Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And since you can't read I said that the the time it takes to drop and swap a magazine is so short that it is irrelevant to the number of people killed.
Another internet tough guyNo I’m amazed how dumb shits like you keep going on and on about gun control but know nothing about guns.
Try that aregument with me, cupcake.
Well, try it. It only works on people that just MIGHT be weak. I am not weak in my views nor my ways of expressing them. You honestly think your "Internet Tough Guy" means anything to me? IF that is all you got, get out of the way, others have something to say.
Posturing on the internet makes you look like a sad little man.
Ah, if you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger. Sorry, won't work, cupcake. Only makes you look almost as dumb as you actually are.
And since you can't read I said that the the time it takes to drop and swap a magazine is so short that it is irrelevant to the number of people killed.
As noted before and ignored. THAT was what kept the Giffords shooting from being worse. People jumped the shooter when he was changing mags.
It's not much but it's SOMETHING. Bigger mags meansd LESS chance,,,,but you're right...ANY weapon that has detachable mags lends itself to this kind of horror
And the fact is that 99.99% of people who own an AR will never commit any crime even though you seem to think they will
Oh you still your opinions. Stupid, uninformed opinions that they are.What does it matter what a rifle looks like if it performs the same as other rifles of the same caliber?Not the "appearance" bullshit.If you deciding rather or not a gun should be banned or declared an assault weapon based on it's apperance then you are the one being ignorant and showing a total lack of knowledege and common sense.
But lets talk appearance. So, you are having a fucking fit because you might not be able to own a gun that just looks mean? Really
If you are saying that it performs the same when you pull the trigger once or even twice or even three times, you are correct. In fact, the AR is substandard to the Savage Axis II as a Varmint Rifle when you are using a single trigger pull using the same ammo. In fact, the Savage Axis II is 150 bucks cheaper and has ALL the features you need to varmint hunt at almost any range.
But if you are talking about burning through 120 rounds of ammo in a matter of a few seconds then the AR is king of the hill. If you are talking about something that is designed specifically for a firefight in battle, the AR is king of the hill. Spooner got that right from day one. There is a reason why the design has not changed in over 60 years. It was made for war the right way the first time. It was perfect using the technology that has been available for the last 50 years. Today, they are talking about keeping the same AR (Yes, Dorathy, the M-16 and M-4 are also ARs) and just increasing the caliber from 556 to 6.8spc. They aren't changing a thing except the barrel inside diameter, the combustion chamber and the mag to accept the fatter cartridge. The fatter cartridge is the same weight as the 556 that uses brass. The new Cartridge uses a composite to stay the same weight. In the end, they can easily and cheaply convert the M-16s and M-4s (and by definition the AR-15s) from 556 to 6.8spc in the field. In fact, almost any shooter that can field strip and clean an AR can do the upgrade as well. That way, it's even better suited for WAR.
It's not to you nor me to determine whether an AR is allowed or not. It's up to the community, itself. I don't stand on a soap box and scream one way or another like you and other do. In my area, the AR has fallen out of it's cult status and it's jamming up the shelves unsold in gun shops these days. Those that were wanted have already been sold. Even used ones aren't moving in the Pawn Shops these days. You seem to want to make us all believe that the Cult isn't a cult at all. EVERYONE must have an AR. It's a life and death situation. Well, cupcake, it's not.
Do I need a weapon of war versus a really decent sporting rifle? No. What can the AR do that a good Savage 223 Axis II can't do? But I can think of a few things that the Axis II can do much better than the AR for a lot less money. If you are talking about a Ranged Weapon for the Range, the AR is a piece of junk. There are so many others that blow it away that it's not even worth mentioning. The only thing that the AR can do better than the others is burn through 120 or more rounds faster than any other gun and hit almost nothing down range in the process. But if I needed a gun to mow down turkeys in cages as quickly as possible then the AR would be the weapon of choice. Or an auditorium of people, same difference.
For those communities that don't want the mowing down in the auditoriums, they will probably ban the AR and it's various clones. Or at least ban the larger capacity mags. At the same time, they will change their way of operating so that the shooter will have a harder time to get in place to start his carnage. My opinion and your opinion really doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's the Community's opinion that counts. You want to be a real hero, work with the Community to have sane gun regs instead of bans. Spread the Love, not the Hate.
And once again that entire post is all your opinion and it does nothing to invalidate the opinion of millions of other people who like the Ar 15 and think it suits their needs.
And the fact is that 99.99% of people who own an AR will never commit any crime even though you seem to think they will
But when they do...wow do a lot of people die huh?
Of note..in most cases these weapons were purchased recent to the mass shootings
What sport?ARs are just sporting rifles...Your statement was "If you change the looks you also change the features and the use and the intent. Simple as that.". That is simply wrong. The functions are not what people freak out about. It is the appearance.
The functions make the features and that makes the appearance. The AR was made for one thing and one thing only. And it was, and still is, the best at it. It was made for a firefight to kill or wound as many combatants as possible in the shortest amount of time under the highest degree of pressure on the shooter. It's perfect in it's design, performance and function. Change any of those 3 and you lessen it's capability. You keep saying that people are saying"Black Gun Bad" but in reality, it's it's use and capability that people really fear. To get those capabilities, it MUST look the way it does.
Is getting beered up shooting bottles a sport?
It’s essential for the environment...
I could make the same shots with a bolt action just as quick.
Are you really that naive?If a rifle can accept a 5 or 10 round magazine it can accept a 20 or 30 round magazine
And your opinion of the Ar is just that your opinion.
Millions of people own them and it is their opinion that it is perfectly suited for their needs.
It's not up to you to tell anyone what firearm they should use.
And who needs a 30 or 50 round mag for a "Sporting" rifle again? Do you you need the rails to mount the M-203 Grenade Launcher, or a Bayonet among other nasty things. The only real use, outside of showing off to your buddies, is taking down a movie house full of people, concert watchers or school children for 30 round mags. You want to show off to your drunk buddies, drop your pants and show them your fat ass.
And this isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of the Voters of Colorado (and other states), the Colorado Legislation and Governor (and other states) and the Federal Courts. IT's the law, cupcake. You don't like it, move to Yemen where they don't have any firearm laws and get back to us just how that works out for you.
Here we go again
It's not up to you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need.
If you don't want to use a magazine bigger than 5 rounds then don't. No one cares what rifles you prefer, what magazine you prefer and it's none of you rbusiness what other people use
I like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.
Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.
First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.
Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.
Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.
You present yourself as one so wise that everyone should just do what you say.
A guy shooting kids will kill just as many with a few 20 round mags.
And here we go again with the USMB morons manufacturing things other people say and then arguing about them
Where did i ever say "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS"?
You want so much to be taken seriously but you won't be until you stop lying about what other people say
Ah, the old "Hate, Fear, Hate" response. Exactly what I am talking about.
And since you can't read I said that the the time it takes to drop and swap a magazine is so short that it is irrelevant to the number of people killed.
As noted before and ignored. THAT was what kept the Giffords shooting from being worse. People jumped the shooter when he was changing mags.
It's not much but it's SOMETHING. Bigger mags meansd LESS chance,,,,but you're right...ANY weapon that has detachable mags lends itself to this kind of horror
But the rifle makes certain intents more deadly.Really? Look at a Ruger Mini14 and at an AR. The AR gives people nightmares. The Ruger is just an old style, wood stocked rifle.
But other than the modular build of the AR, there is not much difference as far as features and use. The intent has nothing to do with the rifle. The intent is with the shooter.
Your statement was "If you change the looks you also change the features and the use and the intent. Simple as that.". That is simply wrong. The functions are not what people freak out about. It is the appearance.
The functions make the features and that makes the appearance. The AR was made for one thing and one thing only. And it was, and still is, the best at it. It was made for a firefight to kill or wound as many combatants as possible in the shortest amount of time under the highest degree of pressure on the shooter. It's perfect in it's design, performance and function. Change any of those 3 and you lessen it's capability. You keep saying that people are saying"Black Gun Bad" but in reality, it's it's use and capability that people really fear. To get those capabilities, it MUST look the way it does.
What a fucking retard.
No moron, the M-4 was made for fire fights, it has select fire making it a military weapon. The AR-15 is no different than any other civilian semi-auto. 1 shot per trigger pull. An M1 Garrand is far more deadly, yet you Bolsheviks target the little .22(3)
They are targeting the AR-15 because they think they can get it banned.......and then, once they get the AR-15 banned, through local or state courts, and then use the Supreme Court to make those laws Constitutional....they will come back and state....the AR-15 is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, you banned the AR-15, there fore you now need to ban all other semi-automatic weapons...
That is what they are trying to do....
I have NEVER advocated confiscating ANY guns you lying piece of shitOk moron name a concert where 600 people were killed you lying twat.So we shouldn't worry about our kids surviving the day in school or the mall or a movie or church without being gunned down.
We shouldn't notice when a gun nut shoots Six HUNDRED people at a concert
Right
59 people were killed in mass shootings this year.
You have lost your mind . i have kids you dumb bitch.
I carry a gun and if were at the movies guess what ill shot anyone who indangers my kid.
You actually think you can confiscate all the semo auto gun in america you must be the dumbest bith in america
Read what I posted liar. Paduch gunned down SIX HUNDRED people in Vegas.
Here's my EXACT quote. "We shouldn't notice when a gun nut shoots Six HUNDRED people at a concert"
as far as you protecting your kids. You ain't with them 24/7. And no one was in any position to do much of anything about that Vegas killer
Any other lies you feel the need to tell?
He did not shoot 600 people, it was 400, the muslim terrorist with his rental truck killed 86, and injured 435...the Vegas shooter killed 58.....
We obviously need to ban rental trucks.....
the bomber in Oklahoma...using another rental truck, killed 168 and injured over 680....so again, according to you, we really need to ban rental trucks...which are deadlier than rifles....
You conveniently leave out that the truck bombings have stopped completely in the United States. How? Again, you leave out the facts that we now look at the large purchases of the chemicals that makes them possible in the first place. A Rental Van full of Diesel Fuel only Burns. Now, mix in the Nitrogen Fertilizer and a few other chemicals and you have a HUGE boom. They restricted the amount of Nitrogen type chemicals you can buy. Even a Farmer has to hire a reputable company to come spread it on their acreage.
BTW, are you aware that Nitrogen is used in the powder that you fire in your gun as well? Think about it.
We had one.....truck bombing......before we had those laws.....you have no point.
The muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and killed more people in 5 minutes of driving, 86, with 435 wounded, than in any of our mass public shootings including Vegas where the guy fired into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people
Rental Trucks are obviously more deadly than rifles are, they are also cheaper to get, 19.99 dollars for the first 70 minutes of killing....
you are wrong....
If a rifle can accept a 5 or 10 round magazine it can accept a 20 or 30 round magazineStop and think about it. Why does the AR have the capability to accept a Bayonet Rail? Why can it accept 20 and 30 round mags? Why does it have all it's other features? Because it was designed specifically to efficiently kill in the speediest way possible in a firefight in a WAR. Let's face it, as a sporting Rifle, it's not very good for the price. You can buy a full fledged Savage Axis II with a Bull Barrel and a 7X40 Scope already mounted on it for a lot less money and shoot rings around an AR all day long using the same ammo. If you need a bit more power, the Axis even comes in a 556 Nato round barrel for 20 bucks more but it won't be any more accurate than the 223 version firing the 223 ammo. It will just shoot a bit further and the cost of the ammo will be a lot higher. If you need more than that, for 399.99, you can get an Axis II in the 6.5 Creedmore caliber and that puppy will reach out touch something out to about 600 yds all day long. The AR is so far down on the list for a sporting rifle that I have no idea why any sane person would call it a sporting rifle unless it's people that are being listed as sporting game.
And your opinion of the Ar is just that your opinion.
Millions of people own them and it is their opinion that it is perfectly suited for their needs.
It's not up to you to tell anyone what firearm they should use.
And who needs a 30 or 50 round mag for a "Sporting" rifle again? Do you you need the rails to mount the M-203 Grenade Launcher, or a Bayonet among other nasty things. The only real use, outside of showing off to your buddies, is taking down a movie house full of people, concert watchers or school children for 30 round mags. You want to show off to your drunk buddies, drop your pants and show them your fat ass.
And this isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of the Voters of Colorado (and other states), the Colorado Legislation and Governor (and other states) and the Federal Courts. IT's the law, cupcake. You don't like it, move to Yemen where they don't have any firearm laws and get back to us just how that works out for you.
Here we go again
It's not up to you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need.
If you don't want to use a magazine bigger than 5 rounds then don't. No one cares what rifles you prefer, what magazine you prefer and it's none of you rbusiness what other people use
I like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.
Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.
First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.
Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.
Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.
Magazine capacity has nothing to do with mass shooting death counts...as New Zealand's shooting showed since the guy used 10 round magazines.....
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
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.
--------
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.
Keep tearing up hunts dumb moron ass I love itIf a rifle can accept a 5 or 10 round magazine it can accept a 20 or 30 round magazine
And your opinion of the Ar is just that your opinion.
Millions of people own them and it is their opinion that it is perfectly suited for their needs.
It's not up to you to tell anyone what firearm they should use.
And who needs a 30 or 50 round mag for a "Sporting" rifle again? Do you you need the rails to mount the M-203 Grenade Launcher, or a Bayonet among other nasty things. The only real use, outside of showing off to your buddies, is taking down a movie house full of people, concert watchers or school children for 30 round mags. You want to show off to your drunk buddies, drop your pants and show them your fat ass.
And this isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of the Voters of Colorado (and other states), the Colorado Legislation and Governor (and other states) and the Federal Courts. IT's the law, cupcake. You don't like it, move to Yemen where they don't have any firearm laws and get back to us just how that works out for you.
Here we go again
It's not up to you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need.
If you don't want to use a magazine bigger than 5 rounds then don't. No one cares what rifles you prefer, what magazine you prefer and it's none of you rbusiness what other people use
I like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.
Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.
First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.
Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.
Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.
Magazine capacity has nothing to do with mass shooting death counts...as New Zealand's shooting showed since the guy used 10 round magazines.....
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
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.
--------
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.
Are you really that naive?And who needs a 30 or 50 round mag for a "Sporting" rifle again? Do you you need the rails to mount the M-203 Grenade Launcher, or a Bayonet among other nasty things. The only real use, outside of showing off to your buddies, is taking down a movie house full of people, concert watchers or school children for 30 round mags. You want to show off to your drunk buddies, drop your pants and show them your fat ass.
And this isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of the Voters of Colorado (and other states), the Colorado Legislation and Governor (and other states) and the Federal Courts. IT's the law, cupcake. You don't like it, move to Yemen where they don't have any firearm laws and get back to us just how that works out for you.
Here we go again
It's not up to you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need.
If you don't want to use a magazine bigger than 5 rounds then don't. No one cares what rifles you prefer, what magazine you prefer and it's none of you rbusiness what other people use
I like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.
Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.
First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.
Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.
Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.
You present yourself as one so wise that everyone should just do what you say.
A guy shooting kids will kill just as many with a few 20 round mags.
And here we go again with the USMB morons manufacturing things other people say and then arguing about them
Where did i ever say "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS"?
You want so much to be taken seriously but you won't be until you stop lying about what other people say
Ah, the old "Hate, Fear, Hate" response. Exactly what I am talking about.
So pointing out that you lied about what I said is hate?
And you call other people cupcake, Snowflake.
Keep tearing up hunts dumb moron ass I love itAnd who needs a 30 or 50 round mag for a "Sporting" rifle again? Do you you need the rails to mount the M-203 Grenade Launcher, or a Bayonet among other nasty things. The only real use, outside of showing off to your buddies, is taking down a movie house full of people, concert watchers or school children for 30 round mags. You want to show off to your drunk buddies, drop your pants and show them your fat ass.
And this isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of the Voters of Colorado (and other states), the Colorado Legislation and Governor (and other states) and the Federal Courts. IT's the law, cupcake. You don't like it, move to Yemen where they don't have any firearm laws and get back to us just how that works out for you.
Here we go again
It's not up to you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need.
If you don't want to use a magazine bigger than 5 rounds then don't. No one cares what rifles you prefer, what magazine you prefer and it's none of you rbusiness what other people use
I like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.
Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.
First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.
Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.
Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.
Magazine capacity has nothing to do with mass shooting death counts...as New Zealand's shooting showed since the guy used 10 round magazines.....
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
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.
--------
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.
Oh, really. Considering the current record holders for the last series of body count mass shootings all have one thing in common, they used the AR with at least 30 round mags. That shoots all the BS being thrown right out the window. So keep spreading your hate and fear. It's not working anymore. People fear for their child's lives much more than they do for your paranoia and lies.
And since you can't read I said that the the time it takes to drop and swap a magazine is so short that it is irrelevant to the number of people killed.
As noted before and ignored. THAT was what kept the Giffords shooting from being worse. People jumped the shooter when he was changing mags.
It's not much but it's SOMETHING. Bigger mags meansd LESS chance,,,,but you're right...ANY weapon that has detachable mags lends itself to this kind of horror
You are confused Moon Bat
The horror is having somebody wanting to do you harm but not having enough capacity in your firearm at a time of stress to dispatch the sonofabitch.
Keep tearing up hunts dumb moron ass I love itHere we go again
It's not up to you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need.
If you don't want to use a magazine bigger than 5 rounds then don't. No one cares what rifles you prefer, what magazine you prefer and it's none of you rbusiness what other people use
I like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.
Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.
First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.
Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.
Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.
Magazine capacity has nothing to do with mass shooting death counts...as New Zealand's shooting showed since the guy used 10 round magazines.....
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
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.
--------
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.
Oh, really. Considering the current record holders for the last series of body count mass shootings all have one thing in common, they used the AR with at least 30 round mags. That shoots all the BS being thrown right out the window. So keep spreading your hate and fear. It's not working anymore. People fear for their child's lives much more than they do for your paranoia and lies.
Moron, the Vegas shooter was firing into an unknowing, tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people from a concealed and fortified position...he didn't need 30 round magazines to do what he did....
The Virginia tech shooter, who killed 32 people with 2 pistols did so without 30 round magazines.....
The Mosque shooter used 10 round magazines.....you moron.....
Keep tearing up hunts dumb moron ass I love itI like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.
Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.
First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.
Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.
Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.
Magazine capacity has nothing to do with mass shooting death counts...as New Zealand's shooting showed since the guy used 10 round magazines.....
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
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.
--------
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.
Oh, really. Considering the current record holders for the last series of body count mass shootings all have one thing in common, they used the AR with at least 30 round mags. That shoots all the BS being thrown right out the window. So keep spreading your hate and fear. It's not working anymore. People fear for their child's lives much more than they do for your paranoia and lies.
Moron, the Vegas shooter was firing into an unknowing, tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people from a concealed and fortified position...he didn't need 30 round magazines to do what he did....
The Virginia tech shooter, who killed 32 people with 2 pistols did so without 30 round magazines.....
The Mosque shooter used 10 round magazines.....you moron.....
Once again, we get to revisit VT at your request. This was before Schools were being prepared for this type of thing. There was NO security, locked doors, nothing. The shooter moved from building to building killing at will and no alarms were set off until very late in his little adventure. This was the first. Hell, if he had been a decent shooter and had an AR with 6 30 shot mags, the death toll could have been 10 times the number. By the mass shooters that came later, he was an ill equipped piker. Try that today. You might get one or two before they bring you down. Mass Shooters have to be much better prepared and armed these days. Nevada Shooter was the best prepared and armed of them all and holds the highest body count. Nevada was a Red State at the time, it turned purple in 2018 and will probably turn blue in 2020. Guess what happens then? All the tools the NV shooter used gets either banned or severely regulated in Nevada. Your VT shooter was a piker.
Keep tearing up hunts dumb moron ass I love itHere we go again
It's not up to you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need.
If you don't want to use a magazine bigger than 5 rounds then don't. No one cares what rifles you prefer, what magazine you prefer and it's none of you rbusiness what other people use
I like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.
Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.
First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.
Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.
Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.
Magazine capacity has nothing to do with mass shooting death counts...as New Zealand's shooting showed since the guy used 10 round magazines.....
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
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.
--------
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.
Oh, really. Considering the current record holders for the last series of body count mass shootings all have one thing in common, they used the AR with at least 30 round mags. That shoots all the BS being thrown right out the window. So keep spreading your hate and fear. It's not working anymore. People fear for their child's lives much more than they do for your paranoia and lies.
Moron, the Vegas shooter was firing into an unknowing, tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people from a concealed and fortified position...he didn't need 30 round magazines to do what he did....
The Virginia tech shooter, who killed 32 people with 2 pistols did so without 30 round magazines.....
The Mosque shooter used 10 round magazines.....you moron.....
And since you can't read I said that the the time it takes to drop and swap a magazine is so short that it is irrelevant to the number of people killed.
As noted before and ignored. THAT was what kept the Giffords shooting from being worse. People jumped the shooter when he was changing mags.
It's not much but it's SOMETHING. Bigger mags meansd LESS chance,,,,but you're right...ANY weapon that has detachable mags lends itself to this kind of horror
You are confused Moon Bat
The horror is having somebody wanting to do you harm but not having enough capacity in your firearm at a time of stress to dispatch the sonofabitch.
If that is your wishes, I suggest you move to where you have that situation. Or take a job where that is a distinct possibility like a SWAT team. If you are wandering the streets with that in mind and you aren't in some kind of job where that is a distinct possibility then you just made the fruitcake squad.
View attachment 250733
