those situations are best case and you not missing.

Yet there are examples of someone on drugs not dropping after 14 or more hits so guess what you have just set people up to die with those restriction. Further why hollow points? Because I want my neighbors alive. Hollow points are not only more effective rounds but are less likely to over penetrate the target which means I am less likley to have a stray round exit my house with lethal force or even go into different rooms with lethal force sort of a good idea.

You wife can point that shotgun down the hall and most likely hit? No she cannot. A shotgun at the distances you are talking about is no more wide spread then a pistol round really. The best figure I can find is that a shotgun pellet spread is 3 inches for every five feet of travel. So even in a ten foot long hall way the spread is only six inches at best which is about half my chest size.

Finally mass shootings can be stopped with lower magazine size? Tell that to the victims of Charles Whitman who killed 16 and wounded 32 with a bolt action rifle.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: We don't need to take away guns, we need to add training.

this.

as a general rule, i believe we (america specifically) should focus on increasing our understanding and our competence rather than restricting our choices and capabilities

There is no single bullet solution (lol pun, yay), but various measures can reduce the chance of incidents (given realistic possibility for those measures to occur).

I think magazine size is a good idea, because it does reduces the rate of fire, but these days you could probably 3d print a magazine at home and piggy back a couple of shorter springs.... but that takes time and effort and requires a lot more premeditation which itself is a limitation on access... so even given a restriction to legal access to large magazines not translating to them disappearing entirely, it would still be a small threat reduction measure in that way.

Various approaches do add up. It's a proactive approach to chiseling away a larger problem, rather then throwing ones hands in the air and giving up to weapon proliferation, isolationism and mistrust of each other and subsequently authority for trying to deal with it all.

As a Jedi I try to not view killing a threat as a valid defensive measure. I force myself to view that as an offensive measure in defense. They are only defensive when used to deter (intimidate, warning shots) or distract IMO. The thing is gun's are effective at killing because it is what they are designed to do, and doing so at range with accuracy, lethality and repeatibility - they are not designed to be a defensive weapon IMO. So there is a lot of capability to be packing for a 'self defence' weapon.

So to the OP, I guess it depends on the amount of guns already around!!! The argument in the US seems to be self defence, just because there are so many guns already.... and that makes sense to me. It is a shame there is not more apparent other options available. In the US I'd probably just ban everything other longer then 6in and allow no full auto, if the argument is self defence, and teach people to use other measures to avoid threats outside of that weapons range.

But if the OP is about gun's more generally, and not the US situation specifically, then I definitely think they are overkill for self defence generally speaking. Even in the wilderness for personal security, what else could freak out a bear or predatory animal, how about a hissing stick with crazy bright lights LOL. Or for that matter what about dazzling laser light into the eyes... surely temporary blindness is a more compassionate approach to self defence then blasting the threat with lethal force. Perhaps a tazer type thing would be better, with integral lasers to blind the target for a short time. Would that work on a big bear, lasers in the eyes to blind it for a minute, tazer it reinforce the shock of the blindness and then what.... run, or perhaps a suitably strong sedation dart. I wonder if there is a safe sedation for animals which wouldn't kill people if abused

Obviously the real problem is the people not the tool, but some tools are more effective at being abused. Anyway, I think its important to try to reconcile compassion with the fear of the imagined (but perhaps real risk of) threat.

If combat training were mandatory as schooling for teenagers, then likely during mass shootings people would be better prepared to stop the attacker, claiming fewer lives.

Ban guns, some kid will just walkin with a bomb.

OB1Shinobi wrote: as a general rule, i believe we (america specifically) should focus on increasing our understanding and our competence rather than restricting our choices and capabilities

Exactly.

MadHatter wrote: You have just cited almost every gun myth about self defense in one post.

While a appreciate the use of exaggeration to make your point, these are not "myths". I am certified by the NRA as a marksman with a .22 rifle and .12 gauge shotgun after training that began as a Boy Scout at the age of 13 and continued with a Lance Corporal in the Marine Corp and an Olympic qualified instructor. I am well aware of real world scenarios in which firearms can and should be used both legally and responsibly. I am not citing any issue except what this new legislation is attempting to address.

MadHatter wrote: First of all most people shot with a pistol are not stopped by a single round.

Source, please. I don't know what the actual statistics say as I have never researched it, but without evidence you shouldn't make the assertion. This article would suggest that there are many factors contributing to the stopping power of a handgun round.

MadHatter wrote: Secondly many people miss under stress. Third the fact is that the ability to to keep firing without reload can mean the difference between life or death in a gun fight. Yes statistically most self defense gun fights are fought at less then ten feet and over in two to three shots. HOWEVER that does not mean all will be.

Self defense is not about winning a gunfight. It is about escaping with your life. One's goal is not to kill your attacker, but to survive. Apprehending an armed suspect is the job of law enforcement who have extensive training that most civilians do not. And you still need to cite your "statistics" to make a legitimate argument.

MadHatter wrote: So let us say four men break your door in at five am. You grab the two round shotgun you mentioned and fire hitting both times. Guess what now you are dead because the other two got to you. Now lets say its the pistol you fire all nine rounds hitting each person twice and missing only one. Well statistically it takes more then one pistol round to stop a person and most often they do not put people down for good. Oh and you said no hollow points so two of these guys shots are through and throughs well again you are dead because no more rounds to keep up the fight. And those situations are best case and you not missing.

Ridiculous hypothetical situations have no place in a logical debate. Four armed men breaking down my door begs an entirely different question about gun control. Why are there four armed criminals attacking me in the first place? Crime statistics don't back this scenario up in the least bit. It is also not advisable to fight four armed men to the death anyway. Training tells me to escape first if possible, hide second, and only then fight if absolutely necessary. At that point, you're in an extreme circumstance that no person can be fully prepared for regardless of what you're packing.

MadHatter wrote: Yet there are examples of someone on drugs not dropping after 14 or more hits so guess what you have just set people up to die with those restriction. Further why hollow points? Because I want my neighbors alive. Hollow points are not only more effective rounds but are less likely to over penetrate the target which means I am less likley to have a stray round exit my house with lethal force or even go into different rooms with lethal force sort of a good idea.

Or you could shoot them once and escape the scene with your life? Rounds are less likely to be stray if you don't fire them at all. Hollow points are in fact less likely to penetrate, but it is because they are designed to fragment once they hit a target. The purpose of this was to increase stopping power of a smaller caliber round carried by law enforcement by allowing less metal to do more internal damage. These rounds were not intended for use by the public as there is no real use for them other than shooting at other people. That is why they were initially illegal everywhere until a judgement from SCOTUS.

MadHatter wrote: You wife can point that shotgun down the hall and most likely hit? No she cannot. A shotgun at the distances you are talking about is no more wide spread then a pistol round really. The best figure I can find is that a shotgun pellet spread is 3 inches for every five feet of travel. So even in a ten foot long hall way the spread is only six inches at best which is about half my chest size.

Anybody who has fired both a pistol and a shotgun will tell you the shotgun is easier to fire accurately from the shoulder than a handgun held in front of you. This is especially true for a high caliber pistol in comparison to a less powerful shotgun. You still missed the point that it is meant for defense. Simply announcing that you have a shotgun and firing it once (whether you hit the attacker or not) is often enough to make said attacker reconsider advancing any further. And just for the sake of bolstering my argument for the shotgun, a six inch shotgun wound to your chest will likely be just as effective at stopping you as multiple pistol rounds would be. Two of them would likely be lethal.

MadHatter wrote: Finally mass shootings can be stopped with lower magazine size? Tell that to the victims of Charles Whitman who killed 16 and wounded 32 with a bolt action rifle.

I did not say limiting magazine size would stop mass shootings. I believe this law would make them illegal and possibly harder to come by thus making it slightly more difficult for a criminal to get them. It is one strategy of many that can be used to address the problem of assault weapons proliferation. Mass shootings can be stopped when we address mental health issues and limit firearms access to those who have been properly trained. Background checks are a good idea too.

Using one extreme example of Charles Whitman from fifty years ago of a person using a firearm to commit murder does not make a good argument for justifying the legality of any other type of firearm. Gun control legislation was different and law enforcement was trained and equipped differently, among several other factors that contributed to that event specifically that were not at all common for the time. If anything, this example shows that if one man can kill 16 with a bolt action rifle, maybe those should have been better controlled as well. Imagine if he had access to an AR-15 back then...

Criminals will be criminals and they will go to extreme measures to commit crimes. As those who would stand against them, it is our duty to make that as difficult to achieve as possible with joining them in the criminal behavior ourselves. Let's be smarter about this.

most people that are trained shooters (ie: military, law enforcement, etc) are trained to fire in 3 round bursts...a .22 can drop a person in 1 shot if you place the shot properly...however that same shot can also unleash a raging beast if it doesn't stop them...there' are too many variables to trust in just a few rounds of ammo...

most assault style rifles already have 10 round mags as most states prohibit anything more than that...you can get a pistol with a 13 round mag...being ex military has it's advantages...i have a 10 round mag and a couple of 30 round mags for an ar i no longer have...i have a sawed off .410, break action single shot...not much good for home defense unless you are real good with the intimidation factor...the fewer rounds you have available the better shot you have to be, and the more intimidating...in the high stress situation of self defense against armed assailants adrenaline and fear will greatly reduce the effectiveness of anyone not trained to control themselves....

it is better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it....

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/ Shows that most people when shot if still breathing when they get to ER will live. Your own article says that kinetic energy and shot placement are what matter most. That means that under stress you are less likely to get the heart or T box shots you need to stop someone for sure. Don't believe me? Ask the kids from columbine that are living with 9 bullets in them, the rapper fifty cent is known to having been shot nine times and is still hail and hearty. Rifles and Shotguns are DOA not hand guns and unless the person is dead or out cold they are still a potential threat and you had better be able to shoot back. To finish this off the article that follows states itself that the risk of death from none cardiac chest shots is low. That means that you are less likely to kill them and if they are not dead or out cold as I've said they are still a potential threat that you do not take your eyes off http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03215862

Ones goal in a gun fight is not mere survival but to end the threat with as little damage to yourself as you can. This means you had better be as well armed or better armed then those you face. Fact is Mr Murphy will screw up your day if you let him and thus few rounds and smaller weapons are just asking for disaster. No person who has ever survived a gun fight has ever said man I wish I had a smaller gun and less ammo.

Outlandish? Do we plan for what is common or do we plan for the worst and hope for the best? Home invasions by drugged up idiots happen, I am a survivor of one myself do you want to risk your life and the lives of your loved ones on hoping that you have just enough or would you rather have more rounds then you need? Further multiperson home invasions are a thing and one of the worst things as a civilian we are likely to encounter so that is what we should plan for.

Yes they are a more effective round that is less likely to over penetrate the person you hit. If you are shooting a gun you are willing to kill to protect your life. If lesser means then LETHAL force were an option we would be using them. So at the point that we are shooting we are saying we are willing to take a life and thus its best to have the most efficient tool for the job. Simply because a round is better at its job does not mean we should not have them. In fact the round is SAFER to use as it puts other people at less risk. The life of the attacker should not be your concern when you are willing to pull the trigger.

My point about the shotgun was that its spread is not very great at household ranges and you are only more accurate if you AIM. That means no pointing down the hall. Further you put others at great risk of the high penetration rate of shotgun round if you miss. THIS is the reason for hollow point. Because I dont want my poor neighbors ducking rounds if they go through the attacker.

Charles Whitman could have had an M1 Grand very functional, he could have had a Johnson light machine gun, Heck he could have ordered an MG 42 or a Browning Automatic rifle. There were plenty of semi and full auto options for this man he just took what he was good with and was at hand. As you said criminals WILL find a way. Making the weapons harder for the average person to get does not stop criminals as the black market will always provide. What you will do is put those most in need at a disadvantage and will doing little to nothing to stop those set on true evil. As I've repeated more then once you never leave a fight for your life wishing you had inferior tools at the time. Frankly as gun deaths are roughly one percent of all deaths in the US and on the decline with all violent crime these are solutions to an issue that is relatively minor thing in reality. ( If I need to I can post the math for you if you dont believe me on the firearms death rate)

Well I've thought about this a lot, we've had this debate here and it's ongoing everywhere all the time. As a gun owner and builder I understand the risks associated with too little control and too much control. Regulations like background checks, waiting periods, registration, demonstrating safe handling and passing a basic safety test are all totally logical and acceptable to me on the surface.

I live in CA and we have some the stricted gun laws in the nation. All firearms must be registered, and for all firearms you must obtain a firearms safety certificate to purchase which you get by taking a simple test to demonstrate you know the basics of safety, upon purchase you must also demonstrate being able to safely handle the firearm by using the safety, loading and unloading, etc. For many, many years now it has been illegal to purchase or build any magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds however those in possession were allowed to keep them after the ban. Technically any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine is considered an assault weapon has been banned for many years now as well however they have a locking device for the magazine release that can easily allow for nearly the same reloading time as without it but by law it was accepted by the CA DOJ. Now they are attempting to ban these rifles. It's obvious politicians and police don't trust their own fellow citizens and people they supposedly represent and protect, the politicians just serve the nobility and the police are the knights that protect them against the plebs.

For me I understand why for CA it is all generally common sense, population. I live in a very rural area that is about 2-3 hours from the nearest town, so for me firearms are a tool not only used in self defense but also for hunting and just to have as a hobby. If I lived in a city I wouldn't feel too comfortable owning the firearms I own just because I know places like SF you can't even park your car on the street without becoming a victim of a smash and grab. Being where I live though, if someone is coming to my land looking for something like marijuana as it's very prevelant where I live and this happens all the time where a group of armed people will go to a property and hold someone hostage and demand the money or product, or if some drunk tweakers are just looking for trouble, the sheriffs are at least 40min a way and most likely an hour and a half away.

So for me, so called 'assault weapon' bans and magazine capacity restriction are just a hinderance and put me at a disadvantage. There will always be the black market for real fully automatic and other weapons that can be obtained much faster and more easily than neutered rifles or weapons that can no longer be sold. People drive out of state and can buy whatever they want to bring back illegally.

Also, historically it goes from registration to confiscation, new criminals are created when law abiding citizens are punished, and unfortunately the genocides that have occured could be said to be partly a result of gun control where people couldn't fight back. People may say these are not logical issues anymore today and that things like genocide in our modern places wouldn't ever happen, that having to take a stand against an authority is no longer a realistic cause. The simple fact is that in many cases today, the majority and minority of citizen's are no longer represented by their elected officials, the government acts against the interests of the people and lies constantly because if they told the truth about what they're doing they wouldn't last very long. The greed and corruption is so deep, everyone just pulling the party lines, parroting what they need to parrot in order to appease the majority while at the same time taking money from and supporting policies handed down by corporations and the international establishment.

Another thing is the worry that firearms will get into the wrong hands, through the availability of them to law abiding citizens or who has been grandfathered. Well unfortunately it's usually the government who allows this in situations like Operation Fast and Furious. Then there's California Senator Leeland Yee who is an award winning advocate for gun control according to Wikipedia which also explains Yee was arrested by the FBI on March 26, 2014 on charges related to public corruption and gun trafficking — specifically buying automatic firearms and shoulder-launched missiles from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, an Islamist extremist group located in the southern Philippines and attempting to re-sell those weapons to an undercover FBI agent, as well as accepting a $10,000 bribe from an undercover agent in exchange for placing a call to the California Department of Public Health regarding a contract at the organization.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee

You can't make this stuff up, and when I watch the public safety committees and see the fake tears, the constant failure to actually speak like they know what they're talking about, and taking that benevolent stance to end the 'mass shootings' game. I and many others abide by their laws and respect the fact that yes people are very concerned about this topic, but people can only jump through so many hoops and even though they say they don't want to take away guns, their actions and words in other situations prove that they really do just want to take away people's guns. People forget that it's an armed citizenry that is necessary to remind the politicians that they can't just do whatever they want, which they try to do, but without the fear of knowing a sleeping giant could be awakened they really could just do whatever they wanted in the open without any serious backlashes. An armed citizenry is part of the checks and balances system, not just for hunting and not just for self defense. Also a lot of these politicians crying for gun control are really just after votes and money, like Gavin Newsom who's proposed ammo policy has gotten him all the money and popularity he'll need to run for governor.

So on the one hand I agree that things like background checks, training in safety and also the laws surrounding firearms and their use in hunting, self defense, sporting, etc., are totally logical and do serve the interest of everyone. But when we get into restricting certain types of semiautomatic firearms (fully automatic, short barreled, suppressors, machine guns, are all very regulated by the ATF and only certain states allow a citizen the process to obtain them), magazine capacity restrictions (20/30 rounds in a magazine is standard for a rifle, 10-20 for a handgun, those big scary 100 drum/snale magazines are actually very unreliable), BUT not into actually dealing with crime when it occurs as well as the mental nutcases who in most of the 'mass shootings' were already known to be who they were and what they were capable of but nothing was done to deal with their actual mental health when they had the chance, I tend to ignore and also am against the ignorant and arrogant cries for gun control.

Really this can be argued both ways all day for the rest of eternity, and both ways contain very logical and common sense reasoning. I don't plan on living in CA for much longer cause it has a lot more issues and in it's entirety is going down the toilet. When it comes to the nation itself, I see things like 'assault weapons' bans and more regulation sure, some states will always be more or less strict, but there will always be guns and crime and I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 as the saying goes and that only means I'm defending myself, my friends, family or another citizen from brutal, uncalled for violence and life threatening situations. In general throughout the world, well look around at all the violence and wars, as long as that's still existing which it always has and always will, citizens with guns is very necessary for self defense and general security in communities who are ready to deal with the type of threats we face today in order to keep the peace. I think it's horrible that sometimes you can only fight fire with fire, unfortunately a lot of people will just try to run and lay down and die when a psychotic maniac starts shooting random people instead of fighting back. If someone wants to live in a fantasy where violence won't come knocking or that malevolent evil doesn't ever manifest, or just being passive and cling to pretty spiritual ideas about nonviolence and accepting that this person is crazy and they are going to die and not try to prevent it because they take the high ground of not 'clinging to life' as a reason for not being prepared to defend themselves.... :laugh: