“[Reloading new magazines into a gun more often] is really not the end of the world, but it is the end of the world when you lose a child or a loved one.” – New Jersey State Sen. President Steve Sweeney, quoted in Steve Sweeney recall campaign over ammo magazine capacity locked, loaded by gun rights advocates [via nj.com]
reloading new mags into the gun more often won’t slow a killer down or change the equation one small bit. So the laws written to restrict mag limits are nothing but harassment of honest gun owners.
In real life conditions, isn’t the whole mag reload issue a moot point? When the suicidal shooter showed up at the Garden State Plaza, cops didn’t do anything for 6 long hours. I think the guy only had a shotgun, but let’s say he had a pistol with a bunch of 10 round magazines. He had plenty of time to reload thanks to the army of useless cops sitting and waiting outside. And that’s what really bothers me about cops and politicians in NJ. They won’t do ANYTHING to confront an active threat, but they will do EVERYTHING to prevent law-abiding citizens from arming and defending themselves in public.
Yes, but if he only had a bunch of 7 round mags, then what a dramatic difference that would make in the carnage …
Or if he had 10 round magazines, but was legally prohibited from loading more than seven rounds. After all, the deranged sociopath wouldn’t want to risk a misdemeanor during his mass murder-suicide.
They just got excited that they could lose 4 or 5 voters at once, can’t have that.
The answer to, “After all, if it only saves one life, isn’t it worth it?” is very often, “No, it’s not.”.
The problem is that folks who use the “if it saves just one life” don’t realize that limiting magazine capacity takes more lives than it saves.
One thug life possibly saved is worth a nation-wide campaign spending millions and millions of dollars but, possibly causing dozens (hundred?, thousands?) of deaths of law abiding firearms owners because they can’t carry enough ammo to defend themselves isn’t worth even mentioning…..
The proper response to that, IMO, is:
(1) it is going to be ignored by those who wish to do harm to others, so it will NOT save one life;
(2) it is going to turn responsible gun owners in to criminals, despite the fact that they have not only harmed no one but have no intent to harm anyone; and
3) it is going to make self-defense more difficult for responsible gun owners, and therefore it is going to cost lives, not save them.
So, in short, it is ineffective, immoral, and counterproductive. In summary, it is stupid.
So, he’s saying that magazine capacity limitations forcing you to reload more often at the range aren’t the end of the world, but having to reload (due to capacity restrictions) in a defense gun use IS the end of the world if it causes a loved one to die while you are reloading. I don’t think he said what he meant to say.
Disarmament advocates completely dismiss the very concept of armed self-defense. If you and your family die at the hands of some thug while helplessly begging for your life without the means of protecting yourself….well, that’s the price that must be paid to prevent law-abiding
citizenssubjects from having firearms.r/K Selection, or in other words, herd collectivists vs individuals.
+1.
It’s called social justice since you have something someone else doesn’t, ie money, and the only reason you have it is that you scammed it from its rightful owner. The thug is just reclaiming it.
According to them, if you have a gun you are a criminal. You just may not realize it yet.
Yeah, that’s how I read it. And I’m fairly certain that’s not how he meant it.
I believe THAT is the irony the original post was referring to
From TFA:
“”These mass shooters … when they’re stopped, it is often at the point where they have to reload that they can be overwhelmed. It’s better that point be reached after 10 bullets than 15,” said Miller. ”
Hey, Miller, isn’t that because these shooters you are talking about attack in gun free zones so that one pretty much HAS to wait until they stop shooting to fight back and have a chance?
Bryan Miller, I suggest you consider the possibility that the active shooter be stopped sooner if engaged by someone with a fighting chance (ie, armed with a gun) as soon as he starts shooting.
You know, like has happened many times, but goes under reported because it does not fit your narrow minded narrative. For example, check out the Arapahoe High School shooting where Deputy Englert ended the assault before the bad guy to the point of needing to reload.
http://bearingarms.com/good-guy-with-a-gun-armed-school-officer-stopped-arapahoe/
….A lot of evidence surrounding mass shootings suggests that the shooter stops exactly 1 bullet after a reload….
My understanding of the body of data is that they generally end at first resistance and ‘reloading’ has little/nothing to do with it.
I was going for the fact that in most of the cases THEY end it. My apologies, I’m under caffeinated and my snark is weak.
You are absolutely correct. A quick glance at reports from shootings shows that, overwhelmingly, shooters are stopped either by equipment failure, or they simply commit suicide at the first sign of resistance.
I have never found a single report that stated an attacker was stopped by being rushed while reloading. I’m not a professional researcher by any means, but if attackers being stopped while reloading was such a successful tactic, why can’t I google even a single account of this happening?
Loughner in Arizona; after shooting Giffords and the other people; was reloading when a women tackled him, then other people piled on.
I think that’s the only example of a mass murderer being stopped while reloading.
I believe that was caused by equipment failure attributed to the extended magazine he was using.
Precisely. I’d like to see numbers on how many mass shooters have ever been “rushed” as opposed to offing themselves at the first sign of resistance.
It’s almost a cliche at this point: “I was going to shoot up my school, but I tripped going up the stairs, so I just gave up and shot myself.”
The only incident I know of where a shooter was stopped during a reload was Loughner in Tuscon. Apparently he fumbled it a bit, and a couple of people in the crown tackled him.
In order for someone to take advantage of a madman’s reload, wouldn’t they first need to be of the proper mindset and actually have been closing on the shooter’s position to engage them? How does a “forced” mag change give an advantage if everyone is running away? I would be wary to approach a reloading gunman and I would have a knife.
You would have a very narrow window to disarm a gunman while he/she is reloading, only 1.5 seconds. The irony is the best way to take a gunman out is such a short amount of time is to shoot them with your own gun.
‘Reloading new magazines into a gun more often’ isn’t the issue, nor is magazine capacity. Crazed individuals who are determined to go on a killing spree are the issue. 1. Mentally disturbed people most likely won’t follow silly little laws that inconvenience the rest of us (not to mention being 2A infringemts), and 2. Even if they do follow silly little laws, that’s not the end of the world as Sweeney says – it will simply serve as a minor inconvenience for a crazed shooter. They’ll empty a mag regardless of capacity, drop it & put in another & empty it . . . unless a good guy with a gun is nearby & takes action to stop it.
I’d prefer a bullet from my firearm stop a mass shooter than the possibility of them being tackled while reloading. Are they idiots? Do they know that assumes that the person was charging the shooter while being shot at? I think there might be ONE case where the shooter reloading gave people a chance to jump him and that was in a relatively closed in area.
They’re not idiots, they just can’t imagine a world where anyone but police have a gun.
I don’t know of that case, but I do remember hearing about a case where a guy tried to talk the shooter down and got shot for his trouble.
So, how long does a reload take? A couple of seconds, tops?
Consider you are being shot at by a BGWAG. You are down behind cover. He stops shooting. By the time you realize it MAY be because he’s reloading a mag AND formulate an attack plan, AND begin to execute that plan, he’s shooting again.
The whole premise of reloading being their undoing is stupid on its face, and shows Mr. Miller, et al, have no clue what they are talking about…here in the real world, anyway.
There was a mall shooting where a gunman with a rifle was shooting. A CCW carrier challenged him without cover, and when told to drop his gun, the gunman simply turned, fired, and put the CCW in a wheelchair. Action beats reaction every time.
That’s the one I was thinking of.
Take home lesson: talking in a gunfight can get you hurt or killed.
There is another where the shooter was charges and tackled in a reload: Kip Kinkle, in Salem, Oregon.
Is that quote even English? I have no idea what he is trying to say.
Totally ambiguous. The only way to know which way he meant that is by the (D) next to his name.
I’ll believe him once NJ police officers have to follow the same laws (on and off duty).
Sorry, but this one bothers me, too. I still won’t believe it even if they DO get the cops to comply with the same laws we have.
The Bad Guy is NOT going to comply.
One of my big concerns with mag limits is “multiple attackers.” Given that hit rates and threat stoppage rates are as low as they are in real SD shootings, low cap = marginally effective against ONE attacker and suicide against two or more.
And though I have no real studies/stats to back it up, it’s just my sense of anecdotal evidence that multiple attackers in home invasions and street crime (read: knockout game type stuff as an example) is increasing.
“Reloading new magazines into a gun more often] is really not the end of the world, but it is the end of the world when you lose a child or a loved one.”
I read this as decreasing the amount of ammo a mag can hold, only puts children in danger because protectors have to reload.
What Christie was saying when the photo was taken:
“I just signed the bill that requires all state government salaries to be paid by Mt. Gox in bitcoins.”
I think they’re going in for a kiss…
I make it a point to carry the highest capacity magazine I can with my EDC, my Walther PPQ M2, 17+1 is nice to have at the ready
Proof positive that Hoboken isn’t the only thing in New Jersey that stinks.
Pennsylvania didn’t seem to be phased by NJ’s limit of 15. Do you think they’ll acknowledge 10? I’ll bet I could go there now and get a beta-mag NQA. Hope no mass murderers find out! Be sure to tell them to turn on the strobe over their head so the police know to go after them too.
I will soon be getting some +5 extensions for my M&P .40 magazines, which are already 15 rounds.
Why?
1.) ‘Cause it’s my responsibility to have as much ammunition on hand as I can comfortably carry (concealed preferably) in the rare instance I need to use my weapon. It is my responsibility to able to provide adequate security for myself as nobody has any obligation to do it for me. As much as that sucks (and it does), that is the reality of it no matter what anybody anywhere says to the contrary.
2.) ‘Cause ‘MURICA, which is really all I need to say in the first place and obstructionist gun control advocates can go pound sand. It is in FACT, as part and parcel to keeping and baring arms, my right to do so.
In fact, I’m going make a point to get the largest (while simultaneously the most reliable) magazines for ALL the weapons that I own, and as many of them as I can possibly afford. And I sincerely hope that it pisses people off. A lot of people. I’m sure it will.