If you’re still wondering why the “you can only have 7 bullets” mantra is insufferable when considering self defense, may I present a recent case study/example from Professor Jacobson.
I wonder what the three masked intruders planned on using the duct tape for with this woman they found alone at home. And note that they brought the duct tape with them.
She pulled out her gun and shot one of the three masked intruders and scuffled with another. The three then fled and one was arrested with a gun shot wound to the stomach at a local hospital… (continue reading)
Think Cheshire, CT home invasion:
http://www.courant.com/community/cheshire/cheshire-home-invasion/
“Protecting yourself goes into our Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. And thousands of people died to give me the right that saved my life,” said Erin.
I like this comment from the linked story:
No double-taps.
Fire until there is no longer a target in your sites.
Either: (1) violent offender drops to the ground, or (2) there is no longer sufficient mass to stick another bullet into.
The author of this article is a flat out liar.
Anyone who has spent “so much time at the range” would NOT have had his shotgun staged by the back door UNLOADED.
LIAR! OR absolute fool who shouldn’t have owned a gun to begin with:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gave-guns-article-1.1238566
I read that too, and I agree. This is fiction, written to appeal to gun grabbers.
“Blanchfield is a Ph.D. candidate and Woodruff Scholar in comparative literature at Emory University in Atlanta.”
His byline pretty much indicates that this whole thing is made up. Wussy.
I wonder how many wussies will read that article and take their guns to a government sponsored buyback program? And of those, how many will later find themselves unarmed victims of home invaders?
I agree, that article sounds like pure fiction.
I just took him as getting scared and needs this fantasy that nobody could defend their home and everyone would cave under pressure.
I’ve been put in the position before, thankfully never had to shoot someone, but the loading of the gun is pretty automatic no matter how scared you are or how many thoughts are racing through your mind.
So I’m thinking he’s like Morgan, probably went shooting with others one day and thought he was big bad boy and expert on guns and then didn’t pay very close attention when he was instructed on how to load his gun.
Several comments indicated what he claimed was impossible.
I didn’t read closely enough on the multiple cycling he performed.
I will disagree with a few of the comments, I keep a gun near the back door in a gun rack and a gun in the closet in a gun rack near the front door. Of course I have guns in a safe as well and a handgun in the night table. But I live in the country and you never know when in the middle of the night you’re going to get woke up with wild animals or stray dogs attacking your animals, so having the rifles near the door saves time of having to get into the safe.
And he inadvertently makes a case for HI-Cap magazines…I mean if it takes trained NYPD cops a lot of shots to take down a threat…and people are in a panic during a home invasion it stands to reason that accuracy won’t be high and therefore more than 7 or 8 rounds will be needed to take down an attacker or multiple attackers ….
To that point you here of cops having to shoot a lot more rounds with more missing their target than you do of homeowners shooting intruders, less rounds shot with usually more of those hitting their target.
Personally it concerns me when I hear of stories of cops like the one in NY awhile back where they fired several rounds missing their target which was just a few feet away. Cops imho should be better trained and prove they’re more accurate with a gun. Sadly though those kind of stories are usually used against us protecting ourselves by saying highly trained cops miss and often have friendly fire yet we want untrained citizens carrying guns. When I think the question should be why are highly trained cops such a poor shot and examine that problem.
The reality is..no matter how much training…when it comes down to that moment…accuracy is gonna be lost…anybody who has served in combat can attest to that…no soldier or marine will say that every round they fired hit their target…I would say the only exception being special forces who train and shoot just about every single day when not on an Op.
Crazy things happen under adrenaline, one incident on my ship when the Port gunners engaged a Somali pirate skiff that wouldn’t stop and got too close…there were 3 guys manning that weapon and after one had shot a burst of 10 or so rounds they’d switch…over and over again…because in training that’s how they shot, to save ammo…finally some salty Gunner Chief came up took control and unleashed hell…
I’m just going to say if I couldn’t shoot any better than the cops at the Empire State Building, I’d spend every spare minute shooting targets and if couldn’t get any better than I’d just make sure I always had someone near who could shoot. He was less than 10 feet away, if you can’t hit something 10 feet away, adrenaline or no adrenaline then you are a horrible shot.
BTW, there are rumors circulating that this is a fake “fantasy story” and it never happened to this woman.
I wonder who would try to dispute it by claiming it as phony?
I may have misinterpreted this post. Maybe it was sarcasm….
jdkchem | January 31, 2013 at 8:51 am
For some “people” this is clearly some form of hero fantasy and never happened. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gave-guns-article-1.1238566
I thought that comment related to the article linked in the comment. There are other links and comments that make it clear that the woman’s story is true.
This happened just outside of Houston. If it is fiction, there are a lot of radio talk-show hosts and TV newspeople who have been “had”. In addition, the local constabulary have then arrested an innocent hard-working un-papered border crosser who now poo’s out of two a**holes.
Can someone explain which article we are talking about as fiction? I get confused sometimes.
The article about the woman in Texas is true, but the piece in the New York Daily News (the guy who gave up his guns because it was the right thing to do) is suspect.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gave-guns-article-1.1238566
This what drives me crazy…anti-gun nuts think that all of us with guns are great shots like Mark Wahlberg in “The Shooter” or something. If I ever have to shoot off one of my guns, it will be a miracle if I hit my target in 5 shots. I’m still holding out hope just showing it off and acting like I know how to use it will be enough.
Try a different gun. I’ve been around guns all my life, but am a much better shot with a handgun than I am a rifle. My daughter on the other hand is a much better shot with a rifle than she is a handgun.
I’ve always had a tendency to shoot too high, my brothers and Dad always told me I was pulling up the gun anticipating the recoil. I didn’t know it at the time but apparently they made me an assault weapon when they fabricated me a handle similar to a pistol grip on a rifle when I was younger and it did improve my shot, less tendency to pull up.
Also have somebody to check the gun, sometimes the guncan be off. I had a friend who bought a new .22 revolver and she said she couldn’t hit anything with it, she brought it over one day and I shot it and it was shooting to the left. So it wasn’t her as much as her gun. I had my daughter’s fiance to tinker with it and got it shooting straighter. That’s out of my expertise, I just can tell you when it’s off, not how to correct it.
Tex or others might be able to help you with how to test that theory.
Be very careful with your gun when using it to protect your home. Personally, I won’t take my gun outside my home due to all the grey areas in self defense laws that can lead to charges against the shooter. For example, I wouldn’t want to be this guy:
http://www.kgw.com/news/1-shot-in-Vancouver-after-prowler-call-188831361.html
He went outside with his gun to protect his property and now he finds himself charged with 2nd degree murder. He stands a very good chance of losing everything he owns as well as his freedom. The risk just isn’t worth it to me.
Now, if someone breaks into my home, that’s a different story. All bets are off at that point and I’ll gladly shoot to kill.
Thing is, a real innercity home invasion is one of those things the average soccer-mom and family doesn’t want to think about, it’s that ‘magical thinking is how I live in the city/suburbs’ world. Most of the time I heard the man of the family talking about how he had baseball bat in the closet and how he’d grab that as wifey called 911 and fend of the Vandals. Of course part of that magical thinking is that (a) the police have a response time of less than 15 minutes (believe me, that is magical thinking) and (b) the invaders are going to do much more than laugh at the pasty white urbanite wielding a bat when they have guns. The fallback fantasy is that if they just submit and let them have anything they want, and you swear you won’t identify them that they’ll leave you and your wife and kids alone. Something that will stay with you forever is rolling up on a home robbery where the whole family’s been assaulted and killed.
Main reason I recommend more than six shots is that unlike TV and the movies, bad guys can take a number of hits and still keep coming. Police academies and officer safety classes have a number of films that show armed perps absorbing over a dozen hits from pistols and shotguns and still being able to fire back – they are most decidedly dead but they just don’t know it yet. Also, unless you hit a vital area (heart, brain, high on the spinal cord) a pistol hit will not guarantee an immediate stop. I refer you to the details of the infamous 1986 FBI Miami shootout wherein people were hit with killing shots but kept on shooting. If you are going to use a pistol, and any time you use one it’s automatically ‘deadly force, you want to STOP your opponent – or opponents. Example: Three invaders, six shots, you have two shots each to stop them in just a few seconds. Try that under calm and controlled conditions on a range, never mind the heat of the moment on an invasion. If you ain’t gonna use a shotgun get the largest caliber pistol you can EFFECTIVELY handle, with at least one spare mag, and practice, practice, practice.
They’re usually taught two to the chest one to the head.
When people are high on drugs, sometimes it takes more than even those three shots to take them down.
Yep, we were taught the ‘triple tap’ BUT the shooter’s reactions are far different under stress than in a controlled environment on a range. Many professionals in a shooting situation will empty their weapons without even knowing it, and hits will frequently be as common as misses. A real shooting is a whole ‘nuther game.. When we were armed with revolvers instead of pistols there were a lot of stories about cops still squeezing the trigger and dropping their hammers of fired shells, just instinctively continuing to shoot after their guns were empty. I like a shotgun, a nice 2-3/4 inch shell of 1-3/8 oz of bird shot traveling at about 1300 FPS at any range inside of my house is as good as a slug and will knock anyone right off their feet. In the urbs it has the added advantage of dissipating faster than a solid bullet if you miss and it goes through a wall. If you are forced to use deadly force, use deadly force.
here you go lovelies, a bit of unrelated interesting news.
That so many folks are ignorant about firearms is another failure of the educational system.
If you shoot once a month……..you probably shoot 6x-12x more than your average policeman. When I was a policeman in the 80′s we had to shoot once a year to qualify……..btw the Sarge was supposed to check our weapon before each shift……I saw my Sarge pull a 3 inch wad of fuzz out of one senior patrolman’s weapon……….
If you shoot someone……you best keep your mouth shut until you talk with your attorney……and you’d best say something about fear for your life and your family’s lives……hopefully you’ve resorted to deadly force only when someone has broken into your home and you’re in fear for your life……….most states won’t give you a pass for protecting your car/property…….
As stated above……….the average police response time is 15 minutes……..unless you can protect yourself……….you’re at the criminal’s mercy for a long time…..
Oooo……my final thought……..THE POLICE ARE NOT THERE TO PROTECT AND SERVE……(google it with Supreme Court decision)……..THE POLICE TAKE REPORTS AND DOCUMENT THE MESS THAT NEEDS TO GET CLEANED UP.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
When seconds count…….the police are minutes away.