That could be anywhere in the country. Always be prepared and on the alert. Thanks Mas
This is probably the most condescending and obscene concept the antis have ever dreamed up, at least in my lifetime. I suspect,though we will never read of it in the “news”, that this thing is being noticed rather directly in the 50th state at this time, for example.. Shameful and unconstitutional.
I live in a ban state. It chaps my ass that I can’t stuff a full magazine in a mid to large size 9mm or a .40. Unfortunately, unless the Supremes invalidate magazine bans, it is what it is.
So I’ve gone back to being a 1911 girl, with G-d’s Own Caliber.
I was watching an old James Bond movie and he was being pursued by a man with an AK47. Bond pulled out his .32 pistol and my first thought was that he was outgunned. Bond stepped out from concealment and put one round in the center of his pursuer’s forehead. I guess he had enough gun after all. If you shoot like James Bond, 10 rounds is probably enough. If you are a normal human, like me, you may need a lot more.
These low IQ scholars think someone is going to open the front door by pointing guns at the door cam? Sheesh, no body but a crazed Democrat or some other moron would open their door in that circumstance. A real home invasion is commenced by kicking the door open, not ringing the doorbell. These dudes just don’t have the mindset for this type of activity. Maybe they were selling Girl Scout cookies and were armed for security? You know those Thin Mints are in large demand.
If this ever happens to me, then I’ll pretend I’m not home and prepare to implement the funnel technique. My Glock is always on me. No having to go into the bedroom or closet to get it.
TW,
Excellent. You are prepared.
Am I the only one who thinks the video is staged with air soft guns? It just seems fake.
The Firearm-Prohibitionists are a wing of the American (and Global) Left. All Leftists have one, universal, defining characteristic. They divorce themselves from reality and create a fantasy world in which to live. An utopian “Dream World” which operates under leftist ideological rules rather than the rules (logic, physics, legal, etc.) that govern reality.
One can see this in the stuff put out by Hollywood. The Hollywood Left constantly creates fantasy pictures that devolve into propaganda pieces that act to illustrate the Leftist fantasy world. Is that why Hollywood is so dominated by Left-Wing zealots? Are people who constantly create fantasy worlds, in which they can live themselves, so accustom to creating fantasy that they are drawn to Hollywood? Hollywood is they one place in America where these folks can grow rich by peddling their fantasies. Fortunately, the ideological fantasies of Hollywood only appeal to other Leftists. They do not entertain anyone else.
I am reminded of a quote from Game of Thrones (which, at least, was entertaining):
“We both sell fantasies. The only difference is that mine are entertaining.” – Littlefinger
The fantasy that no one needs more than 10 rounds for self-defense is a prime example of being divorced from the “Real World”. The firearm-prohibitionists are grossly ignorant about firearms and defensive tactics. How many times have we laughed at their ridiculous statements and ideas? Remember “Shotgun Joe” and his double-barrelled blast into the sky?
In the fantasy world of the firearm-prohibitionists, no one needs any firearms at all. Therefore, (in their minds) they are being generous by graciously granting us a full 10 rounds for our unnecessary cases of self-defense.
It is easy to show that the firearm-prohibitionists are wrong. All one has to do is unplug from their fantasy world and plug into the “Real World” instead. Let’s take a walk on the “Real” side:
The NYPD is one organization that keeps good statistics on gunfights. They classify incidents where the NYPD engages in gunfights with criminals as “Adversarial Conflict (AC)”.
So, how often do NYPD officers need more than 10 rounds when engaged in AC? Here are the statistics for the last five (5) years where data is available:
2021 – More than 10 rounds are fired in 20% of AC incidents.
2020 – The figure is 24%
2019 – 36% !
2018 – 18%
2017 – 11%
Summing these five (5) years gives the statistic that NYPD officers needed to fire more than 10 rounds in about 21.8% of the AC incidents (on average) for the last five years where data is available.
Clearly, the NYPD cops don’t want to be limited to just 10 rounds. Why the hell should we be so limited? Just to satisfy the fantasies of the Firearms-Prohibitionists?
As for myself, I choose to live in the “Real World”. I REJECT the Fantasy World created by the Left and their propagandists.
I wish the American People would reject the left-wing fantasy world and come back to reality too. This nation needs a strong dose of reality at the moment.
Clearly, the NYPD cops don’t want to be limited to just 10 rounds. Why the hell should we be so limited? Just to satisfy the fantasies of the Firearms-Prohibitionists?
Because it’s not about safety, reducing violent crime, or reducing “mass shootings”; it’s about maintaining a government monopoly on violence. The prohibitionists are willing to “allow” you to have some guns and some ammo (until they aren’t), provided their sanctioned thugs (of all stripes) can always bring overwhelming force against you whenever necessary.
In their minds, the Constitution might prevent them from leaving you disarmed, so instead they’ll do whatever they can to leave you under-armed in the face of the criminal element.
I have first-hand experience with fantasies. I tried to write music for a living, but didn’t have enough talent. I wanted a fantasy job. I spent a year in Hollywood, 1998.
Communists/Leftists want a fantasy world brought about by politics and human effort.
The following are legitimate fantasies;
movies/plays
music/poetry
video games
fiction books
day dreaming
Illegitimate fantasies would be drugs and drunkeness.
Also, Karl Marx’ vision of a “Worker’s Paradise” is a fantasy. Hitler, trying to speed up the evolution of The Master Race was a fantasy.
The place where music, poetry, day dreaming and Marx’ vision come together is in John Lennon’s song, “Imagine.” The song is harmless, unless thugs like Antifa try to bring that fantasy into reality by force.
Those who get all their information on firearms from the entertainment media could possibly be forgiven for believing the “assault weapon” ban and magazine capacity mantras. After all, one shot sends the bad g—- persons flying backwards. Who needs more than ten rounds? Never mind that the good persons only grunt and stay upright with a similar injury. What we have here is a failure to communicate. Maybe explain reality.
That said, there are a vast number of folks who are oblivious to facts. Hopes and wishes don’t create reality. I’m not sure if those who live in a fantasy world of their own wishes are a subset of them or a wholly different group. Their mindset won’t accept Hellen Keller’s dictum: “Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”
A few years back a lady was bitten by a copperhead snake in a local trendy restaurant. She spent months in hospital and nearly lost a leg. While strange, if she’s been paying attention to her environment, she might have avoided that. Too much trouble.
The antis will look at that doorbell camera image/video and say, “I see 5 people, so if you need more than 5 rounds to defend yourself, you’re not good enough to be trusted with any gun.” (And as an aside, “I see 5 People Of Color, so if you defend yourself with a firearm AT ALL, you’re a racist and a white supremacist.”)
Never mind that the NYPD can fire dozens of rounds, wounding multiple bystanders, and yet not hit their target even once.
Never mind that drug-crazed and enraged assailants can absorb 6, 8, 10, 12 rounds each and keep coming. (How many rounds must the NYPD fire to take one of these guys down? 100? 200?)
And never mind that those same anti-gun people always seem to carve out exceptions for their own personal security details, because at the end of the day, they don’t want to be limited to the same constraints they force on the rest of us.
“How many rounds must the NYPD fire to take one of these guys down? 100? 200?”
Well, it is not that bad. I have drilled down through the latest 2021 NYPD Use of Force Report. Here is a quick summary of the Adversarial Conflict (AC) data.
1) In 2021, the NYPD was involved in a total of 36 AC incidents. In plain language, 36 separate gunfights with criminals.
2) A total of 50 NYPD officers discharged their firearms during these AC incidents. They engaged a total of 43 criminals. Of these 43 criminals, three (3) managed to escape. The rest were accounted for in one way or another.
3) Of the 43 criminals, 21 were shot. Of those shot, 15 were wounded while six (6) died from their wounds. Also, in one of these AC incidents, a bystander was also shot in the arm. Sadly, the bystander ultimately died from this wound.
4) A total of seven (7) NYPD Officers were injured during these AC incidents. Five (5) were struck by gunfire, one was struck by the criminal’s car, and one was simply assaulted and injured. None of these injuries were fatal so no NYPD officers died as a result of AC in 2021.
To achieve these results (21 criminals and 1 bystander shot), the NYPD fired a total of 281 rounds in 2021.
Therefore, to answer your question, the NYPD fired an average of about 12.78 rounds for each guy (criminal or innocent bystander) taken down in 2021.
So, like I said, it is not as bad as 100 or 200 rounds per “guy”. However, the AVERAGE was more than 10 rounds per “guy”. Please note that statistic. It has application to the topic of this blog post.
Also note that these statistics bounce around a good deal from year to year. Some years are better, some are worse. Don’t take a single year’s worth of data as “gospel”. I picked 2021, to quote above, just because it is the most recent year for which data exists not because it is typical.
Do you happen to know what the hit ratio was, TN?
“Do you happen to know the hit ratio?”
No. In the distant past, the NYPD did report hit ratio. That was under the old “Firearm Discharge” report format. However, the NYPD switched over to the more “Politically Correct” Use-of-Fprce Report format back in 2016.
They stopped reporting the “Hit Ratio” in favor of what they call a “Completion Rate”. In fact, they switch to Completion Rate as early as 2009 (even prior to the other format changes). Their justification for the switch was as follows:
“The Department does not consider hit percentages, in part because it is often unknown (e.g., in cases when a subject flees), and also because of the widely varying circumstances among incidents. Instead, the objective completion rate per incident is employed, as it is both more accurate and more instructive. Like combat itself, the objective completion rate per incident is pass/fail. When an officer properly and lawfully perceives a threat severe enough to require the use of his or her firearm, and fires at a specific threat, the most relevant measure is whether he or she ultimately stops the threat.”
In my opinion, this is just polishing the data to make the NYPD look better. Their hit ratios were on the low side but reporting the completion rate makes them look better.
Very often, the completion rate is in the range of 80% to 90% during the Trump Adminstration. In 2019, (pre-Covid), it jumped as high as 96%. In other words, they “stopped the threat” 96% of the time using whatever force was that was required.
However, in the chaos of 2020, it dropped to a low of only 48%. In 2021, it improved a bit to 53%. Still, much lower than pre-Covid levels.
It is interesting that Covid (and the chaos of the 2020 Election Year) should have had such a profound effect on NYPD Completion Rates. It would be an interesting study to determine why this is so.
Any speculation, Mas, as to why the NYPD Completion Rate plunged the last couple of years? I don’t think it was because the NYPD switched to less effective firearms and/or ammunition. Could it be because many veteran officers are retiring or moving to safe desk jobs and their slots are being replaced with green recruits?
Going way back to the 2005 report, the hit ratio (Defense of Self and Other) was 30%. Since this figure is no longer being reported by the NYPD, we have no way of knowing if it is better, worse, or still about the same. The sharp drop in completion rates, in the last couple of years, argues for the case that it is getting worse.
@TN_MAN: While it’s nice to know that the NYPD’s marksmanship isn’t as bad as often portrayed, that’s a pretty low bar!
The average of more than 10 rounds per “guy” is interesting, though. On the one hand, no wonder they don’t want the officers limited to 10 rounds, if on average it takes more than that to neutralize a violent threat.
On the other hand, limiting non-police to 10 rounds — or in NY’s case, with their SAFE Act, 7 rounds — either they expect non-police to shoot much better than police … or they want to make criminals safer by forcing law-abiding citizens to be under- or out-gunned.
Neither bodes well for the average gun owner and/or home defender, but it does put the controllers’ priorities into perspective, doesn’t it?
Archer, it’s my understanding that the original 7-round limit in NY has gone by the board and it’s currently 10 rounds. If you have documentation that it’s still seven, please advise. Thanks, Mas
The above guidance is straight “from the Horse’s mouth”. It is on the NY government web site.
I think it is straight from a different equine orifice, myself. Maybe one on the other end? 🙂
@Mas and TN_MAN: You are correct, it is 10 rounds, as amended. My mistake.
Archer,
The current law is ten rounds per magazine in New York state (and NJ), but at one time NY was considering a move to a seven round limit. So, you were just a little off, but your memory was working well.
this “near”-home-invasion and it got me thinking…
If I walked up to my door with see-through panels and saw these thugs pointing guns “at me through the glass” … would I be justified in shooting? It is arguably too late to run away now. It seems reasonable that if they SEE me, they are ready to shoot … and the door (even if solid wood) won’t be stopping rifle rounds.
Although it’s not a legally defensible stance, my wife pointed out that the scary part is these guys DID NOT try to enter when they realized NO ONE WAS HOME! … It seems they were LOOKING for a gunfight. So now, the homeowner has to be worried about when they are coming BACK and what their intent THEN will be.
Please elaborate on “shooting through the door” when faced with this kind of threat.
That occurred to me, too. They didn’t try to enter the house when they realized nobody was home. If the intent were a burglary, that would have been the ideal time.
That they didn’t, means the intent wasn’t a burglary. So what was it?
Thinking about it logically, there are a couple options. The very best one is, their show of force was intended to intimidate and threaten the homeowner over some prior issue we don’t know about. As terrifying as that sounds, it goes downhill from there.
In any case, it’s clear that the home wasn’t their goal; the homeowner was. IOW, the target wasn’t things, it was people.
The antis tell us, “Just give them what they want.” This example validates, in shockingly stark terms, the long-used reply: “What if ‘what they want’ is YOU?”
This is just one piece of the globalist leftist strategy. “Ban your guns? Why heavens no!” We’ll just ban your magazines, close your FFLs, sue your manufacturers, prosecute you for defending yourself, prohibit you from carrying, tax your ammunition, and on and on. Death by a thousand cuts. It should be obvious that any past attempts to placate or bargain with these people was foolish. When was the last time any of them offered anything in return for the latest infringement? Unlike the Borg, resistance is not futile but is required.
BULLSEYE!!!
The word they love to use is “compromise”.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride (1987)
Real compromise is giving up something to get something. The antis’ version of compromise is to take less than they’d like, but let us keep some of what we already have … for now.
Which of these is a compromise?
– We’re going to ban “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and adding this list of locations to “sensitive places” for CCW, but we’ll let you keep your handguns, shotguns, and “hunting rifles”.
OR
– We want Universal Background Checks and a ban on the sale of new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and in return we’re offering 50-state national CCW reciprocity and travelers’ protections — with penalties on state and local authorities who violate them — and repealing the National Firearms Act statutes regarding silencers.
Whether we take it or not, the second proposal is a genuine compromise: it offers something they value less, in return for the new laws they really want.
But invariably, the antis’ proposals look more like the first one.
Whilst driving to the range yesterday, something popped into my mind. Somewhere there’s gotta be a data base that catalogs shooting/murder victims by race. Considering the race of the majority of victims in Richmond, VA (#1 in homicides) during the Nineties, one might project, and I recall that some activists have recently mentioned, a substantial percentage of homicides and aggravated assaults are/might be members of a minority group.
While the ‘antis’ will claim that the various bans will save those minority group lives-or at least reduce the body count- the opposing view might be that the proposed legislation is racist as it limits the ability of minorities to defend themselves.
Now there was an effective response to the problem Richmond faced. It was called Project Exile. A partnership between Richmond Police and the Federal Prosecutor to utilize Federal Law that mandated 5 years in a Federal prison for felons in possession of a firearm. Since it was essentially a summary case (felon + gun=5 years per gun, consecutively) there wasn’t an undue burden on the Federal court system and it rapidly and significantly reduced homicides. But, it’s a solution to the problem no one wants to acknowledge.
But wait, there’s more. A DC study of violent crime (cited in one issue of the American Rifleman last year) produced interesting stats: 86% of those involved in violence had previous involvement (arrests) in violence. Often both parties of the dispute/combat. This isn’t surprising, what’s disturbing is that those folks aren’t incarcerated. There wasn’t any mention of how many were ROR/released without bail.
This isn’t surprising, what’s disturbing is that those folks aren’t incarcerated. There wasn’t any mention of how many were ROR/released without bail.
And with “no-cash bail” and ROR (released on recognizance) becoming increasingly common — even for violent crimes — it’s going to get worse.
And no, they won’t tell you how many violent criminals were released without bail; if the numbers actually got out, that would be the end of their “no-cash bail” and ROR policies.
So instead, they’ll focus on how cash bail and holding suspects pending charges is racist, and YOU’RE a racist for questioning it!
@ Mark – “Death by a thousand cuts. It should be obvious that any past attempts to placate or bargain with these people was foolish. When was the last time any of them offered anything in return for the latest infringement? Unlike the Borg, resistance is not futile but is required.”
Quote of the Day:
“Sunshine go away today
I don’t feel much like dancing
Some man’s gone, he’s tried to run my life
He don’t know what he’s asking
When he tells me I better get in line
I can’t hear what he’s saying
When I grow up, I’m gonna make it mine
These ain’t dues I been paying
Well how much does it cost?
I’ll buy it
The time is all we’ve lost
I’ll try it
And he can’t even run his own life
I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine, sunshine”
Lyrics from the Song ‘Sunshine (Go Away Today)’ by Johnathon Edwards (1971)
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I’ll ask again … in a different way.
What are the legal ramifications of shooting through a “glass door” at a group of thugs staring down gun barrels at you as you pull the curtain back to see what the commotion on your porch is about..?
Some states require “actual forcible entry” … but these guys could shoot first when you show.
Yeah, i know when “a panther calls, don’t anther” … but how about a real answer to this dilemma?
When obvious criminals are obviously pointing deadly weapons at you you are obviously in deadly danger and should be justified in using deadly force. If you can shoot them from your present position they can obviously shoot you, and entry is no longer a requirement.
Of course, if the people pointing those guns at your are cops serving a legitimate warrant, you don’t get to call them thugs and shoot them.
That could be anywhere in the country. Always be prepared and on the alert. Thanks Mas
This is probably the most condescending and obscene concept the antis have ever dreamed up, at least in my lifetime. I suspect,though we will never read of it in the “news”, that this thing is being noticed rather directly in the 50th state at this time, for example.. Shameful and unconstitutional.
I live in a ban state. It chaps my ass that I can’t stuff a full magazine in a mid to large size 9mm or a .40. Unfortunately, unless the Supremes invalidate magazine bans, it is what it is.
So I’ve gone back to being a 1911 girl, with G-d’s Own Caliber.
I was watching an old James Bond movie and he was being pursued by a man with an AK47. Bond pulled out his .32 pistol and my first thought was that he was outgunned. Bond stepped out from concealment and put one round in the center of his pursuer’s forehead. I guess he had enough gun after all. If you shoot like James Bond, 10 rounds is probably enough. If you are a normal human, like me, you may need a lot more.
These low IQ scholars think someone is going to open the front door by pointing guns at the door cam? Sheesh, no body but a crazed Democrat or some other moron would open their door in that circumstance. A real home invasion is commenced by kicking the door open, not ringing the doorbell. These dudes just don’t have the mindset for this type of activity. Maybe they were selling Girl Scout cookies and were armed for security? You know those Thin Mints are in large demand.
If this ever happens to me, then I’ll pretend I’m not home and prepare to implement the funnel technique. My Glock is always on me. No having to go into the bedroom or closet to get it.
TW,
Excellent. You are prepared.
Am I the only one who thinks the video is staged with air soft guns? It just seems fake.
The Firearm-Prohibitionists are a wing of the American (and Global) Left. All Leftists have one, universal, defining characteristic. They divorce themselves from reality and create a fantasy world in which to live. An utopian “Dream World” which operates under leftist ideological rules rather than the rules (logic, physics, legal, etc.) that govern reality.
One can see this in the stuff put out by Hollywood. The Hollywood Left constantly creates fantasy pictures that devolve into propaganda pieces that act to illustrate the Leftist fantasy world. Is that why Hollywood is so dominated by Left-Wing zealots? Are people who constantly create fantasy worlds, in which they can live themselves, so accustom to creating fantasy that they are drawn to Hollywood? Hollywood is they one place in America where these folks can grow rich by peddling their fantasies. Fortunately, the ideological fantasies of Hollywood only appeal to other Leftists. They do not entertain anyone else.
I am reminded of a quote from Game of Thrones (which, at least, was entertaining):
“We both sell fantasies. The only difference is that mine are entertaining.” – Littlefinger
The fantasy that no one needs more than 10 rounds for self-defense is a prime example of being divorced from the “Real World”. The firearm-prohibitionists are grossly ignorant about firearms and defensive tactics. How many times have we laughed at their ridiculous statements and ideas? Remember “Shotgun Joe” and his double-barrelled blast into the sky?
In the fantasy world of the firearm-prohibitionists, no one needs any firearms at all. Therefore, (in their minds) they are being generous by graciously granting us a full 10 rounds for our unnecessary cases of self-defense.
It is easy to show that the firearm-prohibitionists are wrong. All one has to do is unplug from their fantasy world and plug into the “Real World” instead. Let’s take a walk on the “Real” side:
The NYPD is one organization that keeps good statistics on gunfights. They classify incidents where the NYPD engages in gunfights with criminals as “Adversarial Conflict (AC)”.
So, how often do NYPD officers need more than 10 rounds when engaged in AC? Here are the statistics for the last five (5) years where data is available:
2021 – More than 10 rounds are fired in 20% of AC incidents.
2020 – The figure is 24%
2019 – 36% !
2018 – 18%
2017 – 11%
Summing these five (5) years gives the statistic that NYPD officers needed to fire more than 10 rounds in about 21.8% of the AC incidents (on average) for the last five years where data is available.
Clearly, the NYPD cops don’t want to be limited to just 10 rounds. Why the hell should we be so limited? Just to satisfy the fantasies of the Firearms-Prohibitionists?
As for myself, I choose to live in the “Real World”. I REJECT the Fantasy World created by the Left and their propagandists.
I wish the American People would reject the left-wing fantasy world and come back to reality too. This nation needs a strong dose of reality at the moment.
Clearly, the NYPD cops don’t want to be limited to just 10 rounds. Why the hell should we be so limited? Just to satisfy the fantasies of the Firearms-Prohibitionists?
Because it’s not about safety, reducing violent crime, or reducing “mass shootings”; it’s about maintaining a government monopoly on violence. The prohibitionists are willing to “allow” you to have some guns and some ammo (until they aren’t), provided their sanctioned thugs (of all stripes) can always bring overwhelming force against you whenever necessary.
In their minds, the Constitution might prevent them from leaving you disarmed, so instead they’ll do whatever they can to leave you under-armed in the face of the criminal element.
I have first-hand experience with fantasies. I tried to write music for a living, but didn’t have enough talent. I wanted a fantasy job. I spent a year in Hollywood, 1998.
Communists/Leftists want a fantasy world brought about by politics and human effort.
The following are legitimate fantasies;
movies/plays
music/poetry
video games
fiction books
day dreaming
Illegitimate fantasies would be drugs and drunkeness.
Also, Karl Marx’ vision of a “Worker’s Paradise” is a fantasy. Hitler, trying to speed up the evolution of The Master Race was a fantasy.
The place where music, poetry, day dreaming and Marx’ vision come together is in John Lennon’s song, “Imagine.” The song is harmless, unless thugs like Antifa try to bring that fantasy into reality by force.
Those who get all their information on firearms from the entertainment media could possibly be forgiven for believing the “assault weapon” ban and magazine capacity mantras. After all, one shot sends the bad g—- persons flying backwards. Who needs more than ten rounds? Never mind that the good persons only grunt and stay upright with a similar injury. What we have here is a failure to communicate. Maybe explain reality.
That said, there are a vast number of folks who are oblivious to facts. Hopes and wishes don’t create reality. I’m not sure if those who live in a fantasy world of their own wishes are a subset of them or a wholly different group. Their mindset won’t accept Hellen Keller’s dictum: “Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”
A few years back a lady was bitten by a copperhead snake in a local trendy restaurant. She spent months in hospital and nearly lost a leg. While strange, if she’s been paying attention to her environment, she might have avoided that. Too much trouble.
The antis will look at that doorbell camera image/video and say, “I see 5 people, so if you need more than 5 rounds to defend yourself, you’re not good enough to be trusted with any gun.” (And as an aside, “I see 5 People Of Color, so if you defend yourself with a firearm AT ALL, you’re a racist and a white supremacist.”)
Never mind that the NYPD can fire dozens of rounds, wounding multiple bystanders, and yet not hit their target even once.
Never mind that drug-crazed and enraged assailants can absorb 6, 8, 10, 12 rounds each and keep coming. (How many rounds must the NYPD fire to take one of these guys down? 100? 200?)
And never mind that those same anti-gun people always seem to carve out exceptions for their own personal security details, because at the end of the day, they don’t want to be limited to the same constraints they force on the rest of us.
“How many rounds must the NYPD fire to take one of these guys down? 100? 200?”
Well, it is not that bad. I have drilled down through the latest 2021 NYPD Use of Force Report. Here is a quick summary of the Adversarial Conflict (AC) data.
1) In 2021, the NYPD was involved in a total of 36 AC incidents. In plain language, 36 separate gunfights with criminals.
2) A total of 50 NYPD officers discharged their firearms during these AC incidents. They engaged a total of 43 criminals. Of these 43 criminals, three (3) managed to escape. The rest were accounted for in one way or another.
3) Of the 43 criminals, 21 were shot. Of those shot, 15 were wounded while six (6) died from their wounds. Also, in one of these AC incidents, a bystander was also shot in the arm. Sadly, the bystander ultimately died from this wound.
4) A total of seven (7) NYPD Officers were injured during these AC incidents. Five (5) were struck by gunfire, one was struck by the criminal’s car, and one was simply assaulted and injured. None of these injuries were fatal so no NYPD officers died as a result of AC in 2021.
To achieve these results (21 criminals and 1 bystander shot), the NYPD fired a total of 281 rounds in 2021.
Therefore, to answer your question, the NYPD fired an average of about 12.78 rounds for each guy (criminal or innocent bystander) taken down in 2021.
So, like I said, it is not as bad as 100 or 200 rounds per “guy”. However, the AVERAGE was more than 10 rounds per “guy”. Please note that statistic. It has application to the topic of this blog post.
Also note that these statistics bounce around a good deal from year to year. Some years are better, some are worse. Don’t take a single year’s worth of data as “gospel”. I picked 2021, to quote above, just because it is the most recent year for which data exists not because it is typical.
Do you happen to know what the hit ratio was, TN?
“Do you happen to know the hit ratio?”
No. In the distant past, the NYPD did report hit ratio. That was under the old “Firearm Discharge” report format. However, the NYPD switched over to the more “Politically Correct” Use-of-Fprce Report format back in 2016.
They stopped reporting the “Hit Ratio” in favor of what they call a “Completion Rate”. In fact, they switch to Completion Rate as early as 2009 (even prior to the other format changes). Their justification for the switch was as follows:
“The Department does not consider hit percentages, in part because it is often unknown (e.g., in cases when a subject flees), and also because of the widely varying circumstances among incidents. Instead, the objective completion rate per incident is employed, as it is both more accurate and more instructive. Like combat itself, the objective completion rate per incident is pass/fail. When an officer properly and lawfully perceives a threat severe enough to require the use of his or her firearm, and fires at a specific threat, the most relevant measure is whether he or she ultimately stops the threat.”
In my opinion, this is just polishing the data to make the NYPD look better. Their hit ratios were on the low side but reporting the completion rate makes them look better.
Very often, the completion rate is in the range of 80% to 90% during the Trump Adminstration. In 2019, (pre-Covid), it jumped as high as 96%. In other words, they “stopped the threat” 96% of the time using whatever force was that was required.
However, in the chaos of 2020, it dropped to a low of only 48%. In 2021, it improved a bit to 53%. Still, much lower than pre-Covid levels.
It is interesting that Covid (and the chaos of the 2020 Election Year) should have had such a profound effect on NYPD Completion Rates. It would be an interesting study to determine why this is so.
Any speculation, Mas, as to why the NYPD Completion Rate plunged the last couple of years? I don’t think it was because the NYPD switched to less effective firearms and/or ammunition. Could it be because many veteran officers are retiring or moving to safe desk jobs and their slots are being replaced with green recruits?
Going way back to the 2005 report, the hit ratio (Defense of Self and Other) was 30%. Since this figure is no longer being reported by the NYPD, we have no way of knowing if it is better, worse, or still about the same. The sharp drop in completion rates, in the last couple of years, argues for the case that it is getting worse.
@TN_MAN: While it’s nice to know that the NYPD’s marksmanship isn’t as bad as often portrayed, that’s a pretty low bar!
The average of more than 10 rounds per “guy” is interesting, though. On the one hand, no wonder they don’t want the officers limited to 10 rounds, if on average it takes more than that to neutralize a violent threat.
On the other hand, limiting non-police to 10 rounds — or in NY’s case, with their SAFE Act, 7 rounds — either they expect non-police to shoot much better than police … or they want to make criminals safer by forcing law-abiding citizens to be under- or out-gunned.
Neither bodes well for the average gun owner and/or home defender, but it does put the controllers’ priorities into perspective, doesn’t it?
Archer, it’s my understanding that the original 7-round limit in NY has gone by the board and it’s currently 10 rounds. If you have documentation that it’s still seven, please advise. Thanks, Mas
“…it’s currently 10 rounds.”
That seem to be correct. See this link:
https://gunsafety.ny.gov/changes-safe-act
The above guidance is straight “from the Horse’s mouth”. It is on the NY government web site.
I think it is straight from a different equine orifice, myself. Maybe one on the other end? 🙂
@Mas and TN_MAN: You are correct, it is 10 rounds, as amended. My mistake.
Archer,
The current law is ten rounds per magazine in New York state (and NJ), but at one time NY was considering a move to a seven round limit. So, you were just a little off, but your memory was working well.
this “near”-home-invasion and it got me thinking…
If I walked up to my door with see-through panels and saw these thugs pointing guns “at me through the glass” … would I be justified in shooting? It is arguably too late to run away now. It seems reasonable that if they SEE me, they are ready to shoot … and the door (even if solid wood) won’t be stopping rifle rounds.
Although it’s not a legally defensible stance, my wife pointed out that the scary part is these guys DID NOT try to enter when they realized NO ONE WAS HOME! … It seems they were LOOKING for a gunfight. So now, the homeowner has to be worried about when they are coming BACK and what their intent THEN will be.
Please elaborate on “shooting through the door” when faced with this kind of threat.
That occurred to me, too. They didn’t try to enter the house when they realized nobody was home. If the intent were a burglary, that would have been the ideal time.
That they didn’t, means the intent wasn’t a burglary. So what was it?
Thinking about it logically, there are a couple options. The very best one is, their show of force was intended to intimidate and threaten the homeowner over some prior issue we don’t know about. As terrifying as that sounds, it goes downhill from there.
In any case, it’s clear that the home wasn’t their goal; the homeowner was. IOW, the target wasn’t things, it was people.
The antis tell us, “Just give them what they want.” This example validates, in shockingly stark terms, the long-used reply: “What if ‘what they want’ is YOU?”
This is just one piece of the globalist leftist strategy. “Ban your guns? Why heavens no!” We’ll just ban your magazines, close your FFLs, sue your manufacturers, prosecute you for defending yourself, prohibit you from carrying, tax your ammunition, and on and on. Death by a thousand cuts. It should be obvious that any past attempts to placate or bargain with these people was foolish. When was the last time any of them offered anything in return for the latest infringement? Unlike the Borg, resistance is not futile but is required.
BULLSEYE!!!
The word they love to use is “compromise”.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride (1987)
Real compromise is giving up something to get something. The antis’ version of compromise is to take less than they’d like, but let us keep some of what we already have … for now.
Which of these is a compromise?
– We’re going to ban “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and adding this list of locations to “sensitive places” for CCW, but we’ll let you keep your handguns, shotguns, and “hunting rifles”.
OR
– We want Universal Background Checks and a ban on the sale of new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and in return we’re offering 50-state national CCW reciprocity and travelers’ protections — with penalties on state and local authorities who violate them — and repealing the National Firearms Act statutes regarding silencers.
Whether we take it or not, the second proposal is a genuine compromise: it offers something they value less, in return for the new laws they really want.
But invariably, the antis’ proposals look more like the first one.
Whilst driving to the range yesterday, something popped into my mind. Somewhere there’s gotta be a data base that catalogs shooting/murder victims by race. Considering the race of the majority of victims in Richmond, VA (#1 in homicides) during the Nineties, one might project, and I recall that some activists have recently mentioned, a substantial percentage of homicides and aggravated assaults are/might be members of a minority group.
While the ‘antis’ will claim that the various bans will save those minority group lives-or at least reduce the body count- the opposing view might be that the proposed legislation is racist as it limits the ability of minorities to defend themselves.
Now there was an effective response to the problem Richmond faced. It was called Project Exile. A partnership between Richmond Police and the Federal Prosecutor to utilize Federal Law that mandated 5 years in a Federal prison for felons in possession of a firearm. Since it was essentially a summary case (felon + gun=5 years per gun, consecutively) there wasn’t an undue burden on the Federal court system and it rapidly and significantly reduced homicides. But, it’s a solution to the problem no one wants to acknowledge.
But wait, there’s more. A DC study of violent crime (cited in one issue of the American Rifleman last year) produced interesting stats: 86% of those involved in violence had previous involvement (arrests) in violence. Often both parties of the dispute/combat. This isn’t surprising, what’s disturbing is that those folks aren’t incarcerated. There wasn’t any mention of how many were ROR/released without bail.
This isn’t surprising, what’s disturbing is that those folks aren’t incarcerated. There wasn’t any mention of how many were ROR/released without bail.
And with “no-cash bail” and ROR (released on recognizance) becoming increasingly common — even for violent crimes — it’s going to get worse.
And no, they won’t tell you how many violent criminals were released without bail; if the numbers actually got out, that would be the end of their “no-cash bail” and ROR policies.
So instead, they’ll focus on how cash bail and holding suspects pending charges is racist, and YOU’RE a racist for questioning it!
@ Mark – “Death by a thousand cuts. It should be obvious that any past attempts to placate or bargain with these people was foolish. When was the last time any of them offered anything in return for the latest infringement? Unlike the Borg, resistance is not futile but is required.”
Quote of the Day:
“Sunshine go away today
I don’t feel much like dancing
Some man’s gone, he’s tried to run my life
He don’t know what he’s asking
When he tells me I better get in line
I can’t hear what he’s saying
When I grow up, I’m gonna make it mine
These ain’t dues I been paying
Well how much does it cost?
I’ll buy it
The time is all we’ve lost
I’ll try it
And he can’t even run his own life
I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine, sunshine”
Lyrics from the Song ‘Sunshine (Go Away Today)’ by Johnathon Edwards (1971)
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I’ll ask again … in a different way.
What are the legal ramifications of shooting through a “glass door” at a group of thugs staring down gun barrels at you as you pull the curtain back to see what the commotion on your porch is about..?
Some states require “actual forcible entry” … but these guys could shoot first when you show.
Yeah, i know when “a panther calls, don’t anther” … but how about a real answer to this dilemma?
When obvious criminals are obviously pointing deadly weapons at you you are obviously in deadly danger and should be justified in using deadly force. If you can shoot them from your present position they can obviously shoot you, and entry is no longer a requirement.
Of course, if the people pointing those guns at your are cops serving a legitimate warrant, you don’t get to call them thugs and shoot them.
Comments are closed.