Friday, January 25, 2013

High Capacity Semi-Automatic Firearms


Why does anyone need a high capacity semi-automatic firearm?


I write instruction guides on defense and security for the average, everyday Joe Nobody. My readers are typically law abiding, peaceful folks who believe in self-reliance – a lifestyle and mindset more closely resembling that of our pioneering forbearers than anything remotely political or radical. In addition, I have taught countless hundreds of people from all walks of life the proper usage of a firearm for their specific need. I always recommend a rifle, such as the AR15, for home defense over a handgun. My reasoning for this recommendation is based on experience, logic and cold, hard facts.

Like most of you, I’ve watched the ongoing debate over gun control with a keen eye. In some aspects, I’m proud of the discussion – a clear indication of a republic at work. While the ebb and flow of arguments and political counterpoints has fueled considerable frustration from my perspective, one single question conspicuously repeats, apparently the fulcrum of the issue:

“Why does anyone need a high capacity semi-automatic firearm?”

In my writings, I recommend such a weapon for home and ranch defense for several reasons. The primary justification for any high capacity firearm (a lot of bullets in the magazine) being the proven inaccuracy of someone under life-threatening stress.

To understand what I mean, you need look no further than statistics for the New York City Police Department. According to data published in the New York Times (hardly a mouthpiece for the NRA), the well-trained, professional police officers in the nation’s largest city only hit their target with 1 out of every 5 shots fired in anger (or fear) – a ten year average of 18%.


That’s right, 1 of 5 for alert, on-duty, capable lawmen, and 77% of those shots occurred when no one was shooting back. What type of accuracy can a sleepy, poorly trained Joe Nobody expect when awakened in the middle of the night and scared to death for his family’s safety? How will Joe’s accuracy be affected when one of those intruders returns fire? How many rounds does the average citizen need when being confronted by 2 or 3 intruders? I guess we all should learn to re-load those 10 round “clips” quickly.

The accuracy equation is compounded by stopping power. Have you ever heard the phrase “double tap?” It originated from the British Special Air Services, one of the most elite Special Forces units in the world. You see, our cousins from across the pond found that their 9mm weapons often failed to disable the average bad guy with a single shot. They learned this lesson the hard way, and thus adapted their training to fire twice in quick succession. What many people don’t realize is that handguns commonly don’t stop a threat with a single shot. A frightened homeowner has a far better chance of successfully defending his family with a rifle – one that has a lot of bullets.

Even if you aren’t worried about stopping an attacker, there are still a lot of very valid reasons for owning a high capacity weapon.

I’m unsure what the farmers in rural NY are going to do when the feral hog epidemic finally reaches their state. According to Mississippi State University, these pests already inflict 1.6 billion dollars’ worth of damage to farms, ranches, forests and parks annually. They are spreading rapidly. In the south, we’ve been fighting them for years, mostly with high capacity magazines in military style weapons – and we’re losing the war. Wild pigs aren’t like deer – you don’t just shoot one for sport. These aren’t cute little potbellied porkers released into the wild. We are talking about swine that are extremely aggressive, can weigh north of 150 pounds, and sport razor-sharp, bacteria-infested tusks. You have to eradicate the entire herd (normally 10-20 animals), which requires a lot of bullets. They scatter at the first shot, and adults can run with a horse. Most feral herds I’ve seen would snicker at seven rounds.

Both sides of this debate should also consider the tens of thousands of private professionals who play a vital role in the security of our great nation. These folks aren’t police officers or associated with any government agency. Yet they guard nuclear facilities, federal institutions and even parts of the United Nations. I guess in New York they’ll be restricted to carrying a 6-shot revolver? You know, extremists watch cable news, too. And you can bet that your average terrorist already knows security at nuclear power plants is private, and with the new legislation, they can’t have more than seven rounds in their weapons. It wouldn’t surprise me if some enterprising lunatic just established the nuclear power plants operating in the state of NY as a higher priority on his target list.

What about the tens of thousands of private military contractors who serve our country? These professionals work for the Department of Defense, Department of State and dozens of other federal agencies. The incident at Benghazi, Libya has been in the headlines lately. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans lost their lives in a terrorist attack there on September 11, 2012. Two of the four men killed that day were private military contractors. During 2012, more private contractors were killed in Afghanistan than U.S. military personnel.

These patriotic Americans are typically required to purchase their own individual weapons and are responsible for their own training. They hold no law enforcement license – they are just private Joes who happen to carry a rifle for a living. They work in some of the most dangerous places on earth, faraway lands where our government and corporations need them. They must own and use high capacity weapons in order to train for their job. I, for one, appreciate their help as more of our sons and daughters serving in the military would be at risk if not for these individuals.

Speaking of education, I need to point out the vast firearms training infrastructure that exists in the United States. Hundreds of private facilities, employing thousands of professional instructors, train and educate our military and law enforcement personnel every day. The average person probably isn’t aware of these institutions because they rarely have accidents or generate newsworthy events.

These private businesses train police departments, domestic and foreign military, and even employees of federal agencies. It will come as surprise to many, but the U.S. military doesn’t have the budget or facilities to train all of our troops. The Pentagon contracts out some of this work to private firms, such as Gunsight in Arizona, CSAT in Texas, or ACADEMI in North Carolina. The list could go on and on.

Unless you live in a major metropolitan area, chances are your local law enforcement officers were trained at a similar private facility. A small town or rural county can’t afford its own dedicated location and instructors – they save your tax money by using private enterprise. When we call 911, we expect a well-trained, competent professional to answer the call. No one wants Barney Fife rolling up, nervously trying to pull a single bullet from his breast pocket. These instructors are often required to own and maintain their own firearms and skills. Don't we all want the very best for our first responders?
So when someone makes the statement, “There’s no good reason why anyone needs a high capacity, semi-automatic firearm,” they are simply wrong.

Joe Nobody is the best-selling author of several books addressing self-reliance and defense. In addition to his popular instruction guides, the fiction series Holding Their Own is a favorite among preppers. You can find all of Joe’s works on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, ITunes and other outlets, or visit www.holdingyourground.com.

14 comments:

  1. The only problem...this is logical and based upon facts. The "other side" simply wants to argue emotion and fear...and I am afraid the vast majority of Americans are no longer able to recognize the difference or folly of legistating/voting with thier emotions only.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Under the proposed laws, I will have turn over my little .22 as it hold more rounds then will be allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's not the Bill of Needs, it's the Bill of Rights.

    If perceived need is the issue then argue back, who needs a car capable of exceeding the speed limit, who needs more food than is necessary to sustain life, etc.

    Pick one of their sacred cows and pick it apart thusly...

    Petra in Oregon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. You took my argument. I love your blog by the way.

      Few people need a motorcycle capable of 200 MPH. People buy them because of want.

      I don't currently need a magazine holding many rounds, but who knows in the future. I defend my right to buy one if I choose to do so.

      My biggest concern is the constant chipping away at my Constitutional rights.

      Delete
  4. Enola,

    Joe Nobody

    (captaincrunch)

    You right about how semi-automatics have and edge over everything else. I said before on this blog. The lunatics in power don't care about the Sandy Hook massacre, its just an excuse to disarmed Americans so we can't fight back against the "real hope and change" and the "real fundamental transformation of society they hope to achieve"

    If the lunatics had their way, my cold dead naked corpse will be moved by slave labor from the gas chamber to the ovens and cooked down to dust with millions of other Americans. Sorry to get graphic, but genocide happens every year, over and over again.
    At the end of the day, its all about preventing what happened in Russia, 1920's, Germany, 1930's, China, late 1940's, Veitnam (under the french) 1950's Cambodia, 1970's, Ethiopia. 1980's, Yugoslavia, 1990's, East Africa. 1990's, Somialia,1990's (Bill Clinton Really Screwed up the 1990's, those were some good years for genocide) Subaharan Africa, genocide against Christians since about 2000. I left out the white Christian farmers of Rhodesia 1970's,1980's.

    I may have missed a few.

    I may sound negative, but I have concluded that our society is degenerating at an every increasing rate with no hope of turnaround. The powers that be have concluded that "control" is the key to a society living in harmony. That will only create more hate and discontent and social unrest. The next response will be even more control, then more unrest until a systemic collapse occurs.

    The only way out of this "cascading loop of failure" is to do the exact opposite. less control (smaller government) lower taxes, economic recovery. Strong second amendment, less crime. If you know your neighbor is armed, your more polite to your neighbor. Its human nature. This could turn into a "cascading loop of success" but I don't see that ever happening without a "fundamental change back to the Constitution"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Personally I find that most (not all) of those who want to ban certain firearms have never been around firearms, think all firearms look alike and shoot the same ammo. Or are afraid of firearms for some reason, or fail to understand those who mis use the firearms to commit crimes are the problem not the majority of firearm owners.

    On a side note. It also makes me mad that some billionaire mayor of NYC who has 24/7/365 armed security thinks the rest of us also have the same protection he has, so we shouldn't need/want firearms in our own home. But those folks are akin to the person who decries the sight of a cow that has been slaughtered and hanging being dressed out, while enjoying a big steak dinner at some over priced NYC restaurant. Where the heck do they think that steak came from?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Enola,

    Joe Nobody

    (captaincrunch)

    forgot to mention that in the Assult Weapons Ban Bill, law enforcement can own assault weapons and so can Public Officials??????
    Public Officials can call dial 911 and be placed on hold just like the rest of us.

    What do they have to fear????

    ReplyDelete
  7. .......The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons EQUIVALENT in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

    We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
    The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
    Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.
    Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?...

    January 10, 2013
    Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.
    Copyright © 2013 Andrew P. Napolitano


    As per Judge Napolitano - we should have firearms EQUAL to what we may be confronted with. A man who knows the Constitution!

    Natokadn

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree. It's about control.

    Protect your right as you would your children. If either are taken away or you ignore them, they could be gone forever.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Enola,

    Joe Nobody

    (captaincrunch)

    I just got in this evening four more mags from Checkmate Industries for the M1A rifle. Two 20 rounders, and two 25 rounders at the price that they were two months ago.
    Also, a little off topic, I ate barbecue twice today. The second time it was accross the street at the Oil Field workers house with a friend of his that is a natural gas diesel tech (he carries a Kimber 1911 like I do) It was fun drinking beer, tending to barbecue fire in the driveway with two friends (one of which had is 1911 on his hip) Inside the house there were two' three year old kids and one two year old inside going bonkers with the wives in the kitchen.
    We talked about 16 cylinder natural gas fired diesel compressors, H2s Gas, Methane plugs and other fun and interesting oil field guy stuff.

    This was the best evening I had in while...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you. I had yet to find a good clear reason as to why high capacity magazines should be available. I was not aware how bad the wild pig population had gotten.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Enola,

    Joe Nobody,

    (captiancrunch)

    Sorry to take up more space again, but on westernrifleshooters.blog I found a link to maxvolicitytactical.blogspot with a 20 min training video that was "excellant" It was film in Iraq or Astan (cant remember) in 06' and in the first 12 mins I watched vehicle tactical training that can be used for ambushes, disabled vehicles etc. and small unit tactics involving laying down supressing fire etc. Myself Im more comfortable with tactics like this on a ship or small boats. A word of warning, some of the songs on the video have some four letter words in them (something I specialize in being a former sailor, blankety, blank, blank)

    ReplyDelete
  12. If none of you fight with force if necessary the act of aggression against the constitution then you deserve what will become of you. Hitler did the same thing and took over countries without ever firing a shot.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hitler did the same thing and took over countries without ever firing a shot.

    ReplyDelete