I am not saying the people attack the shooter. I am saying the people have more opportunity to run away or seek cover. Moving 20 feet while a very fat reload occurs is a lot of distance and could easily make the difference between being in the open or being around a corner. But hey, maybe someone goes for the shooter too. Either way having a couple seconds can certainly count.
Gang land drive-by shootings unload and usually run after that. More bullets equal more chance to hit the target or by-standers. Gang shooting are not known for accuracy usually so the fewer bullets flying around the better.
I see what you are saying, I just think that it’s going to be a very small number of possible or probable events where it actually makes any difference at all…and probably something that, as you already acknowledged, won’t even be visible in the data. Ever. And the cost in paranoia from the pro-gun crowd is, IMHO, not worth it, though obviously it’s something that at least a certain segment of the regulation crowd can point to as a ‘success’, even if, to me, it hurts them in the long run. Like I said, if this were something else and we were talking about putting in legislature that would have no measurable change in the data and no way to verify what, if any effect it is even having I’m guessing you’d be arguing differently (and I’d probably be on your side then). There are lots of ‘common sense’ type solutions that people want or have dreamed up that would have a very real cost for no noticeable gain.
I will make a small concession here though. Thinking about what you say about the gang land shooting thing and just doing a spray and pray drive by, that could be a case where a larger clip has a large difference to make it significant. I have no idea how many of these kinds of shootings actually happen, and my WAG is 2-3 guys with guns with 10 round magazines are going to have a similar effect to one guy with a 20 round clip, but I concede that a larger clip size in a drive by is probably a big enough advantage to say it’s measurable and significant. FWIW.
Police in other countries can do whatever they want. But the police in the US have a lot of experience in carrying firearms, and a lot of data is available. It makes sense to look at that data when making evaluations.
More info at the link. It should be straightforward though. The more rounds, the more chances for hits, the more effective. Unless you think police are in the habit of making ineffective choices in their weapon layouts.
We’ve done this before. Suffice to say, you’re wrong and you’re relying on bad data. Rather than rehash well tread arguments, I’ll just link to a more recent example. The claim you’ve made is the same here as it was there, and it’s still unsupported.
a.k.a. “Guns and Gun Owners are Stupid and Evil”. I’ve posted everything I have to say about guns and gun control there at least twice and have nothing new to add.
ETA: I couldn’t take the eyestrain from :rolleyes: every time I checked the thread and saw the latest replay was from ElvisL1ves
Yes, five nations- every one a island nation. Out of about 200. Even so, GB has armed police, just their beat constables dont carry guns.
And most nations carry a side arm with a large capacity magazine, the heckler koch usp, Glock 17, sig sauer p226, etc. Some nations are their police with assault weapons.
And that study has been shown to use bad methodology, has been debunked repeatedly, and was admittedly done with the desired end result of showing that guns are bad.
So, no, it’s not more dangerous to have a gun in the house: assuming you dont live with drug addicts, gangbangers and you are trained and the gun is properly secured.
A weapon that can fire, or be easily modified to fire X number of rounds per minute and hold Y number of rounds without reloading, and reloading must take a minimum of Z seconds. Then reasonable people decide values for X, Y and Z.
And regarding magazine size limits, the CA ban on magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds was just declared unconstitutional. Federal district court, and likely to be appealed to the 9th. But the 9th already upheld the injunction on this law, so there is a sliver of daylight. I’d rather it go straight to SCOTUS to not waste time, but for now it’s a win.
I once built a single-shot black powder pistol from a kit, took a look at it, and decided I never ever would fire a gun I had built. So, for me, a dividing line is “did I make it?” :eek:
I think the mistake they made was making simple* possession* a crime. Thus, overnite, making several millions of California’s criminals. They have banned the sale of such before and gotten away with it.
Dude, for the record, you’ve been wrong so many times in gun threads on factual matters of law and such, that you’ve long since provided all the substantive information required to conclude that you can safely be disregarded.
And here is where we get the real answer. We go around and around in these threads and have arguments about what “reasonable” regulations we should have, someone proposes a magazine limit or a semi-auto ban and the other side argues that it wouldn’t be effective, and we are just talking past each other, because this quoted above is the end goal.
There is no “reasonable” regulation, just a stepping stone to a full and complete gun ban unless by the beneficence of the government we are allowed to keep single shot shotguns.
I’m a layman when it comes to guns; I’ll describe my dividing lines in layman’s terms, and let people better qualified than I am turn that into technical details:
Guns that can kill a lot of people in a hurry are bad.
Guns that civilians are allowed to carry in public (openly or concealed, I don’t care) except for a specific court-approved purpose, or hunting rifles during hunting season in an area where hunting is allowed, are bad.
Guns that persons with a track record of violence (most definitely including spousal abuse) are allowed to get their hands on, are bad.
1976 Brinks armored car robbery in Montreal