Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes

Some interesting studies..

I feel that maybe banning the transfer of semi-automatic firearms, you might reduce the amount of gun shot wounds hospitals have to deal with.

The study admits there are some holes and some problems with some of the studies, but it definitely makes for an interesting debate.

But the study goes on to claim that revolvers are used to kill more so than semi-autos, however most criminals use low end guns like hi points etc..

What someone needs a handgun that holds 17 rounds + 1 in the chamber is absurd. There is no rational reason someone needs that many rounds to fend off a home intruder.

And according to DC laws even years after DC v Heller, the courts there ruled that you cannot carry guns outside your home and you cannot posses a semi-automatic firearm or transfer them in DC



https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-usa-guns-ban-idUSTRE7933MB20111004

https://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf


https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/2/151.full

DC has chosen a course of unconstitutional "rule making" that makes a mockery of the Law. 

The numbers clearly prove that handguns are used more in crime/ murders. 

I am not going to debate the round per magazine point.  I think it is arbitrary, and leads to more "rule making beyond the purview of the Constitution". 

As far as legislation, I think that it is necessary to have a constitutional Amendment that updates the scope of the 2nd amendment. 

As well as a 4th amendment update. 

etc. 

We probably need an entirely new constitutional convention.

How would you know this, because you watch cops shows?

I could provide link to example after example of police firing up to 50 rounds at one person.

So your premise is false.

Well its unconstitutional in quotes possibly.

Depends on what expert you ask however the district courts in DC have ruled 2-1 that DC residents can posses a firearm just as long as it is not a semi-automatic one.


But I do agree with the idea of a 10 round clip being arbitrary.

However,,,, a 6 or 5 shot revolver is a significantly big difference to a glock or a ruger holding 15+1 or 17+1 bullets...

The point is I have always been in favor of states regulating their own gun laws but in the DC v Heller case

The court ruled that you cannot place any unreasonable or outright bans on an entire class of firearms the way handguns were banned and long guns had to in inoperable conditions in the home.

Either way the district court in DC has spoken so...

isn't semi automatic a class of gun?

Yeah you'd think so right, because in Gun Fight by the famous UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, also a scholar on the 2nd amendment.

He talks about how over 70% of the handguns owned today are semi-automatic if you count revolvers  as semi-automatic because they basically do the same thing, at least double action ones do but 6 shots is a whole lot different than 18 shots..

Nonetheless why would a citizen need a glock 19 that holds 15 +1 bullets.. over a 6 shot revolver is essentially what the district court ruled..

https://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-over-Right-America/dp/0393077411

Check out his book.. Really a great read, not editorialized.

I will check it out

There is no doubt that a ban on semi autos would eviscerate the 2nd amendment.

But isn't the minutiae of number of bullets kind of beyond the point.

I could buy 10 revolvers for $2,000 and have sixty shots without reloading.

Then do you ban speed loaders?
Do you ban spare cylinders for quick reload time?
Do you ban target practice because it gives potential shooters more time to practice quick reloading?

Any weapon that could take a magazine would be banned right?

There goes any hunting rifle or shotgun.

I never said any of that stuff.

I simply said, that semi-automatic handguns dont serve any purpose being the in the hands of ordinary citizens because single action and even double action revolvers and rifles are more than enough of a deterrent to fend of criminals..... as we have seen with Mrs. Herman from GA......

Buy 10 revolvers, be my guest.. in fact distribute them..

I guarantee you there is less gun crime and less gun violence...

Because every bullet counts and every bullet is so vitally important.

And I do think this discussion is also crucially important since it is illegal to posses a glock in the district..

Your hypotheticals are kind of ridiculous..

So distributing revolvers willy nilly would reduce gun crime?
You have a serious mind block when it comes to the fact that it is not the tool but the person who yields it.

Nearly every personally owned firearm is a semi automatic. You are attempting to bring technology back to 1865.

Sure. If you can pass a constitutional amendment have at it.

No more knee jerk gun control. People that believe in the second amendment should not accept anything short of a constitutional amendment when you have laws proposed that would eviscerate a constitutional right.

If you want to destroy the constitution at least make it honest.

We should probably revoke the 4th and 5th amendment while we are at it.

But if you think its the person, and you're against licensing and registration and restoring gun rights to felons how does that make you sound?

I can absolutely without a doubt guarantee you that if people nowadays only had firearms from the early 1900s late 1800s there would be drastically less gun crime.

It is constitutional though, a the district level in DC so it has been ruled reasonable and more than sufficient to protect oneself from criminals..

Suffice it to say that I will always be wary of a government that wants to make rules that undermine the constitution.

If it is important, then there is a route to amend the constitution.

That is why the constitution was created. To protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Another reason that Pure Democracies are abhorrent and always go crazy and essentially commit suicide.

We were founded on a principle that no group (however large) can take the rights of a minority. We live in a country where this principle is tested every day, and there are large groups begging for rules that circumnavigate the constitution.

I agree that there are tons of things that make sense and are reasonable, but if they don't take place by constitutional amendment they are not only null and void, but dangerous to all of our liberties.

I will not fault you stiln for being ignorant of cases like the Peter Soulis incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1h9PYRZKMc

Some details.

Officer shoots perp 22 times, 17 hits center mass, with a 40 cal Glock loaded with ranger SXT's, and the perp (only slightly intoxicated ) lives until the hospital. Officer gets shot 4 times but he is saved by vest.

Policeman shot 22 rounds and connected with 17 which allowed police officer to be shot 4 times.

Perhaps you've been watching too many old war movies where they were obviously giving oscars away for the actor that could come up with the most creative way to dive on the ground after being shot.

17 hits center mass and perp not stopped. Hmmm

The old adage of not using the exception to prove the rule escaped your debate training, no?

Oh brother, the audacity that you have to bring up an exception to the rule with that scenario really shows your incapacity and unscholarliness. 

I am not shocked though..

BTW, the staple child for the NRA in a thread not too far from this one, a woman (bear in mind) used a .38 revolver to fend off a criminal with more than enough stopping power..

What are you going to tell me next that a 9mm, .38, .357, .22 all do not not have a enough stopping power, that every citizen needs to purchase a .45...  Just shut up

pumkin. Gather what you like. I will say that in some situations 6 rounds may not be enough. If someone wants to carry 17 rounds I will understand and so will you.

The number of rounds is such a red herring debate.  

Just an "exception" I'm sure.

A pump action shot gun and a revolver is more than enough..

Please don't enter my threads with asinine and extreme scenarios again.. You have a history of doing this, especially when you try and bring up your own personal experiences of your wildly different occupations you lie about..

I disagree...

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map