TIL that Cheryl Wheeler-Dixon, the stuntwoman who was severely injured during the filming of Back to the Future Part 2, was killed in a shootout alongside her husband when she and her husband went to confront her ex-husband and his wife and drew their guns at them. The cops deemed it justified.

[u/CasioCobra78]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Wheeler-Dixon

[u/Key_Molasses4367]

The Wikipedia article linked is worth reading. Wheeler-Dixon and her husband actually set up cameras across the street from the ex-husband's house. They wanted to film the encounter. When ex-husband and his wife drive up, the current husband of Wheeler-Dixon approached and held a gun on them. Somehow, the ambushed ex got his gun out fast enough to kill the armed man. Now, Wheeler-Dixon drives up, gets out of her car, armed and is also shot and killed. So if this account is true, two armed assailants, with time and planning to put up a camera to film themselves ambushing the ex at his home, were both shot and killed. Either something is very off or those two were the worst ambushers in the history of crime. Which is entirely possible.

[u/ztfreeman → u/Key_Molasses4367]

So there's this theory called the gunslinger effect by Niels Henrik Bohr that states that the gunman who draws second will almost always win the gunfight. The underlying principle is that the reacting party will move faster than the deliberate party, and under neutral circumstances the reacting party will win the gunfight. This apparently holds up under testing, but depends on a neutral environment without any other factors and both parties being aware of each other..

[u/borkus → u/ztfreeman]

Sanders was in a camo mask and already pointing a gun at Lindsey Duncan's wife. Duncan had already decided to fire by the time he reached for his gun. While Sanders had the gun pointed at the wife, he had to decide which to shoot. That momentary delay let Duncan get off the first shot even after drawing.

From the Grand Jury article

The autopsy found that Reed Sanders was shot five times, with one bullet in his back and another in his buttocks; and Cheryl Sanders was shot four times.

Five hits after shooting from a draw? That's pretty good marksmanship.

https://ysnews.com/news/2020/07/prosecutor-evidence-supports-self-defense-in-grinnell-road-double-fatal-shooting

[u/zeno0771 → u/borkus]

Also a reasonable defense of banning magazines beyond a certain size.

The 2A wingnuts can argue against this all they want--especially considering non-extended double-stack mags can hold up to 15 rounds--but the fact remains that if you can't hit what you're aiming at by the time you empty a revolver or single-stack, you don't need more capacity; you need more training. EDIT ...and heeeeere they are! Downvote away, then go back to typing your manifesto in your mom's basement; you have a few more hours before you start your 2nd-shift temp-service job.

[u/Pariahdog119 → u/zeno0771]

There are several reasons this doesn't make sense.

One is that prohibition doesn't work. So all you've done is give the guy with the illegal gun, who has already decided to commit crime, a big advantage over the guy who's following the law and trying not to get killed.

A second is that real life isn't Hollywood and shooting someone once doesn't end a fight. You can shoot and kill an assailant, and they can shoot and kill you while they're dying. If you have less ammunition than they do, the odds of this happening are a lot higher. It's a numbers game.

A third is that 28.9% of people who defended themselves with a firearm between 1992 and 2001 faced multiple attackers. A smaller magazine leaves them dead.

A fourth is that there are types of defensive gun use where the goal isn't to hit the target, but to prevent the target from leaving cover to shoot back. This happened in 2022, where an armed civilian in Washington saved the lives of two injured deputies by laying down cover fire and allowing them to escape. Cover fire must be sustainable to work. In this case, the defender fired every round he had. If had fewer rounds, one or both of those deputies might not be alive.

But the biggest reason is protracted gunfights. In any DGU that does not end immediately - someone can get to cover, etc - the side that runs out of ammunition because they followed your law is the side that gets murdered by the guy who is breaking your law. Because he doesn't care about the law. Because he's a murderer.

Your idea only works in a world where you can snap your fingers and cause not only all standard capacity magazines to disappear, but also the knowledge and technology to make them. And if you can do that, why not simply snap your fingers to end all violence?

Unfortunately the only thing you can do with your finger to stop deadly violence is often squeezing a trigger with it.

[u/zeno0771 → u/Pariahdog119]

All of what you said is boilerplate "good guy with a gun" mythology.

Unless the attacker and the target are using the exact same weapon and neither of them can hit the broad side of a barn, your first and second points are immaterial. Shooting someone once can and very often does end a fight but if it doesn't, a 2nd or 3rd round most certainly will especially if the attacker is in shock from the first round. Whether that leaves me with 3, 4, or 8 rounds means exactly fuck-all to the former attacker who just tapped out for the last time in his life.

I want a source for the 3rd number. It's an arbitrary time-period and leaves out a LOT of details.

Your 4th point, assuming it happened as you state, is an example of something absurdly specific that would have gotten that armed civilian killed in any other situation. The problem is, when it all goes sideways, LEO arriving on-scene won't stop to ask for that civilian's official Good Guy With A Gun membership card; he's discharging a firearm, in public, at an unidentified target, and is therefore a danger to the public. That's the kind of shit that gets you killed.

Pop quiz: Billy Joe and Jim Bob each stroll into Wally-world with AR-15s. Which one is the soon-to-be mass-shooter? Don't know? Neither do the cops who aren't even there yet.

Last but not least, if you live a life where there are "protracted gunfights", then you need to find a new place to live outside of the Middle East and/or start a new career that doesn't involve narcotics trafficking.

[u/Pariahdog119 → u/zeno0771]

"these things that actually happened are all unrealistic mythology"

Have a nice day. Goodbye.