12 Dead in Mass Shooting at So.Cal Bar

[pismoe]

GOOD , so you got some AR's in your lefty area i guess Daryl .

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The pump action shotgun is an actual, current War weapon...... used by our military all over the world......the AR-15 has never been used in a war....

Thats why a pump action shotgun should never be carried in public. The AR-15 looks just like the M16A! rifle so that should be banned.

I don't care if it's pink and wears panties. Regardless of what it looks like, its function makes it totally inappropriate for civilian ownership. We are NOT at war; the AR was modeled directly on the M16 (which is why it looks like one) and has one purpose. People don't use it to hunt; they use it play Rambo.

Other way around. The M-16 was modeled from the AR-15 Model 601 originally purchased by many third world countries and the USAF. The Army bought it but cheapened it up a bit to save money, used their own garbage dirty powder, didn't buy the cleaning kits that is supposed to be held in the stock but added a rail for the M-203 and the ability to use a Bayonet. Then they had Colt stamp M-16 on it instead of AR-15 Model 601. Believe it or not, the AR-15 semi auto predates the M-16 by about 5 years. The AR-15 Model 601 full auto predates the M-16 by almost 10 years. Outside of only a handful of parts, both the M-16, AR-15, and the AR-15 Model 601 is identical. And all three have seen combat.

That's interesting, Daryl. Thank you.
My point was that the AR was a gun designed for combat, modified a wee bit for civilian consumption. Your post underscores that point.

IMO, we have no call to own them.

No...... it is a semi automatic rifle, no different from any other civilian semi automatic rifle...you can make up names for it all you want, it doesn't change the truth.

A pump action shotgun was used to murder 21 people, not 12, in Crimea..... it held 4 shells ( for you, think bullets) before it needed to be reloaded......and he murdered 21 people with it because of his choice of targets...unarmed people......

Whose features were designed for a young, not well trained, scared shitless kid in a combat situation to be able to expend lots and lots of ammo fast. It doesn't matter if you are using a M-16A-4 or an AR-15. Both do the same purpose for exactly the same reasons. Both the M-16 and the AR-15 are used by the US Army today and see combat each and every day. The training is identical, the weapon feels the same and the original intent never changed. So don't give me the crap that it's like every other semi auto rifle designed for hunting. It's not. It's designed for a young scared kid pumped to the max with adreneline to expend as many rounds in the shortest amount of time with the lest amount of weight.

 

[2aguy]

Thats why a pump action shotgun should never be carried in public. The AR-15 looks just like the M16A! rifle so that should be banned.

I don't care if it's pink and wears panties. Regardless of what it looks like, its function makes it totally inappropriate for civilian ownership. We are NOT at war; the AR was modeled directly on the M16 (which is why it looks like one) and has one purpose. People don't use it to hunt; they use it play Rambo.

Other way around. The M-16 was modeled from the AR-15 Model 601 originally purchased by many third world countries and the USAF. The Army bought it but cheapened it up a bit to save money, used their own garbage dirty powder, didn't buy the cleaning kits that is supposed to be held in the stock but added a rail for the M-203 and the ability to use a Bayonet. Then they had Colt stamp M-16 on it instead of AR-15 Model 601. Believe it or not, the AR-15 semi auto predates the M-16 by about 5 years. The AR-15 Model 601 full auto predates the M-16 by almost 10 years. Outside of only a handful of parts, both the M-16, AR-15, and the AR-15 Model 601 is identical. And all three have seen combat.

That's interesting, Daryl. Thank you.
My point was that the AR was a gun designed for combat, modified a wee bit for civilian consumption. Your post underscores that point.

IMO, we have no call to own them.

No...... it is a semi automatic rifle, no different from any other civilian semi automatic rifle...you can make up names for it all you want, it doesn't change the truth.

A pump action shotgun was used to murder 21 people, not 12, in Crimea..... it held 4 shells ( for you, think bullets) before it needed to be reloaded......and he murdered 21 people with it because of his choice of targets...unarmed people......

Whose features were designed for a young, not well trained, scared shitless kid in a combat situation to be able to expend lots and lots of ammo fast. It doesn't matter if you are using a M-16A-4 or an AR-15. Both do the same purpose for exactly the same reasons. Both the M-16 and the AR-15 are used by the US Army today and see combat each and every day. The training is identical, the weapon feels the same and the original intent never changed. So don't give me the crap that it's like every other semi auto rifle designed for hunting. It's not. It's designed for a young scared kid pumped to the max with adreneline to expend as many rounds in the shortest amount of time with the lest amount of weight.

No...the AR-15 is not in combat, hasn't been used in combat....it is exactly the same as any other semi auto rifle, to say it is different is to show your ignorance. You have no idea what you are talking about......

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That's interesting, Daryl. Thank you.
My point was that the AR was a gun designed for combat, modified a wee bit for civilian consumption. Your post underscores that point.

IMO, we have no call to own them.

The AR 15 operates exactly like every other semiautomatic rifle that is available to civilians

How many times do you have to be told that the only difference between the AR and any other rifle of the same caliber is cosmetic and cosmetic only?

I've gone into the gun afficianado magazines and read many articles that explain why the AR is so popular. Being a gun nut, I'm sure you realize why they are so popular. So don't try telling me it's only that it looks cooler. I know better.

--------------------------------------------------- AR's are LEGAL Guns and though i don't care about hunting too much anymore AR's are legal for ALL Lawful purposes OldLADY .

It all dpends on the locality. In some areas, the AR is banned. Just not where I am from. It's a States and Local rights thing.

Wrong...it is not a state and local issue as Heller v D.C. states...... a Right is not based on where you live.....that is why democrats didn't get away with denying Blacks the Right to vote simply because they lived in democrat controlled states....

There you go again giving out false interpretations of a ruling. SCOTUS didn't say that Heller could have a handgun in his home. They said that he was to be offered the chance to have a serviceable handgun in his home as long as he legally qualified under DC laws. DC did not have the right to outright ban handguns or have you disassemble them to have them in your home. But they didn't say that DC couldn't put some form of draconian law making it difficult to have the right to have a serviceable handgun in your home. It only said that Heller had the right to have the serviceable handgun in the home IF he qualified. That's the whole ruling in the nutshell. You keep reading into it things you "Wish".

And Black Voting has nothing to do with any of this. The last thing you want to do is to get into that subject with me considering just how it's been treated in deep south to prevent black voters from easy voting access. I even see that around here a bit.

 

[pismoe]

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

 

[Baz Ares]

Seems the NRA can be blamed for these deaths as well.
The Gun Nutter NRA Killer crew blocked what CA. voted to remove.
Like really 98% of people dying by guns really in what the NRA sponsors.

View attachment 228112

What you fail to understand is that the magazine had nothing to do with how many people he killed...... the fact is that shooting unarmed people is what allowed him to kill so many people..... had there been armed civilians in that bar, they would have stopped him from killing.....but they were unarmed thanks to you...

The magazine in a gun is easily and quickly changed out, so the number of bullets in the magazine have no bearing on the killer who is shooting people who can't shoot back....there is an actual study on this.....

And did you read the Judges opinion on the Temporary injunction against the magazine ban in California...he understands what you don't understand... you should read it...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

Crazy BS Gun Nutter spews mostly above. 2nd Anal RE-spews of NRA BS from the
weakminded fools Gun Nutters BE!
DOPers want everyone to be armed in America for safety. Haha. Crazy, not needed.
Gun Nutters want to bring the lawless Afgan style of living in America.
Where AK's are 5 bucks, and most everyone can get one in mins. No Checks.

Back in the 1800's. Most families had only one musket. If that.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
The Musket did not shoot fast. As they were our armed militia weapons
They were good then, that's all Gun Nutters should have, today. Slow firing stuff.

Back in the early 1900's. Most families had only one gun.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
You see the pattern here DOPer Gun Nutters?

Now in the 2000's we started to have mass shootings by mostly Whitey Guys.
With what are all fully autoloading guns shooting clips out in seconds.
There is semi fire, but all modern guns gas loading are fully automatic weapons.
It's just that simple. Back in the 1800's getting off 3 shots in a minute was good.
Now, you can get off 3, 15 plus round clips in a min., and if really good, 4 clips in under a min.
To do your Whitey mostly Mass shootings today. Fully sponsored by the NRA.

It's just weird, we don't let the Gun Nutter 2nd Anal loving Crazies have bigger military guns on the streets for protection.
Seems the Gun Nutter Morons want to defend America with what they have, as the fools they be.
Your AR-XXX POS won't stop drone bombs you BOZO Freedom Fighters. HAHAHAHA! Losers. Good Luck in your freedom fighting.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I don't care if it's pink and wears panties. Regardless of what it looks like, its function makes it totally inappropriate for civilian ownership. We are NOT at war; the AR was modeled directly on the M16 (which is why it looks like one) and has one purpose. People don't use it to hunt; they use it play Rambo.

Other way around. The M-16 was modeled from the AR-15 Model 601 originally purchased by many third world countries and the USAF. The Army bought it but cheapened it up a bit to save money, used their own garbage dirty powder, didn't buy the cleaning kits that is supposed to be held in the stock but added a rail for the M-203 and the ability to use a Bayonet. Then they had Colt stamp M-16 on it instead of AR-15 Model 601. Believe it or not, the AR-15 semi auto predates the M-16 by about 5 years. The AR-15 Model 601 full auto predates the M-16 by almost 10 years. Outside of only a handful of parts, both the M-16, AR-15, and the AR-15 Model 601 is identical. And all three have seen combat.

That's interesting, Daryl. Thank you.
My point was that the AR was a gun designed for combat, modified a wee bit for civilian consumption. Your post underscores that point.

IMO, we have no call to own them.

No...... it is a semi automatic rifle, no different from any other civilian semi automatic rifle...you can make up names for it all you want, it doesn't change the truth.

A pump action shotgun was used to murder 21 people, not 12, in Crimea..... it held 4 shells ( for you, think bullets) before it needed to be reloaded......and he murdered 21 people with it because of his choice of targets...unarmed people......

Whose features were designed for a young, not well trained, scared shitless kid in a combat situation to be able to expend lots and lots of ammo fast. It doesn't matter if you are using a M-16A-4 or an AR-15. Both do the same purpose for exactly the same reasons. Both the M-16 and the AR-15 are used by the US Army today and see combat each and every day. The training is identical, the weapon feels the same and the original intent never changed. So don't give me the crap that it's like every other semi auto rifle designed for hunting. It's not. It's designed for a young scared kid pumped to the max with adreneline to expend as many rounds in the shortest amount of time with the lest amount of weight.

No...the AR-15 is not in combat, hasn't been used in combat....it is exactly the same as any other semi auto rifle, to say it is different is to show your ignorance. You have no idea what you are talking about......

Funny you should mention that. I know of one outside of this area that has and there is one Army type that regularly posts in that has as well. The one I am talking about has M-16 on the side but it only two setting instead of 3 on fire selector. Essentially, it's an AR-15 Colt LE2620 which anyone can buy right off the shelf and is single shot only. The Military can't call it an AR-15 but they can call it a M-16 and they do. I expect the combat trained people to know this. And I expect that you Rexall Rangers will lie out your asses and say any lie that will make it look better for your "Cause". You really need to become a Veteran. But the only way for you to do that is for you to actually Serve in the Military and you are too much of candy ass to do that.

 

[pismoe]

and some nice AR based serious hunting rifles Daryl Hunt . --- AR Hunting Rifles - Brenton USA ---

 

[OldLady]

I don't care if it's pink and wears panties. Regardless of what it looks like, its function makes it totally inappropriate for civilian ownership. We are NOT at war; the AR was modeled directly on the M16 (which is why it looks like one) and has one purpose. People don't use it to hunt; they use it play Rambo.

Other way around. The M-16 was modeled from the AR-15 Model 601 originally purchased by many third world countries and the USAF. The Army bought it but cheapened it up a bit to save money, used their own garbage dirty powder, didn't buy the cleaning kits that is supposed to be held in the stock but added a rail for the M-203 and the ability to use a Bayonet. Then they had Colt stamp M-16 on it instead of AR-15 Model 601. Believe it or not, the AR-15 semi auto predates the M-16 by about 5 years. The AR-15 Model 601 full auto predates the M-16 by almost 10 years. Outside of only a handful of parts, both the M-16, AR-15, and the AR-15 Model 601 is identical. And all three have seen combat.

That's interesting, Daryl. Thank you.
My point was that the AR was a gun designed for combat, modified a wee bit for civilian consumption. Your post underscores that point.

IMO, we have no call to own them.

The AR 15 operates exactly like every other semiautomatic rifle that is available to civilians

How many times do you have to be told that the only difference between the AR and any other rifle of the same caliber is cosmetic and cosmetic only?

I've gone into the gun afficianado magazines and read many articles that explain why the AR is so popular. Being a gun nut, I'm sure you realize why they are so popular. So don't try telling me it's only that it looks cooler. I know better.

Then why don't you tell me how an AR 15 is so vastly different than my Mini 14

They shoot the exact same round at the exact same rate of fire with comparable accuracy

so tell me why the AR 15 is somehow magically different

Then you can tell me why a black car is faster than a red car even though they are exactly the same in every other way

I'll let a gun fan tell you. Although you already know so I'm not going to spend any more time arguing about it with you.
SHOOTABILITY
The AR-15 as a shooting platform has relatively more manageable recoil compared to other rifle platforms, particularly so when chambered in its intended 5.56x45mm round. It is also offers relatively better ergonomics than other popular rifles, such as the venerable AK-47.

It is a precision-built tool specially designed for accuracy with some models tricked out with easy-grip hand guards, scope mounts and more. This is why many rifle purists and even hunters swear by the AR-15.
10 Best AR-15 Rifles in 2018 (with Pictures and Prices)

 

[2aguy]

The AR 15 operates exactly like every other semiautomatic rifle that is available to civilians

How many times do you have to be told that the only difference between the AR and any other rifle of the same caliber is cosmetic and cosmetic only?

I've gone into the gun afficianado magazines and read many articles that explain why the AR is so popular. Being a gun nut, I'm sure you realize why they are so popular. So don't try telling me it's only that it looks cooler. I know better.

--------------------------------------------------- AR's are LEGAL Guns and though i don't care about hunting too much anymore AR's are legal for ALL Lawful purposes OldLADY .

It all dpends on the locality. In some areas, the AR is banned. Just not where I am from. It's a States and Local rights thing.

Wrong...it is not a state and local issue as Heller v D.C. states...... a Right is not based on where you live.....that is why democrats didn't get away with denying Blacks the Right to vote simply because they lived in democrat controlled states....

There you go again giving out false interpretations of a ruling. SCOTUS didn't say that Heller could have a handgun in his home. They said that he was to be offered the chance to have a serviceable handgun in his home as long as he legally qualified under DC laws. DC did not have the right to outright ban handguns or have you disassemble them to have them in your home. But they didn't say that DC couldn't put some form of draconian law making it difficult to have the right to have a serviceable handgun in your home. It only said that Heller had the right to have the serviceable handgun in the home IF he qualified. That's the whole ruling in the nutshell. You keep reading into it things you "Wish".

And Black Voting has nothing to do with any of this. The last thing you want to do is to get into that subject with me considering just how it's been treated in deep south to prevent black voters from easy voting access. I even see that around here a bit.

You don't know what you are talking about.......any court that bans semi automatic rifles, any town or city that bans them is breaking the law....


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

----

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3.

The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

Seems the NRA can be blamed for these deaths as well.
The Gun Nutter NRA Killer crew blocked what CA. voted to remove.
Like really 98% of people dying by guns really in what the NRA sponsors.

View attachment 228112

What you fail to understand is that the magazine had nothing to do with how many people he killed...... the fact is that shooting unarmed people is what allowed him to kill so many people..... had there been armed civilians in that bar, they would have stopped him from killing.....but they were unarmed thanks to you...

The magazine in a gun is easily and quickly changed out, so the number of bullets in the magazine have no bearing on the killer who is shooting people who can't shoot back....there is an actual study on this.....

And did you read the Judges opinion on the Temporary injunction against the magazine ban in California...he understands what you don't understand... you should read it...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

Crazy BS Gun Nutter spews mostly above. 2nd Anal RE-spews of NRA BS from the
weakminded fools Gun Nutters BE!
DOPers want everyone to be armed in America for safety. Haha. Crazy, not needed.
Gun Nutters want to bring the lawless Afgan style of living in America.
Where AK's are 5 bucks, and most everyone can get one in mins. No Checks.

Back in the 1800's. Most families had only one musket. If that.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
The Musket did not shoot fast. As they were our armed militia weapons
They were good then, that's all Gun Nutters should have, today. Slow firing stuff.

Back in the early 1900's. Most families had only one gun.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
You see the pattern here DOPer Gun Nutters?

Now in the 2000's we started to have mass shootings by mostly Whitey Guys.
With what are all fully autoloading guns shooting clips out in seconds.
There is semi fire, but all modern guns gas loading are fully automatic weapons.
It's just that simple. Back in the 1800's getting off 3 shots in a minute was good.
Now, you can get off 3, 15 plus round clips in a min., and if really good, 4 clips in under a min.
To do your Whitey mostly Mass shootings today. Fully sponsored by the NRA.

It's just weird, we don't let the Gun Nutter 2nd Anal loving Crazies have bigger military guns on the streets for protection.
Seems the Gun Nutter Morons want to defend America with what they have, as the fools they be.
Your AR-XXX POS won't stop drone bombs you BOZO Freedom Fighters. HAHAHAHA! Losers. Good Luck in your freedom fighting.

You just posted nonsense....nothing you posted is true or accurate....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

 

[pismoe]

yeah , become a 'veteran' and join up with the other unamerican veterans in 'gabby giffords ' gun control group Daryl Hunt . Are you a member of this unamerican group of 'veterans' DarylHunt ?? --- Giffords Veterans Coalition - Giffords --- veterans , many retired on the taxpayer dime sure have changed for the bad Daryl Hunt .

 

[Olde Europe]

Just considering the thread was supposed to be about "12 Dead in Mass Shooting at So.Cal Bar." Not quite the same as gut nuts sharing their most favorite AR-15 / gun porn, or is it?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I've gone into the gun afficianado magazines and read many articles that explain why the AR is so popular. Being a gun nut, I'm sure you realize why they are so popular. So don't try telling me it's only that it looks cooler. I know better.

--------------------------------------------------- AR's are LEGAL Guns and though i don't care about hunting too much anymore AR's are legal for ALL Lawful purposes OldLADY .

It all dpends on the locality. In some areas, the AR is banned. Just not where I am from. It's a States and Local rights thing.

Wrong...it is not a state and local issue as Heller v D.C. states...... a Right is not based on where you live.....that is why democrats didn't get away with denying Blacks the Right to vote simply because they lived in democrat controlled states....

There you go again giving out false interpretations of a ruling. SCOTUS didn't say that Heller could have a handgun in his home. They said that he was to be offered the chance to have a serviceable handgun in his home as long as he legally qualified under DC laws. DC did not have the right to outright ban handguns or have you disassemble them to have them in your home. But they didn't say that DC couldn't put some form of draconian law making it difficult to have the right to have a serviceable handgun in your home. It only said that Heller had the right to have the serviceable handgun in the home IF he qualified. That's the whole ruling in the nutshell. You keep reading into it things you "Wish".

And Black Voting has nothing to do with any of this. The last thing you want to do is to get into that subject with me considering just how it's been treated in deep south to prevent black voters from easy voting access. I even see that around here a bit.

You don't know what you are talking about.......any court that bans semi automatic rifles, any town or city that bans them is breaking the law....


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

----

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3.

The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

From your own cite. And this is the ruling which says nothing about rifles of any kind and certainly does not include any form or automatic anything which would be in violation of the 1934 Firearms Act.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amen
dment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Amer
icans overwhelming
ly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-
tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
3
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008)
Syllabus
prohibition—in the plac
e where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is mo
st acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requiremen
t that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because
Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licen
sing law is perm
issible if it is not enforced arbi-
trarily and capriciously
, the Court assumes that
a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not a
ddress the licensing
requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–

You keep trying to use the Dissenting views. Dissenting Views is the views of the losers side. It has no legal worth whatsoever.

DC is a special case. The 10th Amendment does not apply to them so the Federal Government assumes the role of the State in their case. You argument has failed in every state court system and Federal Court that has addressed it since the State hs the right to either regulate or outright ban anything other than what is the traditional home defense or hinting guns. And the AR-15 can be specifically spelled out by name and the regulating or full ban will stand in the Federal Court System. The ones that haven't stood are the ones that gave too general of a description that basically could be interpreted to affect all semi auto rifles. But by putting in something like "The AR-15 and it's various Clones" will stand in any court of law in the land. The reason the Supreme Court has not ruled on this is that they refuse to hear the cases and the lower courts ruling stand since the 10th amendment gives the State or Local Governments the right. For instance, it's not illegal to own, carry or possess a handgun in New York City. They do issue conceal carry permits there as well. But they make it so damned difficult to obtain it that almost everyone just gives up. DC can opt to make it difficult to own or possess a serviceable handgun in the home by the same methods but they are under the whims of the Federal Court System since they are exempt from the 10th amendment.

Now, I know you don't understand because you lost another of the 3 remaining brain cells but others will understand it and just put you on ignore.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

yeah , become a 'veteran' and join up with the other unamerican veterans in 'gabby giffords ' gun control group Daryl Hunt . Are you a member of this unamerican group of 'veterans' DarylHunt ?? --- Giffords Veterans Coalition - Giffords --- veterans , many retired on the taxpayer dime sure have changed for the bad Daryl Hunt .

You need to just keep working so you can keep sending me my Military Retirement Money. I greatly appreciate it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just considering the thread was supposed to be about "12 Dead in Mass Shooting at So.Cal Bar." Not quite the same as gut nuts sharing their most favorite AR-15 / gun porn, or is it?

This happens when all is said and done. My Prayers go out to all of the dead INCLUDING number 13 who may or may not need more help than the others after the passing.

 

[pismoe]

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

 

[pismoe]

yeah , become a 'veteran' and join up with the other unamerican veterans in 'gabby giffords ' gun control group Daryl Hunt . Are you a member of this unamerican group of 'veterans' DarylHunt ?? --- Giffords Veterans Coalition - Giffords --- veterans , many retired on the taxpayer dime sure have changed for the bad Daryl Hunt .

You need to just keep working so you can keep sending me my Military Retirement Money. I greatly appreciate it.

-------------------------------------- do you have your widdle base ball cap that says ' veteran' on it DarylHunt ??

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Other way around. The M-16 was modeled from the AR-15 Model 601 originally purchased by many third world countries and the USAF. The Army bought it but cheapened it up a bit to save money, used their own garbage dirty powder, didn't buy the cleaning kits that is supposed to be held in the stock but added a rail for the M-203 and the ability to use a Bayonet. Then they had Colt stamp M-16 on it instead of AR-15 Model 601. Believe it or not, the AR-15 semi auto predates the M-16 by about 5 years. The AR-15 Model 601 full auto predates the M-16 by almost 10 years. Outside of only a handful of parts, both the M-16, AR-15, and the AR-15 Model 601 is identical. And all three have seen combat.

That's interesting, Daryl. Thank you.
My point was that the AR was a gun designed for combat, modified a wee bit for civilian consumption. Your post underscores that point.

IMO, we have no call to own them.

The AR 15 operates exactly like every other semiautomatic rifle that is available to civilians

How many times do you have to be told that the only difference between the AR and any other rifle of the same caliber is cosmetic and cosmetic only?

I've gone into the gun afficianado magazines and read many articles that explain why the AR is so popular. Being a gun nut, I'm sure you realize why they are so popular. So don't try telling me it's only that it looks cooler. I know better.

Then why don't you tell me how an AR 15 is so vastly different than my Mini 14

They shoot the exact same round at the exact same rate of fire with comparable accuracy

so tell me why the AR 15 is somehow magically different

Then you can tell me why a black car is faster than a red car even though they are exactly the same in every other way

I'll let a gun fan tell you. Although you already know so I'm not going to spend any more time arguing about it with you.
SHOOTABILITY
The AR-15 as a shooting platform has relatively more manageable recoil compared to other rifle platforms, particularly so when chambered in its intended 5.56x45mm round. It is also offers relatively better ergonomics than other popular rifles, such as the venerable AK-47.

It is a precision-built tool specially designed for accuracy with some models tricked out with easy-grip hand guards, scope mounts and more. This is why many rifle purists and even hunters swear by the AR-15.
10 Best AR-15 Rifles in 2018 (with Pictures and Prices)

The Accuracy of information or the lack information is present in the article. Under their "Origins of the AR-15" there was no mention of the AR-15 Model 601 which started it all. In fact, in 1958, that is what was sold by Armalite to a few 3rd world countries. It was right, in 1959, the AR was sold to Colt but the AR-15 Model 601 was still in production and in 1962, the USAF purchased 7000 of them. from 1962 through 1969, there were a total of 14,000 of the AR-15 Model 601 purchased by USAF. Shortly after the M-16 was introduced, the M-16 rails and bayonet mount was added to the AR-15 Model 601 and they stamped on the sides along with the AR-15 Model 601 the "(M-16) on it because the rifle had to have the M designator. It also said that the AR-15 semi shot was tweeked to make the M-16. Actually, the orginal M-16 (using Colts own model number, the AR-15 Model 602), they cheapened it up by not using some of the Chromium coated parts, didn't ship with the cleaning kits in the butt stocks and a few other changes that cheapened up the gun. Meanwhile, the AR-15 was offered by changing up a few parts so that it could not be easily upgraded to the Model 601 a full 5 years before the M-16 was introduced. It was also changed to use a less powerful cartridge than the Nato Round. The Combustion head was done the same way on the AR-15 civilian as other civilian rifles unlike the AR-15 Model 601 that had a hogged out combustion chamber to allow a better gas expansion required for full auto operation with the hotter round. But if you own any of the various AR-15s, you can replace your 223 barrel with the 556 Nato Barrel with the hogged out chamber but you will lose some performance with the 223 if you fire the 223 through the same configuration. If you want something that has all the good stuff and it's got Military Grade stamped all over it you can buy the Colt AR-15 LE2620. Almost all parts will be identical to the Military M-16 that is currently in service. There are only two companies that can legally stamp or claim "Military Grade" and that is Colt and FN.

Your "Expert" ain't such a hot expert.