Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/22/2008 5:54:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2008 5:55:09 AM EDT by CRC]
High capacity magazines containing more than 10 rounds, which were also
banned as part of the Federal Assault Weapons Act, are also not useful for selfdefense,
as former Baltimore County Police Department Colonel Leonard J. Supenski
has testified:
The typical self-defense scenario in a home does not require more
ammunition than is available in a standard 6-shot revolver or 6-10 round
semiautomatic pistol. In fact, because of potential harm to others in the
household, passersby, and bystanders, too much firepower is a hazard.
Indeed, in most self-defense scenarios, the tendency is for defenders to
keep firing until all bullets have been expended.96

Assault weapons were designed for military use. They have no legitimate use as
self-defense weapons.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:00:10 AM EDT
left winged bull shit
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:00:47 AM EDT
10 rounds good 12 rounds bad, yea make a lot of sense right ? because of the mag dump people do when they protect their self.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:02:25 AM EDT
The mag dump thing is a training problem rather than a hardware issue.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:03:32 AM EDT
Tell ya what there Col. Supenski, I say that YOU and your guys only "need" 6-10 rounds available to you. How's that?
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:04:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2008 6:05:16 AM EDT by mr_camera_man]
Ask him if his officers have 10 round mags in their duty guns.  Then ask him if his officers possess a higher level of citizenship than others.  Then ask him if his officer's lives are worth more than others.

Edit:  Police departments have Colonels now?
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:06:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:07:30 AM EDT
then his police dept. should have no problem with 10 round mags, it's only self defense against "bad guys" right. a well trained officer should have no use for more than a 10 round mag
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:07:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Tell ya what there Col. Supenski, I say that YOU and your guys only "need" 6-10 rounds available to you. How's that?


QFT.  I wonder how many rounds it actually takes to put a BG down reliably... how many times were the shooters in the LA Bank Robbery hit before they finally ate it?  
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:08:00 AM EDT
His facts are correct, from what I understand.

IIRC, the typical gunfight is 3 rounds at under 14 feet.

But facts are irrelavent when feelings are involved.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:08:18 AM EDT
Hey let them lead the way by having all of the police agencies carry revolvers and swat carry bolt action rifles.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:08:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CouncilOfDave:
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Tell ya what there Col. Supenski, I say that YOU and your guys only "need" 6-10 rounds available to you. How's that?


QFT.  I wonder how many rounds it actually takes to put a BG down reliably... how many times were the shooters in the LA Bank Robbery hit before they finally ate it?  



Well, there WAS that whole body-armor thing........
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:10:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By xylo:
His facts are correct, from what I understand.

IIRC, the typical gunfight is 3 rounds at under 14 feet.

But facts are irrelavent when feelings are involved.


Average of 3 rounds exchanged in total, at under 21 feet (about 7 yards/meters).
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:11:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bob1984:
The mag dump thing is a training problem rather than a hardware issue.



Facts don't matter to leftists.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:12:58 AM EDT
If i was the defense lawyer in this case, i would just ask him how many rounds his departments duty guns carry, and if any of his officers are issued "assault rifles".

Doesn't matter because you see, they have more of a need to self defense than average citizens

Remember, some are more equal than others
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:13:20 AM EDT
Had I been standing on Concord's North Bridge on April 19th 1775  I would have wanted as large a capacity magazine as reliably possible.  That is my standard for "what would be useful in a self defense situation."
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:14:32 AM EDT


The ten round limit was arbitrarily decided by anti-gunners.  Don't let them define the language when it comes to your constitutional rights.  Don't ever use the term "high capacity magazine."
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:15:20 AM EDT
which ass are you pulling this "self defense" shit out of?, the one you sit on or the one you speak out of?
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:15:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Bob1984:
The mag dump thing is a training problem rather than a hardware issue.



Facts don't matter to leftists.


Unless your a gay male with the desire to have sex with more than ten men.  Or a crack whore that wants to have more than ten abortions.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:15:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bob1984:
Originally Posted By xylo:
His facts are correct, from what I understand.

IIRC, the typical gunfight is 3 rounds at under 14 feet.

But facts are irrelavent when feelings are involved.


Average of 3 rounds exchanged in total, at under 21 feet (about 7 yards/meters).


it is not about feelings it is about life...

and that statistic is an "average"

some gun fights are only one round fired...some are more....and there is always an exception to the rule

so I would rather have it and not need it....then need it and take a bullet to the back of my head......

Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:17:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Originally Posted By CouncilOfDave:
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Tell ya what there Col. Supenski, I say that YOU and your guys only "need" 6-10 rounds available to you. How's that?


QFT.  I wonder how many rounds it actually takes to put a BG down reliably... how many times were the shooters in the LA Bank Robbery hit before they finally ate it?  



Well, there WAS that whole body-armor thing........


If I was going to make a living doing home invasions, I know I would sure as shit invest in some.  
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:17:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BURN:
Originally Posted By Bob1984:
Originally Posted By xylo:
His facts are correct, from what I understand.

IIRC, the typical gunfight is 3 rounds at under 14 feet.

But facts are irrelavent when feelings are involved.


Average of 3 rounds exchanged in total, at under 21 feet (about 7 yards/meters).


it is not about feelings it is about life...

and that statistic is an "average"

some gun fights are only one round fired...some are more....and there is always an exception to the rule

so I would rather have it and not need it....then need it and take a bullet to the back of my head......



Agreed on all points.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:18:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By xylo:
His facts are correct, from what I understand.

IIRC, the typical gunfight is 3 rounds at under 14 feet.

But facts are irrelavent when feelings are involved.


While pretty much true, are you willing to bet that the one and only gunfight you will ever be in will be "typical." Morover are you willing to bet the lives of YOUR FAMILY?  And what incenses me about this article are this guy, and all the people that support a magazine capacity ban (or any type of ban) are willing to bet the lives of MY FAMILY that any gunfight I might find myself in will be "typical."

Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:19:10 AM EDT
once again....... you dont need it, but we police people do. its not good/effective for a civilian, but for us highly trained police types its perfect.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:21:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bob1984:
Originally Posted By xylo:
His facts are correct, from what I understand.

IIRC, the typical gunfight is 3 rounds at under 14 feet.

But facts are irrelavent when feelings are involved.


Average of 3 rounds exchanged in total, at under 21 feet (about 7 yards/meters).


those numbers are misleading, they were compiled by the FBI for officer involved shootings and involved officer suicides during the 1980's and have been floating around every since.

Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:23:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By c350z:
Originally Posted By Bob1984:
Originally Posted By xylo:
His facts are correct, from what I understand.

IIRC, the typical gunfight is 3 rounds at under 14 feet.

But facts are irrelavent when feelings are involved.


Average of 3 rounds exchanged in total, at under 21 feet (about 7 yards/meters).


those numbers are misleading, they were compiled by the FBI for officer involved shootings and involved officer suicides during the 1980's and have been floating around every since.



Is there a better source of information that would apply to non-LE defensive shootings ?  

Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:24:42 AM EDT
Fuck you if you try to tell me what I need to defend myself.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:25:34 AM EDT
I question the mag dump claim. I'm not buying it.

I hear plenty of stories of officers firing an excessive number of times, but I can not recall a self defense story that involved firing more than 3 or 4 times.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:27:08 AM EDT
"Too much is always better than not enough!"

- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:29:31 AM EDT
looks like most people are ignoring the fact it's baltimore county.

what else would you expect from a place that had record obama turnout this year?
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:31:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By xylo:
His facts are correct, from what I understand.

IIRC, the typical gunfight is 3 rounds at under 14 feet.

But facts are irrelavent when feelings are involved.


His facts are correct when excluding scenarios that include defending your home from marauding gangs in home invasions and errant government agents "following orders..."

Since when do cops tell a free (hint, hint) citizen what he can be armed with?
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:33:10 AM EDT


Originally Posted By CRC:



High capacity magazines containing more than 10 rounds, which were also

banned as part of the Federal Assault Weapons Act, are also not useful for selfdefense,

as former Baltimore County Police Department Colonel Leonard J. Supenski

has testified:


The typical self-defense scenario in a home does not require more

ammunition than is available in a standard 6-shot revolver or 6-10 round

semiautomatic pistol. In fact, because of potential harm to others in the

household, passersby, and bystanders, too much firepower is a hazard.

Indeed, in most self-defense scenarios, the tendency is for defenders to

keep firing until all bullets have been expended.96
First, only a fool plans for the "typical," especially when it comes to a lethal attack on yourself or others. I don't know about you, but I plan to equip myself far better then merely "good enough," and then hope that the people trying to kill me play by the "typical" rules.



Second, mag dumps and/or missing their target are problems with the training of the victim, not the weapon itself. Perhaps, instead of supporting a ban on large mags, this cop should be trying to educate people on panic reactions and get them to overcome this obstacle before criminals try to kill them? Maybe that would even have applications outside the realm of self-defense? Like, say, providing a positive influence on their lives regarding self-control during emotionally charged situations?



Nahhhh, lets just ban guns. That's the ticket.







Originally Posted By CRC:



Assault weapons were designed for military use. They have no legitimate use as

self-defense weapons.
The quote from that police officer does not support this conclusion. At best, it would support a claim that mags over 10 rounds are not necessary for SD and can be banned accordingly. Of course, SD is not the only function of semi-auto firearms, nor does it take into account scenarios like wildlife attacks or local disasters and the roving gangs that can pop up as a result.



 
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:34:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2008 6:38:15 AM EDT by Jarhead_22]
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:35:08 AM EDT
Its "Standard capacity" not "High capacity" remember that.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:36:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Originally Posted By CouncilOfDave:
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Tell ya what there Col. Supenski, I say that YOU and your guys only "need" 6-10 rounds available to you. How's that?


QFT.  I wonder how many rounds it actually takes to put a BG down reliably... how many times were the shooters in the LA Bank Robbery hit before they finally ate it?  



Well, there WAS that whole body-armor thing........


And the whole shots fired to hit ratio was like 40 rounds fired to 1 hit...........
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:38:14 AM EDT
While the fact may be correct, who gives a rosy red rat's ass.
It is my gun, and I can keep as few or as damn many rounds in it as I see fit. What F'ing business is it of yours!
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:38:32 AM EDT


Originally Posted By -GunNutJuell-:



Originally Posted By ABNAK:


Originally Posted By CouncilOfDave:


Originally Posted By ABNAK:

Tell ya what there Col. Supenski, I say that YOU and your guys only "need" 6-10 rounds available to you. How's that?




QFT.  I wonder how many rounds it actually takes to put a BG down reliably... how many times were the shooters in the LA Bank Robbery hit before they finally ate it?  







Well, there WAS that whole body-armor thing........





And the whole shots fired to hit ratio was like 40 rounds fired to 1 hit...........
And that is why pistols suck.






 
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:40:55 AM EDT
Wolves travel in packs.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:44:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:49:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By xylo:
His facts are correct, from what I understand.

IIRC, the typical gunfight is 3 rounds at under 14 feet.

But facts are irrelavent when feelings are involved.


I have personal seen a man take over a dozen RIFLE rounds and still manage to be a threat. NO self defense shooting will be as cut and dry as some statistic. That kind of logic will get you killed.

Anyone save that FBI Autopsy report posted here a couple of months ago? Some thug was hit numerous times and still fought the police during cuffing.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:50:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2008 6:53:07 AM EDT by Lindy_Hoppin_Gun_Nut]
Nobody needs a car that can go faster than 70 mph.  Most highway drivings are between 55mph to 70 mph.

Who needs motorcycles such as "Interceptor" - they can outrun Police Cruisers very easily.  Nobody needs that - we all can do with Vespas.

Who needs those high powered trucks?  Most people don't need to haul anything that heavy.  Special permit is needed for those work-horse trucks because they guzzle so much diesel and bad for the environment.

Nobody needs high speed internet for communication, after all, we have snail mails and dial up connection is plenty good for writing e-mail / sending pictures.  If you need high speed computer and connection, join the press corp.  You lowly subjects has no need to gather information in such efficient way - it might conjure up "unpure / dissenting" toughts.

And what is this BS about showing "needs"?  In a free country, I get what I "want" for any lawful activities that I want to do.


PS: The intention of the 2nd amendment is not about hunting ducks and it is not only for the purpose of defending one's life and / or property against miscreants, but it was intended to give us citizens (not subjects) to fight back if the "power to be" is getting out of hand.  Hence we need more than just the measly 10 rounders.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 6:52:42 AM EDT
People need to have the ability to defend themself against a from the a well armed force.

Do they limit the mags a swat team carries ? It could cost you your life, its just common sence.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 7:01:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dr_Dickie:
While the fact may be correct, who gives a rosy red rat's ass.
It is my gun, and I can keep as few or as damn many rounds in it as I see fit. What F'ing business is it of yours!






You hit the nail on the head.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 7:13:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2008 7:15:57 AM EDT by Bob1984]
Originally Posted By JAMES77257:
Wolves travel in packs.


Some wolves also have Kevlar hides.


Originally Posted By CRC:
........ too much firepower is a hazard.


Properly controlled and applied firepower is what ends fights and wins battles.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 7:14:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2008 7:16:18 AM EDT by James23]
Originally Posted By CRC:
........ too much firepower is a hazard.




Huh?



ETA: Disclaimer: my quote makes it look like CRC said that. In no way do I believe, nor should you, that CRC thinks that too much firepower is a hazard.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 7:17:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BenCO:
If i was the defense lawyer in this case, i would just ask him how many rounds his departments duty guns carry, and if any of his officers are issued "assault rifles".

Doesn't matter because you see, they have more of a need to self defense than average citizens

Remember, some are more equal than others


Yes, they are fighting zombie citizens and we're just protecting our plasma TVs.

Link Posted: 11/22/2008 7:19:14 AM EDT
Wow, I missed the "self defense clause" in the 2nd Amendment.


The "authorities" need to remember, the arm protected in the Constitution are the ones capable of defeating THEM.  

With those kinds of arms specifically protected, the cops need to focus on the behavior of bad guys.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 7:27:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By c350z:
Originally Posted By Bob1984:
Originally Posted By xylo:
His facts are correct, from what I understand.

IIRC, the typical gunfight is 3 rounds at under 14 feet.

But facts are irrelavent when feelings are involved.


Average of 3 rounds exchanged in total, at under 21 feet (about 7 yards/meters).


those numbers are misleading, they were compiled by the FBI for officer involved shootings and involved officer suicides during the 1980's and have been floating around every since.



I think that's an average of 3 rounds per dog.
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 7:29:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stryder717:
left winged bull shit


Link Posted: 11/22/2008 7:33:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By votefromrooftops:
then his police dept. should have no problem with 10 round mags, it's only self defense against "bad guys" right. a well trained officer should have no use for more than a 10 round mag



Better yet,,,,,NO police officer need be armed at all. It worked in England for a couple hundred years didn't it? Guess the Bobbies are better cops and the US police need added training!!  
Link Posted: 11/22/2008 7:34:29 AM EDT
Total and complete sense, I mean who needs more than even one round for self defense? I believe that the same goes for police officers as well.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top