And How Many Bullets Do You Need?

[lostinblue 1,989]

And How Many Bullets Do You Need?

Jim Yardley

Last night, I watched the amateur home video of the shootout between Boston and Watertown police and the person referred to as "Suspect #1."

I learned that there were something on the order of 200 shots fired during that firefight.

Think about that for just a moment. It took a dozen or more cops, who are trained professionals, who practice on at least a weekly basis with their firearms, to fire 200 rounds before he finally died.

Yet our politicians (at least here in New York, and some in Washington -- as well as other places, I'm sure) are saying that the most anyone needs to have to protect himself from armed intruders is seven rounds in the magazine.

Only seven?!

Of course, it took trained police, who were not dealing with an unexpected attack, who were not roused from a peaceful slumber, who were not worried about their wives and kids, some 200 rounds to kill one dangerous man.

Makes you wonder if those politicians have even the slightest, tiniest hint of anything connected with the real world, doesn't it?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/and_how_many_bullets_do_you_need.html#ixzz2R9TDikBo

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Yes but they aren't overly concerned with someone having enough bullets to have a shootout with a large number of police, it really is not the standard they are shooting for (no pun intended). This argument will not likely sway them.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

His brother running over him with an SUV and dragging him 30 feet down the street may have been what actually killed him. He was supposedly alive prior to that when he was handcuffed on the street and then his brother sped away in the SUV and did him in.

[Darnell 8,479]

holy chain-dragging, BatMan !

[lostinblue 1,989]

His brother running over him with an SUV and dragging him 30 feet down the street may have been what actually killed him. He was supposedly alive prior to that when he was handcuffed on the street and then his brother sped away in the SUV and did him in.

Is this just some drunk they picked up at the end of this video

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/video/8790685-naked-suspect-taken-into-custody-in-watertown/

[himher 634]

Yes but they aren't overly concerned with someone having enough bullets to have a shootout with a large number of police, it really is not the standard they are shooting for (no pun intended). This argument will not likely sway them.

I think the point was how many bullets the police needed to stop one criminal, which, from a standpoint of bullets being used for self defense (and what is this shootout with police thing? You jest) the police needed more than just 7.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Is this just some drunk they picked up at the end of this video

The guy at the end of the video wasn't the guy killed nor was he one of the bombers. What's your point?

http://boston.cbslocal.com/video/8790685-naked-suspect-taken-into-custody-in-watertown/

Not the bomber.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Okay, so let me understand the line of argument here. Because a guy hell bent on causing maximum carnage engages in a shootout with police where dozens of officers fire hundreds of shots before he can be stopped, John and Jane Doe must have high capacity magazines at their disposal to be able to properly defend themselves.

It would be fair to say, then, that I need a tank or tank busting grenades because a bad guy may steal a tank and threaten me with it, right? And don't say that bad guys don't steal tanks. They most certainly do. And the only thing that stops a bad guy with a tank is a good guy with a tank or a good guy with a tank busting grenade.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Penny Lane 8,159]

[duraaraa 203]

Okay, so let me understand the line of argument here. Because a guy hell bent on causing maximum carnage engages in a shootout with police where dozens of officers fire hundreds of shots before he can be stopped, John and Jane Doe must have high capacity magazines at their disposal to be able to properly defend themselves.

It would be fair to say, then, that I need a tank or tank busting grenades because a bad guy may steal a tank and threaten me with it, right? And don't say that bad guys don't steal tanks. They most certainly do. And the only thing that stops a bad guy with a tank is a good guy with a tank or a good guy with a tank busting grenade.

I generally don't think that video games cause violence, but after seeing that, I'm not sure anymore. After all, tanks are the most fun thing to get a hold of in every Grand Theft Auto-like game.

[justashooter 430]

Think about that for just a moment. It took a dozen or more cops, who are trained professionals, who practice on at least a weekly basis with their firearms, to fire 200 rounds before he finally died.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/and_how_many_bullets_do_you_need.html#ixzz2R9TDikBo

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

biggest falsehood in teh discussion. most cops train twice a year, firing 50 rounds every 6 months, and pass qualifications if they can hit a man sized sillouette at 21 feet. the average green monkey can do better.

most hobby shooters train 6-25 times as much as a common beat cop, hence their better results:

GUNS

The Untold Truth

John Gaver

November 29, 1999

Updated October 17, 2005

John GaverForget everything that you've been told about guns. Ignore the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Disregard all of the dramatic press reports. Regardless of how good the arguments on either side of this issue may seem to their proponents, most of them will have absolutely no effect upon their detractors. That is because they do not answer the single most important question to all involved.

What About ME?

What about ME? What about MY personal safety? What about MY children? What about MY family? Regardless of which side of the fence you are on, it all comes down to the question of your own personal safety and that of your loved ones. Any argument that does not address this question will fall on deaf ears.

With that in mind, let me demonstrate conclusively that any restriction placed upon gun ownership is not only contrary to your best interest, but does in fact, increase the likelihood that you or a loved one will become the victim of a violent crime.

The Criminologists' Story

The most revealing fact in the gun-control controversy is that among all of the criminologists who have ever changed their opinion on gun control, EVERY LAST ONE has moved from a position supporting gun control to the side skeptical of gun control and not the other way around... NOT EVEN ONE! Think about the significance of that one simple fact.

Criminologists are the experts who study crime, criminals and their motivation. Their entire career centers around the collection and analysis of statistics surrounding crime and the tools of crime. These are the people who make it their business to know and understand how, when, where, why and by whom guns (or any weapon, for that matter) are used. And, like anyone in any job, they learn more as they grow in the job. So, if the evidence were there to support gun control, wouldn't you expect that at least a few Criminologists would have switched from opposing gun control to supporting it?

Think about it...

The mere fact that the more a Criminologist learns, the more likely he will be to oppose gun control, should tell you something. Criminologists who started out supporting gun control are having to face the fact that gun control has not worked anywhere that it has been tried and that you are safer in a society where guns are not restricted, than in one where gun control laws are in effect.

Even Dr. Gary Kleck, the nation's leading scholar on crime and firearms, began his research as a staunch gun control advocate. He is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause - certainly not someone who you would label as a conservative. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate. Yet today, he has moved, by his own words quoted in The Denver Post, November 28, 1985, "beyond even the skeptic position." That is quite a shift.

James Wright, a gun control advocate who received a grant to study the effectiveness of gun control laws from President Jimmy Carter's Justice Department, was surprised to discover, during the course of his research, that neither waiting periods, background checks, nor ANY gun control laws were effective in reducing violent crime. In an article titled "Second Thoughts About Gun Control", in the spring 1988 issue of "The Public Interest", Wright said, "I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for stricter gun control cannot be made."

Those are just two very visible cases. The list of noted criminologists who have abandoned the gun control position is long and distinguished. Yet not a single noted criminologist has switched positions in the other direction - NOT EVEN ONE.

The Challenge

I challenge any of my readers to provide even one single example of any criminologist who has had his work, skeptical of gun control, published in a respected professional journal and then later published works supporting it. Such evidence does not exist. That's because the more they learn, the more obvious it becomes that gun control has never worked anywhere that it has been tried.

Interesting Facts

In a thesis titled "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun", in the Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz revealed some interesting facts.

Now, before anyone tries to dismiss the findings of this study as biased, because the study's author is pro gun ownership, let me remind you that the Dr. Kleck, who authored this study, is the same Dr. Kleck, who began his career as an opponent of private gun ownership.

Furthermore, criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang, who has researched guns and violence for more than 25 years and is one of the most outspoken opponents of private gun ownership, after reading this study, praised the methodology that was used, in a paper titled "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, Issue 1 (Fall 1995), p. 188.

In that article, Wolfgang begins by saying:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police."

Those are certainly not the views of your ordinary anti-gun type. This is a man who represents the ultimate in anti-gun philosophy. But to his credit as a researcher, he was not so proud that he would deny the excellent methodology employed by Kleck and Gertz. He went on to say:

"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research."

Wolfgang concludes by saying:

"The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

Principal among the facts that Wolfgang was disappointed to learn, is that Guns are used for self-defense between 2.1 Million and 2.5 Million times every year. The following facts from the Kleck/Gertz study, relate directly to this fact.

In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.

In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.

Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.

As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.

Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.

This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life.

At an estimated 263 million US population, in 1995, when the study was released, it also means that an average of 1 out of every 105 to 125 people that you know will use a gun for self-defense every year.

Dr. Kleck also wrote in his book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" that burglars are more than three and a half times more likely to enter an occupied home in a gun control country than in the USA. Compare the 45% average rate of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands with the 12.7% of the USA. He continued to point out that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606). In a related article titled, "Are We a Nation of Cowards'?" in the November 15, 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine, George Will reported that police are more than 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent person by mistake.

The Wall Street Journal reported, in an August 28, 1996 article titled, "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," that a University of Chicago study revealed that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. The most impressive single statement in the University of Chicago Study, which is an ongoing study, is the very first sentence of the Abstract on the first page.

http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

[himher 634]

Now you've gone and done it and posted some facts.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

This is scary!

If the source is accurate.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is scary!

George Will being quoted as quoting a usually disregarded survey (except by gun nutters grasping at straws) by Gary Kleck in 1994. Other surveys, including government surveys, do not support the same conclusions, not even close.