Compilation of crimes that were repelled with standard-cap mags?


PDA






General Geoff
January 28, 2013, 12:37 AM
From our recent visitor's heated debates, one of the extensive talking points was that he didn't see the need of private citizens to have standard (over 10-round) magazines. We know better, but instead of just saying that it's common sense, I suggest we compile a list of home invasions, armed robberies, and other situations that were successfully repelled by a private citizen who fired over 10 shots. Logically, if this list is more than a few every year, nationwide, then that tips the balance of good in favor of keeping standard capacity magazines available to everyone, vs the number of high profile mass shootings we've seen recently where standard cap magazines were utilized to murder innocents. Keep in mind that I agree, these mass murders would not have been prevented or reduced with a magazine ban, but this would just prove that even if a ban could reduce the death toll of a few madmen, it would also cause other innocents to die because they lacked adequate magazine capacity to successfully defend against determined criminals.

So, if you've got links to books, news articles, personal accounts, any situations that were resolved by a private citizen firing more than 10 shots, let's list em here.

If you enjoyed reading about "Compilation of crimes that were repelled with standard-cap mags?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Alaska444
January 28, 2013, 01:19 AM
Thanks General Geoff,

First, the premise that you don't need a hicap magazine is a false premise. Self defense of home invasions is predicated on the fact that you will likely face multiple aggressors.

The anti's readily admit that they fear the hicap magazines since you can kill, i.e. subdue, many people quickly. Their objection against hicap magazines is OUR proof that they are effective. That is the illogical aspect of Timmy's argument. In other words, we both readily accept that hicap magazines are effective.

Secondly, the largest mass shooting in America was Virginia Tech committed without any hicap magazines making the entire ban of hicap magazines a fruitless endeavor. As we all know, changing a standard "10 round" magazine only takes 1 or 2 seconds with well trained folks.

The entire "debate" is truly a nonstarter in my mind and the reason why we won't find logical discourse with the anti's is because they start with false premises that we won't be able to dissuade them of the falsity.

Just my 2 cents.

General Geoff
January 28, 2013, 01:23 AM
I guess what I was getting at is that, if the antis say that a mag ban would reduce casualties in mass murders, then by their own logic (as wrong as it may be), then those who would use said magazines for legitimate defense, would also be handicapped and possibly killed because of a ban.

Zardaia
January 28, 2013, 01:29 AM
Or what about crimes that were stoped/lessend thanks to the shooter using a true high cap mag? Such as the jams induced by shooters using the knock off drum mags. If they'd used low caps they could have continued shooting. Easier to change mags than clear a malfunction, at least for common novice madmen.

kalel33
January 28, 2013, 01:33 AM
I guess what I was getting at is that, if the antis say that a mag ban would reduce casualties in mass murders, then by their own logic (as wrong as it may be), then those who would use said magazines for legitimate defense, would also be handicapped and possibly killed because of a ban.

Really the argument is just circular in nature. Antis state that having high cap mags banned would reduce deaths in mass murder situations. Pro-gun advocates state it only takes a second or two to change a magazine so it wouldn't make a difference, but the same thing could be said for home defense then. If it doesn't make a difference because you can change a magazine out so fast then that wouldn't make a difference in a home defense situation either.

It's an argument that can't be won by either side.

Alaska444
January 28, 2013, 01:36 AM
Once again, it is false logic as the Virginia Tech incident demonstrates as well. Actually, on another thread by Timmy that was just closed, there was one post that had a link to one such incident of a person who was not able to repel two armed home invaders with one 10 round magazine.

She stated that there were 49 bullet holes in her house, only 10 were from her. That shows that the criminals use "hicap magazines" as well. Why should we go up against them in a home defense situation under armed compared to the creeps coming in the front door?

Zardaia
January 28, 2013, 01:52 AM
The diff is mass shooter may very well be relativly un-opposed so 1-2 seconds for a mag change is doable. But anyone forced to defend themselves with a gun is facing a deadly threat and very well may not have 1-2 seconds to change mags.

Alaska444
January 28, 2013, 01:53 AM
The diff is mass shooter may very well be relativly un-opposed so 1-2 seconds for a mag change is doable. But anyone forced to defend themselves with a gun is facing a deadly threat and very well may not have 1-2 seconds to change mags.
Very true. I don't disagree with the utility of hicap magazines in a home defense situation.

goon
January 28, 2013, 03:35 AM
I have been looking for a couple articles I remember reading. In one, a woman was attacked and emptied an entire 13 round Browning Hi Power magazine of 124 grain 9mm JHP's into her attacker. She finally stopped him with the last shot, which was an accidental head shot.

But I agree that this may be pointless.
It's obvious that a homeowner at the top of the steps with an AR-15 and a 30 round magazine is armed better than a thug with a Glock 19 and standard mags.
A more accurate and easily controlled weapon, firing a more powerful round, and with twice as many rounds... Of course it's better! And that is how it should be - law abiding people should always be able to defend themselves!
How anyone could doubt this just makes no sense to me.

Blue .45
January 28, 2013, 06:57 PM
I saw this today and remembered your thread.

Gutsy grandma shoots at robber after attack


"Somebody said he had a gun, and when he turned and faced me he went down, and when he went down I just pulled my 9 out and started shooting him," she said.

Kamate fired multiple shots at the man, but he got away.

Kamate says it was unclear if the man was hit by any bullets.

"It was 11 shots, I hope I did, one of them had to get them," she said. "At first, I felt remorse because I have grandchildren. If my grandchildren are out here doing what these punks are doing, they need to get the same thing."


http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Gutsy-grandma-shoots-at-robber-after-attack/-/1719418/18268518/-/format/rsss_2.0/-/11gar7z/-/index.html

kalel33
January 28, 2013, 11:41 PM
I'm sorry but if she was facing the guy and fired 11 time and maybe missed every one of them then that just shows that going to the range and practicing is more important than the amount of rounds.

OcelotZ3
January 29, 2013, 01:14 AM
Really the argument is just circular in nature.

You are saying that an offensive situation is identical to a defensive situation. They are not.

kalel33
January 29, 2013, 06:01 PM
You are saying that an offensive situation is identical to a defensive situation. They are not.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's a detriment to a person to only have 10 rounds because it takes time to reload and also say that it doesn't affect a mass murderer to have a to reload a gun, which would give time for someone to take down the individual. They are both defensive and offensive positions. That's why it's circular in nature, because when you make the argument that reloading could make a difference in a shooting situation then you are also saying it'd make a difference in mass killing situation.

Either way, I'd rather them leave "high capacity" magazines alone, because it makes it easier at the range. For home defense, I feel more than capable with my S&W .357, which only has 6 shots. If you need more then I wouldn't use a pump shotgun as home defense because there isn't more than 8 shots in one of those.

jamesbeat
January 29, 2013, 06:21 PM
The diff is mass shooter may very well be relativly un-opposed so 1-2 seconds for a mag change is doable. But anyone forced to defend themselves with a gun is facing a deadly threat and very well may not have 1-2 seconds to change mags.
No, the difference is that the mass shooter would still be using a standard cap mag, so only law abiding folks in defensive situations would be at a disadvantage.

The only people affected by laws are the law abiding.

SharpsDressedMan
January 29, 2013, 06:25 PM
I hate to say it, but WWII was pretty much fought with small arms that contained less than 10 rounds. The excpetions were the M1 Carbine, and the various submachineguns in use. The bulk of the fighting was with bolt action rifles (Allies and Axis nations), M1 Garand, and handguns of less than 10 rouind capacity. Making an argument of NEEDING higher capacity might be the wrong approach.

Quick Draw McGraw
January 29, 2013, 06:34 PM
You can't say it's a detriment to a person to only have 10 rounds because it takes time to reload and also say that it doesn't affect a mass murderer to have a to reload a gun, which would give time for someone to take down the individual. They are both defensive and offensive positions. That's why it's circular in nature, because when you make the argument that reloading could make a difference in a shooting situation then you are also saying it'd make a difference in mass killing situation.

I think I understand what you're saying but I just don't agree with it. To me, the position of a mass killer in a presumably gun-free zone with little chance of resistance and a backpack full of extra mags and probably a spare gun or three is in a way different position than a homeowner in his/her underwear still half-asleep with perhaps just the mag in the gun against the possibility of multiple intruders. It's just night and day in my mind.

Gryffydd
January 29, 2013, 06:36 PM
I hate to say it, but WWII was pretty much fought with small arms that contained less than 10 rounds .... The bulk of the fighting was with bolt action rifles (Allies and Axis nations)....Making an argument of NEEDING higher capacity might be the wrong approach.

What you're essentially saying is that criminals will obey the ban on standard capacity magazines. That's just silly. And it's completely ignoring the heart of the 2nd Amendment.

The revolutionary war was pretty much fought with no repeating arms at all, so clearly, we don't need repeaters of any kind. :rolleyes:

Pointing to a situation (WWII) where everyone was on basically equal footing does not apply to gun control legislation. And that's also completely ignoring the fact that war is not the same thing as self defense.

Skribs
January 29, 2013, 06:41 PM
Antis state that having high cap mags banned would reduce deaths in mass murder situations. Pro-gun advocates state it only takes a second or two to change a magazine so it wouldn't make a difference, but the same thing could be said for home defense then.

Not true. The mass murderer goes into a school or mall with a bag, and could have several or even dozens of spare magazines already full with ammunition. Your average homeowner probably owns 2 magazines (the one and the "extra" that came with the gun) and only has one magazine full of ammo. "Just reload" doesn't apply when you are "prepared enough" by having one magazine ready.

The difference is that the bad guys choose their engagements. They don't randomly snap in the middle of a mall and start shooting, they plan ahead. Good guys don't get to choose, and a lot of people believe you only need "so much" and are surprised when you need more.

Seriously, the idea that a homeowner can reload but a bad guy will be hindered goes against what you would expect in the situation from each individual.

Assuming the bad guy would follow the ban.

kalel33
January 31, 2013, 02:28 AM
Your average homeowner probably owns 2 magazines (the one and the "extra" that came with the gun) and only has one magazine full of ammo. "Just reload" doesn't apply when you are "prepared enough" by having one magazine ready.

So what's the magic number then? You don't feel comfortable with 10 rounds, but really is 15 rounds enough then? By that thinking, then my S&W .357 isn't any good for home defense. Heck, a 12ga shotgun is pretty much worthless for home defense with only 8 shots. Let's say that 15 isn't enough and pretty much all handguns are worthless, because everyone should have 33 rounds, like the Glocks do.

Me myself, have never felt underpowered because I only have 6 shots in my revolver. I don't even have my Sig 9mm loaded with defensive rounds, because if I can't deter criminals with a .357 then then I need to rethink my tactics for defending an area or need to go to the range more.

palmrose2
January 31, 2013, 02:59 PM
Cover fire.
I think usually it is taught as part of offensive maneuver, but I think it certainly has it's place as a defensive tactic. When SHTF a lot of people aren't exactly calm cool collected and taking the time to have nice well aimed shots.
I notice that the 20 rd mags in the ARs of my youth, are pretty much gone from the army.

If you enjoyed reading about "Compilation of crimes that were repelled with standard-cap mags?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!