how many rounds
- Thread starter Doc Holliday 1950
- Start date
- Status
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by JC57:
Even if you happen to become involved in a use of force incident in which you have successfully defended yourself by firing n rounds, you would have no way of knowing that, in a subsequent incident that is substantially identical, n rounds would be necessary or would suffice.
No. That's because there is no answer.
Even if you happen to become involved in a use of force incident in which you have successfully defended yourself by firing n rounds, you would have no way of knowing that, in a subsequent incident that is substantially identical, n rounds would be necessary or would suffice.
Exactly this!!!!
So, understanding that there is NO WAY to know beforehand how much ammo you might need, doesnt it make sense to carry more then is likly to be used?
I Get the "average" number is probably low. I Dont want to find myself on the far side of that bell curve with an empty gun and an attacker that is STILL trying to harm/kill me.
A G26 (as an example) is not any larger then a S&W Jframe... With TWICE the ammo onboard AND a faster reload that again doubles (or TRIPLES, if larger mags are used) rounds in the gun.
Now factor in better sights, a lighter, shorter, crisper trigger and the system leaves the snubnose in the dust as a primary defensive gun.
If i only fire 1shot in my next shooting...thats fine. The unused ammo was just along for the ride. But, if i need those other rounds...i need em BAD
The old saying, "better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it" should be the defining mantra of this thread. Anything else is either laziness, complacency or a lack of foundational knowledge about real use of force issues.
So it sounds like no matter how much you have, it will never be enough. Got it.
Back to the actual original question - is there some brainwashing occurring about how many rounds are needed? Looks like that's a yes.
I am lazy, complacent, or have no understanding of reality. Understood. Probably all 3.
Back to the actual original question - is there some brainwashing occurring about how many rounds are needed? Looks like that's a yes.
I am lazy, complacent, or have no understanding of reality. Understood. Probably all 3.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by JC57:
On one occasion, one shot may be enough, if you do have to fire it. On another, you may fire four, very quickly under the conditions existing, and you may never know if three might have sufficed. And on another occasion you may need more. If you have that many, it is enough. If you have more than that, that is enough.
For that occurrence, only.
Are you being facetious, or do you simply not understand uncertainty analysis?
On one occasion, one shot may be enough, if you do have to fire it. On another, you may fire four, very quickly under the conditions existing, and you may never know if three might have sufficed. And on another occasion you may need more. If you have that many, it is enough. If you have more than that, that is enough.
For that occurrence, only.
Who is brainwashing whom about something that no one can predict?
There will never be an answer. It depends a lot on you, your habits, your training...and then random things that can happen. Any gun that you are good at and can comfortably carry is probably the best answer.
Because you set up all of these what if scenarios that make all guns ineffective. If I have a gun that can shoot 15 rounds but I cant shoot 50 ft accurately how does that help me if I was in a mall or movie theater type incident? It doesnt unless you could actually get close to the bad guy. And sure you could run but they might be blocking the exit...all of the sudden you create these scenarios where you need to carry an AR15. There are too many what ifs. Carry what you are can shoot well and is comfortable enough to actually carry.
Because you set up all of these what if scenarios that make all guns ineffective. If I have a gun that can shoot 15 rounds but I cant shoot 50 ft accurately how does that help me if I was in a mall or movie theater type incident? It doesnt unless you could actually get close to the bad guy. And sure you could run but they might be blocking the exit...all of the sudden you create these scenarios where you need to carry an AR15. There are too many what ifs. Carry what you are can shoot well and is comfortable enough to actually carry.
seeker_two
New member
Doc Holliday 1950
New member
Back to the actual original question I posted-" is there some brainwashing occurring about how many rounds are needed"? Looks like that's a yes.
Who is brainwashing whom about something that no one can predict?
OldMarksman is online now Report Post .
When Obama took office we were told that "they would take our guns away"
and there was a huge explosion of guns sales and ammo sales. I don't think that there would be an argument there.
If I were in the gun or ammo biz, I'd certainly pick up on People"s fears and take advantage of that fear to sell more of what they market. Guns and Ammo.
Now with all the Social unrest between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys people are scared witless that they will be attacked by many assailants. Hence the need to carry more ammo. Anyone disagree? This came from some of the responses to my post.
JUST HAD ANOTHER SHOOTING AT A COLLEGE IN OREGON 10 DEAD.
With the uprise of multiple shootings in schools and shopping centers and
even Churches.This could very well add to people wanting to carry more ammo.
Any disagreements with this?
Last, with the targeting of our Police People, one might be inclined to carry more ammo. Any disagreements here? And IMHO we are being targeted.
I am under the opinion that with proper training and common sense with a tad bit of good luck thrown in that a 6 shot wheel or a 8 or 10 shot semi all with one extra mag or speed loader should be sufficient. I carry 357's that's always been my comfort zone.
Great comments and thoughts everyone.
Doc
Who is brainwashing whom about something that no one can predict?
OldMarksman is online now Report Post .
When Obama took office we were told that "they would take our guns away"
and there was a huge explosion of guns sales and ammo sales. I don't think that there would be an argument there.
If I were in the gun or ammo biz, I'd certainly pick up on People"s fears and take advantage of that fear to sell more of what they market. Guns and Ammo.
Now with all the Social unrest between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys people are scared witless that they will be attacked by many assailants. Hence the need to carry more ammo. Anyone disagree? This came from some of the responses to my post.
JUST HAD ANOTHER SHOOTING AT A COLLEGE IN OREGON 10 DEAD.
With the uprise of multiple shootings in schools and shopping centers and
even Churches.This could very well add to people wanting to carry more ammo.
Any disagreements with this?
Last, with the targeting of our Police People, one might be inclined to carry more ammo. Any disagreements here? And IMHO we are being targeted.
I am under the opinion that with proper training and common sense with a tad bit of good luck thrown in that a 6 shot wheel or a 8 or 10 shot semi all with one extra mag or speed loader should be sufficient. I carry 357's that's always been my comfort zone.
Great comments and thoughts everyone.
Doc
Last edited:
Marksman, I don't have detailed breakdowns of the conditions of every stand your ground law. My point was that they are almost doomed to failure, being as everyone has different ideas of when to draw and fire. Zimmerman stood his ground and was prosecuted. Bernie goetz did decades ago, and IIRC, was acquitted, but later lost a civil suit.
As you said yourself, these laws give a feeling of false confidence that at least in the case of zimmerman, led to a feeling of invulnerability. At least that is how I see his actions of hunting down a person who he believed to be a criminal, even though he had no reasonable evidence that the person was indeed a criminal, and in fact, had been instructed to stand down.
The castle laws are still inconsistent as well. The boundaries are sometimes different, but in general, what they state is that there must be a palpable threat to life, home, property, or injury. In my state you don't even have to give warning. A person here doesn't even have to allow a violent intruder into the home to use deadly force; in a situation of a door being broken down, shooting through it is covered. (maybe.)
In a case close to here, a woman who had recently divorced was visited late at night by an acquaintance who intended to rob her. She called 911 as he was breaking through her door. she retreated with her son to a bedroom and locked it. With 911 still on the phone, the guy eventually broke down that bedroom door after hunting her down to that room, and she killed him with the dispatcher still on the line.
The press expressed surprise that she wasn't charged with anything, even given all of the information. Even a congressman made an example of her, saying that if she managed to save her own life with a shotgun, nobody needed "assault rifles."
There was a guy down in tx, I believe it was, who caught a couple guys breaking into the house next door. Again, in spite of orders to stand down by police authorities, he went on the hunt, and when they passed over his property line, running like dogs, he shot each of them in the back. IIRC, he wasn't even charged. But did that really qualify as "standing your ground"? he was not in any threat by any reasonable definition and no crime had occurred on his property.
Is that the way it should have been? I don't like that.
Stand your ground laws are inherently flawed in that we are each and every one given vague guidelines, and expected to make proper judgements, and in do doing, it will encourage people to stretch the limits of those laws. Protection by the laws does not protect a person from other consequences, and any mistakes made, while legal, may still leave that person liable to other consequences. So, really, the law has changed the situation, but it has still left us in the wild west.
A few years back and old guy shot and killed a hoodlum who was robbing a store. His grandmother tearfully said that her boy was only robbing that store to get money to pay his child support. Boy, there are just so many things wrong with that... but that's not the point. He was entirely justified in use of force, but no matter what the laws were.
The point is that if we give absolute impunity, people will stretch that so far that it becomes a crime, sometimes without even intending to. If we throw restrictions at it, we wind up right where we were, in a state of uncertainty, and legal nitpicking. Maybe, for example, the "victim" of the illegal shooting wasn't armed, stood outside the hypothetical 20 foot boundary for a justified shooting, the shooter didn't speak the require warning of "you need to stand back and leave or I will be legally allowed to kill you" or whatever. Law complicates things beyond reason
Shoot, we can't even put parking laws into a simple code. Does it really matter if a car is parked facing traffic? Yep, sure does. My neighbor parked by his home, facing traffic, because he was unloading paint and lumber into his home. While he was inside, he was ticketed for parking the wrong direction, being too close to the curb, and something else, as the guy searched through his book to find other things to cite him for.
I guess, put as simply as I can do it, blanket laws give expectations of immunity that can be widely, and erroneously interpreted by individuals. Complicating the laws to clarify exactly what actions are justifiable will leave the public in danger of those laws being misused by authorities, or in other risks.
Can we come up with a law that grants immunity from civil suits stemming from use of these situations? If a person is engaged in criminal activity and shot by a victim, why should there be a de-facto double jeopardy? Shouldn't a person who barely escaped with his life be allowed freedom from revenge by criminal's cohorts or kin? Let's fix that.
As you said yourself, these laws give a feeling of false confidence that at least in the case of zimmerman, led to a feeling of invulnerability. At least that is how I see his actions of hunting down a person who he believed to be a criminal, even though he had no reasonable evidence that the person was indeed a criminal, and in fact, had been instructed to stand down.
The castle laws are still inconsistent as well. The boundaries are sometimes different, but in general, what they state is that there must be a palpable threat to life, home, property, or injury. In my state you don't even have to give warning. A person here doesn't even have to allow a violent intruder into the home to use deadly force; in a situation of a door being broken down, shooting through it is covered. (maybe.)
In a case close to here, a woman who had recently divorced was visited late at night by an acquaintance who intended to rob her. She called 911 as he was breaking through her door. she retreated with her son to a bedroom and locked it. With 911 still on the phone, the guy eventually broke down that bedroom door after hunting her down to that room, and she killed him with the dispatcher still on the line.
The press expressed surprise that she wasn't charged with anything, even given all of the information. Even a congressman made an example of her, saying that if she managed to save her own life with a shotgun, nobody needed "assault rifles."
There was a guy down in tx, I believe it was, who caught a couple guys breaking into the house next door. Again, in spite of orders to stand down by police authorities, he went on the hunt, and when they passed over his property line, running like dogs, he shot each of them in the back. IIRC, he wasn't even charged. But did that really qualify as "standing your ground"? he was not in any threat by any reasonable definition and no crime had occurred on his property.
Is that the way it should have been? I don't like that.
Stand your ground laws are inherently flawed in that we are each and every one given vague guidelines, and expected to make proper judgements, and in do doing, it will encourage people to stretch the limits of those laws. Protection by the laws does not protect a person from other consequences, and any mistakes made, while legal, may still leave that person liable to other consequences. So, really, the law has changed the situation, but it has still left us in the wild west.
A few years back and old guy shot and killed a hoodlum who was robbing a store. His grandmother tearfully said that her boy was only robbing that store to get money to pay his child support. Boy, there are just so many things wrong with that... but that's not the point. He was entirely justified in use of force, but no matter what the laws were.
The point is that if we give absolute impunity, people will stretch that so far that it becomes a crime, sometimes without even intending to. If we throw restrictions at it, we wind up right where we were, in a state of uncertainty, and legal nitpicking. Maybe, for example, the "victim" of the illegal shooting wasn't armed, stood outside the hypothetical 20 foot boundary for a justified shooting, the shooter didn't speak the require warning of "you need to stand back and leave or I will be legally allowed to kill you" or whatever. Law complicates things beyond reason
Shoot, we can't even put parking laws into a simple code. Does it really matter if a car is parked facing traffic? Yep, sure does. My neighbor parked by his home, facing traffic, because he was unloading paint and lumber into his home. While he was inside, he was ticketed for parking the wrong direction, being too close to the curb, and something else, as the guy searched through his book to find other things to cite him for.
I guess, put as simply as I can do it, blanket laws give expectations of immunity that can be widely, and erroneously interpreted by individuals. Complicating the laws to clarify exactly what actions are justifiable will leave the public in danger of those laws being misused by authorities, or in other risks.
Can we come up with a law that grants immunity from civil suits stemming from use of these situations? If a person is engaged in criminal activity and shot by a victim, why should there be a de-facto double jeopardy? Shouldn't a person who barely escaped with his life be allowed freedom from revenge by criminal's cohorts or kin? Let's fix that.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted briandg:
Even in Colorado, where the law refers to preventing the "use of any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant" by someone who has unlawfully entered a residence, the underlying principle is that someone who has broken in unlawfully presents a very, very serious danger.
Well, some people may have different ideas. Let me make it as clear as possible. One may lawfully draw and fire when it is immediately necessary to do so to prevent death or serious bodily harm to oneself, or to a third person who would be entitled to do the same thing. Yes, there is the Texas property variation, and yes, the evidentiary requirements for justification vary, but it all really boils down to that.
Even in Colorado, where the law refers to preventing the "use of any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant" by someone who has unlawfully entered a residence, the underlying principle is that someone who has broken in unlawfully presents a very, very serious danger.
Let's get a few facts straight: Zimmerman, who was piinedon the ground, did not "stand his ground", nor did he amount a defense of justification under the "stand your ground" law; in Goetz' case, there was no such law.
That is true in every state and territory, and it has been since long before the days of George Washington.
He was given no lawful order to "stand down" but he was so advised by the 911 dispatcher.
Some reporter probably described it that way.
Lets get those facts straight too: you are referring to the Joe Horn case; (1)"stand your ground" was not in question; (2) the reason he was not charged was that an arriving LEO who witnessed the shooting testified that he was threatened; and (3) one's right to self defense does not stop at one's property line.
That doesn't hold water.
That can't be. The laws define what is justified.
The criminal codes redrawn up by legislators, and the system of tort laws is based on common law. It has been that way here since the eighteenth century, and it would not be a good idea to muck with it.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
So who's a dolphin posting here?
I get it. Do you carry 7 six round speed loaders or six 7 round speed loaders?
I get it. Do you carry 7 six round speed loaders or six 7 round speed loaders?
Quote:
All this talk or malfunctions and clearing drills, I can tell you carry a 1911...
Wow..........That's like saying because you have a Mercedes, you shouldn't know how to change your tire, because they don't have flats like a Ford or Chevy does. ANY semi auto is much more prone to a malfunction than a revolver, considering they have to feed, fire, extract and eject. Interrupt or impede ANY of those steps, and you have a gun that don't work. Something as simple as a bad shooting position, say the kind you may HAVE to use during a gun fight, would likely cause this. Too low of a grip causing a bit of limp wrist, such as you may do under the stress of combat........ It has less to do with gun and more to do with the shooter.
I have only ever had 1 malfunction that wasn't purposely induced, and that was a sub-par reload that caused a stovepipe. BUT, one is exactly one too many when I'm fighting for my life, and I TRAIN to know how to clear them. Do you?
All this talk or malfunctions and clearing drills, I can tell you carry a 1911...
Wow..........That's like saying because you have a Mercedes, you shouldn't know how to change your tire, because they don't have flats like a Ford or Chevy does. ANY semi auto is much more prone to a malfunction than a revolver, considering they have to feed, fire, extract and eject. Interrupt or impede ANY of those steps, and you have a gun that don't work. Something as simple as a bad shooting position, say the kind you may HAVE to use during a gun fight, would likely cause this. Too low of a grip causing a bit of limp wrist, such as you may do under the stress of combat........ It has less to do with gun and more to do with the shooter.
I have only ever had 1 malfunction that wasn't purposely induced, and that was a sub-par reload that caused a stovepipe. BUT, one is exactly one too many when I'm fighting for my life, and I TRAIN to know how to clear them. Do you?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I like my 1911 as it lets me practice clearing. Look, I shoot a great deal and have seen almost every modern semi jam up. Nothing is that reliable.
Folks who never have a jam - well, you are lucky.
I see revolvers go south also.
Folks who never have a jam - well, you are lucky.
I see revolvers go south also.
4runnerman
New member
Glen- I put this plug out there only bacause of all the trash they get. I have a Taurus PT1911 in 45 ACP. Now I have not shot near what most have. I have had
1 stove pipe- 185 gn SWC
over 6000 non SWC of every variety never a FTF or stove pipe again .
1 stove pipe- 185 gn SWC
over 6000 non SWC of every variety never a FTF or stove pipe again .
- Status