For sure. His cadence is noticeably faster on the smaller mags. He speeds up because he's paranoid about the mag changes. I gave up on the video though. Do we ever see targets? Did they hit shit?
He’s counting the rounds so he never exhausted the mags and let the slide lock back which kills time in speed shooting. Ironically using lower capacity mags makes that technique easier and faster since you don’t have to think about a higher round count and can shoot faster.
Seems a lot of people are missing the point of the video. 1: standard or 'larger" capacity magazines are useful for people who'm carry one in their firearm to defend themselves. 2: Restricting magazine capacity won't do anything to impede mass murderers, but it will certainly impede law abiding civilians, by limiting their round, especially if they only carry one, in their gun. 3: the video wasn't about demonstrating how fast you can burn rounds, it was showing that reloading doesn't take a long time. Whether your mags are on a barrel, on your belt, in a book bag, whatever. Reloading does not take very long. If you are a determined massed killer, limited capacity magazines won't do much to slow you... But if you are a civilian, obeying the law, and you only have one mag for your gun... Fewer rounds, could be very bad for you...
Trishooty45, I'm not sure what video you're watching, but the male and female Shooters using one magazine 3 magazines and 5 magazines was absolutely an attempt to try to limit magazine size.
Changing a magazine does in fact take a long time. There are plenty of UA-cam videos where you can see a cop and reload in the middle of a shootout. It takes a lot more time than having a magazine laid out in front of you on a table. I don't forget, cops have their magazines on their belt. In a concealed carry state you would also have to dig into a holster or pocket or some other hidden compartment to get an extra magazine. No thank you.
Trishooty45 The problem is this video does NOT show reloads from a belt or backpack. Having the magazines out and above your waist is huge when it comes to reloading. I'm a cop and a Marine. I can say with confidence, from experience, reloading takes much longer when the magazines are in some sort of pouch than when already out. My comment is not meant to be in support of limited magazine capacities but you don't help the cause when you say things that aren't true.
And the mag cap limitation wouldn't do anything to stop mass killers. If we imagine that somehow a bad person is forced to use 10 round magazines like everyone else, they still have the luxury to carry vests, pouches, bags, etc. To hold many spare magazines. Meanwhile the average citizen doing concealed carry is only limited to one or two 10-round magazines, when normally they could be higher capacity. This restriction affects law abiding civilians the most, EVEN IF bad people somehow also only had access to 10 rounders.
+Tre Burrell Have you never heard of a 30 caliber magazine clip? You can put it in a ghost gun and shoot 30 rounds in less than half a second! It's really cool! Look it up!
Let's be clear: The scumbag attacker has the advantage of knowing when the attack is going to happen. He is the only one that can show up with a bag full of 6-shot revolvers. The average concealed carry civilian will have only one, maybe two magazines with which to defend. That's why the laws only hurt the good guys. Conclusion: I'd feel safer with either Jim or Christy teaching in my kid's school.
Well in Canada I can get a 100 round mag... with a rivet in it for 5. If you're already going to do something criminal, a tiny rivet isn't much of a roadblock.
Yeah, no shit. I went to a gunshop in MD yesterday to pick up a few new ar mags. Was surprised by the rivet restricting it to 10 rounds. A cordless drill will make short work of it I guess if that's my intention.
+RandomActsOfGaming You can get them without the rivet, you just need to find them on the black market. You can get drugs and weapons in prison, why would illegal magazines be a problem to find out of prison? Unless the authoritarians of the world are willing to make the world a prison then they have no chance of real weapon prohibition having any impact but moving items like this to the blackmarket in mass.
+RandomActsOfGaming Can't buy high capacity mags in California, but you can if you drive to Nevada or Arizona! Not extremely convenient but not impossible either!!
+K N Come on over. May as well move to Las Vegas. No state tax and many of the taxes are pay to play so not everyone is paying for services you do not use. No mag restrictions, and NFA items are legal, even encouraged. The homeless population is rapidly declining, there are jobs everywhere in every sector, and everyone minds their own business. It's not crowded, the roads are pristine, most people can afford a home where many are in gated communities. Crime is isolated to very few areas and anyone legal to own a gun can carry it loaded in their car. Open carry is legal and common and a CCW is shall issue. The police are top notch and friendly. I could go on and on.
Lol, I was thinking in similar terms! They're shooting like an ordinary person at a range would, with magazines lying out in front of them in easy reach. A mass shooter is going to have mags in a bag, or in magazine holders strapped to a tactical vest. The bag is the worst option, with magazines shuffling around inside making it harder to grab one facing the proper direction to get inserted. And tactical vest would require practice removing and loading the mags quickly and efficiently, and would vary based on the type of vest and holders. I was in the Army; sometimes your magazines will get a little caught in the holder, slowing down reloading.
All the anti gun comments I've read seem to miss the point that only a law abiding citizen is restricted by magazine capacity laws. If someone is planning a mass shooting, are they going to make sure they don't run afoul of the law by carrying the proper low capacity magazine? Or are they going to go ahead and grab one of the millions of standard capacity magazine out there, regardless of any law saying they aren't supposed to? The only thing these laws do, is make sure the law abiding victims cant carry more than 6-10 rounds.
Joe H if you read the article it states that he built the guns from AR-15 parts he legally purchased so he built a gun that is illegal in California out of parts you can buy in other states.
Well if you're planning on doing something illegal in the first place... you're not gonna choose a restricted mag, your ass is getting the extended or drum mags lmao
Yeah like laws are gonna stop a mad man and or a terrorist . What we really need to do is fix mental health . I just feel the ball was dropped on the Vegas tragedy . No one noticed him bringing in possibly 30 or more cases inside the hotel ? most likely the guns were brought inside in rifle cases. Not sure how true this is , I hear he bought 30 guns within 30 days , And that's not normal for your everyday avid shooter. Only firearm dealers , or terrorist do this. No one noticed ? .
mick the whole thing is bullshit....that guy is probably jsut an innocent dead body left at the crimescene...only thing missing was for the first responding officer to sprinkle some crack on his deceased body to seal the case
can't agree more mickslone. There's something in our society that makes people want to gain by taking advantage of others and despite capitalism I think we shouldn't feel that way about one another. I guess growing up in Tennessee may have affected that. But I was shooting .22 and .223 and 12g at 6-9 years old. Also 7.62x39 through an SKS i used to carry outdoors. And I've never killed anything besides birds, turtles, snakes, coyotes, etc. (Unfortunately I had to kill cows/pigs with a sledgehammer, that's the largest animal I've ever hurt) I don't even like deer hunting anymore and I never killed one. I used to go along just to walk around with a gun and I'd always ask to shoot when we were done. I've had chances to kill deer and small game where I'm armed with one in the chamber and I just let it go all the time. Yes, I have a somewhat "childish" obsession with firearms and military history. But I have no desire whatsoever to hurt anything. What people don't understand, is that it's the police's job to investigate and prosecute ONLY AFTER a crime has taken place. It's your job to defend and protect yourself and your family. And if everyone in America was required firearms training we would see far less of this bullshit that happens. Firearms respect is taught... Muzzle control is taught... Even if you're like me, and you don't like hunting, it is your DUTY to your family to know and understand firearms to the best of your ability. You don't see trained firearms users acting thuggish and pointing their weapons at people and shit like that. You only see ignorant, uneducated people (at least on firearms use) doing these dumb things. It's not the kid that goes hunting with his dad every weekend that's shooting up schools. It's the kid that hates his dad and steals his weapons while dad is drunk or some shit doing it. We will never stop people from hurting one another. All we can try is to stop anyone from hurting US, to avoid being a statistic. Keep it up, guys. We can't bury our heads in the sand and act like criminals and bad men don't already have assault rifles and such. We have to be better than them.
Luis Barros well if it’s in your house no one would know, until an intruder gets shot I guess. I’d rather have high capacity over low any day, you have no clue how a situation is going to unfold and how many intruders there are. A shotgun would render more useless than a .40 with Remington Ultimate Defense ammo. You would need more than 1 bullet per person.
+JustAGuy No. I believe the Moral is if someone can fire from 15, 10, and 5 round magazines with minimal time difference, then why bother making a law restricting capacity if it is not going to really make a difference.
***** I like that idea. Just not sure if that's what they were getting at. I don't remember what all was said in this video. While I do live in a state that doesn't limit magazine capacity, I feel it ridiculous for those that do. If EVERYONE had a gun on their hip, I do wonder, would crime go up or down? I believe down. Not that the media would reflect the truth.
+JustAGuy I agree. My state doesn't have restrictions either. I believe Kennesaw GA. Made a city ordinance that all head of households were required to own at least one gun with ammo. The cities crime rate dropped dramatically because of it.
+JustAGuy Well, greetings from AZ, we don't all have a gun on our hip here but open carry is legal and at least semi-common. We have Constitutional Carry meaning we can concealed carry without a permit with just a few restrictions and it is a "shall issue" state for those who want a CCW permit. While our violent crime stats aren't the best you have to factor in all the illegal immigrant gang violence we get here. Overall our murder rates are still just a fraction of Chicago or DC with the most restrictive gun laws in the US.
anyone who's ever shot a gun knows that the whole "tackle him while he's reloading" gimmick is a complete and utter joke. yeah, maybe if you're dealing with a 12 year old girl that's never fired a gun before. but if someone's actively shooting a gun, even with a 6-round magazine, NOBODY is gonna be tackling him. you think you'd tackle him? i'm sorry, but i know from experience, you would be cowering in the corner like a house cat. the reality is that you're not going to be comfortably sitting behind your computer, planning your course of action, when shit actually hits the fan. it will be completely unexpected, you will have no time to think, and you will simply react based on instinct. and, understandably, your instinct will be to run away, cower, and hide. the sheer effect of fear will make it impossible for probably 99.9999% of all civilians to tackle the shooter, regardless of his magazine size. even if you were somehow looking at the shooter dead on, and managed to see EXACTLY when he ran out of ammunition, and then managed to react, based purely on trained reflex, to tackle him without any hesitation? you would have to close the distance between him and yourself in less than a few seconds, knock him on the ground, disarm him (so he doesn't shoot you while he's on the ground) and knock him out or kill him. the odds of this happening exactly as planned are astronomical, and you KNOW this. that's why it NEVER happens. when's the last time an unarmed civilian successfully tackled an armed and active shooter with a semi-automatic weapon? wanna guess? NEVER! because we know that it's inherently MORONIC. it's the dumbest thing you could possibly do in an active shooter scenario. but what if you tried? well, for one, you'd have to be watching the shooter to know when he's reloading, as opposed to simply not firing. you would have to look at him, with your face directed at his. you might not know this, but it's a primitive reflex to look away from attackers when you know you are completely outmatched. psychological studies have shown it increases the chances of survival, and this is probably why animals evolved this instinct. so you would first have to get past the primal instinct to look away from your attacker, and face him dead on. you'd stick out like a sore thumb, while everyone else is cowering on the ground and looking away, or down. you'd have to stare at him, and hope that he doesn't shoot you once he notices your face. if you managed to survive the staring match, and you saw he was reloading, you'd have to get up, run, and reach him with enough momentum to knock him down. if you are close, you might have enough time, and the actual fact that you attempted it might really catch him off guard. but if he's a trained shooter, 1) he will not be caught of guard, 2) he will react instinctively to either defend against your tackle or shoot you, and 3) he will have left a bullet in the chamber to protect against exactly this scenario. anyone who takes an intermediate gun self defense course knows to do this; it is one of the most important techniques in gun self defense, because reloading is indeed your one weakness when shooting unarmed individuals. but let's say he wasn't a trained shooter (as school shooters often aren't trained) and wasn't aware that you're supposed to leave a round chambered when you reload. assuming he's an untrained imbecile, you might have a chance. but how long does it take a complete rookie to reload? would anyone actually commit a mass shooting if they hadn't trained? wouldn't they be aware that reloading is the only potential weakness? wouldn't this be the one, single thing they would know to train for? so isn't it likely that they would have, at the very least, practiced reloading quickly? and this is still assuming that they somehow never found out that you could keep a round chambered, remember. so really the bare minimum is to reload quickly. we have to assume that they can reload at least as fast as christy, the rookie in this video. if you were actually in that situation, wouldn't you OVERestimate, rather than underestimate, your attacker's skill? it's a life or death situation, and you are already in flight mode, so you are far more cautious than you were when you were arguing on youtube. in this situation, do you really think you would assume that your attacker will take 10 seconds to reload, and doesn't keep a round chambered at all times? it's extremely doubtful that you would take such a risk, even if the shooter was 15 years old, but let's say you did. for the sake of argument, let's just assume that you went for it. maybe you were on meth or PCP, who knows? so you go for it, you run... are you close enough to make contact before he's loaded and ready? how long does it take you to run 10 feet? 15 feet? how close would you really be to this armed, vicious shooter? would you really be close enough that you could tackle him before he's loaded? wouldn't you try to get as far away from him as possible, as your instincts and logic scream at you to do? by the time he starts reloading, wouldn't you already be so far that it would take you too long to run up to him? what are your odds of surviving if you are closer to him than everyone else in the room? are you really prepared to resist your instinctive reflexes (which are extremely hard to resist, even physically) and willingly put yourself at a higher risk than is necessary? and once you've done that, are you sure you are close enough to reach him? are you sure you want to take the chance, knowing that he could 1) have a bullet chambered, and 2) reload within a second? i can reload a pistol or rifle magazine within a second, and tens of thousands of other americans can do it too. there are competition shooters who can load a pistol magazine in less than a quarter of a second, without even making an effort. it's casual for them. i was able to reload within a second after only a few months of practice... when i was only 16 years old. most mass shooters tend to be under the age of 30, at their athletic prime. it's very easy to move quickly at a young age, and it's also very easy for the young brain to quickly learn new muscle memory and perform new actions very quickly. so do you really think you could tackle me within a second, even from 5 feet away? even assuming i didn't leave a bullet chambered, and even assuming you were capable of staring at me, resisting your primal reflexes and instincts, and reacting instantly? the answer is probably no. and the fact is that you would probably be at least 15 feet away, cowering against the wall in the first place. it might take the shooter longer than it takes me to reload, but he would still have enough time to shoot you before you reached him. and in a real-life situation, you probably would not even think of tackling him. even if you did, you probably wouldn't be capable of staring at him. even if you did stare at him, you probably wouldn't be capable of reacting instantly to maximize your safe time. even if you were capable of that, you probably wouldn't be physically capable of running 15 feet and tackling him before he takes even three seconds to reload (and he probably would take less than 1.5 seconds) anyway. and even if somehow you were able to do all of those things, would it really matter? isn't it likely that he has another round in the chamber? isn't it likely that he shoots you even after you tackle him? the obvious answer to a situation like this is to carry a gun yourself. you would have to train for years to be able to tackle an armed, active shooter. most of that would be mental training, so that you are capable of consciously resisting your primal reflexes to extreme fear. the adrenaline rush (fight or flight response) is much too powerful for an untrained civilian to resist. even if you did all the mental training necessary, the chances of the attacker having a chambered round are very high, so you still have a high chance of failing and dying. you would have much better chances of success if you simply carried a gun and took some tactical training classes. when you have a gun, your immediate response is different. you no longer feel outmatched and at the mercy of your opponent, so you tend towards the "fight," rather than "flight." with a gun, you do not need to accomplish all these incredibly difficult and infeasible mental and physical benchmarks. you only need to avoid getting shot long enough to shoot him yourself. it's literally that simple. if it were so easy to take out an armed shooter, why do cops even bother carrying guns? why don't they just tackle their adversaries? why aren't SWAT teams replaced with squadrons of sumo wrestlers and NFL players? because tackling a man with a gun is the stupidest fucking thing you could possibly do.
Man, I don't know who you are, but this is the truest and most thought out thing I've ever read in a youtube comments section and would love to vote for you if you want to get into politics. Seriously. More people like yourself need to be in our government. Because the disillusion about this stuff is all too real, and our politicians are just not using their heads when it comes to this stuff. I would love for a group of guys, one with a fake gun, and one with a camera to 'test' these politicians beliefs: When the politician is walking down a street, he would confronted by the man with the fake gun, who could even act as if he is reloading, slowly. I guarantee that an anti gun politician would haul ass in the other direction.
***** a gun is astronomically different then a knife, with a knife you do not feel fear from a distance from the attacker(which is why people run for the hills at the sound of gunfire but only step back and pull out their smart phones to video a stabbing), with a knife u KNOW he can not harm you UNTIL you tackle him, so u can be very surgical about how u tackle the attacker(with a gun u have less then 1.5 seconds if u are lucky to make ur move AND succeed), and with a knife once u do tackle him all u have to do is hold onto his knife hand and squirm as he might he wont be able to stab you, tackle a man with a gun and even if u grab his gun hand, he dosent need to slash or thrust the gun into you, all he needs to do is pull the trigger. and finally, by ur own admission u said u got multiple gashes all over ur hands from ur heroism... that alone... is more then enough reason to justify simply shooting the attacker. NO innocent person should EVER have to take so much as a SCRATCH in order to save a attacker from harm, up to and including death. and by the way, the assumptions he made about others courage are more assumptions about instinctive response rather then courage AND they are extremely conservative and realistic assumptions. is anyone at the sounds of gunfire going to go into combat mode and stare into the opponets face, react instantly to the maybe 1.5 second window of oppurtunity and then succeed, all assuming they dont leave a round chambered of course? with the exception of superman, captain america, iron man, batman, james bond, jason bourne, chuck norris, yoda, and COD kids in their dreams, the answer is obviously NO.
Yep. Not exactly well represented in any explanation. Empty mag, slide locked back, load mag and charge weapon, bang. That’s real world. If your in a situation where you dump every round you have to you will have to do the above mentioned. Under stress.
Basic. If you fire to "click", then you have to re-rack the slide on those double-action pistols. Any murderer intent on maximum destruction will use these kinds of techniques to maximize their effectiveness. Though, most don't have the opportunity to train for the event. Still, I think they're trying to drive the point home that any determined killer can come up with a myriad of different ways to maximize their lethality regardless of whatever "rule" you can post in the hallway that would stop the attack from happening in the first place.
If you practice like I did growing up and have a father who is a expert competition shooter like I did,yes I do expect anybody can become a proficient shooter like I did when I was 12 or 13 years old.
@@sarahhess464 Probably a hundred cases of 22 caliber ammo,then my daddy moved me on up to the 7.62 mm rifle. It only took a couple of hundred rounds on this rifle because it was more powerful and accurate than the 22 was. I could hit bulls eyes consistently at 800 yards with the 7.62.
@@lawnmowermanlawnmowerman9930 A couple hundred dollars in ammo? I used home made ammo stored in a large barrel made using home made black powder and a bullet making machine allowing us to store huge amounts of ammo made very cheaply.
My takeaway from this: The more you breakup semi automatic weaponry ammunition into smaller allotments per magazine, the more weapons training makes a difference in overall performance times. So untrained civilians do worse and worse versus any form of government soldier, law enforcement official, or privately contracted mercenary. ... ...I'm beginning to see why pro-government liberals and rich elitists like this idea so much.
Yea and sadly it only affects law abiding citizens because criminals will still have hi cap mags and full auto or short barreled gun ect. It's literally a ridiculous argument of gun control.
+mk4vws No doubt. They can literally print them. www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/
Same with taxing, testing and licensing. The principle has been in practice from feudal Europe to Stalin's Russia and to American liberal elites - restrict weapons to the ruling and social elite classes, to maintain control of the subordinate classes. Of course, suggest to gun control fanatics, licensing and fees for voting or blogging and they completely lose their minds.
+TymeTwyster Last if you think soldiers attain near the level of proficiency with firearms that someone who has time to go to a range 3 times a week does you are sorely mistaken
Jim was lollygagging on his two 15-round mags. That should have been his fastest time, but he was purposely shooting slower. And with the AR, Jim again lollygags, purposely shooting slower with the higher capacity mag.
True. But for the test to be accurate that has to be a constant. I still think high capacity magazines dont make a difference, but I dont think this test proved that.
+Joseph Levin The woman was consistent, at least. Jim's results would be unreliable as proof. Not sure if he did it intentionally, but it was a pretty significant difference in firing speed.
+Joseph Levin If you look at the overall times...Christy unloaded all her magazines at under 30 seconds. And Jim under 22 seconds. All anyone needs is practice time and a willingness to disregard human life.
Videos Yeah, the time it takes to reload a magazine is very superficial and has little impact on a gunfight. The only people it would hurt is those who don't carry around multiple magazines, like civilians. Mass shooters on the other hand will most like have an entire bag filled with magazines. The best part of this video demonstration was when they showed the guy trying to tackle the "shooter" during reload. Completely debunks the argument of people who want to limit magazine size (which is silly, because criminals obviously aren't going to follow that law anyways and fill their magazines completely rather than just with 5 rounds or whatever the local laws have the limit set to. IIRC, a lot of places have pistol limit set to 10 rounds and rifle limit set to 5 rounds. And the magazines just have tiny aluminum clips to limit them, that could easily be filed down by someone who is willing to break the law)
+11B30Inf If you remember when Cuomo and his band of misfit toys in New York snuck the "SAFE" (LOL) Act through at the midnight hour with minimum presence required or a vote, the Police departments threw a MASSIVE fit, because the dipshit libtards didn't exclude the police from the 7 round magazine restriction... Guess how many of those police were gun control advocates, and had told countless citizens who applied for conceal carry permits no? I'll bet quite a few. It's always funny how gun control must be enacted for the safety of the public, but when the corrupt police forces get roped in, they throw massive fits. I wonder if as many bystanders wouldn't have been shot if the NYPD had been restricted to 7 rounds... LOL
+11B30Inf Thank you. Bigger mags are better. I want responsible citizens to have the most effective means of defense. A larger magazine is better than a smaller one. This video is BS. You can shoot more rounds if you don't have to reload as many times. One Ten round mag is more effective than two 5 rounds with a reload.
Love how those tell us that we don't need 30 round magazines... ten rds mags is enough! Okay.... Than why do police not use 10 rounds magazines? Aren't they suppose to be better train than most people? Another words they should practice what they preach to us.... but they won't.
Well the answer to the military is easy. Us guys in the Infantry don't NEED a 30 round magazine for our M4s. However we're in war, and a 10 round mag would just add more mags to our gear which adds more weight. The standard load-out for your regular infantryman on patrol is seven 30 round magazines OR a minimum of 210 rounds. If no S.O.P. is in place technically an infantryman could carry two 100 round drum mags and a ten round box mag if he wanted too, but that's why Battalions have S.O.Ps. in place so no idiot actually tries that. Also most of the time we start shooting at an enemy we're not really aiming at him/her on point, we're aiming where their general location is. A good 70% of that mag goes to straight suppression so a flanking element can deal that one lethal round. Which goes without saying is easier to dish out with one 30 round mag than three ten round mags in the middle of a firefight. As for the police their main sidearm of choice is the Glock 19 9mm. Which comes shipped default with two 15 round magazines. Buying shit tons of ten round mags would be so cost effective that it would throw our economy off scale and cause an uproar of the law being put into place and ten round mags couldn't be found because the cops have them all made for Glock 19's, the most common pistol out there today. In turn they would have to unload all of those 15 round mags back to Glock putting 15 round mags in the hands of civilians causing an issue that would get more police killed. Baddies get 15 round mags and cops only ten. Of course it's bullshit we are subject to the ten round mag law, and the police are not, however it's as simple as this. They don't have to reload as often as an attacker which can provide that life saving moment when the attacker (if he's actually following the law which is most likely not happening for obvious reasons) goes for his reload because he's the most retarded criminal on earth and decided to follow the law of only having 10 round magazines for his AR-15, AK variant rifle, or pistol while he's breaking the law and shooting at cops. Maybe he's going for the first man that killed a cop by following the law other than murdering a law enforcement official? Who knows? Other than that it's all stupid. I'm fine with weapons being regulated to the point where a mentally handicapped person can't get one (i.e. insane), people can't just go out and buy a fully automatic machine gun without a permit, people can't just go buy a rocket launcher, and people can't have a 100 rounds drum mag. The entire no mags over 10 rounds thing of course upsets me, however I fully understand why it's in place. In conclusion? Even if the law sits with the 10 round mag thing as is, if the government tried to take over the America by force they are looking at 30-100 round mags still because people still have them hidden away. People who are good on the law still can gain permits to own a fully automatic light machine guns (M249 S.A.W. or 240B/L) and there are a lot of people that own these. So the government will also face those. That coupled with the people that have an AR-15 with five or six 10 round mags that are follwing the law will still fight standing next to the others that own AR-15s and other rifles with five or six 10 round mags, which is still a massive number of Americans. The entire U.S. Military consists of 1.3 million people. Only about 400,000 of them are Combat Arms. The entire police force has about 1.1 million full time employees, which only 750k of them are officers with arrest powers and guns. Which totals an entire force out to about 2 million. The U.S. civilian force consists of about 322 MILLION people (information provided by the Census). Even if only 1% of the entire American population fought back (which isn't likely and more like 90% of the population would fight back). The Government would have a VERY VERY VERY large issue. This isn't even including the Military Personnel and Police Officers that would desert to the other side to fight back against their old tyrannical leaders, which would be more than likely at LEAST 40%. Sorry for the essay.
And for the record. If I got the order to go cruisin around the streets of my home country and kill Americans? I would defect/desert immediately, and so would my entire Company including our Commanding Officer.
Oh, by the way, the most important realization we can come to is that even if there is a 10 round limit, most anyone that is going to murder a bunch of people wouldn't care and just bring "high-capacity" magazines.
+HunterXray That's very likely. As long as they are legally available somewhere in other states, limiting magazine size is not going to deter a perp with financial resources. At the very least, the approach needs to be consistent. Either legalize them in all 50 states or make them entirely illegal. Otherwise, it's an exercise in futility.
True the only way would be to prohibit there manufacture (including spares) entirely and let nature take it's course over the next 100 years. Somehow I don't see that happening.
+El Guapo Criminals would still have them, they'd either simply keep smuggling them in, modding the restricted magazines or making their own magazines, just like they did with booze back in the 20's.
***** I think at this point that would be even harder than taking away everyone's guns. There are far more 30 round magazines than there are firearms they are used in.
I see that people are mad in the comments saying that the test is unrealistic and I will agree. However, you have to realize that the few instances of mass shootings do not support a nationwide or even state wide magazine restrictions. Most shootings are done with a handgun and its between gangmembers. People are deflecting the issue of bad mental health care and gang violencr in the hopes to play into the agenda to cut back on firearms. The way I see it, reducing a mass shooter's ability to reload is way too late of a solution when you are in fact treating a symptom and not a cause of the mass shooting in the first place.
Duzzins Sama I'll agree with you, a year later, except anytime people promote healthcare reform people freak out crying something something socialism without doing an ounce of homework. Other countries also don't have a 2nd ammendment so they never had to worry about guns being ingrained into society. Fix Healthcare, fix social problems and fix living conditions, or reduce victim rate of firearms.. Which is harder?
Are you kidding me in? In a mass shooting you have all the time in the world to reload. Imagine walking down a high school hallway after you shot up a room. Do you think there are going to be people trying to attack you? Know. People are going to be running from you and locking themselves in rooms. That's exactly the type of situation where magazine Size Doesn't Matter.
You guys do realize that it is possible to reload with a round in the chamber? Meaning if you try to rush him while he is reloading, he still has a bullet waiting for you before he finishes reloading. So the whole myth of rushing a guy while he is reloading is idiotic. I am not even a skilled shooter and I can reload a mag from my pocket in under 2 seconds, even less if I left a round in the chamber. Unless you are superman you will not be closing any distance in 2 seconds.
most people who even regularly train and pumped with adrenaline forget about the ability to reload with 1 in the tube. Try thinking about that when some jacked up punk comes at you shooting with bullets wizzing by your head -- if your lucky,
John Valnes In a mass shooting scenario (which is what the whole magazine size debate was created for), these shooters choose unarmed locations where opposition is minimal. So the chances of being able to reload with one in the chamber is far higher than in a firefight. It is also common practice to put tracer rounds for the last two shots for this purpose as well.
Shinzu good point! Tracer rounds for the last two makes sense. To be perfectly honest, I am uncertain as to which perspective the video is coming from. Pro high cap or pro restrictive capacity. Trying to prove that we can all do just fine with lo - cap mags or, neither makes a difference so lets all have hi-cap mags? Me? Very Hi-cap friendly. In the end, I believe the video shows very little proof towards either side.
John Valnes I think they are proving that restricted magazines do not help improve safety in a mass shooting scenario, so if it does not fix anything why ban it? It becomes as pointless as the Norway ban on nun-chucks, and butterfly knives.
You need to learn the definition of myth dumbass abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933 blog.timesunion.com/lawrencewhite/another-shooter-stopped-by-unarmed-citizens/1789/ thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/06/3445966/seattle-school-shooter-was-thwarted-by-a-limited-number-of-bullets/
When a crazy suicide/murder bomber blows him/herself up we don't blame the bomb materiel maker...when a drunk driver kills someone in a vehicle collision, we don't blame Budweiser or Chevy...
I blame explosives for the lives of Muslims. I just blame the Muslims for strapping said explosives to them in the first place without an expert in the area.
+Me No you don't but if you hand beer and a car to a 14 year olds you'd see a few more accidents on the road. Not everyone is capable of handling firearms.
this is ridiculous, the guy is shooting slower with the bigger magazines and a lot faster when switching to smaller magazines, rigged test results haha
No one can really believe this video, can they? He is so obviously shooting at different rates and the guy "running" towards the shooter is hilariously unrealistic about his speed. You wouldn't carefully jog towards the shooter. Ridiculous.
Reality check..... How many people do you truly believe are going to run at the shooter period.... Look at any surveillance video that has been released over the last decade involving a shooter in a mall or place of business...... Everyone is running away from the shooter!!!!
@ craigmancool.... Plenty.... Not that I need "bloviate" my credentials on some UA-cam thread, but I am more than qualified,, all from personal and professional experience, to levy an opinion on this topic..
This demonstration is a bit flawed. Someone in a mass shooting isn't going to be counting shots to leave one in the chamber each time. It would be more realistic to just shoot until it is empty, then do a normal mag change. Either way, we don't need to be trying to prove that a lower capacity magazine is just as fast as a normal capacity one. That's missing the point entirely. There should be no restrictions on magazine capacity, period. FYI, good ole Sheriff Ken Campbell had to resign his post early this year for doing something he put many people in jail for: www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/06/19/boone-county-sheriff-resigns-amid-prostitution-probe/11015867/
You know they set people up all the time right? Get someone who's a little more....compliant to take his spot, maybe? Not saying he is, but really, wouldnt be that crazy if it was.
chevy6299 well hardwired was saying the demo was unfair because they counted their shots in the mag. zech said to hardwired that how could hardwired know if the bad guy was counting his shots or not, I think zech was just saying it was a possibility.
I believe the point of the comparison is to show the comparison using best possible case for speed in each case. It was not to make the comparison totally realistic because that would be impossible to do anyway.
I'm behind the message of this video, but this is an pretty dumb demonstration. 1. Keep a consistent rate of fire. Don't speed up your shooting with the smaller mags. 2. Shoot realistically. I'm pretty sure no one counts shots so they can +1 every mag in a real shooting situation. Shoot till it locks empty, then reload.
+splewy the point is that its doesnt take long to reload, not that either of the three options are faster or not, but that the reload time isnt an opportunity to tackle and subdue a gunman.. which is the whole point behind smaller magazines, that they will shoot less bullets in a similar amount of time
+Nathan Jacobson also that you CAN actually shot just as fast if not faster WITH a reload if you want to. the reload has less than 2 seconds of time to perform.... not long enough to stop someone.
Jason Neri Yeah I understand the point of the video, and I agree with it. The whole "tackle the shooter while they're reloading" scenario is ridiculous. The Columbine shooters reloaded about 20 times been the two of them, and it made no difference. My point is that this video is kind of a dumb and non-scientific demonstration that leaves itself open to being picked apart. That just gives anti gunners ammo to keep spreading their ignorant rhetoric.
+splewy "That just gives anti gunners ammo to keep spreading their ignorant rhetoric." I also agree that smaller magazines wouldn't help US situation. US needs to do the same as Australia. Let's just look at the facts: "In the decade prior to the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings that left 100 dead.There have been none since."www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/26/gun-control-mass-shootings_n_8043364.html There have been none since because they adopted strict gun laws and bought back guns from their owners. This is no rhetorics. Just plain facts. Something gun lovers have a hard time coping with.
Mathieu Comeau In fairness though, almost all recent proposed U.S. gun control legislation has been a bit nonsensical. -They go after magazine capacity, which is of little detriment to someone using a gun in an offensive capacity, but does little to impede someone using a gun offensively. 10 rounds instead of 30 in a mag could make all the difference for a person just trying to defend themselves though. -They go after cosmetic features. Ban flash hiders, ban pistol grips, ban "barrel shrouds". Why? Not because they make a weapon any more dangerous, but because they make it look "scary". -They try to ban semi-automatic rifles, but not handguns, despite the fact that handguns account for 20 times more homicides every year. You may see "assault weapons" all over the news, but the truth is that very few people are actually killed by them. Only about 300 a year. More people are killed every year with knives, blunt objects and fists. The point is that people like me don't oppose gun legislation because we're anti safety. We oppose it because the legislation introduced thus far makes no sense.
I agree 100% with your findings. The problem is that many people I know who are anti, are “too upset” by the sound of gunfire to watch a video like this and learn. Hard to reason with people who refuse to listen to both sides
The only one having to reload is the citizen following the law. The criminal can use as big magazines as he wants - he isn't following the law anyways!!
Yeah, that's actually a decent argument, and one that I haven't heard. Of course the counter-point is "OH SO MORE BULLETS ON THE STREET BLAH BLAH" or the same logic some people (often the same people) use for gay marriage. "OH IF YOU LEGALIZE HIGH-CAP MAGS NEXT IT'LL BE FULLY AUTOMATIC TANK SHELL SHOTGUNS" ...dammit, now I want a fully automatic tank shell shotgun. :C
SpotlessGreg their is no gun in the world that can fire that fast! It's just stupid liberals that get their info wrong for stupid people to believe that
I guess the next thing is to label passenger jets as weapons of mass destruction and turn the the airports into Gestapo depots where people going to visit mom are subject to a cavity search. Wait; no wonder I just drove to Idaho.
@Charles Kurtz Little confused by your statement. How can a state government override a federal ruling? Isnt oklahomo in the great united states of america? Did you read that last part, the UNITED states. So if a federal ruling is applied by a serious federal government not one controlled by corporations like you have in merica then you will have to comply.
@Charles Kurtz sureee because transitioning at random from normal text to all caps then ending with some rant about liberal leftists "infecting us" in all caps lock definitely doesnt make you come across as crazy lmao
@Charles Kurtz all im saying is that, when you type normally, people will be more open to reading and understanding your cause. When you randomly start typing in all caps, people just disregard you as some crazy person that is unhinged and cannot hold a civilized conversation.
Yeah .. and I might get hit by a bus crossing the street. Or hit by lightening on a clear day without any warning. Did you have a point to make, or are you just repeating more nonsensical anti-gun fanatic talking points that you don't really understand. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of instances where police have not shot civilians with a gun defending themselves or others. Get the facts instead of just being another sheep.
You literally made up a stat then told me to get my facts straight. Maybe you should provide any solid evidence that the risk is negligible then maybe you have something. Specifically though I was referencing a New York Times article about the Dallas shooting. Thirty or so protesters were dressed in fatigues and gas masks carrying rifles. When the shooting started police were confused by men running with rifles, gas masks, and fatigues. This at the very least was a distraction that may have provided the shooter more opportunities to move without being noticed. Anyway, it's something to keep in mind. - the blind sheep regurgitating nonsense
+Jordan Weimer I may stand the risk of being shot by confused police, but I guess I'd rather take that chance rather than being shot by some crazy guy.
For everyone that has asked about why Christy only shot 5 rounds on the first mag and 7 on the last one, here's the explanation. The first mag had 6 rounds, she pulled the trigger 5 times and the 6th round went into battery but it wasn't fired until the next magazine was inserted. This is why you don't see the slide lock back. The next mag had 6 rounds plus one already in the chamber from the previous magazine, she fires 6 rounds which again leaves one in the chamber. Repeat until last magazine where there are 6 rounds plus the one in the chamber so 7 shots are fired. 30 rounds from 5 magazines of 6 rounds each. Again, you only see the slide lock back on the last magazine when there is no more ammunition in the magazine. Lastly it wasn't just Christy, they both did this.
Exactly..... explanation of bolt not locking out of battery after last round. Must be that Bump stock, barrel shroud and thing that goes up. Nancy Pelosi is really 🔥!!!
@@inland85 I think what the demonstration was trying to show is that the law limiting mag capacity itself is the real BS. They more or less brought that point home so kudos to them.
@@rishardlampese8947 But they minimized the effect of the mag changout by doing this. This is a bogus test. Each changeout would have lasted much longer if the slide locked back after each mag.
To all calling this technique BS, nobody said they couldn't be smart about it. There were 30 shots fired each time with pistol, 20 shots fired with the long gun. Being smart isn't against the rules. But an emergency reload isn't much slower than the tactical reloads performed here. Your talking about hitting a slide release. NBD.
This does prove one other very important thing and that is, that anti- Gun people aught to go educate their selves about Guns, before trying to take away our 2nd Amendment guaranteed Right to own Guns here in the U.S.. I believe after they do educate their selves about Guns, they'll possibly want to own Guns too for their self, and if not- at least they'll know the truth and should get off our back and our 2nd Amendment Right!
You assume that people against the views of this video are anti gun? Holy fuq, I love guns, I just don't need to compensate for training with more rounds and an itchy trigger finger when statistics say that the vast majority of criminals operate independently in independent events. 2nd amendment talks of arms, not how much ammo they hold...how many shots did they hold when that was written?
Sterling Roberts Evidence of the Watts riots, New Orleans, Recent security guard shooting at three burglars as well as Mom in Detroit non withstanding of course. I personally like a wheel gun, but I also realize and understand tactics enough to understand why a semi auto may indeed be the best choice for some. In short you do what you want with your skin, I will do what I want with mine. And turn off MSNBC for god sake and learn to think critically
Sterling Roberts The 2nd Amendment was written implying for people to be able to match up with what ever the Government had for Firearms. How would we ever contend with a Government gone bad, if they're holding whatever Rifle they want (being with at least a 20 to 30 round Magazines, and never mind what else they've got), and us citizens being held with a single to five shot bolt action? I don't think I have to explain that scenario. Sure a person can learn to shoot a Rifle with a single shot, but they can not learn what people will learn with a 20 to 30 round semi-automatic Rifle. Plus the free Right pleasure to shooting Rifles with multiple Rounds of 20 to 30 or more, it is so much fun. Being part of a repressed group of people, is NOT a fun thing at all. I've already heard what people have to say, who have an interest in Guns and live in a repressed Country. They hate it, and feel miserable! Being that a person has an interest in Guns, why would such a person want to limit fellow Gun owners who happen to like their 20 to 30 round or more Magazine firing Rifles. I'd think they would gladly understand the whole subject on Magazines of semi-automatic Rifles and how they can be very necessary to the safety of ones life. They also will be very familiar and respecting about this being a free Country and one of our many Rights here in the United States. Or a person can look at it like this, for being good people, non of us should be punished and repressed, because of the few people who turn to criminal, evil, or gravely whacked wrong actions with a Gun and murder another person(s). It is NOT the Gun which did the murder, it was a person! Seeing that nobody care's about the far more people who are wrongly killed by a vehicle, and that people easily manage to separate the action from the tool with vehicles, it is the same with the Gun tool. Nothing is different at all about a Gun, for people who are killed by a vehicle, are just as dead as people who are killed by a Gun. This anti-Gun or even Gun limitations idea (both with the same direction intended- i.e. NO Guns) , is truly based on a selective choosing which is clearly wrong, and based on controlling the Rights of good people in what is already suppose to be a fee Country. Which the Forefathers of this Country specifically put the 2nd Amendment in to protect the people here in the U.S., from this very thing that anti-Gun and Gun limiting people want to do to the 2nd Amendment! A Constitutional violation, and North Korean like headed. I don't like the idea at all, of other people trying to tell me here in a free Country, which is already a Constitutional Right for the people, how many bullets can be in the Magazine of my Rifle(s) or Handgun(s) that I have for target practice and defense. It is our 2nd Amendment Right!
The official point of this video. Reloads take less than 2 seconds and making mass shooters reload won't save anyone or slow a rampage down at all. So don't take away higher capacity mags from people who enjoy them, like me.
And the "If they have to reload, the people have a fighting chance" argument, is really the only one they have. But they will never watch a video like this and consider it's validity. Instead they will pass laws, and "feel" better and safer because law-abiding citizens will respect the law and have restricted magazine capacity.
ScarsRemain94 Unfortunately I have to agree with you. Those who are anti gun rarely take the time to research and understand what they are afraid of. Therefor through a lack of understanding they pass "feel good laws"
Smart people don't consider the validity because it is not valid. Take 3 10 round mags, put on in the firearm, put the other 2 in a jacket pocket. Then do this test and see how long it takes.
Who cares how long it takes to reload from a jacket pocket? How is that going to save lives? And what makes you think a criminal is going to use a restricted magazine instead of one of the hundreds of thousands of standard capacity magazines? Just because you disagree with the video doesn't mean you are smart and anyone who disagrees with you is not smart. There's a name for that way of thinking. It's called "Elitist".
No it is not called "elitist", it is called calling out someone on their BS. This officer is making a case that restricting large capacity mags would make no difference, when he knows that is not true. Or at least he SHOULD know if he is an actual experienced, trained officer. As to people ignoring the laws and staying with the large mags, that is why we need laws with real teeth. Get caught with an illegal mag, 10 years mandatory. Use a firearm with a illegal mag to commit a crime - 25 to Life mandatory. Little by little people will get the point.
Why does a single youtube video give you a desire to add more guns to your collection? Perhaps you should understand that you have a serious impulse control problem.
Not really. Unless they are walking around carrying a 50 gallon drum to place their magazines on and orientate them in the right direction for easy reloading.
@@smith97320 Or, you know, unless you're defending yourself against an unexpected attack, or... you know... executing defenseless victims as they try to hide, cower in corners and beg for their life. Which scenario do you suppose favors or negates magazine restrictions?
@@springbloom5940 idea.. EXECUTE people who use guns in crimes! -- don't restrict crap, BUT if somebody uses a gun, to commit a crime, EXECUTE them! IF the government would execute kids who use guns to kill their classmates; school shootings would stop. (name 1 school shooter who has been 'punished' for his actions).
I don't get this "Me wife stole my gun" "I lost them in a boating accident" If they ever come knocking again, the correct thing to say is NOTHING. Silence. Anything you say will only be used against you. Repeat that last sentence over and over. People love the second ammendment but are pretty ignorant about the 5th.
The problem with making the "it doesn't make any difference" argument is that the gun grabbers will say, "OK. Fine. If it doesn't make any difference, you won't mind being limited to 10".
+jjohnston94 a citizen wont carry 6 magazines he would carry a spare 1, a mass shooter would carry shit loads so we should restrict the civilian into having 10 rounds or turning him self in to an arsenal of magazines
+Ryan Freeman I honestly don't have any idea what you said. I recognize the words individually, but put together the way they are in your comment, they make no sense.
jjohnston94 a ccw owner would carry only 1 spare mag , however a shooter would carry an arsenal so this proposal is only going to cut on the amount of ammunition a ccw holder carries since he wont carry a thousand mags.
+jjohnston94 Actually hemade perfect sense. THe reason a civilian will be hindered is because he or she is not out to carry a dozen magazines. A normal ccw would carry one in the gun and 2-3 spares max. This limits the amount of firepower you can bring against say a mass shooter with 30 or 40 magazines or more in a bag and in his or her person. The bad guys love the restrictions hell they are hoping all guns are taken away so he can do even more damage.
Those thinking that limiting mag capacity will reduce violent crime have no clue regarding firearms or the criminal mindset. Thanks Sheriff and be safe.🇺🇸
His idiotic video actually did the gun community a disservice by further proving antigun agenda that "high capacity magazines makes no difference so why do civilians need it to defend themselves?"
@@ashleyjohansson230 this wasn't a very well thought out illustration. Having the magazines sitting out on blue barrels instead of in tactical vest magazine holders, or a bag worn by the firer is not an accurate simulation of how a mass shooter would be equipped. A sheriff should know better. And reducing magazine capacity isn't supposed to directly reduce violent crime. It makes it necessary to reload much more often, which increases the time you spend not shooting people and increases the time you could be subdued in between loads. If you're well practiced and adept at shooting and you decide to go on a mass shooting, it will hinder you less, but hinder you still in some measure. If you're a mentally disturbed or impulsive mass shooter who isn't well practiced in tactical reloads, it will hamper you greatly. This gives civilians or police more opportunities to take them out.
@@ashleyjohansson230 Because a mass shooting is premeditated and the shooter would be at least somewhat prepared. A civilian is going to have to deal with a surprise attack. She'll be be aroused from sleep, shooting in pajamas or panties or boxer shorts, barefoot. No time to strap on spare mags. As for concealed carry, where are you going to stash extra magazines within easy reach? Lower capacity magazines affect no one who's prepared to use them. They only jam up those dealing with a surprise attack.
DoctorBrian60 Normal everyday citizens are not trained Navy Seals. It also depending on the caliber of the gun too. If its a low caliber pistol that uses 9mm then it will take way more than 1 shot to stop an invader.
+DoctorBrian60 have you fired a gun before lol plus waking up with the rush going they may be bug and a 9mm might not do shit unless headshot that's why you get yourself a man stopper .45 colt
Sparda take a 85 grain piece of lead to the knee cap at 1300 (9mm) feet per second from 20 feet away (about the longest home defense range) and see how much fight is left in you use before you stop being a jerk... go ahead and try it...
Those that propose "gun restrictions would reduce gun crime" must first explain the drug epidemic in America. It all has little to do with guns and a whole lot to do with control.
I am buying a new 3D printer that would allow me to design and print my own machine guns, rockets and statues or be lazy and use paper blue prints or download blue prints and would still require making the fuel with my chemistry set for the rocket fuel and 3d printers still require you to assemble the parts after printing them.
@@cendregaming3200 thousands even millions of people have already purchased home 3d printers and a portion of them could be made to mass produce machine gun parts that then could be assembled and the large majority of them are not using them to make guns.
Most do though. If it is a group, many are punk kids breaking in unarmed. Give me the stats for the number of times multiple SERIOUS threats break in(or assault an individual anywhere) compared to the negative incidents involving high capacity magazines, i.e., theft, gang violence, massacres. Oh, guess what, training(VERY FEW criminals train to ANY degree of seriousness for their deeds, but you have every reason and opportunity to do so) can cut reloading down to a fraction, 1/2 the amount of time from vest/pocket to well. Also, training to leave a round in the chamber nullifies slide-lock, which can get you down to a third the time of a real situation reload. Mags aren't in a convenient place in a firefight...
Sterling Roberts Also, gun range, FFS! You'll never be as accurate in a gunfight, but missing 10 shots within pistol range against 1-2 assailants? Please, don't go on about the ever elusive 3+ attacker notion... and you really think they're just going to walk up on you after you shoot a few rounds? Like, you really don't have time for a 2-4 second reload? Maybe stop dropping the mags out of the well and telling them you're empty(if they're even smart enough to identify that sound), huh? MoC, some people...
No, I'm 22 and am an avid gun owner. Just think his argument is a little(lot) silly. I do not feel as if I need that many rounds to put down my targets. Also, the likelihood of multiple assailants vs the likelihood that any criminal will use these magazines for their deeds? Come on, you really think multiple assailants are more common than the amount armed with these magazines they stole from legal owners? I'm also not saying magazines should be taken from citizens, just that we don't push for 100 round mags for our Glocks. They more powerful weapons and equipment we legalize, the more criminals get them. Training, however(and most don't have half a lucid brain), is one thing you can bet they don't have.
Sterling Roberts But then why does law enforcement feel the need to have large capacity clips? They train weekly in most cases and still need large magazines. Someone that has less training, needs more capacity to defend themselves.
Jim fired MUCH faster with the 3-10 round magazines AND the 5-6 round pistol magazines AND with the AR magazines...this was not a very accurate comparison. It does however show that the capacity does not really matter for a seasoned professional or a nutjob who's been practicing. I would also have liked to have seen the actual hit percentage for each shooter. Overall, I agree with the premise of this video, you just needed to benchmark the overall exercise.
The hell are you on about? This video is simulating an active shooter... the two shooters in the video are demonstrating that limiting magazine size does little to affect their killing capabilities.
@@Chironex_Fleckeri I believe hes saying that law abiding citizens would have limited magazine capacity and a criminal would not. Thus "wasting time reloading mags while and assailant isn't"
Yes, with modern firearms it's safe. And, if you can, you should carry with a round in the chamber. Now, there are some pistols designed to be cocked or racked when drawn but most modern pistols are designed to be carrier "hot". Before carrying any firearms you should know the do's and don'ts of it, how it functions, how to clear a type 1, 2, or 3 malfunction, ect.....you get the point. :) All part of being a responsible gun owner and carrying responsibly. I carry my Glock 22 gen4 (striker fired) with a round in the chamber. It has no frame safety but has a double trigger. The only time it's unsafe is if the pistol is something like a wheel gun (think, old western revolver) with the firing pin on the hammer. (not all wheel guns are like this though) Something like that should be carrier on an empty chamber. Most of this you can learn with a simple google search. :) I'm happy to help though. If you have any other questions just ask. Have a great day!
Of course all this pertains to carrying a pistol for defense. As far as having one laying around at home, it all depends on your situation. You got kids and no place to put a gun that they won't have access to? Then you'll be better off leaving the pistol without a round in the chamber. If you're like me and are single and those you live with understand the do's and don'ts of a firearm then you're likely okay to leave it "hot" on your bedside table. In the end it all comes down to you, your needs, and what you're comfortable with doing. :) Hope this helps.
A solid idea. Alot of people slap one mag in their pistol and go out. Not a good idea. I carry my glock 22 concealed even though it has a 15 round in a mag (plus 1 in the chamber) I always have a spare mag. Someone asked me awhile back, "Hey, why do you need another magazine? You going to war?" This is because most people think another mag is for more ammo. For me, it's really not. If you're in a self defense situation and you have a jam that requires you to release the mag it's much easier to have a spare to slap in than pick up your mag off the floor. Now, in your case only having 6 rounds to a mag, carrying additional mags is a solid idea for reasons above but in your case, you may actually need more ammo. You carry a compact glock? Like a glock 43?
Jim Boatwright I prefer the assault drums. It is mostly cosmetic differences from the tactical, but it does fold up, you can adjust the height, change the angle, and they have all-terrain wheels optional.
If anyone else noticed that if the runner had a gun they could have stopped the shooter from the safety of cover instead of trying to be a mindless hero. Or in a real life situation they could have stopped the shooter from the safety of cover without being a helpless victim waiting on the police to save them while they are being shot at.
And...let's also keep in mind there have been more than a few mass shootings wherein "high capacity" magazines may have contributed to jammed weapons. I believe the Colorado murderer had an AR-15 with a 100 round drum. It double-fed and he couldn't clear it. That's when he abandoned it and switched to his handguns. If he had been limited to smaller magazines, he may have continued with the AR, which is easier to handle, better at point-and-shoot, and does more damage than a handgun (especially if he was using FMJ in the pistols). The Parkland shooter used 20-round magazines in his AR because the 30+ round magazines he had wouldn't fit in his duffel bag. Here's another disadvantage of "high capacity" magazines...they're less concealable.
I don't know if that's the case, but I wouldn't doubt it. There's a reason the military does not use drum magazines. They're unreliable. I own a lot of guns. I would never consider owning a drum magazine. They're a novelty in my mind. Nothing more. They're not serious items for serious shooters. They're not particularly dangerous and I see no reason to ban them. I also see no reason to own them.
I'd argue that a 9mm Para/Luger (using the confined spaces listed as examples) would do more bodily harm than a 5.56. 5.56 isn't a _Wunderpatronen._ It's not magical. It's a small bullet, that goes very fucking fast; it's known more for its penetrating power than its kill potential. Not only is a 9mm larger, it's much denser, and at close range, that matters - because physics. And, given the lightweight, small nature of pistols, they're much more maneuverable, concealable, and in confined spaces, easier at point-and-shoot (particularly in or at a crowd, where aiming isn't quite necessary, anyway) than any rifle.
@@MaddenMagician And _you_ couldn't take the extra tenth of a second to put the y and o on the word "you"? I _said_ I'd _argue,_ not that I was right - which I wasn't.
Anybody notice my comment from 2 months ago, or make the same statement I did, but on their own? No. Jim was wasting time (deliberately or not?) in the beginning, then changed his tactics. When shooting 321321321, time is wasted when he's swinging over to repeat the 321. Then he begins to shoot 321232123, which eliminates swinging over to repeat. If I did a video on this subject, I would at least make an effort to be consistent, so that no one would be able to make any allegations that something is being done on purpose, to skew the results. The 2 15-round magazines sure took a long time to empty!
the MYSTERIOUS Eddie Dean I noticed it too. I guess they figured most ppl they are trying to get a point across to wouldn’t notice it. I still get their point but like you said it’s best to not leave any flaws in the “experiment”.
the MYSTERIOUS Eddie Dean he had to count shots to make sure he could do a speed no rack reload which was probably a issue for the test ether way a criminal can find a piece of plastic or metal ether way
the MYSTERIOUS Eddie Dean he was counting shots as to leave one in the chamber. Otherwise the slide locks back which slows the reload. It’s harder to count shots with higher capacity.
Anthony Fletcher he is counting shots to leave one in the chamber as to avoid locking back the slide which would slow the reload. It’s harder to count shots when dealing with higher numbers, so it’s easier to shoot faster with lower capacity
The point should be made by shooting as fast as humanly possible with every magazine size, not intentionally skewing the results by shooting slower on purpose.
I do, I always plan ahead. I have an instantly inflatable barrel shaped balloon that hardens into a convenient metal table at a moment's notice! You mean you don't have one?? NOOB! Haha, really though.
As someone who is pro gun, i appreciate what they are trying to convey, but they went about it in a bad way, the mag placement being one, but the biggest issues i have is the lack of consistancy in the time between rounds. the rate of fire in the control was noticably slower then the rest of the tests, if we wanna convey the truth to people who dont know better the arguments have to be AIR TIGHT. That being said the only thing that effectively stop someone with a gun is someone else with a gun, its a terrible reality but a reality nonetheless, and mag restrictions do nothing but endanger law abiding citizens. It wont stop criminals, and it wont stop active shooters.
Daniel Diaz Why is the time between rounds fired an issue? The point of the test isn't to see how quickly you can fire individual shots in different magazines, the point is to show that reloading takes very little time, and since you never know when the shooter will reload, you can't time a tackle to take him out.
"Shall not be infringed". The nuts have proved that they will just get a pressure cooker or a Ryder truck and pack'm with fertilizer and ball bearings.
@@anthonyhardison9563 well they do that so it sprinkles it around the blast area and pretty flowers will grow and make it a nice place for the birds and butterflies ÷)
I hate how Jim was shooting the high capacity magazines slowly and then rushing his shots with the lower capacity magazines. You can tell he did it on purpose.
All the video showed me was that having smaller capacity magazines will give victims a false sense of security. They'll think they can run at the attacker while he's reloading. All they'll manage to do, though, is make themselves an easier target by being closer when the attacker finishes reloading.
Agreed; which is why I'm so vehemently opposed to magazine bans. My favorite semi-automatic rifle (non-rimfire, that is) doesn't even come with a magazine option over 10 rounds, and the 4 round stock magazines are generally more reliable. Accuracy in most modern tacticool rifles is far less stellar than any decent semi-auto hunting rifle...at least until you start modifying them. What most people DON'T realize is that an AR-15 used for 1/4 MOA target shooting does not have the same kind of barrel or tolerances as a military style weapon made for high rate of fire in adverse conditions. Firing off two 30 round mags as fast as you can pull the trigger through one of these rigs will absolutely destroy the barrel (relative to it's former accuracy) and that's if you're lucky enough to keep it from jamming once it heats up due to the tolerances. This doesn't even cover the mediocre power of a 5.56 or 7.62x39mm in comparison to even my "lowly" little .243 Winchester..much less verses a full sized .308, .30-06, .300 Win Mag, .270, .338 Federal, .338 RCM, etc. The .243 makes up for brute energy with extremely flat shots...but that's another story. Now I'm not so sure that I agree with anyone believing that they can charge an attacker...much less that most would have the nuts to do it. This is fairly moot though when you consider the comprehensive truth in terms of full auto, semi auto, etc. There is more than enough data showing that automatic "spray" is far less efficient and accurate than precise semi-automatic fire...and is only useful in target rich areas or for suppression purposes (getting people to hide from the noise/gunfire). It would only make sense, in terms of that logic, to realize that well places aim will generally negate any real differences between a 10 or 20 round magazine and that spraying will, again, be far less deadly and precise than meticulous aiming.
They leave 1 round in the chamber so they don't have to charge the rifle or cycle a round between reloads. All the mags have the same number of rounds.
I have 27 years in Law Enforcement in the 8th largest city in the US. That said, this is a BS demo. I will call it the "Christmas Scenario"...if you got everything you want it would turn out how the Sheriff said it would. In most of these demos these folks are standing at a range with mags laying on barrels in front of them. In real shooting situations you ain't going to have mags sitting in front of you. Best case you are pulling them out of mag pouches....with a lot of these mass shooters they are pulling them out of backpacks, pockets etc. In real life shooting situations you are under stress and moving. I have seen trained professionals fumble with mags. try to put them in backwards and drop them. My point is MOST shooters are NOT going to perform near as well as in this "lab environment". So, as a pretty good shooter myself, I would prefer if I am engaging someone with an assault rifle I would prefer he have to reload a couple of more times (10n round mags) which in reality because of the "Whoopsie Factor" I have mentioned above it will give me a few more seconds to pop my head up and dump the guy.....or for the unarmed civilians out there a few more seconds to "RUN FORREST RUN! All the statistics about misses given in the beginning are true. PRACTICE...PRACTICE...PRACTICE! For those who think the large cap "Spray and Pray" method is viable, just remember you are responsible for what you hit. If you send 30 .223 rounds down range and kill a non-combatant you WILL be held responsible. If you pull that crap in your house you are likely to kill a family member or even a neighbor. Hands down the best home defense weapon...a pump shotgun with bird shot. The bad guys know the racking sound, you get a nice wide pattern on a shorter barrel and bird shot is not going to pass through several walls and kill little Jimmy. Even if you miss you will scare the bejesus out of the bad guy.
Here is an old standard that has been forgotten and abused....4 words....."Shall not be infringed" . That should be the end of ALL the debates and there should be no other regulations. period.
I agree with you, but many of the same people who want to restrict mag size also want to remove the 2nd amendment. If they get rid of that one they will have free range to go for the rest.
@@golling3334 One piece at a time our rights to bear arms has been chipped away at. One thing here, another thing there..... all sold as protections of the people when in FACT the best protection the people have is their right to bear arms and protect themselves. This false protection is actually the exact opposite..... it is a long term goal to end our rights and make politicians safe from us protecting ourselves from them. They are the biggest criminals in our society playing like they give a shit about the people. They lie.
You’re forgetting the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” part. I love my guns but we have to be honest when we have this discussion and not omit parts of the 2nd all because we don’t like it. We also have to put the 2nd amendment into context of the times where states kept their own militia forces that the federal government would call upon in times of need or the state. This is what the 2nd amendment was made for, as we can clearly see by the language given. Now a common misconception a lot of gun lovers like to push (I used to aswell until I thought about it) is the militia was referring to the civilian populace, no it’s not. See the militias became the State National Guard, which fulfills the requirements set to us by our founding fathers and thus the Second Amendment, in its current form as the founding fathers wrote it, would apply to the National Guard. So how would we argue for guns? Well instead of fighting regulation why not propose new ones? Maybe a mandatory gun safety course or mandatory trigger locks? Maybe a safety inspection is required or mandatory magazine lock with every purchase. See regulation is going to happen, the more we fight restrictive regulation the worse it’ll get. If we want our guns in their current state then you need to propose differing regulations that don’t effect the weapon but rather how it’s maintained and how much the owner is responsible for negligence
@@cendregaming3200 wrong. Your tieing the word militia to people. The comma after militia separates the militia from the people, and thus leaving the right to the person over the militia. Goole search " pen and teller explain the second amendment".
@@giggsreaper347 Penn was wrong, because Penn is a highly emotional person who wants strong solutions, not vague advice. The comma business is just bullshitting people with bad reading skills. Including Penn. A comma means that both sides of the sentence are part of the same idea, not separate. Furthermore, if they would be separate, we should just assume people writing it were not sane at the time, as the cohesion of the sentences is lost. From the side of the english language, from historical and political factors, the meaning very specifically means banning of guns is specifically allowed to anyone NOT in well regulated state militia. The SIMPLE solution to this? Re-establish free militia, not as national guard but as specifically MILITIA. Not as part of military, maybe, but under, say Sheriffs department or something, joining legal and political into the mix. There is absolutely no way those guns could ever be taken away, as they are very specifically protected by constitution, no matter how you read it, its not under military control, not directly under governor, but still not actually private either, its still government under the name. Government cant attack it without attacking itself. Protected by checks and balances, in a way. Legally locked in place, barring total end of all laws, at which point LOCAL people have the control and the guns. People and militia not as different, but as one and same. No, its not my idea, just the original idea by the historical constitution dudes, dude.
Not a very good demonstration. In a REAL active shooter situation, the shooter will not have the mags in a nice, easy to get to platform in front of them. Try doing this again with real scenarios
+TJentzsch Ever heard of open top mag pouches? They make reloading even faster than this. Thats what an ACTIVE shooter uses. They are in a nice easy to get to platform and are right on your belt. Try doing some research.
I agree. However the reason a magazine ban was placed was from all the premeditated murders happening in schools and theaters and such. And with a premeditated mass killing, generally they have back up ammo at the ready on their person. Whether we find this video accurate or not as far as ease of accessibility isn't the point, it's to show that stupid politicains have taken away high capavity magazines away from us law abiding citizens, and now the only people who can get them are the criminals who shoot up innocent people.
+SortaMrCraig 73 yea, I'm in Colorado where for some reason every crazy bastard has to kill innocent people. and those crazy people got them banned for everybody here. lucky me, the day before the ban went into effect, they had a huge sale. I bought nice 30 round AK mags for $5 a piece. AR mags for $8, and glock 17 mags for
Not sure if you understand that. If not, it’s because the mobsters used to just drop their weapons after using them. Either going for another gun or just leaving.
In a real life situation you are not going to have your spare magazines already out and laid out in front of you. Instead you are going to have to get them from their pouches or pockets and reload them which will take more time. Larger magazine is always preferred to me
If you were defending yourself they will be quickly accessible, but not out. If the shooter was perparating a mass shooting I'm guessing that detail would be handled by sewing little half pockets in his shirt to have them out in an instant.
Yeah I know - I used to do the same thing in the army. But if you're trying to make a political point you should replicate reality as closely as possible.
He could have as easily used two open-top magazine pouches for his belt to hold 3 or 4 magazines. It wouldn't have been much different at all. For me it's easier and quicker to grab a magazine from my side than in front of me on a table top which involves me having to look quickly.
+Jay Santos Yes trained people plan this stuff out but if you look at these shootings a lot of them are people who are mentally deranged and do not think like that if they did they would have an almost 100% kill rate as they clear don't plan on getting out in anyway
Jay Santos and you know when those cops have the opportunity to take that shot? When he is reloading. I never said someone tackled them. Don't assume my words.
I feel like this test wasn't very scientific. It's just obvious that having to change magazines would obviously slow someone down. The amount of time needed to change would depend greatly on their skill. There's no doubt a trained person could use smaller clips and just practice changing them faster. It's clearly demonstrated with the man shooter. He just shoots the smaller clips faster. I'm pro gun, but this is frankly a poor test.
it doesn't slow you down as much as you'd think, with some training you can change them pretty quick. As I only have training with the HK 416 (same magazine and magazine well as the AR-15) I'm gonna use that as an example. A prone magazine change under perfect conditions took me usually 1.6 - 1.8 seconds. from trigger pull -> right index finger on mag release while left hand opens mag pouch, and retrieves the mag -> insert into the magazine well and chamber a round -> trigger pull. while this is done I always keeps my sights on the target. it's a lot quicker standing up in a shooting position.
Yeah, it’s a rigged demonstration... if it didn’t make a difference, we wouldn’t want them... The difference is negligible with the exception that people can panic and flub the reload.
@@thesmirk the point of the video is to demonstrate that a mass shooter is gonna be just as effective with 6-10 rnd mags as with 30 rnd mags. Basically elimating the idea that magazine regulation laws are necessary or warranted
@@yungdomino4718 Except the entire test was rigged as The Smirk said. It isn't meant to be an accurate or consistent representation. There were so many uncontrolled variables preventing you from drawing accurate conclusions. You can't record time but then fire at different rates to try to manipulate the outcome. You need each test to be consistent, he should have already been warmed up before he started the first test. By going in to the first test cold you're skewing the results. Then there's also the absurdity of having targets at all. At a range like that your time to aim to target is negligible, he might as well have just been mag dumping down range at that point; especially since the accuracy didn't really matter. Then didn't take in to consideration how many shots were actually effective or landed on target so why did they bother having the targets in the first place? It makes no sense that they prepared magazines on the barrel in front of the shooter, it's just another attempt to try to mitigate the time it takes to perform a reload in favor of painting magazine restrictions in a bad light. Might be worth pointing out that I'm not even in fair of magazine restrictions proposed here but this test is such an awful counter to that argument. They essentially tried to create a situation in which you might as well not even have a reload as a way of showcasing how little reloads affect overall rates of fire. They allowed him to count rounds instead of emptying the chamber to avoid the time it would take to release the slide, and they completely overlooked the increased time it would take to retrieve another magazine from whatever you have it contained it. A mass shooter or even in a self defense situation typically wouldn't have magazines prepared on a surface before hand like that so why would they utilize that in their test? Especially under adrenaline, the more actions you have to perform to reach your final conclusion, in this case firing a weapon, the more opportunity you have for a mistake to go wrong. In this completely idealized, unrepresentative situation it is incredibly simple with very few instances to slip up. In a more realistic example you would have to deal with potentially fumbling a magazine out of your carrier, struggling to release the slide, manually removing the magazines if you have rock and lock type magazine, and more. If mass shooters were going to be just as effective with smaller magazines then why do we equip soldiers with 30 round magazines instead of 10 or 20?
Well done. Anyone who thinks limiting magazine capacity will stop violent crime should also consider limiting spoon sizes- because spoons make you fat.
No it will not stop violent crime but it will lower the effect of it. We shouldn't limit spoon size although according to you it makes you fat because being fat isn't a crime.
csfreak89 No, it wont lower the "effect" of it. In places like cali the mag size hasn't changed a thing. I know of at least one liberal mayor that disagrees with you on what makes people fat and unhealthy, and then limits food sizes. Bloomberg ring a bell.
@trucker's destiny You won't be able to get a delicious country fried steak, because fried food, and red meat, are both bad for you, and hence illegal. Toothpicks are banned because they are made from trees, and we don't want to cut down the forests. Picking your nose might offend someone, and you won't be able to grow or eat cucumbers because they resemble a phallus and are also offensive, as well as contributing to the rape culture due to their phallic shape. Tofu and kale.
ya but suddenly the rate of fire vastly increases when he gets smaller magazines, if he had fired the first set of magazines anywhere near as quick as he did with the rest the results would be a lot different.
I would also be very curious to see what happens if you're digging mags out of pouches/pockets while moving or in cover. Having mags laid out in front of you while in your favorite shooting position really makes reload as convenient as possible.
Have you? Your comment makes no sense. This guy is assuming every knuckle head that buys a weapon knows how to reload as quickly, and like Steve below said, has all their ammo laid out nice and neat before them. This test was to achieve a specific result and they performed it in a manner to achieve that result.
+The Barbershop so you'd be willing to stand in the line of fire for that extra couple of seconds, let's say 5 seconds maximum, even the girl got plenty of shots off in five seconds to kill you and potentially wound somebody else
im pro gun .but this test isnt realistic... no one in a self defense situation is on a range with no stress and theyre magazines layed out so as to facillitate easy mag changes...
They aren't arguing on self defense, they are claiming it doesn't make a difference for the mass shooter, who would be the only one armed (usually) and may take up a sniping position where he has magazines laid out in front of him.
The only portion of the "realworld" it is attempting to replicate is the reload as that is the argument they are making. If you feel the quick reload aspect of the video is inaccurate, try watching one of the other million quick reload videos.
+Merb34st not concerned about quick reload im more about putting lead on target accurately... a single well placed shot from most weapons will disable the target...be cool
The begining of the video says that 80-85% of shots miss even for well trained officers. We all know a well placed shot can mean the end but the chances are slim under stress.
Wtf? Are you insane or just fucking stupid? If you think magazine pouches add a negligible amount of time to reload, then I want proof. I want THAT to be on the video, not nicely laid out magazines sitting at a comfortable hand level for convenient reloading. Put it up there. 4 six cartridge magazines. Let's see it.
I want my wife to have a 100rd mag on every weapon she has. Under pressure, even she admits she will need them. Government needs to stay out of my life.
+Alica Ljungberg also, adrenaline makes a mag change a hell of a lot harder, have them go for a run abs get their heartbeat up to say, 130bpm, then shoot
+maksim tsionskiy I think people greatly overestimate these psychopaths training for these situations the kill percentage is almost always under 50% after including the crazies dying themselves if they were so trained the percentage would be a lot higher
Moral of the story: don't f*ck with Jim.
That is a theory I can stand behind!
+David Ridout Not sure I'd push Christy's buttons either.
+Crispy Critter She did look pretty serious with that AR, didnt she.
+Marcus Adams good old song
Christy is a badass chick too. She handled those firearms like a beast!
At least they didn’t use Jerry Miculek as the shooter ... 30 rnds 2 seconds ...
True!
Oh that would just make the Liberals heads explode
actualy 4.7 seconds lol
@@kennyminer2245 And shoots 30 1 round magazines in 5.2 seconds.
Did you ever see the video where he fired 6 shots from a revolver, reloaded it, and fired 6 more shots in less than 3 seconds?
It killed me when he just started pulling revolvers out of his pockets
me to. im like that is so expensive wish i could afford that many....
Clearly you've never seen Paul Harrell's videos...
@@BoberFett that just makes me cry.... its so sad ;(
Were you the guy on the target?
New York reload! ROTFL
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy
AHahhahahaha
Lmao!! I like that!!! If i had a bumber sticker, THAT IS WHAT IT WOULD SAY!!
GOOD SIGN FOR MY FRONT YARD..
Andy Warren this is a great comment
I carry both to dual wield.
The cop is not the problem. The amount of donuts are creating the problem.
Jim obviously shoots faster with smaller mags. Ban all magazines with less than 10 round capacity!
For sure. His cadence is noticeably faster on the smaller mags. He speeds up because he's paranoid about the mag changes.
I gave up on the video though. Do we ever see targets? Did they hit shit?
He’s counting the rounds so he never exhausted the mags and let the slide lock back which kills time in speed shooting. Ironically using lower capacity mags makes that technique easier and faster since you don’t have to think about a higher round count and can shoot faster.
Sounds good to me
So make it a requirement you have to own at least 2 1911's then? Sounds good to me
@@pagz7779 www.joeboboutfitters.com/Wilson-Series-47-Bureaucrat-Magazine-1911-Magazine-p/wilson-47t.htm
Seems a lot of people are missing the point of the video.
1: standard or 'larger" capacity magazines are useful for people who'm carry one in their firearm to defend themselves.
2: Restricting magazine capacity won't do anything to impede mass murderers, but it will certainly impede law abiding civilians, by limiting their round, especially if they only carry one, in their gun.
3: the video wasn't about demonstrating how fast you can burn rounds, it was showing that reloading doesn't take a long time. Whether your mags are on a barrel, on your belt, in a book bag, whatever. Reloading does not take very long. If you are a determined massed killer, limited capacity magazines won't do much to slow you... But if you are a civilian, obeying the law, and you only have one mag for your gun... Fewer rounds, could be very bad for you...
Trishooty45 well said, sir.
Trishooty45, I'm not sure what video you're watching, but the male and female Shooters using one magazine 3 magazines and 5 magazines was absolutely an attempt to try to limit magazine size.
Changing a magazine does in fact take a long time. There are plenty of UA-cam videos where you can see a cop and reload in the middle of a shootout. It takes a lot more time than having a magazine laid out in front of you on a table. I don't forget, cops have their magazines on their belt. In a concealed carry state you would also have to dig into a holster or pocket or some other hidden compartment to get an extra magazine. No thank you.
Trishooty45 The problem is this video does NOT show reloads from a belt or backpack. Having the magazines out and above your waist is huge when it comes to reloading. I'm a cop and a Marine. I can say with confidence, from experience, reloading takes much longer when the magazines are in some sort of pouch than when already out.
My comment is not meant to be in support of limited magazine capacities but you don't help the cause when you say things that aren't true.
Trishooty45 right, what if your target isnt human, what if it's a bear and you only have 6 rounds of 9mm, what are you going to do now?
It was never about magazine capacity limitation. It is about taking away your ability to protect yourself little by little in a steps.
Inch by inch
Absolutely. And now in OR you have to ask the government for permission to enjoy your constitutional rights.
100% the truth. From Illinois and so disheartened by the new magazine capacity/ assault weapons bill.
Yup. Shall not be infringed but they peck away at it little by little
And the mag cap limitation wouldn't do anything to stop mass killers. If we imagine that somehow a bad person is forced to use 10 round magazines like everyone else, they still have the luxury to carry vests, pouches, bags, etc. To hold many spare magazines. Meanwhile the average citizen doing concealed carry is only limited to one or two 10-round magazines, when normally they could be higher capacity. This restriction affects law abiding civilians the most, EVEN IF bad people somehow also only had access to 10 rounders.
“What if it was just one guy with six guns?”
“Ooooohhhh! Why don’t you let me do the thinking?”
THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!!!
@@anonymousjay5594 "Believe me, kid, you don't want this guy unless you are one hundred percent sure you need him. He's a fucking monster."
I might be needing a bagel with my coffay...
I can match their times easily! Let me just go get my 30 caliber magazine clips.
i can do 30 rounds in .5 of a second. Give me your 30 caliber magazine clip
well my ghost gun can shoot baby seeking missiles.
Man so MANY people have those 30 cal clips......it's amazing.
30 cal clips?? ...the fuck ...you mean 30 round mag
+Tre Burrell Have you never heard of a 30 caliber magazine clip? You can put it in a ghost gun and shoot 30 rounds in less than half a second! It's really cool! Look it up!
Let's be clear: The scumbag attacker has the advantage of knowing when the attack is going to happen. He is the only one that can show up with a bag full of 6-shot revolvers. The average concealed carry civilian will have only one, maybe two magazines with which to defend. That's why the laws only hurt the good guys.
Conclusion: I'd feel safer with either Jim or Christy teaching in my kid's school.
Well in Canada I can get a 100 round mag... with a rivet in it for 5. If you're already going to do something criminal, a tiny rivet isn't much of a roadblock.
Yeah, no shit. I went to a gunshop in MD yesterday to pick up a few new ar mags. Was surprised by the rivet restricting it to 10 rounds. A cordless drill will make short work of it I guess if that's my intention.
+RandomActsOfGaming You can get them without the rivet, you just need to find them on the black market. You can get drugs and weapons in prison, why would illegal magazines be a problem to find out of prison? Unless the authoritarians of the world are willing to make the world a prison then they have no chance of real weapon prohibition having any impact but moving items like this to the blackmarket in mass.
+RandomActsOfGaming
Can't buy high capacity mags in California, but you can if you drive to Nevada or Arizona! Not extremely convenient but not impossible either!!
+K N and mexico isn't all that far to go either. mags aren't gonna be an issue to bring back if you cross into nevada on the return
+K N Come on over. May as well move to Las Vegas. No state tax and many of the taxes are pay to play so not everyone is paying for services you do not use. No mag restrictions, and NFA items are legal, even encouraged. The homeless population is rapidly declining, there are jobs everywhere in every sector, and everyone minds their own business. It's not crowded, the roads are pristine, most people can afford a home where many are in gated communities. Crime is isolated to very few areas and anyone legal to own a gun can carry it loaded in their car. Open carry is legal and common and a CCW is shall issue. The police are top notch and friendly. I could go on and on.
Ban those blue buckets keeping your magazines conveniently at the ready.
Lol, I was thinking in similar terms! They're shooting like an ordinary person at a range would, with magazines lying out in front of them in easy reach. A mass shooter is going to have mags in a bag, or in magazine holders strapped to a tactical vest. The bag is the worst option, with magazines shuffling around inside making it harder to grab one facing the proper direction to get inserted. And tactical vest would require practice removing and loading the mags quickly and efficiently, and would vary based on the type of vest and holders. I was in the Army; sometimes your magazines will get a little caught in the holder, slowing down reloading.
Plate carriers and chest rigs exist you know.
@@odog76543 battle belts too "."
@ you think every person who arbitrarily decides to kill a bunch of people is going to practice for months 1st? Moron.
Hahahah
All the anti gun comments I've read seem to miss the point that only a law abiding citizen is restricted by magazine capacity laws. If someone is planning a mass shooting, are they going to make sure they don't run afoul of the law by carrying the proper low capacity magazine? Or are they going to go ahead and grab one of the millions of standard capacity magazine out there, regardless of any law saying they aren't supposed to? The only thing these laws do, is make sure the law abiding victims cant carry more than 6-10 rounds.
Not only that, but if someone planned an assassination... capacity laws really don’t do shit.
Nathan Graves if we prevent the sale of these items they will become harder to get legally
I’d rather have 2 seconds extra to react then no time.
Joe H all the mass shooters purchased their weapons and magazine “legally”.
Joe H if you read the article it states that he built the guns from AR-15 parts he legally purchased so he built a gun that is illegal in California out of parts you can buy in other states.
Well if you're planning on doing something illegal in the first place... you're not gonna choose a restricted mag, your ass is getting the extended or drum mags lmao
Yeah like laws are gonna stop a mad man and or a terrorist . What we really need to do is fix mental health .
I just feel the ball was dropped on the Vegas tragedy . No one noticed him bringing in possibly 30 or more cases inside the hotel ?
most likely the guns were brought inside in rifle cases.
Not sure how true this is , I hear he bought 30 guns within 30 days ,
And that's not normal for your everyday avid shooter. Only firearm dealers , or terrorist do this. No one noticed ? .
mick the whole thing is bullshit....that guy is probably jsut an innocent dead body left at the crimescene...only thing missing was for the first responding officer to sprinkle some crack on his deceased body to seal the case
Is it illegal to carry that many weapons? Just sounds like you're trying to shit on his 2nd Amendment Rights.
Got dat .45 wit extendos, pull up cuh.
can't agree more mickslone. There's something in our society that makes people want to gain by taking advantage of others and despite capitalism I think we shouldn't feel that way about one another. I guess growing up in Tennessee may have affected that. But I was shooting .22 and .223 and 12g at 6-9 years old. Also 7.62x39 through an SKS i used to carry outdoors. And I've never killed anything besides birds, turtles, snakes, coyotes, etc. (Unfortunately I had to kill cows/pigs with a sledgehammer, that's the largest animal I've ever hurt) I don't even like deer hunting anymore and I never killed one. I used to go along just to walk around with a gun and I'd always ask to shoot when we were done. I've had chances to kill deer and small game where I'm armed with one in the chamber and I just let it go all the time. Yes, I have a somewhat "childish" obsession with firearms and military history. But I have no desire whatsoever to hurt anything. What people don't understand, is that it's the police's job to investigate and prosecute ONLY AFTER a crime has taken place. It's your job to defend and protect yourself and your family. And if everyone in America was required firearms training we would see far less of this bullshit that happens. Firearms respect is taught... Muzzle control is taught... Even if you're like me, and you don't like hunting, it is your DUTY to your family to know and understand firearms to the best of your ability. You don't see trained firearms users acting thuggish and pointing their weapons at people and shit like that. You only see ignorant, uneducated people (at least on firearms use) doing these dumb things. It's not the kid that goes hunting with his dad every weekend that's shooting up schools. It's the kid that hates his dad and steals his weapons while dad is drunk or some shit doing it. We will never stop people from hurting one another. All we can try is to stop anyone from hurting US, to avoid being a statistic. Keep it up, guys. We can't bury our heads in the sand and act like criminals and bad men don't already have assault rifles and such. We have to be better than them.
let's not forget the civilians are going to be the only ones following the laws
I don't keep 5 magazines on my night stand.
I have 2 30s
Just get a shotgun, you won't need ten shots to take them down. You WOULD need drywall mud though, and a lot of it!
in my case I found out my 15 round magazine is illegal so I keep my shotgun on hand until I can find a 10 round magazine.
Luis Barros well if it’s in your house no one would know, until an intruder gets shot I guess. I’d rather have high capacity over low any day, you have no clue how a situation is going to unfold and how many intruders there are. A shotgun would render more useless than a .40 with Remington Ultimate Defense ammo. You would need more than 1 bullet per person.
Chief Silver Stacker got a 10 round magazine and in the process I bought an AR in case NJ communist governor decides to ban them
Luis Barros nice! Stay protected and Happy Independence Day!
Moral of this video: You shoot faster with lower capacity magazines... If you pull the trigger faster.
+JustAGuy No. I believe the Moral is if someone can fire from 15, 10, and 5 round magazines with minimal time difference, then why bother making a law restricting capacity if it is not going to really make a difference.
***** I like that idea. Just not sure if that's what they were getting at. I don't remember what all was said in this video.
While I do live in a state that doesn't limit magazine capacity, I feel it ridiculous for those that do. If EVERYONE had a gun on their hip, I do wonder, would crime go up or down?
I believe down. Not that the media would reflect the truth.
+JustAGuy I agree. My state doesn't have restrictions either. I believe Kennesaw GA. Made a city ordinance that all head of households were required to own at least one gun with ammo. The cities crime rate dropped
dramatically because of it.
***** That's interesting to know.
+JustAGuy Well, greetings from AZ, we don't all have a gun on our hip here but open carry is legal and at least semi-common. We have Constitutional Carry meaning we can concealed carry without a permit with just a few restrictions and it is a "shall issue" state for those who want a CCW permit.
While our violent crime stats aren't the best you have to factor in all the illegal immigrant gang violence we get here. Overall our murder rates are still just a fraction of Chicago or DC with the most restrictive gun laws in the US.
What about my ghost gun, which can dispense with a 30 caliber magazine clip in half a second
Is it full semi-auto?
That is only if you are using automatic bullets in your assault rifle
do your rounds have a heat seeming device? because i heard weapons of war use those!
Are your rounds chambered in the fully semi- boot action mode?
I unload 30rd mags in 10 seconds with my assault glock in full semi auto with my finger on full speed semi auto
anyone who's ever shot a gun knows that the whole "tackle him while he's reloading" gimmick is a complete and utter joke. yeah, maybe if you're dealing with a 12 year old girl that's never fired a gun before. but if someone's actively shooting a gun, even with a 6-round magazine, NOBODY is gonna be tackling him. you think you'd tackle him? i'm sorry, but i know from experience, you would be cowering in the corner like a house cat. the reality is that you're not going to be comfortably sitting behind your computer, planning your course of action, when shit actually hits the fan. it will be completely unexpected, you will have no time to think, and you will simply react based on instinct. and, understandably, your instinct will be to run away, cower, and hide. the sheer effect of fear will make it impossible for probably 99.9999% of all civilians to tackle the shooter, regardless of his magazine size.
even if you were somehow looking at the shooter dead on, and managed to see EXACTLY when he ran out of ammunition, and then managed to react, based purely on trained reflex, to tackle him without any hesitation? you would have to close the distance between him and yourself in less than a few seconds, knock him on the ground, disarm him (so he doesn't shoot you while he's on the ground) and knock him out or kill him. the odds of this happening exactly as planned are astronomical, and you KNOW this. that's why it NEVER happens. when's the last time an unarmed civilian successfully tackled an armed and active shooter with a semi-automatic weapon? wanna guess? NEVER! because we know that it's inherently MORONIC. it's the dumbest thing you could possibly do in an active shooter scenario.
but what if you tried? well, for one, you'd have to be watching the shooter to know when he's reloading, as opposed to simply not firing. you would have to look at him, with your face directed at his. you might not know this, but it's a primitive reflex to look away from attackers when you know you are completely outmatched. psychological studies have shown it increases the chances of survival, and this is probably why animals evolved this instinct. so you would first have to get past the primal instinct to look away from your attacker, and face him dead on. you'd stick out like a sore thumb, while everyone else is cowering on the ground and looking away, or down. you'd have to stare at him, and hope that he doesn't shoot you once he notices your face.
if you managed to survive the staring match, and you saw he was reloading, you'd have to get up, run, and reach him with enough momentum to knock him down. if you are close, you might have enough time, and the actual fact that you attempted it might really catch him off guard. but if he's a trained shooter, 1) he will not be caught of guard, 2) he will react instinctively to either defend against your tackle or shoot you, and 3) he will have left a bullet in the chamber to protect against exactly this scenario. anyone who takes an intermediate gun self defense course knows to do this; it is one of the most important techniques in gun self defense, because reloading is indeed your one weakness when shooting unarmed individuals.
but let's say he wasn't a trained shooter (as school shooters often aren't trained) and wasn't aware that you're supposed to leave a round chambered when you reload. assuming he's an untrained imbecile, you might have a chance. but how long does it take a complete rookie to reload? would anyone actually commit a mass shooting if they hadn't trained? wouldn't they be aware that reloading is the only potential weakness? wouldn't this be the one, single thing they would know to train for? so isn't it likely that they would have, at the very least, practiced reloading quickly? and this is still assuming that they somehow never found out that you could keep a round chambered, remember. so really the bare minimum is to reload quickly. we have to assume that they can reload at least as fast as christy, the rookie in this video. if you were actually in that situation, wouldn't you OVERestimate, rather than underestimate, your attacker's skill? it's a life or death situation, and you are already in flight mode, so you are far more cautious than you were when you were arguing on youtube. in this situation, do you really think you would assume that your attacker will take 10 seconds to reload, and doesn't keep a round chambered at all times?
it's extremely doubtful that you would take such a risk, even if the shooter was 15 years old, but let's say you did. for the sake of argument, let's just assume that you went for it. maybe you were on meth or PCP, who knows? so you go for it, you run... are you close enough to make contact before he's loaded and ready? how long does it take you to run 10 feet? 15 feet? how close would you really be to this armed, vicious shooter? would you really be close enough that you could tackle him before he's loaded? wouldn't you try to get as far away from him as possible, as your instincts and logic scream at you to do? by the time he starts reloading, wouldn't you already be so far that it would take you too long to run up to him? what are your odds of surviving if you are closer to him than everyone else in the room? are you really prepared to resist your instinctive reflexes (which are extremely hard to resist, even physically) and willingly put yourself at a higher risk than is necessary? and once you've done that, are you sure you are close enough to reach him? are you sure you want to take the chance, knowing that he could 1) have a bullet chambered, and 2) reload within a second?
i can reload a pistol or rifle magazine within a second, and tens of thousands of other americans can do it too. there are competition shooters who can load a pistol magazine in less than a quarter of a second, without even making an effort. it's casual for them. i was able to reload within a second after only a few months of practice... when i was only 16 years old. most mass shooters tend to be under the age of 30, at their athletic prime. it's very easy to move quickly at a young age, and it's also very easy for the young brain to quickly learn new muscle memory and perform new actions very quickly. so do you really think you could tackle me within a second, even from 5 feet away? even assuming i didn't leave a bullet chambered, and even assuming you were capable of staring at me, resisting your primal reflexes and instincts, and reacting instantly?
the answer is probably no. and the fact is that you would probably be at least 15 feet away, cowering against the wall in the first place. it might take the shooter longer than it takes me to reload, but he would still have enough time to shoot you before you reached him. and in a real-life situation, you probably would not even think of tackling him. even if you did, you probably wouldn't be capable of staring at him. even if you did stare at him, you probably wouldn't be capable of reacting instantly to maximize your safe time. even if you were capable of that, you probably wouldn't be physically capable of running 15 feet and tackling him before he takes even three seconds to reload (and he probably would take less than 1.5 seconds) anyway. and even if somehow you were able to do all of those things, would it really matter? isn't it likely that he has another round in the chamber? isn't it likely that he shoots you even after you tackle him?
the obvious answer to a situation like this is to carry a gun yourself. you would have to train for years to be able to tackle an armed, active shooter. most of that would be mental training, so that you are capable of consciously resisting your primal reflexes to extreme fear. the adrenaline rush (fight or flight response) is much too powerful for an untrained civilian to resist. even if you did all the mental training necessary, the chances of the attacker having a chambered round are very high, so you still have a high chance of failing and dying. you would have much better chances of success if you simply carried a gun and took some tactical training classes. when you have a gun, your immediate response is different. you no longer feel outmatched and at the mercy of your opponent, so you tend towards the "fight," rather than "flight." with a gun, you do not need to accomplish all these incredibly difficult and infeasible mental and physical benchmarks. you only need to avoid getting shot long enough to shoot him yourself. it's literally that simple.
if it were so easy to take out an armed shooter, why do cops even bother carrying guns? why don't they just tackle their adversaries? why aren't SWAT teams replaced with squadrons of sumo wrestlers and NFL players? because tackling a man with a gun is the stupidest fucking thing you could possibly do.
Very well said... instincts are just that. The human response to remain alive at all costs...
Damn, i've written school reports shorter than this
Man, I don't know who you are, but this is the truest and most thought out thing I've ever read in a youtube comments section and would love to vote for you if you want to get into politics. Seriously. More people like yourself need to be in our government. Because the disillusion about this stuff is all too real, and our politicians are just not using their heads when it comes to this stuff. I would love for a group of guys, one with a fake gun, and one with a camera to 'test' these politicians beliefs: When the politician is walking down a street, he would confronted by the man with the fake gun, who could even act as if he is reloading, slowly. I guarantee that an anti gun politician would haul ass in the other direction.
I w
***** a gun is astronomically different then a knife, with a knife you do not feel fear from a distance from the attacker(which is why people run for the hills at the sound of gunfire but only step back and pull out their smart phones to video a stabbing), with a knife u KNOW he can not harm you UNTIL you tackle him, so u can be very surgical about how u tackle the attacker(with a gun u have less then 1.5 seconds if u are lucky to make ur move AND succeed), and with a knife once u do tackle him all u have to do is hold onto his knife hand and squirm as he might he wont be able to stab you, tackle a man with a gun and even if u grab his gun hand, he dosent need to slash or thrust the gun into you, all he needs to do is pull the trigger. and finally, by ur own admission u said u got multiple gashes all over ur hands from ur heroism... that alone... is more then enough reason to justify simply shooting the attacker. NO innocent person should EVER have to take so much as a SCRATCH in order to save a attacker from harm, up to and including death. and by the way, the assumptions he made about others courage are more assumptions about instinctive response rather then courage AND they are extremely conservative and realistic assumptions. is anyone at the sounds of gunfire going to go into combat mode and stare into the opponets face, react instantly to the maybe 1.5 second window of oppurtunity and then succeed, all assuming they dont leave a round chambered of course? with the exception of superman, captain america, iron man, batman, james bond, jason bourne, chuck norris, yoda, and COD kids in their dreams, the answer is obviously NO.
Did no one notice they were counting rounds to leave 1 in the chamber? no slide lock back, and rechambering at the end of each magazine.
Good catch!
I noticed, that probably made reloading very slightly faster, but the total number of rounds fired was still the same.
yeah, and?
Yep. Not exactly well represented in any explanation. Empty mag, slide locked back, load mag and charge weapon, bang. That’s real world. If your in a situation where you dump every round you have to you will have to do the above mentioned. Under stress.
Basic. If you fire to "click", then you have to re-rack the slide on those double-action pistols. Any murderer intent on maximum destruction will use these kinds of techniques to maximize their effectiveness. Though, most don't have the opportunity to train for the event. Still, I think they're trying to drive the point home that any determined killer can come up with a myriad of different ways to maximize their lethality regardless of whatever "rule" you can post in the hallway that would stop the attack from happening in the first place.
A shooter who is familiar and experienced with his chosen firearm is going to be effective no mater the capacity of the magazine.
You expect the average shooter to be John Wayne?
If you practice like I did growing up and have a father who is a expert competition shooter like I did,yes I do expect anybody can become a proficient shooter like I did when I was 12 or 13 years old.
@@lawnmowermanlawnmowerman9930 How much ammo did you blow through before becoming competent?
@@sarahhess464 Probably a hundred cases of 22 caliber ammo,then my daddy moved me on up to the 7.62 mm rifle. It only took a couple of hundred rounds on this rifle because it was more powerful and accurate than the 22 was. I could hit bulls eyes consistently at 800 yards with the 7.62.
@@lawnmowermanlawnmowerman9930 A couple hundred dollars in ammo? I used home made ammo stored in a large barrel made using home made black powder and a bullet making machine allowing us to store huge amounts of ammo made very cheaply.
My takeaway from this:
The more you breakup semi automatic weaponry ammunition into smaller allotments per magazine, the more weapons training makes a difference in overall performance times.
So untrained civilians do worse and worse versus any form of government soldier, law enforcement official, or privately contracted mercenary.
...
...I'm beginning to see why pro-government liberals and rich elitists like this idea so much.
Yea and sadly it only affects law abiding citizens because criminals will still have hi cap mags and full auto or short barreled gun ect. It's literally a ridiculous argument of gun control.
+mk4vws No doubt. They can literally print them.
www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/
Same with taxing, testing and licensing. The principle has been in practice from feudal Europe to Stalin's Russia and to American liberal elites - restrict weapons to the ruling and social elite classes, to maintain control of the subordinate classes. Of course, suggest to gun control fanatics, licensing and fees for voting or blogging and they completely lose their minds.
+TymeTwyster Last you forget that criminals do practice also so they will be better than john/jane doe
+TymeTwyster Last if you think soldiers attain near the level of proficiency with firearms that someone who has time to go to a range 3 times a week does you are sorely mistaken
Jim was lollygagging on his two 15-round mags. That should have been his fastest time, but he was purposely shooting slower. And with the AR, Jim again lollygags, purposely shooting slower with the higher capacity mag.
“Now as you see Jim grabbing the loaded 38.’s outta his waist purse”
im very pro gun, but anyone can tell this guy sped up when he used to 10 round magazines
Who's to say an active shooter wouldn't fire a little by faster, either?
True. But for the test to be accurate that has to be a constant. I still think high capacity magazines dont make a difference, but I dont think this test proved that.
+Joseph Levin The woman was consistent, at least. Jim's results would be unreliable as proof. Not sure if he did it intentionally, but it was a pretty significant difference in firing speed.
+Joseph Levin If you look at the overall times...Christy unloaded all her magazines at under 30 seconds. And Jim under 22 seconds. All anyone needs is practice time and a willingness to disregard human life.
Videos Yeah, the time it takes to reload a magazine is very superficial and has little impact on a gunfight. The only people it would hurt is those who don't carry around multiple magazines, like civilians. Mass shooters on the other hand will most like have an entire bag filled with magazines.
The best part of this video demonstration was when they showed the guy trying to tackle the "shooter" during reload. Completely debunks the argument of people who want to limit magazine size (which is silly, because criminals obviously aren't going to follow that law anyways and fill their magazines completely rather than just with 5 rounds or whatever the local laws have the limit set to. IIRC, a lot of places have pistol limit set to 10 rounds and rifle limit set to 5 rounds. And the magazines just have tiny aluminum clips to limit them, that could easily be filed down by someone who is willing to break the law)
If ten round magazine is all we need folks... Why haven't the Police and the Military using 10 rds mags???
+11B30Inf If you remember when Cuomo and his band of misfit toys in New York snuck the "SAFE" (LOL) Act through at the midnight hour with minimum presence required or a vote, the Police departments threw a MASSIVE fit, because the dipshit libtards didn't exclude the police from the 7 round magazine restriction... Guess how many of those police were gun control advocates, and had told countless citizens who applied for conceal carry permits no? I'll bet quite a few.
It's always funny how gun control must be enacted for the safety of the public, but when the corrupt police forces get roped in, they throw massive fits. I wonder if as many bystanders wouldn't have been shot if the NYPD had been restricted to 7 rounds... LOL
+11B30Inf Thank you. Bigger mags are better. I want responsible citizens to have the most effective means of defense. A larger magazine is better than a smaller one. This video is BS. You can shoot more rounds if you don't have to reload as many times. One Ten round mag is more effective than two 5 rounds with a reload.
Love how those tell us that we don't need 30 round magazines... ten rds mags is enough! Okay.... Than why do police not use 10 rounds magazines? Aren't they suppose to be better train than most people? Another words they should practice what they preach to us.... but they won't.
Well the answer to the military is easy. Us guys in the Infantry don't NEED a 30 round magazine for our M4s. However we're in war, and a 10 round mag would just add more mags to our gear which adds more weight. The standard load-out for your regular infantryman on patrol is seven 30 round magazines OR a minimum of 210 rounds. If no S.O.P. is in place technically an infantryman could carry two 100 round drum mags and a ten round box mag if he wanted too, but that's why Battalions have S.O.Ps. in place so no idiot actually tries that. Also most of the time we start shooting at an enemy we're not really aiming at him/her on point, we're aiming where their general location is. A good 70% of that mag goes to straight suppression so a flanking element can deal that one lethal round. Which goes without saying is easier to dish out with one 30 round mag than three ten round mags in the middle of a firefight.
As for the police their main sidearm of choice is the Glock 19 9mm. Which comes shipped default with two 15 round magazines. Buying shit tons of ten round mags would be so cost effective that it would throw our economy off scale and cause an uproar of the law being put into place and ten round mags couldn't be found because the cops have them all made for Glock 19's, the most common pistol out there today. In turn they would have to unload all of those 15 round mags back to Glock putting 15 round mags in the hands of civilians causing an issue that would get more police killed. Baddies get 15 round mags and cops only ten. Of course it's bullshit we are subject to the ten round mag law, and the police are not, however it's as simple as this. They don't have to reload as often as an attacker which can provide that life saving moment when the attacker (if he's actually following the law which is most likely not happening for obvious reasons) goes for his reload because he's the most retarded criminal on earth and decided to follow the law of only having 10 round magazines for his AR-15, AK variant rifle, or pistol while he's breaking the law and shooting at cops. Maybe he's going for the first man that killed a cop by following the law other than murdering a law enforcement official? Who knows?
Other than that it's all stupid. I'm fine with weapons being regulated to the point where a mentally handicapped person can't get one (i.e. insane), people can't just go out and buy a fully automatic machine gun without a permit, people can't just go buy a rocket launcher, and people can't have a 100 rounds drum mag. The entire no mags over 10 rounds thing of course upsets me, however I fully understand why it's in place.
In conclusion? Even if the law sits with the 10 round mag thing as is, if the government tried to take over the America by force they are looking at 30-100 round mags still because people still have them hidden away. People who are good on the law still can gain permits to own a fully automatic light machine guns (M249 S.A.W. or 240B/L) and there are a lot of people that own these. So the government will also face those. That coupled with the people that have an AR-15 with five or six 10 round mags that are follwing the law will still fight standing next to the others that own AR-15s and other rifles with five or six 10 round mags, which is still a massive number of Americans.
The entire U.S. Military consists of 1.3 million people. Only about 400,000 of them are Combat Arms. The entire police force has about 1.1 million full time employees, which only 750k of them are officers with arrest powers and guns. Which totals an entire force out to about 2 million. The U.S. civilian force consists of about 322 MILLION people (information provided by the Census). Even if only 1% of the entire American population fought back (which isn't likely and more like 90% of the population would fight back). The Government would have a VERY VERY VERY large issue. This isn't even including the Military Personnel and Police Officers that would desert to the other side to fight back against their old tyrannical leaders, which would be more than likely at LEAST 40%.
Sorry for the essay.
And for the record. If I got the order to go cruisin around the streets of my home country and kill Americans? I would defect/desert immediately, and so would my entire Company including our Commanding Officer.
You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger. And you don't mess around with Jim.
YesImEvil yes. Someone else that made the connection between this and the song
Don’t mess around with Jim, nice lyrics to a song! 🎶
Didnt expect to see a jim reference here, thank you.
That last clip of Jim shooting 21 rounds perfectly in the chest and face area in 9 seconds was one of the most impressive things ever...
Oh, by the way, the most important realization we can come to is that even if there is a 10 round limit, most anyone that is going to murder a bunch of people wouldn't care and just bring "high-capacity" magazines.
+HunterXray That's very likely. As long as they are legally available somewhere in other states, limiting magazine size is not going to deter a perp with financial resources. At the very least, the approach needs to be consistent. Either legalize them in all 50 states or make them entirely illegal. Otherwise, it's an exercise in futility.
+El Guapo Even if they are illegal everywhere, you'll still see criminals using them.
True the only way would be to prohibit there manufacture (including spares) entirely and let nature take it's course over the next 100 years. Somehow I don't see that happening.
+El Guapo Criminals would still have them, they'd either simply keep smuggling them in, modding the restricted magazines or making their own magazines, just like they did with booze back in the 20's.
***** I think at this point that would be even harder than taking away everyone's guns. There are far more 30 round magazines than there are firearms they are used in.
I see that people are mad in the comments saying that the test is unrealistic and I will agree. However, you have to realize that the few instances of mass shootings do not support a nationwide or even state wide magazine restrictions. Most shootings are done with a handgun and its between gangmembers. People are deflecting the issue of bad mental health care and gang violencr in the hopes to play into the agenda to cut back on firearms. The way I see it, reducing a mass shooter's ability to reload is way too late of a solution when you are in fact treating a symptom and not a cause of the mass shooting in the first place.
Duzzins Sama I'll agree with you, a year later, except anytime people promote healthcare reform people freak out crying something something socialism without doing an ounce of homework. Other countries also don't have a 2nd ammendment so they never had to worry about guns being ingrained into society. Fix Healthcare, fix social problems and fix living conditions, or reduce victim rate of firearms.. Which is harder?
Are you kidding me in? In a mass shooting you have all the time in the world to reload. Imagine walking down a high school hallway after you shot up a room. Do you think there are going to be people trying to attack you? Know. People are going to be running from you and locking themselves in rooms. That's exactly the type of situation where magazine Size Doesn't Matter.
JUST HAND OVER ALL YOUR GUNS THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU
@@jhanks2012 😆
You guys do realize that it is possible to reload with a round in the chamber? Meaning if you try to rush him while he is reloading, he still has a bullet waiting for you before he finishes reloading. So the whole myth of rushing a guy while he is reloading is idiotic. I am not even a skilled shooter and I can reload a mag from my pocket in under 2 seconds, even less if I left a round in the chamber. Unless you are superman you will not be closing any distance in 2 seconds.
most people who even regularly train and pumped with adrenaline forget about the ability to reload with 1 in the tube. Try thinking about that when some jacked up punk comes at you shooting with bullets wizzing by your head -- if your lucky,
John Valnes
In a mass shooting scenario (which is what the whole magazine size debate was created for), these shooters choose unarmed locations where opposition is minimal. So the chances of being able to reload with one in the chamber is far higher than in a firefight. It is also common practice to put tracer rounds for the last two shots for this purpose as well.
Shinzu good point! Tracer rounds for the last two makes sense. To be perfectly honest, I am uncertain as to which perspective the video is coming from. Pro high cap or pro restrictive capacity. Trying to prove that we can all do just fine with lo - cap mags or, neither makes a difference so lets all have hi-cap mags? Me? Very Hi-cap friendly. In the end, I believe the video shows very little proof towards either side.
John Valnes I think they are proving that restricted magazines do not help improve safety in a mass shooting scenario, so if it does not fix anything why ban it? It becomes as pointless as the Norway ban on nun-chucks, and butterfly knives.
You need to learn the definition of myth dumbass
abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933
blog.timesunion.com/lawrencewhite/another-shooter-stopped-by-unarmed-citizens/1789/
thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/06/3445966/seattle-school-shooter-was-thwarted-by-a-limited-number-of-bullets/
Sheriff: Christy don’t got the years of experience than Jim does.
Christy: *activate savage mode*
When a crazy suicide/murder bomber blows him/herself up we don't blame the bomb materiel maker...when a drunk driver kills someone in a vehicle collision, we don't blame Budweiser or Chevy...
+Me blame gun nuts!
I blame explosives for the lives of Muslims. I just blame the Muslims for strapping said explosives to them in the first place without an expert in the area.
+Me - exactly - when a bomber lets a nuke off in NY we shouldn't blame the guy who supplied him with the bomb - he's just trying to make a buck
+Me No you don't but if you hand beer and a car to a 14 year olds you'd see a few more accidents on the road. Not everyone is capable of handling firearms.
When someone I know gets killed by a car. I already know what to blame. The color.
this is ridiculous, the guy is shooting slower with the bigger magazines and a lot faster when switching to smaller magazines, rigged test results haha
No one can really believe this video, can they? He is so obviously shooting at different rates and the guy "running" towards the shooter is hilariously unrealistic about his speed. You wouldn't carefully jog towards the shooter. Ridiculous.
Reality check..... How many people do you truly believe are going to run at the shooter period.... Look at any surveillance video that has been released over the last decade involving a shooter in a mall or place of business...... Everyone is running away from the shooter!!!!
@ craigmancool.... Plenty.... Not that I need "bloviate" my credentials on some UA-cam thread, but I am more than qualified,, all from personal and professional experience, to levy an opinion on this topic..
+deckman204 I won't disagree with that. If you have an opportunity to get out, you should do so promptly.
+craigmancool yes.
They left out the part about throwing the Glock when it was empty. It also serves as a hand grenade.
Dem glocknades...
I would throw the Glock full at the bad guy becuase it will be more dangerous for him if he's using it
Well that's gotta be the dumbest thing i've ever heard.
What ever you been doing with glocks looks like you need to go back to basic gun school :))
If you're out of ammo go ahead
Hint:
Put the AR-M666 in fully semi-auto it'll shoot faster
jim is to stronk, plz nerf
I see you on 20% of vids I watch
Moliminous your channel is seriously gay as fuck
Moliminous ... Sony Germ!!! LOL LOL ..
Steve Sanders INSANELY GAY
What
This demonstration is a bit flawed. Someone in a mass shooting isn't going to be counting shots to leave one in the chamber each time. It would be more realistic to just shoot until it is empty, then do a normal mag change. Either way, we don't need to be trying to prove that a lower capacity magazine is just as fast as a normal capacity one. That's missing the point entirely. There should be no restrictions on magazine capacity, period. FYI, good ole Sheriff Ken Campbell had to resign his post early this year for doing something he put many people in jail for: www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/06/19/boone-county-sheriff-resigns-amid-prostitution-probe/11015867/
You know they set people up all the time right? Get someone who's a little more....compliant to take his spot, maybe?
Not saying he is, but really, wouldnt be that crazy if it was.
chevy6299 zech is saying the possibility still exists to count the shots, you dont know if the attacker will count the shots or not.
chevy6299 well hardwired was saying the demo was unfair because they counted their shots in the mag. zech said to hardwired that how could hardwired know if the bad guy was counting his shots or not, I think zech was just saying it was a possibility.
I believe the point of the comparison is to show the comparison using best possible case for speed in each case. It was not to make the comparison totally realistic because that would be impossible to do anyway.
***** Good point.
I'm behind the message of this video, but this is an pretty dumb demonstration.
1. Keep a consistent rate of fire. Don't speed up your shooting with the smaller mags.
2. Shoot realistically. I'm pretty sure no one counts shots so they can +1 every mag in a real shooting situation. Shoot till it locks empty, then reload.
+splewy the point is that its doesnt take long to reload, not that either of the three options are faster or not, but that the reload time isnt an opportunity to tackle and subdue a gunman.. which is the whole point behind smaller magazines, that they will shoot less bullets in a similar amount of time
+Nathan Jacobson also that you CAN actually shot just as fast if not faster WITH a reload if you want to. the reload has less than 2 seconds of time to perform.... not long enough to stop someone.
Jason Neri
Yeah I understand the point of the video, and I agree with it. The whole "tackle the shooter while they're reloading" scenario is ridiculous. The Columbine shooters reloaded about 20 times been the two of them, and it made no difference.
My point is that this video is kind of a dumb and non-scientific demonstration that leaves itself open to being picked apart. That just gives anti gunners ammo to keep spreading their ignorant rhetoric.
+splewy "That just gives anti gunners ammo to keep spreading their ignorant rhetoric."
I also agree that smaller magazines wouldn't help US situation. US needs to do the same as Australia. Let's just look at the facts:
"In the decade prior to the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings that left 100 dead.There have been none since."www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/26/gun-control-mass-shootings_n_8043364.html
There have been none since because they adopted strict gun laws and bought back guns from their owners. This is no rhetorics. Just plain facts. Something gun lovers have a hard time coping with.
Mathieu Comeau
In fairness though, almost all recent proposed U.S. gun control legislation has been a bit nonsensical.
-They go after magazine capacity, which is of little detriment to someone using a gun in an offensive capacity, but does little to impede someone using a gun offensively. 10 rounds instead of 30 in a mag could make all the difference for a person just trying to defend themselves though.
-They go after cosmetic features. Ban flash hiders, ban pistol grips, ban "barrel shrouds". Why? Not because they make a weapon any more dangerous, but because they make it look "scary".
-They try to ban semi-automatic rifles, but not handguns, despite the fact that handguns account for 20 times more homicides every year. You may see "assault weapons" all over the news, but the truth is that very few people are actually killed by them. Only about 300 a year. More people are killed every year with knives, blunt objects and fists.
The point is that people like me don't oppose gun legislation because we're anti safety. We oppose it because the legislation introduced thus far makes no sense.
I agree 100% with your findings. The problem is that many people I know who are anti, are “too upset” by the sound of gunfire to watch a video like this and learn. Hard to reason with people who refuse to listen to both sides
The only one having to reload is the citizen following the law. The criminal can use as big magazines as he wants - he isn't following the law anyways!!
How dare you use logic in a political argument!
Yeah, that's actually a decent argument, and one that I haven't heard. Of course the counter-point is "OH SO MORE BULLETS ON THE STREET BLAH BLAH" or the same logic some people (often the same people) use for gay marriage. "OH IF YOU LEGALIZE HIGH-CAP MAGS NEXT IT'LL BE FULLY AUTOMATIC TANK SHELL SHOTGUNS"
...dammit, now I want a fully automatic tank shell shotgun. :C
Stacy420 dont forget the "Ghost Gun" shooting its .30 Caliber Magazine Clip in half a second lol
but what about a 30 caliber magazine clip in under half a second?
SpotlessGreg their is no gun in the world that can fire that fast! It's just stupid liberals that get their info wrong for stupid people to believe that
BikeRaceHog I know, it was sarcasm.
its a joke from another video
Dez gamer it's what the politician said
SpotlessGreg That's absolutely hilarious!
I guess the next thing is to label passenger jets as weapons of mass destruction and turn the the airports into Gestapo depots where people going to visit mom are subject to a cavity search. Wait; no wonder I just drove to Idaho.
I live in a state that doesn’t have capacity laws ... Guess what ? We haven’t had any mass shootings.
@Charles Kurtz why are you yelling though lmao... makes you look crazy
@Charles Kurtz Little confused by your statement. How can a state government override a federal ruling? Isnt oklahomo in the great united states of america? Did you read that last part, the UNITED states. So if a federal ruling is applied by a serious federal government not one controlled by corporations like you have in merica then you will have to comply.
@Charles Kurtz sureee because transitioning at random from normal text to all caps then ending with some rant about liberal leftists "infecting us" in all caps lock definitely doesnt make you come across as crazy lmao
@Charles Kurtz all im saying is that, when you type normally, people will be more open to reading and understanding your cause. When you randomly start typing in all caps, people just disregard you as some crazy person that is unhinged and cannot hold a civilized conversation.
@Charles Kurtz please dont make 2nd amendment supporters look bad by commenting in all caps on youtube please.
Very informative but wtf are they talking about tackling a shooter, I'm shooting back
Well that stands to reason, if you have a weapon on your person. Not everybody carries.
also, when police are present, you are considered a threat and might be shot by law enforcement who find your presence confusing.
Yeah .. and I might get hit by a bus crossing the street. Or hit by lightening on a clear day without any warning.
Did you have a point to make, or are you just repeating more nonsensical anti-gun fanatic talking points that you don't really understand.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of instances where police have not shot civilians with a gun defending themselves or others. Get the facts instead of just being another sheep.
You literally made up a stat then told me to get my facts straight. Maybe you should provide any solid evidence that the risk is negligible then maybe you have something.
Specifically though I was referencing a New York Times article about the Dallas shooting. Thirty or so protesters were dressed in fatigues and gas masks carrying rifles. When the shooting started police were confused by men running with rifles, gas masks, and fatigues. This at the very least was a distraction that may have provided the shooter more opportunities to move without being noticed.
Anyway, it's something to keep in mind.
- the blind sheep regurgitating nonsense
+Jordan Weimer I may stand the risk of being shot by confused police, but I guess I'd rather take that chance rather than being shot by some crazy guy.
For everyone that has asked about why Christy only shot 5 rounds on the first mag and 7 on the last one, here's the explanation. The first mag had 6 rounds, she pulled the trigger 5 times and the 6th round went into battery but it wasn't fired until the next magazine was inserted. This is why you don't see the slide lock back. The next mag had 6 rounds plus one already in the chamber from the previous magazine, she fires 6 rounds which again leaves one in the chamber. Repeat until last magazine where there are 6 rounds plus the one in the chamber so 7 shots are fired. 30 rounds from 5 magazines of 6 rounds each. Again, you only see the slide lock back on the last magazine when there is no more ammunition in the magazine. Lastly it wasn't just Christy, they both did this.
Exactly..... explanation of bolt not locking out of battery after last round. Must be that Bump stock, barrel shroud and thing that goes up.
Nancy Pelosi is really 🔥!!!
@@justdone1251 That's why the test is BS no one can count there rounds in a FIRE FIGHT
@@inland85 I think what the demonstration was trying to show is that the law limiting mag capacity itself is the real BS. They more or less brought that point home so kudos to them.
@@rishardlampese8947 But they minimized the effect of the mag changout by doing this. This is a bogus test. Each changeout would have lasted much longer if the slide locked back after each mag.
To all calling this technique BS, nobody said they couldn't be smart about it. There were 30 shots fired each time with pistol, 20 shots fired with the long gun. Being smart isn't against the rules. But an emergency reload isn't much slower than the tactical reloads performed here. Your talking about hitting a slide release. NBD.
I just can imagine how fast Jim will be with 30 magazines loaded with only one shot!
This is perfect
This does prove one other very important thing and that is, that anti- Gun people aught to go educate their selves about Guns, before trying to take away our 2nd Amendment guaranteed Right to own Guns here in the U.S..
I believe after they do educate their selves about Guns, they'll possibly want to own Guns too for their self, and if not- at least they'll know the truth and should get off our back and our 2nd Amendment Right!
You assume that people against the views of this video are anti gun? Holy fuq, I love guns, I just don't need to compensate for training with more rounds and an itchy trigger finger when statistics say that the vast majority of criminals operate independently in independent events. 2nd amendment talks of arms, not how much ammo they hold...how many shots did they hold when that was written?
Sterling Roberts
Evidence of the Watts riots, New Orleans, Recent security guard shooting at three burglars as well as Mom in Detroit non withstanding of course.
I personally like a wheel gun, but I also realize and understand tactics enough to understand why a semi auto may indeed be the best choice for some.
In short you do what you want with your skin, I will do what I want with mine. And turn off MSNBC for god sake and learn to think critically
Sterling Roberts The 2nd Amendment was written implying for people to be able to match up with what ever the Government had for Firearms. How would we ever contend with a Government gone bad, if they're holding whatever Rifle they want (being with at least a 20 to 30 round Magazines, and never mind what else they've got), and us citizens being held with a single to five shot bolt action? I don't think I have to explain that scenario.
Sure a person can learn to shoot a Rifle with a single shot, but they can not learn what people will learn with a 20 to 30 round semi-automatic Rifle. Plus the free Right pleasure to shooting Rifles with multiple Rounds of 20 to 30 or more, it is so much fun. Being part of a repressed group of people, is NOT a fun thing at all. I've already heard what people have to say, who have an interest in Guns and live in a repressed Country. They hate it, and feel miserable!
Being that a person has an interest in Guns, why would such a person want to limit fellow Gun owners who happen to like their 20 to 30 round or more Magazine firing Rifles. I'd think they would gladly understand the whole subject on Magazines of semi-automatic Rifles and how they can be very necessary to the safety of ones life. They also will be very familiar and respecting about this being a free Country and one of our many Rights here in the United States. Or a person can look at it like this, for being good people, non of us should be punished and repressed, because of the few people who turn to criminal, evil, or gravely whacked wrong actions with a Gun and murder another person(s). It is NOT the Gun which did the murder, it was a person!
Seeing that nobody care's about the far more people who are wrongly killed by a vehicle, and that people easily manage to separate the action from the tool with vehicles, it is the same with the Gun tool. Nothing is different at all about a Gun, for people who are killed by a vehicle, are just as dead as people who are killed by a Gun.
This anti-Gun or even Gun limitations idea (both with the same direction intended- i.e. NO Guns) , is truly based on a selective choosing which is clearly wrong, and based on controlling the Rights of good people in what is already suppose to be a fee Country. Which the Forefathers of this Country specifically put the 2nd Amendment in to protect the people here in the U.S., from this very thing that anti-Gun and Gun limiting people want to do to the 2nd Amendment! A Constitutional violation, and North Korean like headed.
I don't like the idea at all, of other people trying to tell me here in a free Country, which is already a Constitutional Right for the people, how many bullets can be in the Magazine of my Rifle(s) or Handgun(s) that I have for target practice and defense. It is our 2nd Amendment Right!
No time to read all, but the government you speak of has ways to kill us other than these things... I'll list them after work.
SlayerofFiction I mostly watch Fox, but never seen MSNBC... Logic dictates that many more crimes are caused by an individual rather than a collective.
If i cant have a 75 round drum mag for my *fully semi automatic* AK-47 then you shouldnt have 256GB of space on your iPhone
The official point of this video. Reloads take less than 2 seconds and making mass shooters reload won't save anyone or slow a rampage down at all. So don't take away higher capacity mags from people who enjoy them, like me.
And the "If they have to reload, the people have a fighting chance" argument, is really the only one they have. But they will never watch a video like this and consider it's validity. Instead they will pass laws, and "feel" better and safer because law-abiding citizens will respect the law and have restricted magazine capacity.
ScarsRemain94 Unfortunately I have to agree with you. Those who are anti gun rarely take the time to research and understand what they are afraid of. Therefor through a lack of understanding they pass "feel good laws"
Smart people don't consider the validity because it is not valid. Take 3 10 round mags, put on in the firearm, put the other 2 in a jacket pocket. Then do this test and see how long it takes.
Who cares how long it takes to reload from a jacket pocket? How is that going to save lives? And what makes you think a criminal is going to use a restricted magazine instead of one of the hundreds of thousands of standard capacity magazines?
Just because you disagree with the video doesn't mean you are smart and anyone who disagrees with you is not smart. There's a name for that way of thinking. It's called "Elitist".
No it is not called "elitist", it is called calling out someone on their BS. This officer is making a case that restricting large capacity mags would make no difference, when he knows that is not true. Or at least he SHOULD know if he is an actual experienced, trained officer. As to people ignoring the laws and staying with the large mags, that is why we need laws with real teeth. Get caught with an illegal mag, 10 years mandatory. Use a firearm with a illegal mag to commit a crime - 25 to Life mandatory. Little by little people will get the point.
Why does this video just make me want to add more guns to my collection~
*Government sweats profusely*
Why does a single youtube video give you a desire to add more guns to your collection? Perhaps you should understand that you have a serious impulse control problem.
odog76543 I openly admit that 😂😂😂
@@odog76543 I watch medieval knight videos and they make me want to add swords into a collection, it's a hobby of cool things?
Lol....I love it.... more guns means more smiles!
Point proven mag capacity laws are pointless
Not really. Unless they are walking around carrying a 50 gallon drum to place their magazines on and orientate them in the right direction for easy reloading.
@@smith97320 You mean like a $20 vest from sportsmen's guide does?
@@smith97320
Or, you know, unless you're defending yourself against an unexpected attack, or... you know... executing defenseless victims as they try to hide, cower in corners and beg for their life. Which scenario do you suppose favors or negates magazine restrictions?
@@springbloom5940 idea.. EXECUTE people who use guns in crimes! -- don't restrict crap, BUT if somebody uses a gun, to commit a crime, EXECUTE them! IF the government would execute kids who use guns to kill their classmates; school shootings would stop. (name 1 school shooter who has been 'punished' for his actions).
@@jackdundon2261
Are you high? If you tell me you're high, Ill let it go at that.
I dont think any police officer/armed citizen who has ever been in a shootout looked back on it and said "good thing I brought my low capacity mags."
that sheriff is a very cool dude
This gal will keep her Glock 19 standard 15 round mags, thank you.
That is what I'm going to....um....this if my gf's next handgun.
I don't get this
"Me wife stole my gun"
"I lost them in a boating accident"
If they ever come knocking again, the correct thing to say is NOTHING. Silence.
Anything you say will only be used against you. Repeat that last sentence over and over.
People love the second ammendment but are pretty ignorant about the 5th.
I had a g23 but, regrettably, sold it.
I can't decide between the 19 vs another 23.
Oh....haha
My g23 outshot my kimber super match 2 by like 33%
The problem with making the "it doesn't make any difference" argument is that the gun grabbers will say, "OK. Fine. If it doesn't make any difference, you won't mind being limited to 10".
+jjohnston94 a citizen wont carry 6 magazines he would carry a spare 1, a mass shooter would carry shit loads so we should restrict the civilian into having 10 rounds or turning him self in to an arsenal of magazines
+Ryan Freeman I honestly don't have any idea what you said. I recognize the words individually, but put together the way they are in your comment, they make no sense.
jjohnston94 a ccw owner would carry only 1 spare mag , however a shooter would carry an arsenal so this proposal is only going to cut on the amount of ammunition a ccw holder carries since he wont carry a thousand mags.
+Ryan Freeman Agreed
+jjohnston94 Actually hemade perfect sense. THe reason a civilian will be hindered is because he or she is not out to carry a dozen magazines. A normal ccw would carry one in the gun and 2-3 spares max. This limits the amount of firepower you can bring against say a mass shooter with 30 or 40 magazines or more in a bag and in his or her person. The bad guys love the restrictions hell they are hoping all guns are taken away so he can do even more damage.
Those thinking that limiting mag capacity will reduce violent crime have no clue regarding firearms or the criminal mindset. Thanks Sheriff and be safe.🇺🇸
His idiotic video actually did the gun community a disservice by further proving antigun agenda that "high capacity magazines makes no difference so why do civilians need it to defend themselves?"
Ashley Johansson why is it idiotic if it proves that citizens don’t need high capacity mags
@@godisgod7089 Ill stick to my 17 round hanguns and 30 round rifles! XOXO
@@ashleyjohansson230 this wasn't a very well thought out illustration. Having the magazines sitting out on blue barrels instead of in tactical vest magazine holders, or a bag worn by the firer is not an accurate simulation of how a mass shooter would be equipped. A sheriff should know better.
And reducing magazine capacity isn't supposed to directly reduce violent crime. It makes it necessary to reload much more often, which increases the time you spend not shooting people and increases the time you could be subdued in between loads.
If you're well practiced and adept at shooting and you decide to go on a mass shooting, it will hinder you less, but hinder you still in some measure. If you're a mentally disturbed or impulsive mass shooter who isn't well practiced in tactical reloads, it will hamper you greatly. This gives civilians or police more opportunities to take them out.
@@ashleyjohansson230 Because a mass shooting is premeditated and the shooter would be at least somewhat prepared. A civilian is going to have to deal with a surprise attack. She'll be be aroused from sleep, shooting in pajamas or panties or boxer shorts, barefoot. No time to strap on spare mags. As for concealed carry, where are you going to stash extra magazines within easy reach? Lower capacity magazines affect no one who's prepared to use them. They only jam up those dealing with a surprise attack.
Lesson from this video? Don't piss Christy off. Very well done.
@F1 airsoft costom gunworks Hey, Christy didn't do too badly herself... :-)
LOL yeah was thinking the same thing.
She's definitely not someone a mugger or rapist should try to attack,they'll end up in a pine box
Christy might've had some training leading up to this
“He was 1.43 seconds faster with a reload” should tell you how unscientific this test is. And I’m a gun guy.
It’s just training. And it shows that at the very least, the reload didn’t slow him enough really mean anything’s
You sometimes need more than 10 rounds because you might get more than 1 home invader breaking into your house duh....
10 shots 10 kills
DoctorBrian60
Normal everyday citizens are not trained Navy Seals. It also depending on the caliber of the gun too. If its a low caliber pistol that uses 9mm then it will take way more than 1 shot to stop an invader.
+DoctorBrian60 have you fired a gun before lol plus waking up with the rush going they may be bug and a 9mm might not do shit unless headshot that's why you get yourself a man stopper .45 colt
Sparda take a 85 grain piece of lead to the knee cap at 1300 (9mm) feet per second from 20 feet away (about the longest home defense range) and see how much fight is left in you use before you stop being a jerk... go ahead and try it...
+James Kelly lol auto correct I meant to say they maybe big not bug
Those that propose "gun restrictions would reduce gun crime" must first explain the drug epidemic in America.
It all has little to do with guns and a whole lot to do with control.
I am buying a new 3D printer that would allow me to design and print my own machine guns, rockets and statues or be lazy and use paper blue prints or download blue prints and would still require making the fuel with my chemistry set for the rocket fuel and 3d printers still require you to assemble the parts after printing them.
Maybe because you cant grow a gun?
Sarah Hess that’s also a very expensive and easily regulated enterprise so I don’t see the comparison as being close to equal
@@cendregaming3200 ua-cam.com/video/SEX237gKhNU/v-deo.html
@@cendregaming3200 thousands even millions of people have already purchased home 3d printers and a portion of them could be made to mass produce machine gun parts that then could be assembled and the large majority of them are not using them to make guns.
We need more than 10 rounds in a magazine in case there are multiple home invaders. Not every criminal will do their crime alone...
Most do though. If it is a group, many are punk kids breaking in unarmed. Give me the stats for the number of times multiple SERIOUS threats break in(or assault an individual anywhere) compared to the negative incidents involving high capacity magazines, i.e., theft, gang violence, massacres. Oh, guess what, training(VERY FEW criminals train to ANY degree of seriousness for their deeds, but you have every reason and opportunity to do so) can cut reloading down to a fraction, 1/2 the amount of time from vest/pocket to well. Also, training to leave a round in the chamber nullifies slide-lock, which can get you down to a third the time of a real situation reload. Mags aren't in a convenient place in a firefight...
Sterling Roberts Also, gun range, FFS! You'll never be as accurate in a gunfight, but missing 10 shots within pistol range against 1-2 assailants? Please, don't go on about the ever elusive 3+ attacker notion... and you really think they're just going to walk up on you after you shoot a few rounds? Like, you really don't have time for a 2-4 second reload? Maybe stop dropping the mags out of the well and telling them you're empty(if they're even smart enough to identify that sound), huh? MoC, some people...
Sterling Roberts Interesting how you're arguing against the ownership of a magazine over 10 rounds. Are you working for the gov?
No, I'm 22 and am an avid gun owner. Just think his argument is a little(lot) silly. I do not feel as if I need that many rounds to put down my targets. Also, the likelihood of multiple assailants vs the likelihood that any criminal will use these magazines for their deeds? Come on, you really think multiple assailants are more common than the amount armed with these magazines they stole from legal owners? I'm also not saying magazines should be taken from citizens, just that we don't push for 100 round mags for our Glocks. They more powerful weapons and equipment we legalize, the more criminals get them. Training, however(and most don't have half a lucid brain), is one thing you can bet they don't have.
Sterling Roberts But then why does law enforcement feel the need to have large capacity clips? They train weekly in most cases and still need large magazines. Someone that has less training, needs more capacity to defend themselves.
Jim fired MUCH faster with the 3-10 round magazines AND the 5-6 round pistol magazines AND with the AR magazines...this was not a very accurate comparison. It does however show that the capacity does not really matter for a seasoned professional or a nutjob who's been practicing. I would also have liked to have seen the actual hit percentage for each shooter. Overall, I agree with the premise of this video, you just needed to benchmark the overall exercise.
The gun's recoil seemed to affect the rate of fire more than anything else.
Kay Dar k
Ok. So wasting time reloading mags while an assailant isn’t. That sounds like that will work out just fine. 🙄
The hell are you on about? This video is simulating an active shooter... the two shooters in the video are demonstrating that limiting magazine size does little to affect their killing capabilities.
@@Chironex_Fleckeri I believe hes saying that law abiding citizens would have limited magazine capacity and a criminal would not. Thus "wasting time reloading mags while and assailant isn't"
This only demonstrates that you should carry multiple mags at the ready.
One gun, one mag...?
I'll take my high capacity 17+1 mag anytime thank you.
Frank Trujillo
i never fired a handgun but is it safe to keep one in the chamber at all times? 🤔
Yes, with modern firearms it's safe. And, if you can, you should carry with a round in the chamber. Now, there are some pistols designed to be cocked or racked when drawn but most modern pistols are designed to be carrier "hot". Before carrying any firearms you should know the do's and don'ts of it, how it functions, how to clear a type 1, 2, or 3 malfunction, ect.....you get the point. :) All part of being a responsible gun owner and carrying responsibly. I carry my Glock 22 gen4 (striker fired) with a round in the chamber. It has no frame safety but has a double trigger. The only time it's unsafe is if the pistol is something like a wheel gun (think, old western revolver) with the firing pin on the hammer. (not all wheel guns are like this though) Something like that should be carrier on an empty chamber. Most of this you can learn with a simple google search. :) I'm happy to help though. If you have any other questions just ask. Have a great day!
Of course all this pertains to carrying a pistol for defense. As far as having one laying around at home, it all depends on your situation. You got kids and no place to put a gun that they won't have access to? Then you'll be better off leaving the pistol without a round in the chamber. If you're like me and are single and those you live with understand the do's and don'ts of a firearm then you're likely okay to leave it "hot" on your bedside table. In the end it all comes down to you, your needs, and what you're comfortable with doing. :) Hope this helps.
I carry 3 mags when I go out everyday. Lol. But my glock is 6rounds each mag. So I keep one in my pistol and 2 in my holster belt.
A solid idea. Alot of people slap one mag in their pistol and go out. Not a good idea. I carry my glock 22 concealed even though it has a 15 round in a mag (plus 1 in the chamber) I always have a spare mag. Someone asked me awhile back, "Hey, why do you need another magazine? You going to war?" This is because most people think another mag is for more ammo. For me, it's really not. If you're in a self defense situation and you have a jam that requires you to release the mag it's much easier to have a spare to slap in than pick up your mag off the floor. Now, in your case only having 6 rounds to a mag, carrying additional mags is a solid idea for reasons above but in your case, you may actually need more ammo. You carry a compact glock? Like a glock 43?
Well, I can see I have to buy one of these handy dandy blue plastic drums to hold my magazines in a combat situation! A bit cumbersome but Sweet!
ROFLMAO!!!
You want black. Tactical plastic drums would have given him an extra round in each magazine and .3% quicker rate of fire.
Jim Boatwright don't forget the +2 agility, a horde of trolls, and another roll
Matt Ferrari
Oh yeah, I forgot to check the tactical set bonus, haha.
Jim Boatwright I prefer the assault drums. It is mostly cosmetic differences from the tactical, but it does fold up, you can adjust the height, change the angle, and they have all-terrain wheels optional.
In my count of shots, it looks like Jim forgot to fire a round before dropping a clip or two
Gustavowoah *magazine, not a clip
It’s called a tactical reload. Not the same thing as running the gun till it’s dry.
If anyone else noticed that if the runner had a gun they could have stopped the shooter from the safety of cover instead of trying to be a mindless hero. Or in a real life situation they could have stopped the shooter from the safety of cover without being a helpless victim waiting on the police to save them while they are being shot at.
Two things: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. AND: Damn, I brought too much ammo to a gunfight, said no one, ever.
And...let's also keep in mind there have been more than a few mass shootings wherein "high capacity" magazines may have contributed to jammed weapons. I believe the Colorado murderer had an AR-15 with a 100 round drum. It double-fed and he couldn't clear it. That's when he abandoned it and switched to his handguns. If he had been limited to smaller magazines, he may have continued with the AR, which is easier to handle, better at point-and-shoot, and does more damage than a handgun (especially if he was using FMJ in the pistols).
The Parkland shooter used 20-round magazines in his AR because the 30+ round magazines he had wouldn't fit in his duffel bag. Here's another disadvantage of "high capacity" magazines...they're less concealable.
I don't know if that's the case, but I wouldn't doubt it. There's a reason the military does not use drum magazines. They're unreliable. I own a lot of guns. I would never consider owning a drum magazine. They're a novelty in my mind. Nothing more. They're not serious items for serious shooters. They're not particularly dangerous and I see no reason to ban them. I also see no reason to own them.
I'd argue that a 9mm Para/Luger (using the confined spaces listed as examples) would do more bodily harm than a 5.56. 5.56 isn't a _Wunderpatronen._ It's not magical. It's a small bullet, that goes very fucking fast; it's known more for its penetrating power than its kill potential. Not only is a 9mm larger, it's much denser, and at close range, that matters - because physics.
And, given the lightweight, small nature of pistols, they're much more maneuverable, concealable, and in confined spaces, easier at point-and-shoot (particularly in or at a crowd, where aiming isn't quite necessary, anyway) than any rifle.
@@MaddenMagician And _you_ couldn't take the extra tenth of a second to put the y and o on the word "you"? I _said_ I'd _argue,_ not that I was right - which I wasn't.
anybody notice how when he's using multiple magazines that he shoots much faster?
Anybody notice my comment from 2 months ago, or make the same statement I did, but on their own? No. Jim was wasting time (deliberately or not?) in the beginning, then changed his tactics. When shooting 321321321, time is wasted when he's swinging over to repeat the 321. Then he begins to shoot 321232123, which eliminates swinging over to repeat. If I did a video on this subject, I would at least make an effort to be consistent, so that no one would be able to make any allegations that something is being done on purpose, to skew the results. The 2 15-round magazines sure took a long time to empty!
the MYSTERIOUS Eddie Dean I noticed it too. I guess they figured most ppl they are trying to get a point across to wouldn’t notice it.
I still get their point but like you said it’s best to not leave any flaws in the “experiment”.
the MYSTERIOUS Eddie Dean he had to count shots to make sure he could do a speed no rack reload which was probably a issue for the test ether way a criminal can find a piece of plastic or metal ether way
the MYSTERIOUS Eddie Dean he was counting shots as to leave one in the chamber. Otherwise the slide locks back which slows the reload. It’s harder to count shots with higher capacity.
Anthony Fletcher he is counting shots to leave one in the chamber as to avoid locking back the slide which would slow the reload. It’s harder to count shots when dealing with higher numbers, so it’s easier to shoot faster with lower capacity
What is this bullshit? The guy is clearly firing at different speeds with the different magazine sizes.
The point should be made by shooting as fast as humanly possible with every magazine size, not intentionally skewing the results by shooting slower on purpose.
DGneoseeker1 I do agree with DG and I'm pro-gun
Word.
Wow! - Everybody have a blue barrel close to them holding extra magazines. Lol
I do, I always plan ahead. I have an instantly inflatable barrel shaped balloon that hardens into a convenient metal table at a moment's notice! You mean you don't have one?? NOOB! Haha, really though.
As someone who is pro gun, i appreciate what they are trying to convey, but they went about it in a bad way, the mag placement being one, but the biggest issues i have is the lack of consistancy in the time between rounds. the rate of fire in the control was noticably slower then the rest of the tests, if we wanna convey the truth to people who dont know better the arguments have to be AIR TIGHT. That being said the only thing that effectively stop someone with a gun is someone else with a gun, its a terrible reality but a reality nonetheless, and mag restrictions do nothing but endanger law abiding citizens. It wont stop criminals, and it wont stop active shooters.
Daniel Diaz
Why is the time between rounds fired an issue? The point of the test isn't to see how quickly you can fire individual shots in different magazines, the point is to show that reloading takes very little time, and since you never know when the shooter will reload, you can't time a tackle to take him out.
Absolutely. The demonstration was rigged. Time between trigger pull was not consistent.
Stop it. You're not "pro-gun"...............
Dayan.. the shooters were firing at three targets and aquiring the tagets vary.
"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty air tight too. Those people don't care about logic, or even the constitution itself.
Holy revolver stash, Batman!
"Shall not be infringed". The nuts have proved that they will just get a pressure cooker or a Ryder truck and pack'm with fertilizer and ball bearings.
Why do they put fertilizer in it?
@@anthonyhardison9563 Timothy Mcveigh?
@@willeypoboy6052 no I mean like what's the purpose of putting fertilizer in the bombs?
@@anthonyhardison9563 well they do that so it sprinkles it around the blast area and pretty flowers will grow and make it a nice place for the birds and butterflies ÷)
I hate how Jim was shooting the high capacity magazines slowly and then rushing his shots with the lower capacity magazines. You can tell he did it on purpose.
I agree, its to make it seem okay to regulate civilian magazine capacity. which is bs, not that cool.
There were no high capacity magazines used in these tests. Only standard and restricted capacity magazines.
It seems to me like his first runs he was just getting warmed up..
All the video showed me was that having smaller capacity magazines will give victims a false sense of security. They'll think they can run at the attacker while he's reloading. All they'll manage to do, though, is make themselves an easier target by being closer when the attacker finishes reloading.
Agreed; which is why I'm so vehemently opposed to magazine bans. My favorite semi-automatic rifle (non-rimfire, that is) doesn't even come with a magazine option over 10 rounds, and the 4 round stock magazines are generally more reliable. Accuracy in most modern tacticool rifles is far less stellar than any decent semi-auto hunting rifle...at least until you start modifying them. What most people DON'T realize is that an AR-15 used for 1/4 MOA target shooting does not have the same kind of barrel or tolerances as a military style weapon made for high rate of fire in adverse conditions. Firing off two 30 round mags as fast as you can pull the trigger through one of these rigs will absolutely destroy the barrel (relative to it's former accuracy) and that's if you're lucky enough to keep it from jamming once it heats up due to the tolerances. This doesn't even cover the mediocre power of a 5.56 or 7.62x39mm in comparison to even my "lowly" little .243 Winchester..much less verses a full sized .308, .30-06, .300 Win Mag, .270, .338 Federal, .338 RCM, etc. The .243 makes up for brute energy with extremely flat shots...but that's another story.
Now I'm not so sure that I agree with anyone believing that they can charge an attacker...much less that most would have the nuts to do it. This is fairly moot though when you consider the comprehensive truth in terms of full auto, semi auto, etc. There is more than enough data showing that automatic "spray" is far less efficient and accurate than precise semi-automatic fire...and is only useful in target rich areas or for suppression purposes (getting people to hide from the noise/gunfire). It would only make sense, in terms of that logic, to realize that well places aim will generally negate any real differences between a 10 or 20 round magazine and that spraying will, again, be far less deadly and precise than meticulous aiming.
Or he can just pull out another gun 😅
he is speeding up his fire rate with the 10 rounds
As the magazines get smaller, his rate of fire increases. That was too obvious....
Yeah but who loaded the clips ? They can't count worth a sheet.
They leave 1 round in the chamber so they don't have to charge the rifle or cycle a round between reloads. All the mags have the same number of rounds.
Christy might need a lesson in sight picture.
I have 27 years in Law Enforcement in the 8th largest city in the US. That said, this is a BS demo. I will call it the "Christmas Scenario"...if you got everything you want it would turn out how the Sheriff said it would. In most of these demos these folks are standing at a range with mags laying on barrels in front of them. In real shooting situations you ain't going to have mags sitting in front of you. Best case you are pulling them out of mag pouches....with a lot of these mass shooters they are pulling them out of backpacks, pockets etc. In real life shooting situations you are under stress and moving. I have seen trained professionals fumble with mags. try to put them in backwards and drop them. My point is MOST shooters are NOT going to perform near as well as in this "lab environment". So, as a pretty good shooter myself, I would prefer if I am engaging someone with an assault rifle I would prefer he have to reload a couple of more times (10n round mags) which in reality because of the "Whoopsie Factor" I have mentioned above it will give me a few more seconds to pop my head up and dump the guy.....or for the unarmed civilians out there a few more seconds to "RUN FORREST RUN! All the statistics about misses given in the beginning are true. PRACTICE...PRACTICE...PRACTICE! For those who think the large cap "Spray and Pray" method is viable, just remember you are responsible for what you hit. If you send 30 .223 rounds down range and kill a non-combatant you WILL be held responsible. If you pull that crap in your house you are likely to kill a family member or even a neighbor. Hands down the best home defense weapon...a pump shotgun with bird shot. The bad guys know the racking sound, you get a nice wide pattern on a shorter barrel and bird shot is not going to pass through several walls and kill little Jimmy. Even if you miss you will scare the bejesus out of the bad guy.
Here is an old standard that has been forgotten and abused....4 words....."Shall not be infringed" . That should be the end of ALL the debates and there should be no other regulations. period.
I agree with you, but many of the same people who want to restrict mag size also want to remove the 2nd amendment. If they get rid of that one they will have free range to go for the rest.
@@golling3334 One piece at a time our rights to bear arms has been chipped away at. One thing here, another thing there..... all sold as protections of the people when in FACT the best protection the people have is their right to bear arms and protect themselves. This false protection is actually the exact opposite..... it is a long term goal to end our rights and make politicians safe from us protecting ourselves from them. They are the biggest criminals in our society playing like they give a shit about the people. They lie.
You’re forgetting the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” part.
I love my guns but we have to be honest when we have this discussion and not omit parts of the 2nd all because we don’t like it. We also have to put the 2nd amendment into context of the times where states kept their own militia forces that the federal government would call upon in times of need or the state. This is what the 2nd amendment was made for, as we can clearly see by the language given.
Now a common misconception a lot of gun lovers like to push (I used to aswell until
I thought about it) is the militia was referring to the civilian populace, no it’s not. See the militias became the State National Guard, which fulfills the requirements set to us by our founding fathers and thus the Second Amendment, in its current form as the founding fathers wrote it, would apply to the National Guard.
So how would we argue for guns? Well instead of fighting regulation why not propose new ones? Maybe a mandatory gun safety course or mandatory trigger locks? Maybe a safety inspection is required or mandatory magazine lock with every purchase.
See regulation is going to happen, the more we fight restrictive regulation the worse it’ll get. If we want our guns in their current state then you need to propose differing regulations that don’t effect the weapon but rather how it’s maintained and how much the owner is responsible for negligence
@@cendregaming3200 wrong. Your tieing the word militia to people. The comma after militia separates the militia from the people, and thus leaving the right to the person over the militia. Goole search " pen and teller explain the second amendment".
@@giggsreaper347 Penn was wrong, because Penn is a highly emotional person who wants strong solutions, not vague advice.
The comma business is just bullshitting people with bad reading skills. Including Penn.
A comma means that both sides of the sentence are part of the same idea, not separate. Furthermore, if they would be separate, we should just assume people writing it were not sane at the time, as the cohesion of the sentences is lost.
From the side of the english language, from historical and political factors, the meaning very specifically means banning of guns is specifically allowed to anyone NOT in well regulated state militia.
The SIMPLE solution to this? Re-establish free militia, not as national guard but as specifically MILITIA. Not as part of military, maybe, but under, say Sheriffs department or something, joining legal and political into the mix.
There is absolutely no way those guns could ever be taken away, as they are very specifically protected by constitution, no matter how you read it, its not under military control, not directly under governor, but still not actually private either, its still government under the name. Government cant attack it without attacking itself. Protected by checks and balances, in a way. Legally locked in place, barring total end of all laws, at which point LOCAL people have the control and the guns. People and militia not as different, but as one and same.
No, its not my idea, just the original idea by the historical constitution dudes, dude.
Not a very good demonstration. In a REAL active shooter situation, the shooter will not have the mags in a nice, easy to get to platform in front of them. Try doing this again with real scenarios
+TJentzsch Ever heard of open top mag pouches? They make reloading even faster than this. Thats what an ACTIVE shooter uses. They are in a nice easy to get to platform and are right on your belt. Try doing some research.
theshapeexists Pretty sure not all use pouches. Just offering a new opinion.
I agree. However the reason a magazine ban was placed was from all the premeditated murders happening in schools and theaters and such. And with a premeditated mass killing, generally they have back up ammo at the ready on their person. Whether we find this video accurate or not as far as ease of accessibility isn't the point, it's to show that stupid politicains have taken away high capavity magazines away from us law abiding citizens, and now the only people who can get them are the criminals who shoot up innocent people.
+SortaMrCraig 73 yea, I'm in Colorado where for some reason every crazy bastard has to kill innocent people. and those crazy people got them banned for everybody here. lucky me, the day before the ban went into effect, they had a huge sale. I bought nice 30 round AK mags for $5 a piece. AR mags for $8, and glock 17 mags for
+theshapeexists $15
I was surprised that Christy included the round in the chamber in her shot counts, so at least she had some degree of firearms experience.
The Results are. Police take longer to arrive than you can empty out that mag on a bad guy!
New York reload lmao
Yeah I was digging that too. 😂
Not sure if you understand that. If not, it’s because the mobsters used to just drop their weapons after using them.
Either going for another gun or just leaving.
@@morganlambley8655 yeah ofcourse. It's just funny to hear them legitimizing it.
Rob M it really is.
If you've ever seen boondock saints 1 or 2, it makes perfect sense lol
In a real life situation you are not going to have your spare magazines already out and laid out in front of you. Instead you are going to have to get them from their pouches or pockets and reload them which will take more time. Larger magazine is always preferred to me
If you were defending yourself they will be quickly accessible, but not out. If the shooter was perparating a mass shooting I'm guessing that detail would be handled by sewing little half pockets in his shirt to have them out in an instant.
The video is to prove that putting a mag limit by law is retarded and doesn’t prevent jack shit
I always get my magazines out and line them up neatly on a table during my terror attacks.
It is for a demonstration purpose there are many factors that can hamper both
Yeah I know - I used to do the same thing in the army. But if you're trying to make a political point you should replicate reality as closely as possible.
He could have as easily used two open-top magazine pouches for his belt to hold 3 or 4 magazines. It wouldn't have been much different at all. For me it's easier and quicker to grab a magazine from my side than in front of me on a table top which involves me having to look quickly.
+Jay Santos Yes trained people plan this stuff out but if you look at these shootings a lot of them are people who are mentally deranged and do not think like that if they did they would have an almost 100% kill rate as they clear don't plan on getting out in anyway
Jay Santos and you know when those cops have the opportunity to take that shot? When he is reloading. I never said someone tackled them. Don't assume my words.
I'm sorry facts doesn't make Anyone feel safe! Gun magazines should have only a few pages because it's hard to read 🇺🇸
I feel like this test wasn't very scientific. It's just obvious that having to change magazines would obviously slow someone down. The amount of time needed to change would depend greatly on their skill. There's no doubt a trained person could use smaller clips and just practice changing them faster. It's clearly demonstrated with the man shooter. He just shoots the smaller clips faster. I'm pro gun, but this is frankly a poor test.
"Clips"
TheDoomtc You're right. My mistake. It's a magazine. I often use them interchangeably. Even though I know there's a difference. It's just a bad habit.
The dude clearly is shooting faster when he uses smaller mags lol why is he even testing this
it doesn't slow you down as much as you'd think, with some training you can change them pretty quick. As I only have training with the HK 416 (same magazine and magazine well as the AR-15) I'm gonna use that as an example. A prone magazine change under perfect conditions took me usually 1.6 - 1.8 seconds. from trigger pull -> right index finger on mag release while left hand opens mag pouch, and retrieves the mag -> insert into the magazine well and chamber a round -> trigger pull. while this is done I always keeps my sights on the target.
it's a lot quicker standing up in a shooting position.
Spoofy Yeah... That's basically what I said, but it sounds like you're trying to disagree with me.
Jim shot so slow on the 15 round mags I nearly fell asleep
Love how he shoots faster and faster with smaller and smaller magazines 😂
Because once you've warmed up a bit with the first shots, the shots later tend to be quicker
Yeah, it’s a rigged demonstration... if it didn’t make a difference, we wouldn’t want them... The difference is negligible with the exception that people can panic and flub the reload.
@@thesmirk the point of the video is to demonstrate that a mass shooter is gonna be just as effective with 6-10 rnd mags as with 30 rnd mags. Basically elimating the idea that magazine regulation laws are necessary or warranted
@@yungdomino4718 Except the entire test was rigged as The Smirk said. It isn't meant to be an accurate or consistent representation. There were so many uncontrolled variables preventing you from drawing accurate conclusions. You can't record time but then fire at different rates to try to manipulate the outcome. You need each test to be consistent, he should have already been warmed up before he started the first test. By going in to the first test cold you're skewing the results. Then there's also the absurdity of having targets at all. At a range like that your time to aim to target is negligible, he might as well have just been mag dumping down range at that point; especially since the accuracy didn't really matter. Then didn't take in to consideration how many shots were actually effective or landed on target so why did they bother having the targets in the first place?
It makes no sense that they prepared magazines on the barrel in front of the shooter, it's just another attempt to try to mitigate the time it takes to perform a reload in favor of painting magazine restrictions in a bad light. Might be worth pointing out that I'm not even in fair of magazine restrictions proposed here but this test is such an awful counter to that argument. They essentially tried to create a situation in which you might as well not even have a reload as a way of showcasing how little reloads affect overall rates of fire. They allowed him to count rounds instead of emptying the chamber to avoid the time it would take to release the slide, and they completely overlooked the increased time it would take to retrieve another magazine from whatever you have it contained it. A mass shooter or even in a self defense situation typically wouldn't have magazines prepared on a surface before hand like that so why would they utilize that in their test?
Especially under adrenaline, the more actions you have to perform to reach your final conclusion, in this case firing a weapon, the more opportunity you have for a mistake to go wrong. In this completely idealized, unrepresentative situation it is incredibly simple with very few instances to slip up. In a more realistic example you would have to deal with potentially fumbling a magazine out of your carrier, struggling to release the slide, manually removing the magazines if you have rock and lock type magazine, and more.
If mass shooters were going to be just as effective with smaller magazines then why do we equip soldiers with 30 round magazines instead of 10 or 20?
First thing i noticed
Well done. Anyone who thinks limiting magazine capacity will stop violent crime should also consider limiting spoon sizes- because spoons make you fat.
No it will not stop violent crime but it will lower the effect of it. We shouldn't limit spoon size although according to you it makes you fat because being fat isn't a crime.
Being fat is a crime... punishable by lack of sex life and an over dependence on food. All because of spoons... damn effective spoons.
csfreak89 No, it wont lower the "effect" of it. In places like cali the mag size hasn't changed a thing.
I know of at least one liberal mayor that disagrees with you on what makes people fat and unhealthy, and then limits food sizes. Bloomberg ring a bell.
Jeff Thompson i need a smaller spoon!
Curt Johnson me too man, me too.
The year is 2050. President Laquisha Harambe Squarepants, made an executive decree that throwing 2 rocks at once is unlawful.
@trucker's destiny You won't be able to get a delicious country fried steak, because fried food, and red meat, are both bad for you, and hence illegal. Toothpicks are banned because they are made from trees, and we don't want to cut down the forests. Picking your nose might offend someone, and you won't be able to grow or eat cucumbers because they resemble a phallus and are also offensive, as well as contributing to the rape culture due to their phallic shape. Tofu and kale.
ya but suddenly the rate of fire vastly increases when he gets smaller magazines, if he had fired the first set of magazines anywhere near as quick as he did with the rest the results would be a lot different.
reload speed the same plus have you fired a gun before lol
I would also be very curious to see what happens if you're digging mags out of pouches/pockets while moving or in cover. Having mags laid out in front of you while in your favorite shooting position really makes reload as convenient as possible.
Have you? Your comment makes no sense. This guy is assuming every knuckle head that buys a weapon knows how to reload as quickly, and like Steve below said, has all their ammo laid out nice and neat before them.
This test was to achieve a specific result and they performed it in a manner to achieve that result.
A couple seconds won't make a fucking difference. Every law is an infringement.
+The Barbershop so you'd be willing to stand in the line of fire for that extra couple of seconds, let's say 5 seconds maximum, even the girl got plenty of shots off in five seconds to kill you and potentially wound somebody else
im pro gun .but this test isnt realistic... no one in a self defense situation is on a range with no stress and theyre magazines layed out so as to facillitate easy mag changes...
They aren't arguing on self defense, they are claiming it doesn't make a difference for the mass shooter, who would be the only one armed (usually) and may take up a sniping position where he has magazines laid out in front of him.
+Merb34st ok but i still say the conditions for this test dont replicate realworld scenarios.. but whatever it's not worth arguing over...
The only portion of the "realworld" it is attempting to replicate is the reload as that is the argument they are making. If you feel the quick reload aspect of the video is inaccurate, try watching one of the other million quick reload videos.
+Merb34st not concerned about quick reload im more about putting lead on target accurately... a single well placed shot from most weapons will disable the target...be cool
The begining of the video says that 80-85% of shots miss even for well trained officers. We all know a well placed shot can mean the end but the chances are slim under stress.
Put the magazines in his pocket. Mass shooters don't justs stand there with their magazines laid out on the table.
or....put the magazines in the nice easy to use mag-pouches
so yeah, it adds about 1/4 of a second....i guess you debunked the whole thing
:eyeroll:
>plate carriers exist
Put it on the video and prove it then.
jformaldehydem you're going to deny the existence of mag-pouches ?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
oh yeah...you're credible
Wtf? Are you insane or just fucking stupid?
If you think magazine pouches add a negligible amount of time to reload, then I want proof. I want THAT to be on the video, not nicely laid out magazines sitting at a comfortable hand level for convenient reloading. Put it up there. 4 six cartridge magazines. Let's see it.
I want my wife to have a 100rd mag on every weapon she has. Under pressure, even she admits she will need them. Government needs to stay out of my life.
This video tells me to move to Boone County. That's the Sheriff I want.
There's an old song called "you don't mess around with jim" this is this man's theme song. He's a real gunslinger good vid
Every second counts in extreme circumstances, plus a mag change is just an opportunity for a mistake.
"a mag change is just an opportunity for a mistake."
Exactly
+Alica Ljungberg also, adrenaline makes a mag change a hell of a lot harder, have them go for a run abs get their heartbeat up to say, 130bpm, then shoot
it takes less then second to change magazine, but that if crooks even complies. I almost guarantee he will not bring restricted magazine to the fight
they train for this action, they will not be as crazy and with training they still be fast enough, but don't worry they will ignore the rule anyway
+maksim tsionskiy I think people greatly overestimate these psychopaths training for these situations the kill percentage is almost always under 50% after including the crazies dying themselves if they were so trained the percentage would be a lot higher