42 thoughts on “Ten Bullets”

  1. The same clowns who want to be part of the new Anti-Gun Congress, will reserve for themselves, the Right to have an armed guard with a full auto weapon with a 20+ round magazine. How do I know?

    It’s the way they do this stuff EVERY time.

    Writing laws for ‘us’, that do not apply to ‘them’. For some reason the elected worms see themselves as above us, smarter than us, more deserving and more trustworthy than us. The ONLY day they see us as ‘smart’ is those First Tuesdays in November that hit every other year. That’s the ‘smart’.

    We are never deserving. There are only two groups in the constituency. The needy and the nuisance, there is never any anyone deserving. And the last thing anyone deserves is their Constitutional Rights IF or WHEN those on the Left have decided that said Right doesn’t agree with their view of America.

  2. Never assume that the controllers are all morons. A few of them are quite dumb, to be sure, and some of the non-stupid ones are still ignorant of the facts.

    But at the bottom line, the leftists who write these laws simply don’t care what the facts are. None of them do.

  3. The gun laws desired by most anti-gun people usually make about as much sense as you’d expect from automotive regulations and traffic laws written by natives of some small Pacific island who’ve never even seen a car, much less driven one, much less driven one in traffic.

  4. So shooting him five times (including one in the face and an apparently grazing wound in the neck) and him fleeing the scene isn’t sufficient?

    In self-defense shooting, you stop shooting when the attacker stops. A fleeing attacker means the attack has stopped.

    1. Gee, Chris: If he had enough energy left to flee the scene, he had enough energy left to (barring more bullets) tear the young lady apart in front of her kids. It’s luck for her that he headed in the good direction rather than straight into her face, but it could’ve happened the other way too. Handguns are lousy people-stoppers and five rounds of .38SPL hasn’t been enough in the past for a lot of cops… which is one of the reasons they went to evil, high-capacity semiautomatic pistols.

      1. “Amount of energy” is not a criterion for self-defense. He fled, she had to stop shooting. Considering he didn’t have enough energy to drive his car, he didn’t have a lot of energy either.

        1. So she knew this beforehand, right? That he would’ve fled, instead of coming after her? That she would’ve put enough holes in the right spot to make him flee, and that he wasn’t in fact on enough pharmaceuticals (or simply enough adrenaline) to simply ignore the damage? That she wouldn’t have missed just one time too many, with her only-five-shots?
          She knew all this ahead of time, right? There’s a law or something, right?

      2. She had to stop shooting because she was out of bullets, not because he fled, since he hadn’t fled until after she’d managed to bluff him. If not for that, he probably would’ve killed her and her children and then fled.

    2. I think you miss the point. She ran out of bullets and the attacker remained quite mobile and probably could’ve still killed her and her children, so she had to bluff. What if she missed with one or two more shots? What if the attacker had a partner?

    3. Nine millimeter, which is what the bulk of those high-capacity cop guns are chambered in, is almost identical ballistically to .38 special. (If you’ll actually check, you’ll see that “38 special” is actually .357 inches in diameter, and 9 millimeter is .355 inches). Cops went to 9 millimeter because the LAPD did so, and it looked cool.

      Regarding “what if he had a partner” – she missed once and had two grazing hits firing at point-blank range. What makes you think she’d been able to engage two targets with any more success?

      1. What makes you think we have the right to tell a mother that she’s not allowed to protect her children from being murdered by two men, only one, and only if she doesn’t miss with more than one shot?

        1. It’s not rights, George, it’s ability. She emptied a gun at a man at point-blank range and managed zero hits in the ten-ring. What makes you think she would have had the ability to transition to a second target? What makes you think she’d have been able to get more effective hits on a second target?

          Frankly, George, I suspect she did what a lot of people, including trained professionals, do in a fight – she pulled the trigger until the gun went “click.” I suspect that if she’d had a gun with a ten-round magazine, she’d have fired ten shots, with five misses. I suspect she started firing low and allowed the gun to walk up due to recoil.

          You can always come up with a hypothetical case where more firepower was needed. What if the entire local Hell’s Angels chapter had decided to attack? What if her attackers decide to burn the house down and wait for her outside?

          Bottom line – she proved a point that we’ve known since Sam Colt invented revolvers – you can successfully defend yourself with six shots.

          1. “…she proved a point that we’ve known since Sam Colt invented revolvers – you can successfully defend yourself with six shots.”

            Which is why all the militaries in the world and all but a handful of PD’s have refused to go to automatics…

            …oh wait.

          2. And six shots may not be nearly enough, as all those graves on Boot Hill attest.

            She has the right to defend herself against all the angels Hell wants to send. You often see thirty or forty or more cops not attacking an armed homeowner until more reinforcements arrive, and it’s not going to be a .38 that they’re worried about.

          3. “Frankly, George, I suspect she did what a lot of people, including trained professionals, do in a fight – she pulled the trigger until the gun went “click.” ”

            Franly Gerrib you haven’t the faintest idea how she behaved, how she reacted and what she thought.

            And I suspect that if you were to proffer her your opinions, she would tell you to stuff them up your large intestine.

            She SUCCESSFULLY defended her home and saved the lives of her children….

            what have you done?


            She now knows that she needs many more rounds.

            There’s also a moral in there about using enough gun (Robert C. Ruark), but for now, she knows from actual experience 5 rounds simply isn’t enough.


            You know nothing.

      2. From the link:…Yes, and a guy who would chase down a woman and her kids to an attic crawl space was planning on something worse than lifting a TV, I suspect…
        That’s why she needs/deserves better than a 6-shot 38. He didn’t stop until she threatened to shoot him again (even though she was out of bullets). Sounds like he wanted something real bad, don’t think it was her TV.

        1. He might’ve been after her remote. Without that, the TV would be almost useless, and men well know how women and children tend to wander off with them. Maybe she taunted him with “from my cold dead hands!” before she opened fire. What she needed was a universal remote with a 15-round extended magazine.

        2. This is WHY I bought my wife a 5 shot, 12 gauge shotgun. She’s good with a pistol. But we’re all better with a shotgun.

          And you guys are wasting your breath on Chris and this topic. He’s never going to be convinced that we should EACH have the Right to decide what guns / how many rounds we want. He’s bought into the idea that ‘they’ have the say so.

      3. Oh, and a 9mm has almost twice the muzzle energy of the .38 special. Bullet diameter just tells you bullet diameter, otherwise nobody would be discussing AR-15’s, almost all of which fire only a .224″ diameter bullet.

        1. that varies widely by load. Also an issue is over-penetration. 9 millimeter, with (again, generally) higher muzzle velocity can go through people without expanding, while 38 may not. You can (and I do) load soft-lead hollow points in 38, getting more expansion at impact. Not so with 9 millimeter.

          In short, they are both good rounds, and functionally very close.

          1. I carry a Glock 26 9-milimeter loaded with 115grain +P hollow points(to reduce over penetration). 12 round magazine. The essential point is that her attacker very likely wanted more than her stuff…he was looking for her, & there could have very easily been more than one attacker. One can only speculate what he would have done to the kids once he was done with her, whether he would have elected to leave live witnesses.

      4. Gee, Chris: are you saying that .38SPL and 9MM are “ballistically identical” because they’re the same DIAMETER?
        Because that would be a sign of someone who was pretty ignorant about the issue.

        Do you have any source of your statement about why police went to 9mm automatics?
        Or is it just another “…well, everybody knows…”

        And how does that little bit of nonsense fit in with the fact that most PD’s have gone to .40 or .45 (not to mention .357SIG… guess they must be really stupid to go to a bullet that’s the “same diameter” as the .38SPL’s they left behind a generation ago!)?

        And isn’t it cool that you’re trying out mutually conflicting arguements (she didn’t need more bullets because “shooting him five times (including one in the face and an apparently grazing wound in the neck) ” was sufficient, and AT THE SAME TIME she couldn’t defend herself against multiple opponents because she was a lousy shot and five rounds wouldn’t have been enough)?

        1. Dave P – read my posts that came chronologically after yours. You’ll find most of your answers.

          Regarding the “wondernine” revolution – I was around at the time, and I distinctly remember reading about the LAPD’s move to the Beretta, driven in large measure by the military’s move to the same caliber.

          1. I did read your post, and not only did it refute what you said originally (that 9mm and .38 were functionally identical because they were the same diameter) but there was so much more wrong with the post that I was quite at a loss where to begin.
            First- unless you’re comparing some of the odder +P+ .38’s with some of the milder 9mm loads, you’re gonna look far and wide before you find a .38 that’s faster than a 9mm (my pet load in that caliber, Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel, is actually a +P load- and doesn’t break 900 FPS, while even the big fat 147-grain 9mm loads generally come within kissing distance of 1000 FPS and my standard-pressure 9mm Gold Dots break 1100.

            Second- overpenetration is an issue with ANY self-defense cartridge: the FBI standard is 12-18″ in calibrated ballistic gelatin, and that’s a lot of manflesh if the bullet doesn’t hit a bone. Note also that that’s on a “naked” target; if the hollowpoint cavity gets clogged up with cloth (say, your assailant was wearing a jean jacket) it may not expand at all and just keep right on going. Note that this is much less of a risk with modern JHP’s (y’know, like the police carry in their issue guns) which tend to be designed with the problem in mind.

            Third- I’m not gonna get into caliber wars, but given the amount of decent data on the Internet, both from amateurs and real pros like Doc GKR, both in lab conditions and actual anecdotal information, you should really think twice before proclaiming how superior .38LHP is to modern 9MM JHP.

            Finally, I reiterate: Do you have any actual proof as to why police departments went to semiautos? Or is this just another subjective-reality special?

          2. …and I’ll also point out that you didn’t even try to answer the question about mutually-exclusive arguements.

          3. Here’s the thing Dave, I’m trying to figure out if Chris Gerrib is just stupid and knows nothing about firearms. Or, if Chris Gerrib knows that gun bans don’t work and knows that he is just spouting noise, then he has ulterior malevolent intentions.

            Is it malevolence or stupidity? I have already concluded that Jim’s motivations are malevolent, but what are Chris’s motivations?

  5. So shooting him five times and him fleeing the scene isn’t sufficient?

    No. Would you like the long answer? Because this is one anecdote. You can’t take it in isolation as you have. Yet, it still shows that those that would have this woman completely defenseless are wrong. You’re arguing about how defenseless she should be. Gun rights people are arguing she should be allowed to defend herself to whatever degree she feels or thinks she needs.

    Because the fact is, sometimes you do need more. You would condemn those people to death including little children where adults are unable to protect them.

    No politician surrounded by bodyguards (paid for by the citizenry) should be able to twist the 2nd amendment even to the extent of nibbling at the fringes.

    1. Ken Anthony – legally, you’d better stop shooting if your attacker flees. Shooting a guy in the back is called manslaughter.

      Saying this is “just one anecdote” cuts both ways. The problem (for you) is that this is by far the typical anecdote. The average gunfight lasts five seconds and two or three rounds fired.

      1. legally, you’d better stop shooting if your attacker flees. Shooting a guy in the back is called manslaughter.

        Actually, this is the biggest reason I can come up with for having more rounds. Shooting him dead in the house simplifies the legal issues.

      2. But you wanted to use this “one anecdote” to refute Rand. Why can’t Ken use the same anecdote? Are you wrong for using it?
        The average house never catches on fire, the average car never suffers a flat tire, the average plane passenger never needs to make an emergency landing… can we plan for the averages on those too?

      3. stop shooting if your attacker flees

        Non-sequitur, I never suggested otherwise.

        DaveP nailed it. Typical is not the issue. Atypical is. With your rules Chris, people die that would not have to.

    1. I might conclude that Chris Gerrib is just trolling, but trolls are usually anonymous. Thusly, it must be either honest stupidity or malevolent dishonesty.

  6. First, I have never said that I want to limit the number of rounds in a gun.

    But if the best argument for a high-capacity weapon is a case in which a high-capacity weapon was not actually needed, then you don’t have much of an argument.

    What everybody seems to be studiously ignoring is that the woman emptied a gun into her assailant. We’ve seen this before – some number of people, when faced with their first gunfight, will keep shooting until the gun is empty. It doesn’t matter how many rounds the gun has. That’s how we get the “cop shoots unarmed man umpteen times” stories.

    It appears to me that this “click phenomenon” happened here. Under stress and scared shitless, she fired six shots as rapidly as possible. If the gun had held 7, 10 or 15 rounds, that’s how many shots she would have fired.

    Unless she was shooting with a 50-cal BMG, her assailant, gut-shot, would still have had the energy to flee. She hadn’t hit him anywhere vital enough to kill him immediately.

    Like I said, if the best argument for a high-capacity magazine is a case where, if the facts had been different, a high-capacity magazine might have been useful, you don’t have much of an argument.

    1. Chris, if you hit them with enough bullets they eventually stop moving. It even works for zombies. That’s one of the reasons militaries use machine guns, compensating for the fact that the vast majority of bullets miss by just using way more bullets.

      She hit her attacker with 5 out of 6 shots. Based on that, if she’d emptied a 15-shot magazine at him she’d likely have hit him 12 times. Getting shot twelve times is generally going to be worse than getting shot 5 times. Chicago even had to revise their murder statistics with a scoring category called “marksmanship and effort” to explain why their homicide rate was going up while the number of shootings was dropping. The criminals were making an effort to put more hits on target per shooting, using more powerful guns, and improving their aim. If it works for them, it should work for housewives, too.

      1. It’s also the reason the military moved to the .223 round – much less powerful than the .30-06 that was used since WWI through Korea and a little bit in Vietnam.

        The idea was that you can carry more .223 because they are lighter, which means you can throw more lead in the air. Actual stopping power was not the issue.

        So the relevance, here, is the fact that your grandaddy’s Garand M1 was far more powerful than today’s AR-15’s. And the typical WWI vet could fire his 1903 Springfield 30-06 almost as fast as a WWII M1 Garand.

        And it’s important to point out to the dolts of the world (not you, George) that for almost all of the history of the United States, civilian weaponry was exactly as advanced as military – right up through the Korean War and including the introduction of the M-14.

        In fact, during several periods of our history the civilian weapons were far more technologically advanced than the military:

        Many is the 7th Cavalry soldier who wished he had a Winchester ’73 repeating rifle with 14 rounds instead of his single shot trapdoor Springfield.

    2. gerrib: First, I have never said that I want to limit the number of rounds in a gun.

      Right, rather gerrib provided this: Bottom line – she proved a point that we’ve known since Sam Colt invented revolvers – you can successfully defend yourself with six shots.

      So, if any person can do it, then so should she? It’s a rather foolish argument. Police forces across the country have failed to live to this minimum standard on multiple occassions, so why does gerrib make this argument at all?

      Supposedly it is to suggest more rounds wouldn’t have changed the outcome. I’m not sure that is a counter to the rational for Rand’s post. The point is why should any home owner be limited? That’s a national argument people are having because of the criminal, David Gregory. If gerrib doesn’t want to argue for “limit[ing] the number of rounds in a gun”, you’d think he would not participate in this discussion in opposition.

      If his point was, “she should have used a .45 rather than a 9mm or .357”, he failed to make it.

      Personally, I do think a .45 would have done a better job, and with a .45, she’d probably have put him down with only 6 rounds. But then, a .45 has more recoil and thus more difficult to handle. That’s why many prefer a 9mm, .357, or even a .22. But if you go with a smaller round, then you probably need more of them, thus a larger magazine. This is why we don’t need national laws limiting magazine capacity.

    3. We are not studiously ignoring it…it’s central to our thesis.

      What we are studiously ignoring is the conclusion you draw from it….which is the sheerest speculation.

      Pardon me if I don’t give up my Rights based upon your silly speculations

  7. a case in which a high-capacity weapon was not actually needed

    That argument is not being made by this case. The guy fled. What does that mean? It means the outcome depended not on the woman’s bullets but on the attackers mental state. He could have chosen to continue to attack the woman now that she was out of bullets.

    Had she enough bullets to take that decision away from the attacker that would be a different case. Chris, you are making a different argument than you think you are.

Comments are closed.