Wasn’t there some school bombing way back in the early part of the 20th century that killed a whole bunch of students? Can’t find this at the moment…
I hate to be pedantic, especially on such a touchy subject as this… but if one of the students had a CCW they most likely wouldn’t have been carrying, because of the “Gun Free Zone” laws, which made university a “Gun Free Zone.” (I’d like to note that somehow the guns which were used in the shooting itself seem strangely unaffected by this.)
There may be some, but I have not yet found anything. I expect I’ll be looking for a couple of months more though. Cecil may have found something though; he often asks me to double-check on a topic he’s already got some first-class information on as a backup.
Chefguy, thank you for the link. I can find occasional things similar to that in the papers, but I struggle with making general statements about the effectiveness based on the small number of samples.
You are correct of course, but that was sort of my point. It’s a “what if” that may work for a specific case, but which I cannot (gun ownership-proponent that I am) honestly say can be proven to help on a general standpoint.
You might be thinking of this - a sad, sad case: Bath School disaster - Wikipedia
I’ve taken Tracy’s Kenpo and we did learn a handful of gun techniques - but they were all for close quarters. Like if you were being mugged or had a gun pulled on you in a crowded bar. They were also for handguns, of course.
I can’t think of any martial arts training that would give you the skills to run towards a gunman who is 100 yards away without getting blown away. Or to disarm someone with a rifle or automatic. Or even to disarm someone who is wielding two pistols, for that matter.
Martial arts can teach you confidence, level-headedness and how to take a punch…but a lot of its effectiveness seems to also depend on being in the right position at the right time.
What do you mean when you say “Automatic”?
Do you mean Semi-automatic pistol? You would disarm them the same way you would disarm someone with a Revolver. Any distinguishment between the two types of pistol simply exists within your mind. You can reload them just as quickly, with very little practice.
Someone wielding two pistols is far easier to disarm than someone wielding one. Among other things, they have a far less-firm grip on their weapon, and they cannot aim it (If you don’t believe me, go to your local range and try shooting two pistols at a target 7 yards away).
But back to the reason I posted: What do you mean by “Automatic”?
Sure, but the guy with the semi-auto can fire ~15 times before having to reload, while the revolver guy only gets ~8 shots.
Correction: Some semiautomatic pistols can fire 15 times without reloading.
The most commonly used Semi Automatic pistols in crimes have 7-9 round magazines, IIRC.
The Beretta M9 has a 15-round magazine, and the most common 9mm Glock variants have 13-round capacity.
Actually, the Glock 17 has a 17 shot capacity.
I didn’t say that no guns had 15+ shot capacities. I own a CZ75B that has a 15 shot clip.
That isn’t what I said in the least, is it?
What I said is that the most common semiautomatic pistols used in crimes have 7-9 shot capacities, IIRC.
The amount of shots one can fire before reloading has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The topic at hand is what the difference between disarming someone with a Revolver and Semiautomatic pistol is, and there isn’t one.
I Googled for Dollars and found a single cite here, studying a very limited subgroup, which claims more shots fired per incident from semi-auto handguns versus revolvers.
This cite here, however, claims the average magazine capacity of all handguns is 8.1, with 21% being 10 rounds or more. However, note that this was May, 1997.
This is presented as additional information, not to prove or disprove anyone’s point.
Well technically, most of those used in crimes often only have a few shots before they jam, mostly being Jennings and Lorcin and such.
I have a similar history. A few bar fights and I did work as a bouncer. I have also had lots of “traditional” martial arts training (Taekwondo, Kung Fu, Akido, etc) which proved to be worthless in real-life situations. I’d go so far as to say it might even be detrimental because of the ‘dance’ that is involved in learning new techniques and Kata. The exception would be Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and general MMA training (both of which I am currently studying). These two would give you a huge real life advantage, IMO.
A good RL example would be the early UFC footage. Pre-fight interviews show contestants doing a lot of flashy kicks and punches explaining how deadly they were. In the actual fights none of the combatants were able to employ these techniques and resorted to ‘wind-milling’ which would more often than not result in a loss to the general tough-guy brawlers. Note that traditional martial arts practitioners dropped out after the first few years and the brawlers started getting beaten by wrestlers who had learned to punch from the mount or ‘Ground and Pound’. This gave way general mixed Martial Art training, resulting in a more well rounded fighter. It should be noted that kick-boxers and Muy Tai fighters also have had fairly good success. The reason, I believe, is because their systems require full contact sparring.
So you did. I read that as “the most common semi-automatic pistols”. Sorry.
Obviously there’s no difference in what technique you’d employ to knock a gun out of a bad guy’s hand.
However, If I’m some distance (say, more than 10 yards) away from you, and you’re firing into the crowd around me, I believe your magazine capacity is extremely significant. It all comes down to how many shots you can get off - and thus, how likely you are to shoot me - before I reach you.
Thank you for those references, Una. The second reference does seem to me to indicate a growing trend.
This quote from the Library Journal review of the de Becker book (see original link) definitely indicates a worrisome trend: “homicide is now the leading cause of death for women in the workplace.”
Very interesting contributions from the guys who’ve been in fights. Martial artists losing to brawlers, who’d have thunk!
Or a comforting one: improvements in worker safety mean that women are no longer getting hauled into machinery. I mean, what percentage of deaths overall are workplace deaths?
A very small one - 5,400 out of about 2.5 million*, or roughly .2%
Everything you could ever want to know about snuffing it at work.
*That’s roughly the average over the past 5 years. I can’t find the correct number for '07.
Ignoring the bad context of your statement, which is somewhat inflammatory (and I’m certain it wasn’t intentional), world record holding shooters shooters can shoot 6 shots, reload, and shoot six more shots in 2.9 seconds. Skilled shooters can do it in 4-5. Accuracy suffers accordingly - but your accuracy will equally suffer with a Semiautomatic, and due to something called ‘limp wristing’ which is far more common the faster you shoot, it’s actually more difficult to shoot at those speeds with a semiautomatic pistol.
That rivals anything you can do with a semi-automatic (barring bump-firing).
My point is that with relatively little practice, for all intents and purposes, differentiating between Semi Automatic and Revolvers when it comes to hand guns is largely pointless.