No one needs 15 rounds

[The Dark Side of Will]

(And no, I did not look it up. He made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to back it up. Not me.)

I had already linked that doc in another thread.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Thanks for posting. Good to know. (And no, I did not look it up. He made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to back it up. Not me.) The next question is, do all of those countries define "Robbery" and "Assault" in exactly the same way? My first inclination is no, because Belgium is far from a dangerous country. So is Scotland. So the huge variation between figures from those countries and figures from others may have a lot more to do with semantics than with actual crimes. Does Belgium really have 4x the robberies that crime-ridden Mexico does? I find that hard to believe.

In any case, I'd much rather have higher rates on non-violent crime and lower rates of violent crime. Assaults, robberies, etc are all minor when compared to homicide. Stuff that's taken out of your home can be replaced. bruises and black eyes heel. But once someone is dead, they're dead. Call me crazy but I'd much rather have someone steal my TV than shoot me in the head

I think it's more likely that the crimes that get reported in Belgium go unreported in Mexico... Or maybe the Mexican police don't bother tracking less severe crimes because they're too busy fighting the US' drug war. Either way we probably agree that crime in Mexico is WAY worse than that chart shows, which just serves to put the US one notch lower in the rankings.

A) How is an assault NOT a violent crime?

B) Your contention that people should sit back and take the risk that a robbery or assault won't leave them dead, maimed or permanently injured is absurdly arrogant and completely out of touch with the reality of these events. If it happened to you, you WOULD wish you had a gun.

[BraveUlysses]

Thanks for posting. Good to know. (And no, I did not look it up. He made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to back it up. Not me.) The next question is, do all of those countries define "Robbery" and "Assault" in exactly the same way? My first inclination is no, because Belgium is far from a dangerous country. So is Scotland. So the huge variation between figures from those countries and figures from others may have a lot more to do with semantics than with actual crimes. Does Belgium really have 4x the robberies that crime-ridden Mexico does? I find that hard to believe.

Swing and a miss. It's a per capita chart you're looking at so the population size does not matter.

[einhander]

It was proven in a video I posted a few pages back. Firing a gun and reloading a semiautomatic translates into little to no difference in time needed to evacuate X number of rounds from the gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I said scientific proof, not some video you found while spending your time between cuckold porn and gun websites.

[CorvallisBMW]

You ever care to look?

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

US is below the mean for robbery and assault.

Thanks for posting. Good to know. (And no, I did not look it up. He made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to back it up. Not me.) The next question is, do all of those countries define "Robbery" and "Assault" in exactly the same way? My first inclination is no, because Belgium is far from a dangerous country. So is Scotland. So the huge variation between figures from those countries and figures from others may have a lot more to do with semantics than with actual crimes. Does Belgium really have 4x the robberies that crime-ridden Mexico does? I find that hard to believe.

In any case, I'd much rather have higher rates on non-violent crime and lower rates of violent crime. Assaults, robberies, etc are all minor when compared to homicide. Stuff that's taken out of your home can be replaced. bruises and black eyes heel. But once someone is dead, they're dead. Call me crazy but I'd much rather have someone steal my TV than shoot me in the head

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

[rwh11385]

Are we? I've never heard that. Can you show me any data or figures to back up that claim?

You ever care to look?

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

US is below the mean for robbery and assault.

[marshallnoise]

While we have the same point of view, that video is a joke. The rate of fire is obviously uncontrolled and much slower on the first set. It takes approx 2 seconds to reload in an ideal scenario, much longer if fumbled. So the benefit of smaller magazines in an active shooter scenario can be debated (obviously) it can also be debated that since larger magazines are already out there criminals will find ways of obtaining them while law abiding citizens will then be at a disadvantage. Also the statistics (too lazy to look it up for you fucks that won't even bother to consider it) show that mass shootings are such a minor portion of gun violence, that we're chasing the relatively rare headline grabbing situations while ignoring the bigger gun violence issues.

I disagree. What it shows is exactly what you pointed out; fumbling the reload is what makes the difference. A well qualified person will not fumble, but a whacked out idiot will. The only chance reducing clip size offers is the opportunity to fumble, but then again it is zero guarantee. Too many variables in the whole equation to reduce the debate down to magazine capacity. Other than emotional, irrational responses to things out of one's control.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

You didn't watch the video, did you?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

While we have the same point of view, that video is a joke. The rate of fire is obviously uncontrolled and much slower on the first set. It takes approx 2 seconds to reload in an ideal scenario, much longer if fumbled. So the benefit of smaller magazines in an active shooter scenario can be debated (obviously) it can also be debated that since larger magazines are already out there criminals will find ways of obtaining them while law abiding citizens will then be at a disadvantage. Also the statistics (too lazy to look it up for you fucks that won't even bother to consider it) show that mass shootings are such a minor portion of gun violence, that we're chasing the relatively rare headline grabbing situations while ignoring the bigger gun violence issues.

[marshallnoise]

You didn't watch the video, did you?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

It was proven in a video I posted a few pages back. Firing a gun and reloading a semiautomatic translates into little to no difference in time needed to evacuate X number of rounds from the gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

In a highly-controlled, closed and scripted environment, when performed by a well-rehearsed and trained expert. Real life is a different story, as I proved out in this post: http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=132

Why are we well below average in the developed world for other types of violent crime?

Are we? I've never heard that. Can you show me any data or figures to back up that claim?

[marshallnoise]

Where has it been proven?

I'm genuinely asking. When I started this thread I thought the NJ law sounded reasonable. If there is a scientific finding to the contrary, I'm totally happy to accept it.

It was proven in a video I posted a few pages back. Firing a gun and reloading a semiautomatic translates into little to no difference in time needed to evacuate X number of rounds from the gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Cha Ching]

So you want more rounds?

I've been shot at on Route Irish, had car bombs go off at my office in Kirkuk, and had AKs brandished at me at a compound in Qandahar. That's actual stress, with actually bad people. You know what SoP was? To leave.

You can fantasize all you want about how dangerous and scary the world is, with criminals coming at you and Mexico invading, but you're never going to do anything with 100 bullets that you're not going to be able to do with 10. Try getting out of the same 10 miles from where you were born, look at what other places do to handle gun crime, and maybe you'll see that the US is assbackwards on gun ownership.

As for you blue plates, I never said this would be a cure. The gun debate is dead, but you can't look at mass shootings and say that no need for some type of new thinking. The bill is under debate in one of the wealthiest and most educated states in the country, so I'm not the only one who thinks it might have some value.

But that's dimwit NRA-delusion for you...

You assume too much. I never mentioned anything about more rounds.

You mention your SOP as "leaving". I agree. I teach defensive hand-gun courses and stress-situation management. If you have the ability or means, I almost always suggest putting as much distance between you and whatever the threat is. However, sometimes 'leaving' is not an option.

I do not, "fantasize about how scary and dangerous the world is". I know, for the most part, it's a beautiful place. But there are some times when darkness descends and evil rears its ugly head. Or, as we say in the courses I teach, "the shit has hit the fan". When that happens, you need as many tools at your disposal in order to win or come out alive.

I'm not concerned about Mexico or any other nation invading US soil. Why? Mainly because of the private ownership of guns here. Unlike other countries, the citizens of the US will not have to depend on aid or weapons from foreign nations to oust any dumbasses stupid enough to invade our shores.

Your statement of, "you're not going to be able to do anything with 100 bullets that you cannot do with 10" is false logic. If I ever needed 100 rounds than the shit has definitely hit the fan and hard. But better to have it and not need it, versus the other way around. It's pussies like you who clamored out the door at Martin B Retting Gun Shop in Culver City offering me un-Godly sums of cash because I had guns to defend myself and my family during the Los Angeles Riots back in '92.

I do take issue with your comment, "Try getting out of the same 10 miles from where you were born,...". If you are inferring that I lack depth and knowledge of other countries and cultures because I am geographically challenged. If so, you are mistaken, young padawan. I've traveled to many countries and have seen first-hand the benefits of private gun ownership.

What is it, exactly, that other countries are doing to handle gun crime so effectively? Is it limits on magazine capacity? No. Enforcing, "Gun Free Zones"? Haha, hardly. These limits or bans simply do not work.

Your thinking dictates society should address the tool and not the root problem. Do we ban cars or alcohol in cases of drunk driving? Should we limit pool use among kids, since more kids die every year from drowning than mass shootings? Certainly, no one needs a pool? (My friends in the SF Valley or Palm Springs would beg to differ)

You appear to underestimate the majority of gun owners here in America. We do see a need for, "new thinking" when it comes to taking action against criminals and gun crimes. But that means effective "new thinking". Your rhetoric has all the makings of a media-hyped foundation induced by mass-hysteria and a knee-jerk reaction.

It's obvious to me that you are educated and worldly-wise. Why don't you propose something effective that works in other countries, since us Americans have it, "assbackwards" when it comes to gun crime? I'd love to hear new ideas on the subject, but come to the table with something more than recycled junk from the media.

[mrsleeve]

We already have millions of those, and it doesn't seem to be helping

Last thing I saw on the topic was there were about 9 million CCW holders in the US this was a couple of years ago.

CCW holders are LAW abiding citizens that dont go out of their way to look for trouble, the implications of doing so are not very harmonious with having a Permit.

So you have a tad under 2.7% of the population having a permit to carry, Many people have permits but dont carry all the time or hardly ever . I spent much of the year last year unarmed even though I have a couple of permits, due to my location in a non reciprocal state.

SO to sum it it you have <2% of the population carrying at any given time, that are law abiding (.3% of gun crime is committed by CCW holders) and not going out looking for trouble. Yup thats a great argument you have here.


We have a million plus law enforcement officers in this country too they seem to be doing a great job stopping active shooters too. Since in recent events has shown no matter how opposing force was applied from Law Enforcement or legal CCW holders defending them selves the active shooters tend to flee or off them selves when shit starts to get real with bullets flying back at them. Highlighted by debunking another one of your biased articles in this posting here. This assumes the aggressor picked place to do his deeds that was not a gun free zone where law abiding people are not allowed to carry their weapons and must rely on the state to handle such issues.... That seems to be working rather well huh....

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3510927&postcount=204

The OR mall incident the shooter took his own life when he saw that a CCW holder had drawn a bead on him and had held his fire because there were other people behind the shooter. The mall it self was gun free zone but IIRC the good citizen didnt see the sign.

[Ikazamay]

I just looked up NJ laws and its more relaxed than CA where I've spent most of my life. I'm Moving back to CA so I would be happy if the law was like NJ. I've been in TX for the last 6 months and its nice not having to worry about regulations that would make me a criminal if I put the wrong accessory on.