Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumA revolver on its own would have been inadequate.
Last edited Wed Feb 28, 2018, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)
I recommend that all DU'ers discussing gun issues and possible bans watch the full video (shared below) and read the full article at this link:
https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/tina-ring-ashley-lee-mom-daughter-tulsa-robbery-video/
I'll excerpt the allowed number of paragraphs, and provide some comments to get the discussion started.
A mother and daughter fought off a robber armed with a sawed-off shotgun at their family’s liquor store, shooting him multiple times before he fled, police say. The harrowing incident was caught on the store’s security cameras.
The daughter is seen working the register and the mother is initially off-screen when the robber enters brandishing a sawed-off shotgun. The women are then seen putting their hands up and otherwise peacefully complying with the robber as empties the register of its cash. He moves off screen, presumably exiting the store, but inexplicably returns, perhaps wanting to steal more. By this time, the younger woman has retrieved a revolver from under the counter and handed it to her mother, and also retrieved a small-caliber (perhaps .380?) semi-automatic pistol for herself.
Tina Ring, 53, and her daughter, Ashley Lee, 30, were working at Forest Acres Liquor in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on February 22 when the incident occurred. Police say the suspect, Tyrone Lee, checked himself in to a local hospital with four gunshot wounds and is expected to survive.
Both women shot Lee during the incident, police said.
“I think I’m still in shock,” Tina Ring told the Tulsa World on Saturday. “I don’t think I have really processed everything yet.”
The suspect is believed to be connected to a string of several armed robberies in the area in recent weeks, police said.
Tyrone's sawed-off shotgun was apparently unloaded, or this event could have turned out much more tragically. Nonetheless, the larger and stronger man was able to wrestle-away the revolver from the mother, fortunately only after she had emptied it of its ~5 rounds. But by that time, Tyrone had been hit at least twice with bullets fired by the women.
Tina Ring told the Tulsa World, “I didn’t want him to hurt my daughter. That was my main thought.” She said they tried to give him the money and get him out of the store, but then he came back.
“All I was thinking was ‘Just give him the money and go,’ and next thing I know, I see him back in my face,” Ring told the newspaper.
Ashley Lee told ABC News, her mother, “was all I could think about,” during the horrifying experience. During an interview Sunday, Ring said that Lee, “saved my life,” and her daughter responded, tears in her eyes, “you saved my life.”
These women acted as safely and responsibly as I could ever imagine. They initially complied with the assailant, they called 911 as soon as they could. They only fired their own weapons when the assailant reinitiated contact. And yet, a full load of a revolver was not enough to even slow the assailant down, and the rounds from the semi-automatic pistol were what allowed the two women to escape with their lives.
I'd really like to hear from the DU Chairborne Commando Brigade (Virtue Signaling Division) who have been telling me for over a week now that a revolver is plenty of protection, and that all semi-autos need to be banned...
Full video (graphic):
-app
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)New York switched over totally in 1993. I don't know much about guns, but isn't it more a function of the ammunition given she was able to hit him twice. How many bullets do you want a shop keeper to spray around the store. Also revolvers are far more reliable and safer for infrequent users.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)There is a reason why police departments and members of the general public both have moved-on from revolvers holding 5-7 rounds on average to semi-auto pistols holding 6 (for a subcompact) -17 rounds (many standard duty 9mm pistols) on average.
No one wants to "spray" any quantity of bullets "around the store." The only goal is to stop the threat and insure the safety of the innocent. In this case, five rounds from a revolver was not enough. Given that police officers hit their targets ~18% of the time during armed altercations, the mother hitting the assailant even once with a 5-shot revolver under the extreme stress of a threat to her and her daughter's lives is impressive.
Again, this is an actual case that happened this month, not some musing about police actions of 30+ years ago.
Regarding your point about "the ammunition," small-framed people (particularly women) have to make choices between recoil, grip size, and effectiveness. In self-defense discussions, .38 and .380 are considered the low-end of adequate, and I think that this conclusion is borne-out here. It took four rounds connecting to incapacitate the assailant. Hollow-point rounds might have helped (though the article does not mention what rounds were used), but the old saying is that "9mm might or might not expand, but a .45 is not going to shrink." The problem is that many women do not feel comfortable with a .45 handgun. They are large, although in a semi-automatic, their recoil can be manageable for many with practice.
-app
PJMcK
(21,998 posts)That's what happens on TV, anyway.
PJMcK
(21,998 posts)The snark in you last paragraph weakens your argument substantially.
We can have different opinions and voice them respectfully.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Was one round all it took in this actual case? Life is not TV.
Yes, I added the "Chairborne Commando" bit upon-edit. But I see no reason to politely listen to people who are so ready to remove practical tools of self-defense from people who have committed no crimes.
-app
PJMcK
(21,998 posts)My initial response was snarky because I agreed with your point that a revolver would be a weak defense against an aggressive assault, as detailed in the account you provided. Sorry you missed my point as I thought it was obvious.
I stand by my other comment; the OP was your statement and you weakened it by attacking those who disagree with you. You'll never convince them of your viewpoint when you purposely alienate them.
I apologize for missing your initial humor. Understand that at one point in time, DU had a prominent poster who in all seriousness claimed that a can of beans was enough of a self-defense tool for anyone, so sometimes sarcasm here is hard to detect. He claimed that throwing it would be enough, though in my case it would be more effective if I could be prescient enough to eat it ~4 hours ahead of time and then fart on the assailant...
Anyway, the first several paragraphs of my OP are geared toward convincing the undecided or those engaging the issue with a minimal knowledge about guns. But I have no hope of convincing the "Chairborne Commandos" who follow in the footsteps of the long-departed Mr. Can-o-beans. DU rules against call-outs prevent me from naming present names, but their posts can be found by searching for "gun-humper" or "ammosexual." An obsession with gun-owners' penis sizes and general adequacy is also a good indicator of people who are well beyond persuasion on this issue.
-app
PJMcK
(21,998 posts)
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)Also a 380 is not "small caliber" it is a 38 caliber that is fairly slow. Not much difference between size wise than a 9mm. If the revolver had been a 357 or 44 magnum maybe the outcome would've been different. But then there is the fact that the mother emptied the revolver and only hit the perp twice evidently in non vital areas. If she had a 9mm Glock with a high capacity magazine she may have missed a lot more times. Revolver or simiauto like the 380 makes little difference if one cannot hit what they are aiming at.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.
In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.
Bad marksmanship? Police officials and law enforcement experts say no, contending that the number of misses underscores the tense and unpredictable nature of these situations. For example, a 43 percent hit rate for shots fired from zero to six feet might seem low, but at that range it is very likely that something has already gone wrong: perhaps an officer got surprised, or had no cover, or was wrestling with the suspect.
Although I shoot enough to know I can hit a paper target at close range without trouble, I have never been in a life-threatening situation such as this, and make no claims about what I could do, or how accurate I could be under that kind of stress.
-app
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)Paladin
(28,243 posts)That would be a heavy pull, making the cocking and firing of the pistol difficult, and making accurate shots less likely.
marked50
(1,364 posts)to drive the discharge of the gun's hammer from a from a non-cocked position. Quite the opposite of a "feather" trigger.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)It's a measure of the force needed on the trigger to fire the gun. With a double-action, that involves cocking and releasing the hammer. With a single-action, it involves only releasing the hammer. With a striker-fired pistol like the Glock, it can vary. With most striker-fired pistols, the striker is partially cocked in its resting state, so it's sort of a "one-and-a-half" action rather than strictly single or double.
The 12-pound Glock trigger arose in the transition period from double-action Smith & Wesson .38 revolvers. Those required a long and moderately heavy pull on the trigger, so cops got used to "staging" them in drawn-gun encounters: They had their fingers on the trigger and were already exerting force on it before they had made the final decision to fire. With the much lighter Glock triggers, this ended up causing unintended discharges.
The optimal solution to the above situation is training: Keep your goddamn finger off the trigger unless and until you're ready to fire. But the NYPD brass, in their infinite wisdom, decided it would be easier and cheaper to have Glock put in 12-pound trigger springs so as to avoid these unintended discharges of the weapon. (Standard Glock trigger pull weight is 4 to 5 pounds.) Here's the problem: It's very hard to hold a pistol securely on target while wrestling a heavy trigger to its discharge point, so accuracy suffers. This explains the extreme low hit rate of NYPD cops in gunfights and why so many innocent bystanders were hit in a recent incident in midtown Manhattan. In other words, NYPD cops' guns are safer when they don't need them, but considerably more of a danger to the public when they do.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 28, 2018, 01:13 PM - Edit history (2)
This S&W forum post mentions an 18 lb. spring being stock in a Model 36 revolver:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1961-1980/85820-da-trigger-pull-model-36-a.html
I don't know how that translates to actual trigger pull (does leverage or other springs make the trigger pull some fraction of 18# ?), but the mother was firing her revolver double-action, so presumably experiencing something similar to (or worse than) what NYC officers now experience with their Glocks.
-app
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)9mm parabellum = 9x19
.380 = 9x17
A .357 or .44 Magnum packs a lot of recoil for any shooter. Also, in short-barreled revolvers, the extra powder of these magnum rounds is mostly burned outside the barrel, reducing the utility of these calibers for compact handguns. In a 6" barrel, they are devastating, but this was a 2" snubnose.
-app
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)No mention of calibers that I could find for either pistol. I am guessing that the revolver is a .38 from the recoil seen in the video (greater than expected from a .22).
For all I know, the semi-auto could be .380, .32 or even .22 rimfire. Whatever it was, going larger would be prudent.
-app
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)Semi v revolver.
Back in the day I knew a Houston pd dectective who emptied his 38 Special into a man who just kept coming. He bought a Colt 45 ACP. Several years later he used it in a similar situation- 1 shot and the perp stopped. Slow moving big slug is the ticket regardless of revolver or simi auto.
AZ8theist
(5,417 posts)Every single shot hits the zombies in the head EVERY SINGLE TIME.
That's just like in real life, right?
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)DoctorJoJo
(1,134 posts)A double action revolver (almost all are) fires every time you pull the trigger, just like a semi-auto pistol. This whole affair needs caliber to assess. The .357 Magnum revolver that most police used to carry is still considered the most lethal anti-personnel handgun. Police went to semi-auto pistols because they carry more rounds and have easier trigger pull. The .380 pistol mentioned is one of the least powerful rounds--it is essentially a short 9mm. So this example serves no useful purpose to evaluate effectivity.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Hammer-fired semi-auto actions not only discharge the round upon a trigger pull, but also cocks the hammer back so that the subsequent round can be fired single action (i.e.- light trigger pull).
I know that striker fired guns and Glock and similar "safe action" triggers on newer semi-autos have changed the definition quite a bit, but I still don't hear people lumping DA revolvers and DA semi-autos into one large category.
I guess that the shooter's experience can be similar between a DAO revolver and a DAO semi-auto, but the semi-auto pistols I own are all either Traditional Double Action (i.e.- described in first paragraph) or Single Action (1911).
-app
I believe DAO semi-autos were reverse-engineered for people who wanted a hammer-fired pistol but (a) were nervous carrying cocked-and-locked single actions, and (b) wanted every trigger pull to feel the same.
DoctorJoJo
(1,134 posts)See the video:
Phoenix61
(16,994 posts)in it what do you think the outcome would have been?
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Watching that video, the mom is not vicious or going out of her way to harm the perpetrator. In self-defense situations, you shoot until the threat is stopped or the gun is empty. In this case, the latter outcome happened first, and the assailant was then able to grab the gun, pistol whip the mom, and then try to shoot the daughter (but the gun was empty).
There's no point in going too deep down "would have" rabbit holes, but all evidence in the video points toward the mother handling the firearm competently enough to keep possession of it until it was empty. And once the gun was out of the equation, the assailant's larger mass, greater strength, and viciousness became the dominant factors.
-app
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Thanks for the deep research and your interpretation of the outcome. I'm so totally convinced all policy going forth should be based on this single incident.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Kaleva
(36,259 posts)The odds of me, you or most anyone else here at DU ever needing a gun to defend ourselves or a loved one at any time during our lives is very low.
You cherry picked one video to support your claim.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)As opposed to just surviving the encounter (And I agree the perp's death greatly increases the odds of surviving) then hell yes! Hell, get 2 of them and pump 200 rounds at the perp and to hell with the stray bullets that miss him! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Also, if one is ok with children getting the same treatment then by all means, support even looser gun control. Hell, Stinger missiles and claymore mines all around! What's the death of of 2000 ( https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/2/23/17044810/guns-killing-high-school-kids-alarming-rates ) kids a year when compared to the power rush of spraying 100 bullets in a few seconds and turning what ever you're shooting into hamburger?
Put it this way. If I have to choose between to my child's life and the 2nd amendment, I choose my child. Others are free to value the caress of a semi-automatic more than a hug from their child but damned if I'll let anyone minimize MY child's life so they can hump a semi. Opposing a ban on military grade weaponry, semi or auto, is valuing guns over children and I find it selfish and sickening.
You asked for responses and even tossed in a free insult as incentive. I won't return the insult but being inconvenienced so less children die at school seems a small price to pay. You apparently disagree but I guess all of your children are alive.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)This actual example is of a mother-daughter pair saving each other's lives.
In what actual situation does one have to choose between the Second Amendment and the lives of children? There are many other policy proposals (free healthcare, basic income guarantees, etc.) that could reduce the social conflicts than can lead to shootings that do not involve the confiscation of several hundred million firearms and a gross denial of a civil right that has been part of American law and history for more than two centuries.
-app
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)I've lost a child and stand by what I wrote. You don't have to like my response, agree or anything else. I am not calling for the repeal of the 2nd but if forced to choose, I choose my child. Yes, there are many things we can do to reduce these shootings including denying civilians the ability to purchase military grade weaponry like the AR-15. I don't think anybody's "right" (It isn't.) to own military grade weaponry is worth the death of our children. As for "...part of American law and history for more than two centuries.", so was slavery but we managed to change that and our country is the better because of it.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2018, 11:57 PM - Edit history (1)
If the ban of popular, semi-automatic firearms is the topic, your and my positions seem irreconcilable. However, movement seems to be afoot to tighten-up background checks significantly, and I can see myself supporting such a proposal as long as it does not seem to be step 1 of a larger gun registry and eventual confiscation scheme.
If I am ready to support stronger background checks, are you ready to drop the calls for bans? Finding common ground usually requires movement by all parties.
-app
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)We live in a democracy and since most of us don't even own any type of weapon I like my odds of banning all military grade weaponry versus your odds of keeping them available to the general population. In addition, even if you didn't support stronger background checks, again, most of us do so the loss of your or any other assault type weapon owner's support means nothing. In short, we don't need your support to do anything we've mentioned here because you're already in the HUGE minority.
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/a-minority-of-americans-owns-most-of-the-guns-and-drives-gun-agenda-studies-show
"A 2017 poll by the Pew Research Center found that the amount of Americans who actually own a gun themselves is at about 30% of the country's citizens. Maybe this should be obvious math but here it goes anyway - about 70% of the people in the U.S. do not own a gun. Among households, 42% of Americans live in a home where someone keeps a gun. That leaves about 58% of Americans who live in a gun-free house."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374692-poll-97-percent-support-background-checks-for-all-gun-buyers
We will progress and save our children's lives without you.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2018, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)
I predict that Democrats will take a shellacking due to their embrace of such draconian and unconstitutional initiatives. I think you'll soon find out that support for gun control is "a mile wide and an inch deep."
-app
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)you're wrong. If you hadn't noticed, Americans are a little sick and tired of having their children gunned down at school. Whodda thunk?
spin
(17,493 posts)which I feel they are, what can be done right now to prevent such tragedies?
Banning evil looking semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 will not eliminate school schoolings. A shooter at Virginia Tech back in 2007 managed to kill 32 people and wound 17 others with two semiautomatic pistols. Even banning all semiautomatc firearms wouldn’t prevent a school shooting by some individual armed with a book bag full of revolvers.
Even if legislation passes to ban certain or all firearms it will not occur in the immediate future. Therefore it is quite possible we will see many more school shooting in the meantime.
So what can we do? Here’s some ideas.
1) Improve the physical security at schools. There are many ways to accomplish this such as limiting access to a few entrances which can be monitored . A more expensive idea is to install metal detectors at such entrances. Require ID badges to open the doors to at these entrances. Improve the doors to classrooms and install bullet proof glass in such doors so a shooter can’t stand outside and fire into the room.
2) Train students and teachers how to react in a school shooting. If a shooter enters the room teach the students throw everything available at him including books, book bags and even desks.It could distract him and has a better chance of saving lives than hiding under desks.
3) Have adequate, well trained, armed security at every school. Every gun free zone that houses large numbers of people should have such security. Many buildings in large cities often have far better security personnel present than most schools. The high school in Florida where the recent tragedy occurred had only one School Resource Officer for 3000 students in several buildings. I don’t feel that was adequate.
4) Imporve our mental healthcare system in this nation so that people with severe mental issues that makes them a danger to others can find treatment.
5) Make sure the authorities take action when some individual is busy waving enormous red flags indicating he is a danger. If that would have happened with the shooter in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida this recent tragedy might have been prevented. All levels of government including the FBI totally dropped the ball by ignoring the numerous warnings about this shooter.
6) Make sure security personnel at a high school know their job is to confront the shooter and that the police who arrive on the scene make entry rather than setting up a perimeter outside while the shooter is in the process of killing innocent people inside the building.
7) After the police enter and clear an area of the building allow EMTs to enter and treat the injured. Minutes count and can save lives.
8) The media should limit naming the shooter as much as possible. Giving him a week of 24/7 publicity can also inspire copycat shooters looking for similar attention. (Notice I avoid naming the recent high school shooter.)
9) Insure our NICS background check system for the legal purchase of firearms is up to date and flags those who have serious mental issues endangering others.
Who knows? Perhaps in several years or a decade or two certain or all firearms may be banned. Perhaps not. However I feel we should take action now to try to deter school shootings as much as possible and in my opinion there is a lot we can do.
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Fresh_Start This message was self-deleted by its author.
samir.g
(835 posts)Cops use the deadliest ammunition available, one that does the most damage to a block of gelatin.
A lot more than the target ammunition that many people buy.
samir.g
(835 posts)Ban the guns and now neither party has a firearm, and this entire situation is a moot point.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Oh, wait. How has that pot ban since 1937 been working out?
bad guys still get guns even in places where they are completely banned, see Mexico and Venezuela. It is well known in criminology circles that criminals don't go to gun stores or gun shows.
If neither had a gun, the guy would be larger and stronger and would have overpowered both of them.
samir.g
(835 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)In fact, not an argument at all.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)if it is, it's a losing argument
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)...already will turn theirs in?? lol, good one, I know a bridge for sale if you are interested.
Exactly what % of over 300 million guns do you figure would be turned in and what % of those would be currently owned by prohibited persons, ie criminals/gang members etc?
