“Sure we can imagine that there is a day when your home may be under such great attack by robbers that you would need such force. But it is almost always imagined and never real. You don’t ever hear of situations where a high caliber glock solved a problem that a gun which can only shoot six bullets at a time could not (gun nuts, please spare me the correction on how these guns work, we all get the idea of what I’m saying).” – Michael Helfand, an Aussie at chicagonow.com
You don’t ever hear of situations where a high caliber glock solved a problem that a gun which can only shoot six bullets at a time could not
Sure you do – anything where speed is essential or if there’s more than one assailant. I may enjoy shooting revolvers on the range, but when it’s my life on the line, I’m going with a semi-auto every time.
You missed the point of the statement completely. The question is not the logic of more bullets+speed=more dead bad guys. It is pointing out that in pretty much every recorded altercation, less than six rounds are fired and no reloading is necessary. This is a generally accepted fact. You are envisioning a combat situation that is unrealistic outside of a war zone or your imagination.
Why is it when LEOs are in a shoot out with 1 suspect, it requires 2-4 officers and an average of 39 rounds being discharged from their weapons?
Possible answers include:
1. Leo’s may not be able to hit what they are aiming at.
2. Leo’s have itchy trigger finger’s
3. Leo’s are trained to shoot till the body stops twitching.
4. Leo’s believe the suspect to be a zombie.
Good point. Maybe the police should go back to 6 shooters.
Jimbo, you missed the point of MY statement completely. Even if you “only need six shots” (which is utterly absurd to tell someone how many shots they’ll need against an unknown number of attackers and unknown conditions), a revolver isn’t ever going to be as fast as a semi-auto pistol. Don’t believe me? Do some timed exercises with a friend and see how fast you can pop two pop cans with a pistol and with a revolver. Unless you’re Jesse James reborn, the pistol is going to be faster.
Again, the point of the original statement is that “commando mode” is simply not needed. I’m not debating the speed difference between autos and wheel guns. I typically carry an auto my self. Statistically all that is not necessary that it the point. In fact, most incidents end with only one shot. If you have data showing otherwise, I’d love to see it. Nobody is hating on your precious Glocks, but the speed that you’re so proud of simply seldom comes in to play. That is pretty much what the original statement is saying, but for some reason you’re not getting it.
We get it, it’s just pointless. Stats mean absolutely nothing to a man kneeling on the floor with a gun to his head. The statistical unlikelihood of something happening offers no comfort to those very few unlucky people it happens to. This confusion of preparedness for paranoia is unintelligent and sick.
Really, Jim? You don’t think that if you have someone charging you, the speed difference between a semi-auto and a revolver is relevant?
In fact, most incidents end with only one shot.
And my point that you keep ignoring is that with a revolver, the odds of you getting that one shot off are lower than with a semi-auto pistol.
“In the ’70s and early ’80s, I had the opportunity to study ISP’s experience in depth, on the ground with them, and debrief a number of Illinois troopers who had been in shootings with the S&W 9mm. I was able to identify over a dozen who survived with that gun who would have died if they’d still been armed with six-shooters.
Two, Sgt. Les Davis and Tpr. Ken Kaas, survived when either the seventh or eighth shot in their pistols stopped the gunmen who were coming at them. Neither would have had time to reload a sixshooter. Two more, Tprs. Lloyd Burchette and Bob Kolowski, survived because of the rapid reloading capability of the auto pistol in a sustained firefight. All the rest had survived because someone got the gun away from them, tried to shoot them but couldn’t because the trooper’s gun was on safe, or the trooper had deliberately activated the magazine disconnector safety in the struggle.”
-http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_148_24/ai_64565394/
It may be true that a majority of citizen/crook contacts end with merely showing the weapon. It doesn’t mean that when the flag flies for me I won’t be facing some crook with a rifle or shotgun-or multiple assailants armed with illegal automatic weapons.
The original quote CLEARLY refers to a HD situation. Police officers are likely to actually be in a gun fight, where regular dudes like me are not. Law enforcement is a completely different issue than civilian self defense. If you want to provide data, through up some statistics about how many self defense incidents result in multiple shots being fired followed by a reload. I wonder if you actually read the quote.
Revolver fans seem to be optimists. If I were an optimist, I wouldn’t have guns at all, because most people don’t experience violent crime at all.
I might be that I only ever need a single shot, but I’m not going to count on that being the case.
And Carlos nails it on the head.
More rounds in your firearm equals more option to stop bad guys. If you want limit yourself to 6 then go for it. As for me I’ll put my trust in the 31 rounds that rest in my Glock 19 + spare magazine.
It is mostly true that most home defense shootings have historically not required the home owner or resident to need a magazine with multiple rounds and re-loads. The recent trend with multiple attackers (two plus) now going after a person is, I believe, still occurring mostly on the street. While that might be temporary good news for home break-in defense it does not solve the issue of not needing adequate firearm (multi-shot six-plus) defense in terms of a semi-auto with backup mags while outside. Trends can evolve too with multiple invaders going into homes. I still feel comfortable relying upon my five shot revolver for home defense and for out in public. For now. If-when crime increases for whatever reason from economic to social political collapse there might come a time when I turn to a semi-auto for home and street defense which is not my preference since I’m a wheel gun man.
I’m going to have to get me one of these high caliber Glocks he speaks of. I wonder if I can get one one in .44 mag, .454 Casull or .460/.500 S&W Magnum.
He is talking about the .300 win mag one
Don’t forget the ones in .50AE, .500Beo or .458 SOCOM
.338 Lapua Magnum SBR. Made by Glock. Now I want one.
I’m unaware of any common pistols which shoot more than 1 bullet at once.
“Gun nuts, please spare me the correction on how these guns work,” because I want to make a point. You see, I don’t have time to be rudely interrupted by those crazies on the fringes of society who have actually practiced and used the firearms I am condemning. Please refrain from commenting about firearms if you actually have experience with them (you wacko, paranoid gun nuts).
Mr. Helfand, you have the freedom to be absolutely helpless. I have the freedom to choose between my .357 and my Glock 40, either of which is more useful in a dire situation than a condescending attitude.
Just wait for that double barreled 1911 to catch on.
In a rare and pleasant occurance that is when we see these articles, not only is commenting not blocked but the author is acutally reading them and adding to the comment section. It’s a nice opportunity to rebut. I’ve written a few reply comments to the author at the article link.
One of my replys to author in comments;
“I got a C (barely) in the one constitutional law class I took”
…way to throw your credibility out the window. The bill of rights does not grant rights, it merely protects pre-existing rights. If you read the way every amendment is written it is clear that all the rights are presumed to already exist. It doesn’t grant anything, but protect something from being taken away.
“So drinking is legal, driving is legal, drunk driving is not. Guns are legal, but we don’t let people hold grenade launchers outside of Midway Airport”
…Yes and it’s illegal to murder someone. But when danger is seconds away, the police are only several minutes away at best. It has been admitted and declared many times that the police are not responsible or liable for protecting you. They usually only clean up the mess after a murder. Personal protection is a personal responsibilty. The state of Illonois infringes on a right that “shall not be infringed” by not allowing citizens to protect them outside of their home. In DC vs. Heller, the judge declared that the 2nd amendment does extend outside of the home. All these “reasonable restrictsions” (buzz words to sway the ignorant) you talk about don’t actually do anything. I’ll try to find the study, but I read one the other day showing that almost half of all assaults and home invasions involve more than one assailant, and you’re saying I don’t need more than 6 rounds in my gun? I have to lose the tactical advantage I have in my home in an effort to protect my life, family, and property against someone who wishes to do harm against them because you are scared of guns?
PCP exists. Your argument is invalid.
LOVE pcp, its right up there with bath salts for me… anywho…
Who here has a high cal glock? 10mm would be the “highest power” (dont .45 acp me, im speaking about fast with penetration), and I do not consider that “high power”… .460 S&W however… Oh wait dang that’s a revolver, a 5 or 6 shot…
Lone Wolf makes a 40 Super conversion barrel for the 45 cal glocks. 135gr 40 cal @ 2000fps.
The author clearly does not have a basic understanding of firearms and even admits it when he states “gun nuts, please spare me the correction on how these guns work, we all get the idea of what I’m saying”.
I would argue one needs a basic understanding of the subject if you’re going to rant about “bullets that pierce bullet proof vests”. The only thing we get buddy, is that you’re pissed off about a subject you can’t be bothered to research.
Ignorance leads to fear.
Fear leads to hate.
Hate leads to bullshit.
+1
I agree. Everyone I have met that is pro gun-control has either never shot a gun in their life or has only once or twice. When they see or think about themselves operating gun, it is foreign information to them and makes them nervous. So because they are nervous about themselves handling guns, how do you think that makes them feel about OTHER (scary) people having guns.
aka “psychological projection bias.”
My first thought exactly. This individual knows nothing but the false info he’s been fed by the Brady crowd. He knows nothing about gun calibers or “bullet proof” vests, or the absence of “armor piercing”handgun ammunition, or the fact that pretty much any rifle will go through a vest “like butta”.
Nope never hear about it….. Wait we do…..
15 rounds to stop a threat:
http://www.wnd.com/2004/06/24858/
There are many more…
Yet another bozo who does not know what he is talking about. He has no problem with guns and ammo for hunting “bambi”, but wants to make sure we have no ammo floating around that can pierce bullet proof vests. Duh, the most popular Deer rounds, 270 Win and 30-06 and 308 will shred any commonly worn police class III vest out there not to mention that those 44, 45 and 500 rounds from a revolver will do the same
Level 3 armor are rifle plates, i’m assuming you mean Level 3A. But cops generally dont wear that, except for maybe SWAT, cops wear level 2/2A. You could penetrate one of them with a 44mag from the 6 shooter the author demands we be limited to.
And level 3a vest will stop the 44mag and 45 long colt you mention.
Uhm ok I am confused.
Is he talking about higher capacity magazines, or SA to DA ability to shoot faster?
Is he talking caliber, or what?
I haven’t had coffee yet so forgive me, but his article seems well pointless…
Glocks come in a variety of calibers. Some I prefer over others, bullet velocities and weights are different for each. I think I need more coffee and a cigarette to ponder this question… 🙂
Exactly, is vagueness does nothing put point out his ignorance.
This man from the Chicago Government News Ag-er, Chicago Tribune is dead wrong.
“It’s a quarter past ten AM, fifteen minutes after opening, when the two men rush through the door wearing ski masks. One is physically huge, pulling along a wheeled suitcase with one hand and wielding what Gary recognizes as a blue steel Army .45 automatic in the other. The second, average-sized, stands a few steps inside the doorway with a sawed-off shotgun. “You don’t believe it’s happening,” Gary will say in a guest lecture to one of my LFI classes later. “It takes a few moments for the reality to sink in.” The one with the pistol is rapidly moving up the aisle toward him, screaming, “We’re here to clean you out!” The man with the shotgun fires a blast into a display case, and the employee behind that counter dives to the floor.”
Those business owners needed a lot more than 6 bullets.
-http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_163_27/ai_99130342/
In for the high caliber Glocks. I’ll have mine in .44 mag!
It may be true that I may only need 4-5 rounds to take care of the threat…
BUT – It’s my god-given right to have as many rounds as I damn please. It’s my life, and I will live it and preserve it in any manner I please.
I vote we send some bad guys to this guy’s house to test this theory.
Just what we all need, someone deciding what we should carry or use for defense from the comfort of his desk.
The assertion that somehow a six-round limitation saves lives when compared to larger standard magazines simply overlooks the reality of madmen and gangster boys. Jim may not realize that he is merely expressing a preference, that madmen should rely on a “New York Reload” rather than a larger semi-auto magazine. I see not public-safety benefit. We repeatedly see a pattern of behavior which has nothing to do with guns or magazine capacity: Parents become aware that one of their offspring has a serious psychiatric problem but does nothing much about it, or knows one of their family has a felony record but also a gun. It isn’t about the gun. They could as well torch a nightclub or plow an SUV through a weekend crowd. It is about parent and other family members taking responsibility for the mental health of their family. I cannot think of a case that’s made the papers involving multiple homicide where this was not the case. The family typically says something like “we knew he was truly nuts, but we never imagined it would involve violence. We wanted to get him into treatment, we just didn’t.”
Everyone here except for Cameron is missing the point. No one has to justify needing 10, 12 or 17 shots to defend oneself by citing case studies. Statistics are irrelevant. The rarity of multiple-shot DGUs is irrelevant. We have the right to bear arms for the defense of home and the realm. Period.
I’d like to Ask Michael Helfand if he enjoys a nice pinot noir with dinner. Because no one needs a good wine, it’s not Constitutionally protected and has led to many deaths. Statistically speaking, your life will *never* be saved by pinot noir, but it may be ended by it.
People who claim to allow us six shots really want us to have none.
For home defense the author is right. Please be honest here: armed home-defense situations alone are very rare, even in bad neighborhoods [1]. Those that do occur are usually settled with just a couple shots. 5 rounds in a revolver is more than enough for the job.
OTOH, if I had the need for a home-defense gun where I lived, it would be a semi-auto anyway: I can’t hit @#)(*@# with a revolver, as DA triggers screw me up something awful: I’m far more accurate with a CZ-75 in .40 than a .22 revolver! (Tested with back-to-back rentals).
[1] This is excluding those who’s home business involves illicit pharmaceuticals.
Average, of course, is only part of the statistics. May I also have median, mode, and (naturally) standard deviation and skew?
Why would one plan for merely an “average” encounter, as that would mean that 50% of the time you’re doomed?
In my neck of the woods, I am just as likely to have to deal with a black bear as I am a meth head. Either one breaking down my door, is true inspriation to have a weapon that fires more than 6 rounds. We also have packs of feral dogs that used to be pets until their owners skipped out on their home mortgages and left town leaving Fido behind. That would be another situation where 6 rounds could easily not be enough to solve the problem. I understand packs of feral dogs are a problem in many areas of the country. So would Mr. Helfand still say 6 rounds is plenty if there are 10 dogs in a pack attacking his kid, his wife, his mom?
I don’t know Mr. Helfand, but I think its really swell of him to tell me what I need. How’s this for my response: STFU, a$$hole. I’ll decide what I need, and you decide what you need. Fair?
“You don’t ever hear of situations where a high caliber glock solved a problem that a gun which can only shoot six bullets at a time could not.”
Lolwat. I think maybe this guy doesn’t know what “caliber” means. Maybe he meant to say “capacity?”
That’s what I thought. Either that or we can say goodbye to .45 ACP and GAP pistols, and the .50 GI.
That statement combined with the whole “6 rounds at a time” thing, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that he’s not overly familiar with what he’s ranting about.
Maybe he meant to say “capacity?”
Or maybe he just doesn’t know dick.
Funny, the people who believe that doling out bullets is in the best interest of another person. Funny also that it gives them a sense of accomplishment, power, and security, as they are powerless against criminals who don’t really give a rats ask about how many of anything is legal or not. In an attempt to bring a sense of control and power over an evil, they merely make it easier for an evil to have power over them. Ironic, isn’t it?
Ironic, isn’t it?
I think you misspelled “pathetic.”
When it comes to self defense, people are safest with a gun that they can control and shoot well. If you’re more accurate with a revolver, shoot a revolver. If it’s a pistol that you shoot better with, shoot with a pistol. The fact is, generally, rifles and shotguns are easier to aim and control in a self defense situation. Being able to place the shot on target is more important than having 14+ rounds in the magazine. Nobody who supports firearms rights is trying to tell you that you can’t have a given type of gun. But use some common sense. Having a gun and being able to hit something with a gun are two different things. Shoot whatever gun you shoot well.
I’m pretty good with a 12 gauge pump.
I can say unequivocally that those who disparage cops for a high percentage of misses in a gunfight, have never been in a gunfight.
agree with joseph. if you’ve ever tried to perform a simple task after a shtf moment, such as lighting a smoke or unscrewing a canteen cap, you’ll never again pass judgement on a cops marksmanship during a gun fight. amazing how complicated a zippo can be after the rush is over. addressing the need or lack of need for more than 6 rounds misses the point. i accept no imposed limits on my right to protect myself or my family. the heart felt opion of a liberal does not change my god given or constitutinal rights to do just that.