No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer

So sayeth New York Governor Andrew “Son of Mario” Cuomo in his State of the State speech today as he railed against the semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine politicians refer to as assault weapons and high-capacity magazines used in said assault weapons and many modern handguns.  As much as I hate to agree with anything spouted by the gun-grabber high command, it’s very tough for me to find fault in that statement.  No one should need ten bullets to kill a deer.

I’m not the only one who has trouble finding fault in the governors rhetoric:

The Cuomo plan has the support of law enforcement officials.

“I thought the governor hit exactly the right note,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said.

“The governor was right on target,” Queens DA Richard Brown said, adding when asked if Cuomo could have pushed further, “[He went] as far as he can reasonably go with this Legislature.”

Of course, that assumes the sole reason anyone would choose to own a firearm capable of firing more than ten rounds without reloading is to hunt deer.  How many bullets does someone need to stop a person threatening their life?

Officers in Bronx Fire 41 Shots, And an Unarmed Man Is Killed

An unarmed West African immigrant with no criminal record was killed early yesterday by four New York City police officers who fired 41 shots at him in the doorway of his Bronx apartment building, the police said.

It was unclear yesterday why the police officers had opened fire on the man at 12:44 A.M. in the vestibule of his building at 1157 Wheeler Avenue in the Soundview section. The man, Amadou Diallo, 22, who came to America more than two years ago from Guinea and worked as a street peddler in Manhattan, died at the scene, the police said.

———————————————————————–

Judge Acquits Detectives in 50-Shot Killing of Bell

A Queens judge on Friday acquitted three detectives charged in the shooting of Sean Bell, who died on his wedding day in a hail of 50 police bullets. He said that prosecutors had failed to prove their case and that wounded friends of the slain man had given testimony that he did not believe.

———————————————————————

TIMES SQUARE SHOOTING: This Is Why Police Shoot To Kill

Police Officers don’t shoot to wound.

At approximately 3 p.m. Saturday, police fired a dozen rounds at knife wielding, 51-year-old Darrius Kennedy, shooting him in the center of Times Square.

Even then police fired 12 times Saturday and only seven rounds found their target, the rest went wild and fortunately didn’t ricochet or find an innocent bystander.

—————————————————————————–

13 Cleveland police officers who fired 137 rounds into car, killing 2, expected to be interviewed by investigators today

EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio — Investigators will begin today interviewing the 13 Cleveland police officers who fired 137 bullets Thursday at a car, killing a Cleveland man and woman in East Cleveland after a high-speed chase.

——————————————————————————

Case of man shot at 90 times on freeway ‘tragic,’ LAPD says
Los Angeles Police Department officials described the shooting death of a 19-year-old man after a bizarre high-speed chase on the 101 Freeway “tragic” but defended the officers’ actions.  Eight Los Angeles police officers fired more than 90 rounds, killing him.
————————————————————————————-
Arizona SWAT Team Defends Shooting Iraq Vet 60 Times

SWAT team members fired 71 times and hit Guerena 60 times, police said.

How many bullets does one need to subdue a person threatening a group of police officers?  It seems that number could be anywhere from 1 to 137, possibly more.  I’m going to assume that Governor Cuomo’s ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines won’t apply to state and local law enforcement, so you’ve got to ask why the governor believes the citizens of his state are less worthy of adequate protection from dangerous criminals (or unarmed civilians considered a threat) than law enforcement?

This is not a spurious argument.  A homeowner confronting an intruder in their house at night has a lot in common with the police officers involved in the shootings linked above – they fear themselves to be in imminent danger, they are faced with an unknown number of assailants who may or may not be armed, and they have a very small window of time in which they can act to neutralize the threat.

There is one key difference, however, unlike the police shootings linked above a homeowner does not have armed back-up by their side if the assailant is not subdued after firing ten bullets.  That and most people don’t wear a police belt with additional magazines to bed at night so they may not be able to reload quickly.  When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.  Why does Governor Cuomo want to make the law-abiding citizens of his state into sitting ducks?

No, the spurious argument is that hunting is the only legitimate, constitutionally protected use for firearms, no hunter needs more than three or five or ten cartridges to bag their quarry, ergo only government agents should possess a high-capacity magazine.  It’s funny how gun-grabbers  like Cuomo have completely twisted the Founding Father’s intentions for penning the 2nd Amendment.  It had very little to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting oneself, one’s family and property – whether from rogues or the tyranny of men who wish to rule them.

“End the madness now. Pass safe, reasonable gun control in the State of New York. Make this state safer. Save lives. Set an example for the rest of the nation. Let them look at New York and say this is what you can do. This is what you should do,” Cuomo said.

The governor proposed legislation to:

* Tighten the assault weapons ban

* Ban all large-capacity gun clips, some that hold 100 rounds

* Increase penalties for those who illegally buys guns, use guns on school property and who use guns in violence and drug-related gang activity

“This is New York, the progressive capital. You show them how we lead,” Cuomo said.

Fine, let’s see you lead by example Governor Cuomo.  Mandate all law enforcement personnel in New York trade their semi-automatic pistols with high-capacity magazines for revolvers.  Confiscate and destroy all assault weapons currently in the possession of law enforcement in New York and replace them with sporting rifles lacking a detachable magazine.  Make your personal security detail a gun-free zone.

Put your money – and your life, and the lives of the law enforcement personnel you command – where your mouth is.  Until then you are nothing but a tin-horn tyrant and a hypocrite.

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 9, 2013.
Filed under Gun control.
Tagged with: .
Baron Von Ottomatic was voted "Most Likely To Spend Time in a Methadone Clinic" by his high school classmates.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • GarandFan

    “This is New York, the progressive capital. You show them how we lead,” Cuomo said.

    Yeah, “progressive”. And NO mention of changing the reporting requirements of mental health officials. But that’s because we are so “progressive”. We no longer warehouse the mentally ill in those EVIL asylums and mental institutions. We no longer insist that they take their medication. Now we warehouse them in our county jails and state prisons. Yeah. “Progressive”.

    As far as that idiot Cuomo goes, he evidently watches Hollywood movies where it’s always ‘one shot, one kill’. Even the FBI doesn’t teach that after the Miami incident. Now they teach ‘shoot until the person stops doing what you told them to stop doing’.

  • GarandFan

    “This is New York, the progressive capital. You show them how we lead,” Cuomo said.

    Yeah, “progressive”. And NO mention of changing the reporting requirements of mental health officials. But that’s because we are so “progressive”. We no longer warehouse the mentally ill in those EVIL asylums and mental institutions. We no longer insist that they take their medication. Now we warehouse them in our county jails and state prisons. Yeah. “Progressive”.

    As far as that idiot Cuomo goes, he evidently watches Hollywood movies where it’s always ‘one shot, one kill’. Even the FBI doesn’t teach that after the Miami incident. Now they teach ‘shoot until the person stops doing what you told them to stop doing’.

  • stan25

    How about the North Hollywood bank shootout. when the cops found themselves out gunned by the criminals? The cops had to go to a gun store to get more ammo to combat the bank robbers, because they completely ran out. Guaranteed that there would have been more people injured if there had not been a gun shop close by.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

      Maybe, but the story is another illustration of why a ten round magazine may not be adequate for self defense. One of the robbers had been shot by police 10 or 12 times before he killed himself with a bullet to the brain, the other was shot 25+ times before he bled out and lost consciousness.

    • GarandFan

      Not only did they pick up more 9mm ammo, they also commandeered some AR15′s.

  • stan25

    How about the North Hollywood bank shootout. when the cops found themselves out gunned by the criminals? The cops had to go to a gun store to get more ammo to combat the bank robbers, because they completely ran out. Guaranteed that there would have been more people injured if there had not been a gun shop close by.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

    Recently, there was a story about a woman who shot an intruder, in the face and neck five times with a .38, who still got up and attempted to drive away afterwards. Had he known her gun was empty after six shots, he still might have been able to do her and her children harm… with five bullets in him. Would ten have stopped him?

    PS You don’t shoot deer with a .38 revolver, either, which is why that is such a stupid standard to use to ban guns.

    • herddog505

      Divide and conquer: the dems imagine that there are three kinds of gun owners in the country:

      1. Frightened people, especially women, who own a pistol because they are afraid of crooks. Well! Take away the guns and everybody’s safe, so those women won’t NEED a gun. Hence, they won’t vote against gungrabbing democrats;

      2. Hunters who own perhaps a deer rifle or a duck gun and have no interest in “assault weapons”. Well! If we ONLY take away the “evil black rifles” and handguns that have no utility in hunting, the hunters aren’t bothers. Hence, no electoral backlash;

      3. Psycho tea bagger wanna-be killers who hoard evil black rifles and high capacity clips* and survival equipment because they’re crazy and want to murder schools full of innocent children. THEY are the ones we’re after.

      For now…

      ====

      (*) I know, I know: it’s a magazine. Lefties, being most of them ignorant boobs, DON’T know that any more than they know what an assault rifle actually is, or understand that a double-action revolver (the Webley Fosbury excepted) is not a “semi-automatic”, or that a flash hider or bayonet stud makes a weapon sooper-deadly.

      • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

        With the Left, it’s all incremental. Erode the freedom anywhere you can in the largest or smallest bite you can and never give anything back.

  • TomInCali

    Your comparison is meaningless. Each of your incidents involved multiple officers firing simultaneously. You can’t conclude that because 13 officers fired a total of 137 rounds that it’s therefore reasonable to have a single weapon able to fire that many. Nor do you cite how many of them reloaded.

    • herddog505

      No, he made the point: there are times when self-defense requires more than the tiny number of rounds needed to take a deer.

      Incidentally, I wonder if the governor could point to that part of the Second Amendment that indicates that it is solely for the protection of deer hunters.

      Also, does “equal protection” mean that duck hunters are being shafted here?

    • Vagabond661

      Who do you think is more capable of hitting their target, a police officer or a homeowner? I would expect a homeowner might need some extra rounds because a few bullets might miss their mark.

      • jim_m

        I would expect a homeowner might need some extra rounds

        Yet the evidence suggests that you would be wrong in that expectation. It seems that the police only hit their targets on TV and in the movies.

      • jim_m

        I would expect a homeowner might need some extra rounds

        Yet the evidence suggests that you would be wrong in that expectation. It seems that the police only hit their targets on TV and in the movies.

      • SCSIwuzzy

        But at the same time, the field of fire on the targets is often more limited, and the range is less, in a home invasion.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

      Fair enough, what is the correct number of bullets for a homeowner to be able to fire without reloading if he confronts two armed intruders breaking into his home? What is the correct number of bullets if there are more than two intruders?

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        “What is the correct number of bullets if there are more than two intruders?”

        Everything you can stuff into the pistol.

        I really wanted a Calico M950 when they came out… 50 or 100 round helical magazine. Perfect for zombie hordes.

        http://www.calicolightweaponsystems.com/

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/05/robert-farago/gun-review-calico-light-weapon-systems-liberty-i-m-900/

        But that was then. Now? I dunno. It looks a bit clunky, now that we’re no longer infected with the ’80s cultural vibe…

      • 914

        The correct number will be determined after the victims funeral by an actuary determined to deny survivor benefits.

      • TomInCali

        I don’t know, but I’m not going to deceptively claim it’s “only one” just by cherry picking a bunch of examples where one is all it took.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

          It wasn’t cherry picking as much as citing cases that were specific to New York City, recent, or well publicized. Are they extreme examples? Maybe, but a quick Internet search illustrates the same scenario has played out in hundreds of similar cases.

          No, not every police shoot out results in cops firing off dozens of rounds. But when confronted by a threat law enforcement is trained to respond with overwhelming force. Keep shooting until the perp is incapacitated. When there are multiple officers involved you see cases like the ones I cited.

          So in light of the fact that police firing 50+ rounds isn’t an every day occurrence, would you advocate law enforcement personnel stop carrying high-capacity magazines? If not, why should a homeowner – who will almost always be alone when confronting the criminal(s) in his home – be denied the same ability to defend himself and his family?

        • herddog505

          If we’re talking about cherry-picking, riddle me this:

          Given that millions of Americans own firearms, including those nasty ol’ assault weapons, why are we discussing gun control at all? Oh, I know! Because the left is cherry picking cases where some hoodlum or lunatic uses a gun for horrible purposes. Left out is the other 99.999999% of cases where guns are used for perfectly peaceful purposes such as target shooting, hunting, or self-defense.

          Imagine the national conversation if MiniTru and the left (BIRM) spent as much time publicizing cases where a mother defends her children with a gun, or a woman stops a rapist with a gun, or an armed citizen stops a mass murder with a gun. There was even a story recently out of Dallas (IIRC) where a teenager, home alone with his younger sister, stopped a home invasion with his father’s “assault weapon”. But we don’t talk about THAT, do we?

          Instead, let’s cherry pick the data to stampede Americans into giving up their rights and, in the process, making criminals out of their fellow citizens who don’t want to go along and helpless victims out of everybody else.

          • TomInCali

            Given that millions of Americans own firearms, including those nasty ol’ assault weapons, why are we discussing gun control at all? Oh, I know! Because the left is cherry picking cases where some hoodlum or lunatic uses a gun for horrible purposes. Left out is the other 99.999999% of cases where guns are used for perfectly peaceful purposes such as target shooting, hunting, or self-defense.

            Is it cherry picking to say that you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater? Should that be allowed strictly because the other 99.999999% of cases where speech is exercised are for perfectly peaceful purposes?

            And your argument seems predicated on the fear-mongering notion that there’s some serious attempt to ban all guns. Your “other 99.999999% of cases” are not mentioned because no one is attempting to ban those.

          • Vagabond661

            Really what matters here is there is no need to ban any more guns. It doesn’t work here in the US. They tried it and failed.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            For your analogy to work, we’d have to ban the word fire altogether to prevent the 0.000000001% of the time yelling “fire” happened in a theater and resulted in a stampede.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            Tom, I appreciate your reluctance to engage me on the topic at hand. How can someone possibly support denying a law-abiding citizen the right and capability to defend his home and family with the same level of force as a police officer who encountered the same criminal in the midst of committing a felony?

            Why do people pushing bans on certain firearms and large capacity magazines believe politicians and law enforcement should be better protected than the citizens who elect them and/or pay their salaries?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Well Said.

      • Brian_R_Allen

        …. what is the correct number of bullets for a homeowner to be able to fire without reloading if he confronts two armed intruders breaking into his home? What is the correct number of bullets if there are more than two intruders …?

        Who cares.

        The Founding Fathers made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR We, The (SOVEREIGN) People are armed against the likelihood of a tyrannical government.

        Self defense is only a bonus.

        But food for thought must include that had our exercising of the Absolute Rights guaranteed every American by the Second Amendment not been criminally suppressed, (and despite that on that day of infamy the Cli’ton “administration’s” Jamie Gorelick and her “wall” both marked that treasonous, recidivist, lying, looting, mass-murdering co-serial-rapist gang’s passage into History’s dustbin and ensured its only lasting legacy) the atrocities of September 11 2001 could never and would never have occurred.

    • 914

      Your rationale is as meaningless as your comments.

  • Vagabond661

    The easiest thing to do is make it illegal for a gun to be used in a crime.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    No one needs a car that can go more than 80 miles an hour. That gets people killed.

    No one needs a house that’s more than 400 square feet per person. It’s a waste of Gaia’s resources.

    No one needs expensive restaurants – it just encourages pride and wastefulness.

    No one needs to travel first class – that’s prideful, and putting yourself above others.

    No one needs to take a cruise. Millions of people can’t afford it, so you shouldn’t either.

    No one needs jeans that cost $100+ a pair. What – Wrangler jeans from Wal-Mart aren’t good enough for your sorry butt?

    “No one needs” isn’t a good argument, because whoever is making it is making a decision that someone ELSE doesn’t WANT something they obviously do. Since when did we hire ‘elites’ to tell us what we should WANT?

    As long as I’m not hurting anyone with what I want (except maybe myself when I put on expensive jeans after a first-class flight and a cruise and an expensive meal, and proceed to NOT wrap my Ferrari around a light pole at 200mph) then what’s the problem? That I’m not listening to my ‘betters’?

    • jim_m

      That list goes on without end. The ultimate answer to the “no one needs” argument is that no one needs anything other than a police state where people live in concentration camps.

      Freedom isn’t about having my needs satisfied. It is about getting my wants satisfied. Why do I need a 30 round magazine for my rifle? Because I want to exercise the maximum amount of freedom allowed to me. If I can do so without infringing the rights of others (and millions of people do so) then why should I have that freedom taken away from me?

      Of course the left’s answer for that last question is always, “shut up! We know better than you how to live your life.”

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        ” Why do I need a 30 round magazine for my rifle?”

        Because you want one is sufficient, as far as I’m concerned.

        ” If I can do so without infringing the rights of others (and millions of
        people do so) then why should I have that freedom taken away from me?”

        Because there’s one or two out there who have done mass killings with guns, all must be punished because all are responsible.

        So the thinking goes. Of course, it’s not a ‘punishment’ – it’s more of a ‘precautionary measure’ – because if 1 or 2 people in 300 hundred million do something horrible, it’s because they were able to get their hands on guns. No other reason is acceptable, or accepted.

        • jim_m

          That’s just it. It is the left’s insistence on organizing society to accommodate the lowest denominator. It is ruling over the public like a giant TSA: Someone else brought a box cutter on board the airplane so we are going to confiscate your nail clippers. It is government treating the people like a kindergarten class that needs to be rigidly controlled and punished en masse for the infractions of an individual.

          On suspects that the reason the left is so comfortable with punishing the whole for the actions of the individual is because they place no value on the individual. One only has value as a member of a group. So the left does not see a crazed individual, they see someone possessing a gun. Therefore all people who possess guns must be punished.

          The left cannot comprehend that there is diversity within a group, that group members think and act differently from one another. This is why we see such vulgar racism from the left when a black person comes out as conservative or sexism when a woman expresses conservative values. These people upset the leftist concept of reality so they must be forced back into line, otherwise the lefty world does not work.

          That is how the left thinks. One person with a gun did something evil therefore all people with guns are evil. Don’t ask for logic from the left, they have none. This is why they feel justified in posting the names and addresses of gun owners. They cannot conceive of the idea that all gun owners are not evil. They feel justified in treating gun owners like criminals because criminals use guns. It isn’t possible for someone to have a gun without being a criminal. Groups are all uniform and all members act alike.

    • retired.military

      Actually most auto accidents happen with cars going under 40MPH (just took defensive driving course). So we need to ban cars that gou under 40 MPH to save lives.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Don’t give them ideas!

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    No one needs a car that can go more than 80 miles an hour. That gets people killed.

    No one needs a house that’s more than 400 square feet per person. It’s a waste of Gaia’s resources.

    No one needs expensive restaurants – it just encourages pride and wastefulness.

    No one needs to travel first class – that’s prideful, and putting yourself above others.

    No one needs to take a cruise. Millions of people can’t afford it, so you shouldn’t either.

    No one needs jeans that cost $100+ a pair. What – Wrangler jeans from Wal-Mart aren’t good enough for your sorry butt?

    “No one needs” isn’t a good argument, because whoever is making it is making a decision that someone ELSE doesn’t WANT something they obviously do. Since when did we hire ‘elites’ to tell us what we should WANT?

    As long as I’m not hurting anyone with what I want (except maybe myself when I put on expensive jeans after a first-class flight and a cruise and an expensive meal, and proceed to NOT wrap my Ferrari around a light pole at 200mph) then what’s the problem? That I’m not listening to my ‘betters’?

  • http://twitter.com/seanpatriot sean patriot

    What a moron. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting at all. Liberals are stupid people

  • Conservachef

    Put your money – and your life, and the lives of the law enforcement personnel you command – where your mouth is.

    Hahahaha! Yeah like that would ever happen… They want to disarm the peasants, not the ruling class.

  • Vagabond661

    Hey Cuomo, you assume there is only one deer.

    No one needs limos either.

  • jim_m

    No one needs ten lefty politicians.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    …. Why do I want a thirty-round magazine for my rifle …?

    ‘Cause that will do until I can get a three-hundred-round belt!

  • tedneb

    No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer? That would be true…if I cared about deer.

    Last fall, a pack of nine coyotes–widespread on my land and in my area–stalked my ten year old daughter and her cocker spaniel to within 40 feet. That threat to my family was neutralized due to my second amendment rights and my 25-round magazine.

    So, Mr. Cuomo: please use your trendy rhetoric to tell me how many bullets I’ll need next time.

    • jim_m

      If you lived in one of the dem controlled cities like you were supposed to you wouldn’t have that coyote problem. It’s about controlling people and making life difficult for those who won’t knuckle under.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Remember when people said that a govt that could take your large soda away could take your guns?

    Remember how silly people thought that idea was?

  • 914

    “No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer”

    So? No one needs politicians either.

  • Phil Snyder

    I guess the gov doesn’t really need an armed security escort. He can call 911 just like everyone else.

  • retired.military

    If they put headlights on a bullet and made it go 60 MPH than we would only need one shot weapons to go hunting deer.

  • retired.military

    Once the libs limit magazine size to 5 rounds, the next “law abiding” mass shooter (who doesnt want to break the law) will be found to have 20 magazines of 5 rounds each on him so the libs will then want to limit the number of magazines to 1 per person.

  • henrybowman

    And nobody needs an 18-wheeler to commute to work!