2 gunmen w AR15s open fire in Houston; 2 citizens down; 4 cops; PD helicopter shot

[2aguy]

No it isnt. Typically it's the hood rats and border brothers shooting each other up with some occasional white trash thrown in for diversity. Still, Texas is not a real good place to home invade or commit murder in. Also, our big cities like Houston, Dallas, lots of murder in those places. Just like anywhere else I guess. except Chicago.

Your crime rates aren't particularly low. You might want to think it is a bad place for home invasions, but i see no evidence.

I won't argue that, but like I said it's not so bad as you get away from the cities. Crime happens, but when it happens here one stands a good chance of getting shot. Especially where we live.

Well in this case your loose gun laws attracted a murderer. Took a lot of police for him to be shot.

again....more guns....have led to a decrease in the gun murder rate....the CDC, and the FBI statistics show that this has been true since the 1990s.....no lie you tell will change that fact....

and 99% of all mass shootings take place in actual gun free zones, created by law by anti gunners....

The bill Clinton crime bill has lowered crime.

And in the 1990s people started carrying guns...it got up to 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2007....and the gun murder rate went down......in 2016....there are now 13,000,000 million people carrying guns for self defense and the gun murder rate went down....

your entire lie about more guns leading to more crime is simply a lie...a myth and untruth.......it is a fact that more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them...and the crime rate did not go up....

you morons were wrong.....

 

[2aguy]

Too many errors to address, so I'll just stick with this one. He could also have driven a pickup into a crowd of people or made an IED out of a BBQ propane bottle and blown himself up at the mall.

The main problem isn't trying to ban guns, cars or propane bottles but to help those in need of mental health care. Especially veterans.

You Every-Gun types are so predictable in your arguments, turning to cars and IED's as alternative weapons. Maybe he could have shot up some people with an old Enfield, sure. Not 212 bullets worth. Do you at least hear me? I'm not sure where that's an error.
As I've already said, I agree with you that the Vet needed help and we need to improve our ability to help them.

You ever hear the term "mad minute " ? Google that then come back and talk about that old Enfield. Anyway, as far as stats go, I'm pretty sure the weapons vary between guns, knives cars and so on. If a person wants to do murder they will do it. Just like the dude who did the Cologne school massicre.

Some Rifleman dude on here yesterday said he could fire 10 bullets in 10 seconds with his old Enfield, with a three second reload. That's why I used that as an example. You have to reload. Most people could not do what the Rifleman does. And in that three seconds, a lot of people could run or throw furniture at him, or whatever.

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here is Dr. Kleck's testimony at a hearing on magazine limits....

http://ccdl.us/blog/uploads/2013/08/Expert-Dr.-Gary-Kleck.pdf

 

[2aguy]

I won't argue that, but like I said it's not so bad as you get away from the cities. Crime happens, but when it happens here one stands a good chance of getting shot. Especially where we live.

Well in this case your loose gun laws attracted a murderer. Took a lot of police for him to be shot.

again....more guns....have led to a decrease in the gun murder rate....the CDC, and the FBI statistics show that this has been true since the 1990s.....no lie you tell will change that fact....

and 99% of all mass shootings take place in actual gun free zones, created by law by anti gunners....

The bill Clinton crime bill has lowered crime.

Because thugs got put in jail and kept in jail. Cutting the round count, removing folding stocks, removing bayonet lugs, removing alleged "flash hiders" had nothing to do with it at all.

No, not yet because we haven't gotten serious, yet.

Yes....if we were serious about gun crime obama would not have reduced prosectutions for gun crimes.......

And we would be putting criminals who commit gun crimes in jail for 30 years, like the Japanese are doing....

 

[2aguy]

Too many errors to address, so I'll just stick with this one. He could also have driven a pickup into a crowd of people or made an IED out of a BBQ propane bottle and blown himself up at the mall.

The main problem isn't trying to ban guns, cars or propane bottles but to help those in need of mental health care. Especially veterans.

You Every-Gun types are so predictable in your arguments, turning to cars and IED's as alternative weapons. Maybe he could have shot up some people with an old Enfield, sure. Not 212 bullets worth. Do you at least hear me? I'm not sure where that's an error.
As I've already said, I agree with you that the Vet needed help and we need to improve our ability to help them.

You ever hear the term "mad minute " ? Google that then come back and talk about that old Enfield. Anyway, as far as stats go, I'm pretty sure the weapons vary between guns, knives cars and so on. If a person wants to do murder they will do it. Just like the dude who did the Cologne school massicre.

Some Rifleman dude on here yesterday said he could fire 10 bullets in 10 seconds with his old Enfield, with a three second reload. That's why I used that as an example. You have to reload. Most people could not do what the Rifleman does. And in that three seconds, a lot of people could run or throw furniture at him, or whatever.

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

 

[Brain357]

Why am I anti military? I'm anti pointless wars that throw a whole region into chaos. No wars and the vets are in much better shape.

For the obvious reason you are more focused upon slamming Texas for supposed "loose gun laws" and banning magazines in firearms than helping veterans President Obama sent to war.

Maybe I missed it; is there a single post on this thread where you praised the military for their service and advocated helping those veterans in need?

That is your reason? Seriously?

Slamming Texas? I pointed out the shooter went there because of loose gun laws. They have loose gun laws, how is that a slam? Getting hard to take you and your cartoons seriously.

I think veterans and active military are the best we have. I'm all for helping them more. Really wish Congress would get on that.

are the gun laws more lose in Texas or Illinois?

Well he went to Texas so I assume Texas.

 

[Brain357]

Your crime rates aren't particularly low. You might want to think it is a bad place for home invasions, but i see no evidence.

I won't argue that, but like I said it's not so bad as you get away from the cities. Crime happens, but when it happens here one stands a good chance of getting shot. Especially where we live.

Well in this case your loose gun laws attracted a murderer. Took a lot of police for him to be shot.

again....more guns....have led to a decrease in the gun murder rate....the CDC, and the FBI statistics show that this has been true since the 1990s.....no lie you tell will change that fact....

and 99% of all mass shootings take place in actual gun free zones, created by law by anti gunners....

The bill Clinton crime bill has lowered crime.

And in the 1990s people started carrying guns...it got up to 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2007....and the gun murder rate went down......in 2016....there are now 13,000,000 million people carrying guns for self defense and the gun murder rate went down....

your entire lie about more guns leading to more crime is simply a lie...a myth and untruth.......it is a fact that more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them...and the crime rate did not go up....

you morons were wrong.....

I've never said more guns lead to more crime.

 

[Brain357]

You Every-Gun types are so predictable in your arguments, turning to cars and IED's as alternative weapons. Maybe he could have shot up some people with an old Enfield, sure. Not 212 bullets worth. Do you at least hear me? I'm not sure where that's an error.
As I've already said, I agree with you that the Vet needed help and we need to improve our ability to help them.

You ever hear the term "mad minute " ? Google that then come back and talk about that old Enfield. Anyway, as far as stats go, I'm pretty sure the weapons vary between guns, knives cars and so on. If a person wants to do murder they will do it. Just like the dude who did the Cologne school massicre.

Some Rifleman dude on here yesterday said he could fire 10 bullets in 10 seconds with his old Enfield, with a three second reload. That's why I used that as an example. You have to reload. Most people could not do what the Rifleman does. And in that three seconds, a lot of people could run or throw furniture at him, or whatever.

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Read the OP, 212 rounds.

There are many examples where shooter was stopped at reload.

 

[Brain357]

You Every-Gun types are so predictable in your arguments, turning to cars and IED's as alternative weapons. Maybe he could have shot up some people with an old Enfield, sure. Not 212 bullets worth. Do you at least hear me? I'm not sure where that's an error.
As I've already said, I agree with you that the Vet needed help and we need to improve our ability to help them.

You ever hear the term "mad minute " ? Google that then come back and talk about that old Enfield. Anyway, as far as stats go, I'm pretty sure the weapons vary between guns, knives cars and so on. If a person wants to do murder they will do it. Just like the dude who did the Cologne school massicre.

Some Rifleman dude on here yesterday said he could fire 10 bullets in 10 seconds with his old Enfield, with a three second reload. That's why I used that as an example. You have to reload. Most people could not do what the Rifleman does. And in that three seconds, a lot of people could run or throw furniture at him, or whatever.

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Loughner proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd.[1][21]He reportedly used a 9×19mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine.[22][23] A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots".[24] Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[25]Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the fourteenth injury.[26] Loughner was tackled to the ground by Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel [27] who had been shot himself. Loughner was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio, a concealed weapon (CCW) permit holder, had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm.[28] Thirty-one shell casings were found at the scene by investigators.[29]

 

[Brain357]

You Every-Gun types are so predictable in your arguments, turning to cars and IED's as alternative weapons. Maybe he could have shot up some people with an old Enfield, sure. Not 212 bullets worth. Do you at least hear me? I'm not sure where that's an error.
As I've already said, I agree with you that the Vet needed help and we need to improve our ability to help them.

You ever hear the term "mad minute " ? Google that then come back and talk about that old Enfield. Anyway, as far as stats go, I'm pretty sure the weapons vary between guns, knives cars and so on. If a person wants to do murder they will do it. Just like the dude who did the Cologne school massicre.

Some Rifleman dude on here yesterday said he could fire 10 bullets in 10 seconds with his old Enfield, with a three second reload. That's why I used that as an example. You have to reload. Most people could not do what the Rifleman does. And in that three seconds, a lot of people could run or throw furniture at him, or whatever.

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Another shooter stopped by unarmed citizens

 

[Brain357]

Mass Shootings Have High-Capacity Magazines in Common

 

[2aguy]

You ever hear the term "mad minute " ? Google that then come back and talk about that old Enfield. Anyway, as far as stats go, I'm pretty sure the weapons vary between guns, knives cars and so on. If a person wants to do murder they will do it. Just like the dude who did the Cologne school massicre.

Some Rifleman dude on here yesterday said he could fire 10 bullets in 10 seconds with his old Enfield, with a three second reload. That's why I used that as an example. You have to reload. Most people could not do what the Rifleman does. And in that three seconds, a lot of people could run or throw furniture at him, or whatever.

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Read the OP, 212 rounds.

There are many examples where shooter was stopped at reload.

No there are not...we have been over this time and again...each example you bring up turns out to be false.......either the guy made a tactical error or actually ran out of bullets when he was jumped...there is not one example of someone being stopped at reload......and on the face of it it is a moronic concept...that people in the middle of a mass shooting will be able to know when the shooter is dropping the magazine for 2 seconds, have the thought to risk their lives to rush the attacker and actually put it into motion before he has reloaded and started firing again...

only in a sick mind like yours is that even possible.......

Actual research confirms that you are wrong......

 

[2aguy]

Mass Shootings Have High-Capacity Magazines in Common

Wrong.....not one mass shooting that we have seen could not have been done with revolvers or a lever action rifle or a pump action shot gun......

Kleck listed the facts....that Virginia tech....10 round magazines.....Sandy Hook, he dropped and reloaded before he emptied his magazine......you and the link are wrong...but keep lying....

 

[2aguy]

You ever hear the term "mad minute " ? Google that then come back and talk about that old Enfield. Anyway, as far as stats go, I'm pretty sure the weapons vary between guns, knives cars and so on. If a person wants to do murder they will do it. Just like the dude who did the Cologne school massicre.

Some Rifleman dude on here yesterday said he could fire 10 bullets in 10 seconds with his old Enfield, with a three second reload. That's why I used that as an example. You have to reload. Most people could not do what the Rifleman does. And in that three seconds, a lot of people could run or throw furniture at him, or whatever.

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Another shooter stopped by unarmed citizens

Yes....this link lies too....they say that unarmed people have a better record of stopping mass shooters...they only say that because mass shooters choose gun free zones....so they go to places where the only option is to confront the guy without a weapon....and that does not end well.......the only reason it can happen is if the shooter gets too close to his victims....and they are then forced to attack him because they can't get away...

Like the Long Island train shooting.......on a train car....the only reason they jumped him is because he actually ran out of bullets.....even at that close distance, as he reloaded they could not get to him...or even thought of trying....

Fort Hood....3 trained soldiers rushed the shooter....he injured or killed them and then continued to keep shooting...

if you anti gunners aren't lying about reality you would have nothing to say.

 

[Brain357]

Mass Shootings Have High-Capacity Magazines in Common

Wrong.....not one mass shooting that we have seen could not have been done with revolvers or a lever action rifle or a pump action shot gun......

Kleck listed the facts....that Virginia tech....10 round magazines.....Sandy Hook, he dropped and reloaded before he emptied his magazine......you and the link are wrong...but keep lying....

Did you see this OP?

 

[Brain357]

Some Rifleman dude on here yesterday said he could fire 10 bullets in 10 seconds with his old Enfield, with a three second reload. That's why I used that as an example. You have to reload. Most people could not do what the Rifleman does. And in that three seconds, a lot of people could run or throw furniture at him, or whatever.

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Another shooter stopped by unarmed citizens

Yes....this link lies too....they say that unarmed people have a better record of stopping mass shooters...they only say that because mass shooters choose gun free zones....so they go to places where the only option is to confront the guy without a weapon....and that does not end well.......the only reason it can happen is if the shooter gets too close to his victims....and they are then forced to attack him because they can't get away...

Like the Long Island train shooting.......on a train car....the only reason they jumped him is because he actually ran out of bullets.....even at that close distance, as he reloaded they could not get to him...or even thought of trying....

Fort Hood....3 trained soldiers rushed the shooter....he injured or killed them and then continued to keep shooting...

if you anti gunners aren't lying about reality you would have nothing to say.

Then you should have no problem if high cap mags are banned.

 

[2aguy]

You ever hear the term "mad minute " ? Google that then come back and talk about that old Enfield. Anyway, as far as stats go, I'm pretty sure the weapons vary between guns, knives cars and so on. If a person wants to do murder they will do it. Just like the dude who did the Cologne school massicre.

Some Rifleman dude on here yesterday said he could fire 10 bullets in 10 seconds with his old Enfield, with a three second reload. That's why I used that as an example. You have to reload. Most people could not do what the Rifleman does. And in that three seconds, a lot of people could run or throw furniture at him, or whatever.

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Loughner proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd.[1][21]He reportedly used a 9×19mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine.[22][23] A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots".[24] Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[25]Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the fourteenth injury.[26] Loughner was tackled to the ground by Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel [27] who had been shot himself. Loughner was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio, a concealed weapon (CCW) permit holder, had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm.[28] Thirty-one shell casings were found at the scene by investigators.[29]

See......you are lying again....I have posted the actual witness testimony...you have seen it and now you post this....you are a liar....

Loughner shot a guy in the head.....he thought he killed the guy as the guy fell and he kept walking forward.....he only grazed the guy...by getting too close he allowed the guy to grab him.....as they wrestled...the old lady was lying on the ground...why? She laid down on the ground because she thought he would just walk by her and not shoot her....as the guy and the shooter wrestled they fell in arms length of the old lady....so she reached out and secured his magazine...

Pure dumb luck......I have posted the actual witness accounts over and over and by posting this untruthful account.....you show yourself to be a liar.....

 

[Crixus]

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Another shooter stopped by unarmed citizens

Yes....this link lies too....they say that unarmed people have a better record of stopping mass shooters...they only say that because mass shooters choose gun free zones....so they go to places where the only option is to confront the guy without a weapon....and that does not end well.......the only reason it can happen is if the shooter gets too close to his victims....and they are then forced to attack him because they can't get away...

Like the Long Island train shooting.......on a train car....the only reason they jumped him is because he actually ran out of bullets.....even at that close distance, as he reloaded they could not get to him...or even thought of trying....

Fort Hood....3 trained soldiers rushed the shooter....he injured or killed them and then continued to keep shooting...

if you anti gunners aren't lying about reality you would have nothing to say.

Then you should have no problem if high cap mags are banned.

I do have an issue with it. That's why I have a shit load of them.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Another shooter stopped by unarmed citizens

Yes....this link lies too....they say that unarmed people have a better record of stopping mass shooters...they only say that because mass shooters choose gun free zones....so they go to places where the only option is to confront the guy without a weapon....and that does not end well.......the only reason it can happen is if the shooter gets too close to his victims....and they are then forced to attack him because they can't get away...

Like the Long Island train shooting.......on a train car....the only reason they jumped him is because he actually ran out of bullets.....even at that close distance, as he reloaded they could not get to him...or even thought of trying....

Fort Hood....3 trained soldiers rushed the shooter....he injured or killed them and then continued to keep shooting...

if you anti gunners aren't lying about reality you would have nothing to say.

Then you should have no problem if high cap mags are banned.

Standard magazines are needed by people for self defense...against criminals and against any future predation by the government.....just ask the people of Mexico.......

Since magazines make no difference there is no need to ban them..simply because you don't like them.


The only reason anti gunners such as yourself and the leadership of your movement push magazine bans....it allows them to ban whole categories of pistol and rifle without having to actually pass laws banning them......

your are creeps and vile people.

 

[Crixus]

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Another shooter stopped by unarmed citizens

Yes....this link lies too....they say that unarmed people have a better record of stopping mass shooters...they only say that because mass shooters choose gun free zones....so they go to places where the only option is to confront the guy without a weapon....and that does not end well.......the only reason it can happen is if the shooter gets too close to his victims....and they are then forced to attack him because they can't get away...

Like the Long Island train shooting.......on a train car....the only reason they jumped him is because he actually ran out of bullets.....even at that close distance, as he reloaded they could not get to him...or even thought of trying....

Fort Hood....3 trained soldiers rushed the shooter....he injured or killed them and then continued to keep shooting...

if you anti gunners aren't lying about reality you would have nothing to say.

Then you should have no problem if high cap mags are banned.

Standard magazines are needed by people for self defense...against criminals and against any future predation by the government.....just ask the people of Mexico.......

Since magazines make no difference there is no need to ban them..simply because you don't like them.


The only reason anti gunners such as yourself and the leadership of your movement push magazine bans....it allows them to ban whole categories of pistol and rifle without having to actually pass laws banning them......

your are creeps and vile people.

agree. Same with any cosmetic feature ban. Honestly, I don't understand why those who want gun control can't feel like their intelligence was insulted by the stupid ban.

 

[2aguy]

You ever hear the term "mad minute " ? Google that then come back and talk about that old Enfield. Anyway, as far as stats go, I'm pretty sure the weapons vary between guns, knives cars and so on. If a person wants to do murder they will do it. Just like the dude who did the Cologne school massicre.

Some Rifleman dude on here yesterday said he could fire 10 bullets in 10 seconds with his old Enfield, with a three second reload. That's why I used that as an example. You have to reload. Most people could not do what the Rifleman does. And in that three seconds, a lot of people could run or throw furniture at him, or whatever.

Wrong.....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of dead in a mass shooting.....actual research...not just making it up because you think it sounds right.

That's true. Matter of fact, a boring but intresting uestion would be, how many reloads have bad guys done during their shootings? going by memorie, I can't remember a mass shooter who did not bring multiple weapons to their crimes.

Here you go....Klecks on the topic.....

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Whether a ban on large capacity magazines (LCM’s) could lead to a significant reduction in ordinary gun homicides hinges on the following question:

How many victims would not have been killed if the assailant was limited to a 10-shot magazine?

While medical and police data on this matter are hard to come by, the few studies that have examined the issue of shots fired during criminal attacks reveals the following:

1) criminals, on average, fire less than 4 rounds in a typical gun attack (irrespective of whether someone is killed or wounded);

2) only 8 percent of victims actually wounded in gun attacks suffered five or more entrance wounds;

3) in attacks leading to the victims death, semiautomatics had been fired 2.7 times on average, as compared to 2.1 times for revolvers.

In light of these findings, the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners. Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded.

Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings.

While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.


The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.

Loughner proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd.[1][21]He reportedly used a 9×19mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine.[22][23] A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots".[24] Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[25]Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the fourteenth injury.[26] Loughner was tackled to the ground by Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel [27] who had been shot himself. Loughner was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio, a concealed weapon (CCW) permit holder, had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm.[28] Thirty-one shell casings were found at the scene by investigators.[29]

From the actual witnesses.....you have seen this before...that you post the stuff you posted knowing this exists shows you are a liar....

The Tucson Atrocity: Joe Zamudio’s StoryAmerican Handgunner | American Handgunner

And from this...he wasn't tackled during a magazine change, he shot a guy, Bill Badger, and thought he killed him...he let badger get behind him and that is when he was tackled, then the old lady got the magazine after she laid on the ground in front of loughner trying to be a small target.....


from the article...

And another point .the only reason they were able to wrestle him....just plain, stupid luck........otherwise, he would have reloaded and kept shooting...he missed this guy....

Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.

Not rushing the guy during a magazine change...the shooter thought the guy he shot in the head was dead ....after he shot him. he walked past him..and let Bill Badger get behind him.......and that is when the guy who was shot in the head was able to grab him.....of course...had the bullet been a little off, the guy on the ground would have actually been dead...and the shooter would have kept killing....

And what did the old lady actually do....

Woman Stopped Tucson Shooter From Reloading



She considered trying to run away, she said, but thought that would make her more of a target, so she laid down on the ground. But then something unexpected happened.

"Then he was next to me on the ground," she said. "The gentleman knocked him down.

"I kneeled over him. He was pulling a magazine [to reload] and I grabbed the magazine and secured that. I think the men got the gun, and I was able to get the magazine," she said.

Pure, dumb luck on the part of two individuals.......it was not rushing him during a reload......