Psa

[mdkoh]

This was recently released and illustrates the downside of magazine capacity restrictions.

 

[vernsimpson]

This was recently released and illustrates the downside of magazine capacity restrictions.

Nothing here. No link or anything

 

[The2ndPatriots]

Not a bad video. But the ones pushing for the bans and regulations unfortunately don't care.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[ss1]

That's why everyone should adhere to the 1 shot 1 kill policy,
Practice****Practice****Practice

 

[GlassWolf]

OMG! Why'd he have the shoot that man so many times!!??? All he had to do was give the guy his phone and nobody would have gotten hurt! You gun-loving redneck hillbilly tea-party extremists want everybody to have machineguns! Now those bad guys just killed that family and took the husband's gun so now they have MORE GUNS! Now they're going to go shoot up schools and airports and shopping malls? Now where will I be able to buy my Jimmy Chu shoes when the mall is closed down and Kenyan terrorists are holed up killing shoppers!!?? This is all YOUR FAULT! I'm glad I live in a good neighborhood. That can't happen to MY family. We're in an apartment that has a door man and security. I have a poodle and she barks so loud the old lady next door will call the police, and they'll have guns because only they know how to use a gun, and they'll come and rescue us. That's why this can never happen to anybody but poor people of color in bad neighborhoods in real life. I know, I watch law & order on our 70" flatscreen TV!


that's pretty much how the liberals will react to the commercial.

 

[whodat2710]

That's why everyone should adhere to the 1 shot 1 kill policy,
Practice****Practice****Practice

Really? Are you a sniper camping out in your ghillie suit for days to get the drop on your target? You shoot until the threat is stopped. The guy, while kneeling, still had his hand on the gun. Still a threat. The second guy should have been facing a fresh magazine, but that wasn't the point of the video.

 

[GlassWolf]

Yeah I hve to agree, 1 shot 1 kill applies more to snipers exclusively. As James yeager has pointed out many times in his videos, I will echo his thoughts that handguns are not great at killing people. This is a reason you see so many reports of people being injured by handgun fire, instead of killed outright with one shot. If you had a chart of the power of each round from a .22 short all the wya up through the handgun range, through the rifle range up to say, the .50BMG, you'd see that all of the handgun rounds put together only make up about 2% of the chart. Rifles are vastly more effective at killing a human being. What we gain in concealability and portability with a handgun, we give up in power and range.

If you want a philosophy for handgun shooting in defensive situations, I'd tend to suggest the SEAL approach instead. "Two to the chest one to the head, every time makes 'em dead." It's a much more effective means of neutralizing a threat, but even then being able to actually hit a moving target understress with possible bad light, worries of civilians in the line of fire, etc makes hitting the adversary at all a challenge, let along cherry picking your target spots.
If you've never been involved in an actual shooting, no offense, but don't even begin to think you understand what it's really like. Train for the absolutely worst scenario you can dream up, then imagine real life being ten times worse.

 

[wolf_fire]

That's why everyone should adhere to the 1 shot 1 kill policy,
Practice****Practice****Practice

So are you advocating one round magazine restrictions then.... since people should be able to bring their assailant down with just one round?

I've never heard of something so absurd from a handgun owner (1 shot 1 kill, really?) And let's say the assailant was good and flinched at the right moment and you didn't bring him down. We would need another round, so let's go to two rounds in a magazine, just in case. Oh no, there is another assailant, let's just add two more to the magazine to be on the safe side (now we're up to four). But you know, with your adrenaline coursing and your heart beat pounding and the tachypsychia happening, you're probably not nearly as accurate as you were during your training on the range. Maybe we should up the limit to four rounds per assailant that will come after you. That's eight rounds in the magazine now... but wait, what if there is more than two assailants? The point is, you, I, they don't know how many rounds it will take to safely walk away from a life threatening situation. If you truly are that good, that in any life-threatening situation you will only need one round per assailant then we should all be begging for your training classes.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Gotta love the mentality of these Anti-Gun NUTS!

I like this "PSA" better for women...
Link Removed


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[GlassWolf]

It should be noted that the first image posted above was not actually published by Brady. It was a satirical take on their stance. Honestly though, I wouldn't put such mentality past them.

 

[ss1]

I am advocating practice and the mindset to take out a threat with the least amount of rounds. At least In this scenario.
What is the difference between the battlefield and an armed intruder in your home
How many hunters shoot a Bear with more than one round especially a bow? (same mind set)
I practice thinking the next round is the last
MY classroom
Desert Storm and 8yrs Infantry

 

[GlassWolf]

How many hunters shoot a Bear with more than one round especially a bow?

Probably a lot more than you might think. When I stop a threat, I want to make sure that threat is incapacitated, and not "playing possum" or just superficially injured and still a threat. I go into this trusting my skills and my firearm, but I also go in with the understanding that a handgun is not an efficient tool for stopping another man, and if that's all I have to work with, then I need to make sure it does the job.

 

[wolf_fire]

I am advocating practice and the mindset to take out a threat with the least amount of rounds. At least In this scenario.
What is the difference between the battlefield and an armed intruder in your home
How many hunters shoot a Bear with more than one round especially a bow? (same mind set)
I practice thinking the next round is the last
MY classroom
Desert Storm and 8yrs Infantry

Your first sentence I agree with. One should try to stop the threat with the least number of rounds. Good training will most likely reduce the rounds necessary for a good stop. I've hunted for quite some time now, and I have to say not all my take downs have been with one shot. That's what I train to do, but it doesn't always happen. This is why a lot of rifles have the capacity for more than one round to be loaded at a time.

But your analogy of hunting versus defending yourself with a rifle made me think this:
Maybe I should start carrying my AR concealed with a bipod and expensive sights. Should I bring equipment to test wind speed and take into account curvature of the Earth too? A hunt in which you stalk your prey and keep hidden from a distance is a far cry from a defensive situation up close and personal.

This may be the ideal situation in which you take down your hunt, with one round. However, the one shot/one kill doesn't always happen even with a long rifle, and certainly doesn't always happen with a handgun. This is why so many handgun training exercises teach two shots center of mass and one ocular cavity. If that still doesn't work, keep shooting until the threat is no longer a threat. The reason why even this method doesn't always work is because as you shoot them, they will most likely move, making that difficult ocular cavity shot, even more difficult.