Carrying A Gun

…”saved my life“:

Could proposed restrictions on magazines greater than 10 rounds endanger ordinary people caught in situations like the one you faced?

There is definitely a risk involved with arbitrarily limiting normal citizens to ten rounds (or seven in the case of New York). Statistics generally indicate multiple shots being required to stop a single threat regardless of caliber, and there is almost always a degradation of accuracy in a high-stress situation.

If someone is unfortunate enough to be in a self-defense situation with three or four attackers, the difference between ten rounds and thirteen (or twenty) could mean the difference between life and death.

The only person qualified to determine what you need for your own defense is you.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I agree that Glenn’s headline for this story is much more accurate:

National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre and Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who survived a shot to the head two years ago during an assassination attempt that left six people dead, are among those slated to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One congressional source tells CBS News that Giffords herself is expected to attend the hearing; she is expected to accompany her husband and address the committee, although she’s not expected to take questions.

Unfortunately, being shot (or being a former astronaut) doesn’t make one an expert on guns or their use for self defense. This is about emotionalism, not a rational informed debate.

11 thoughts on “Carrying A Gun

  1. Chris Gerrib

    Except Ryan Moore’s case is, yet again, supportive of not needing high-capacity magazines. He fired three shots, killing one of two attackers, and the second attacker fled. He then decided not to reload because the threat had passed.

    I’m on record as being against gun bans and thinking magazine capacity limits are of little use. You want to carry a Glock 21 with 13 rounds, fine. But simply as a point of logical argument stop using cases where high-capacity magazines were not needed as examples of why you need a high-capacity magazine.

    Here’s the thing – Ryan Moore was attacked by two people armed with knives. Once he started shooting, one of them fled. Even if he hadn’t, Moore still had two shots. Does anybody think somebody shot twice with a magnum is going to be in any shape to be a threat to anybody?

    In addition, what makes anybody think that if it had been three or four people attacking him that things would have been different? Criminals are not noted for loyalty, teamwork and bravery- all things that would be required in order for them to stand and fight an armed man.

    Crooks are out for themselves, and like all predators they only attack victims that are perceived as weak. Once the victim demonstrates that they aren’t weak, there is a very strong instinct on the crook’s part to break off the engagement, which is exactly what happened in this case.

    Again, as a point of basic debating skills, if you want to argue for high-capacity magazines, find a case in which the extra rounds were actually needed.

    1. wodun

      “Crooks are out for themselves, and like all predators they only attack victims that are perceived as weak.”

      Lets make sure to ban guns and any other means of self defense.

      No need to worry about getting raped or robbed, just pray to our Lord and Savior Obama and he will save us.

  2. Al

    1) “Not fired” does not equal “not needed”. Here, he didn’t have to reload because there were more bullets. The click of an empty chamber or actually starting to reload can change someone preparing-to-flee’s mind. “Hey, he shot my buddy and he’s reloading and defenseless” isn’t the image the victim wants to be sending. Ever.

    2) The “predator analogy” has issues. Predators do mostly pick on the weakest. But the victim is not always weak. Additionally, many predators “lock in” on their chosen target – bypassing other “easier” (because of positioning or whatever) targets in the chase and kill. There are also amazing videos of water buffalos fighting back – and the predators still coming after quite a severe thrashing. Humans are actually felt to follow more of the wolf model “Let’s all jump him at once then!” when three or more people are present.

    3) You’re also making the assumption of a flawless shooter. The article said three shots. The article did not state three hits, merely that the target went down. And, just going by typical police statistics for shooting skill in an actual fight, that might well be just one hit. Making the remaining two shots a gamble if the other foe remains.

    Yes, the Navy’s first rule for gunfights is “Send the Marines!”, but expecting perfection isn’t something I would have expected to hear.

    1. Chris Gerrib

      No, I’m stating a simple fact – he didn’t need a high capacity weapon in this situation. As a debate strategy, using instances in which “X” was not needed to argue the need for “X” is a bad idea.

      1. wodun

        Only allowing a bare minimum for defense is not acceptable. What if there were three people? Four? Five?

        What people need, is the ability to defend themselves from an unknown number of assailants.

  3. Bilwick

    And of course we have to prove to the Hive’s satisfaction what we need for them to grant us permission to have it. “Please, massa, let us have more than six shots!” Uncle Chris’ cabin.

  4. M Puckett

    And he should have reloaded anyways if he had another magazine. Hoping the bad guys dont re-group and come back is dangerous thinking. I was trained to always top off after a lull if possible and a significant percentage of the ammo in the gun had been expended. After emptying half a cylinder, it would have been prudent to have reloaded during a lull.

    1. Trent Waddington

      At SpaceVision 2007, he and his wife stood up to a crowd of college kids and explained why it was good to go to college (as so many politicians often do). Kelly told the story of why he went to college.. basically, he wasn’t sure he wanted to go, so his dad arranged a job for him at the plant – as a welder. Kelly went on to express how much he didn’t want to end up as a welder and how terrible that would be, so he started applying to colleges.

      For some reason, the audience was silent. There was none of the usual cheers and jeers for the working class saps who were too dumb to go to college. Something was wrong.

      As it turns out, the previous speaker in that room had been Ben Brockert. He had shown never before seen footage of Masten Space System’s vertical takeoff and landing rockets. During the question and answer period, one of the many college kids had asked how Ben got to work at a space company… Ya see, Ben just went down to Mohave and hung around until someone gave him a job… as a welder.

Comments are closed.