CDZ Are anti gunners serious when they say they will stop at 10 round magazines?

[jon_berzerk]

besides her side arm

her acp 45 carbine much like this one is her go to defense rifle

 

[jon_berzerk]

Don't be ridiculous. A gun specifically designed for military use in combat has no reasonable purpose for civilian use, even if it is no longer full auto capable.

I think you missed this part ...

The Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the advancements in modern technology ... BUT
They had just used the firearms they had available to overthrow an oppressive government in a Revolution.

It would be stupid to think they did not consider that when writing the Second Amendment ...

Furthermore ... The Second Amendment doesn't say a damn thing about hunting ... But it does say "the People" have the right to bear arms.
We aren't asking people like you for something we don't already have ... You are attempting to limit our existing freedoms.

You have nothing to barter with ... We will not come to a compromise because you have nothing to offer.

.

We will not come to a compromise because you have nothing to offer.

indeed

 

[2aguy]

So why do so many gun nuts try to pretend that it is just an every day civilian rifle? I think you have an honest reason to say what you say, even if I disagree with you for several specific reasons. The large majority of gun nuts will just say anything to try supporting their position, even making obvious lies about a gun specifically designed for combat being just another gun.

I don't know why people say what they say ... You would do better to ask them I guess ...
If you are wondering (don't know) ... The Colt Arms 7.62 x 39 AR-15 I own is identical to the one I was issued in the military minus the full auto selection.
I am not giving you a hard time ... I am trying to help you and other people understand.

I think it is important for you to understand that I honestly understand your point of view.

I am trained and qualified (by the military [no longer active duty]) in the use of my AR-15.
I have passed background checks on several occasions ... I own a lot of firearms I use for a lot of different purposes.
I have a Conceal and Carry permit ... I have been fingerprinted ... Checked and re-checked (regularly).
I secure my firearms properly ... Keep them well regulated and in proper working condition.

I have done everything possible to stay compliant with the law ... And I appreciate the liberties I am allowed by our Constitution.

I live in a rural area ... The Sheriff's Department is 20 minutes away at best.
I am prepared to take care of myself should the need arise.
I am not asking you nor the government for anything.
I am not willing to sacrifice my liberties nor the opportunity to protect myself to the best of my abilities with a firearm I know will do the job if I need it to.

I mean really ... What do you have to offer?
You cannot provide me with anything I don't already have ... And I am not asking for your permission.

.

So what do you think is going to be taken away from you if we use universal background checks? If you say it is a gun owners database so the government can confiscate your guns, this conversation is over.

You know the answer because I keep telling you the problem.....you just have to pretend not to know it so you can keep pushing universal background checks...

Universal background checks will be gotten around the exact same way current federally mandated checks are gotten around by criminals, they will use straw buyers to buy the guns since they can pass all background checks...

So...after you guys get UBCs.......after criminals keep using guns and mass shooters keep getting guns you will come back and say "See.....universal background checks can't work because the NRA won't let us register guns....because we need gun registration to know who has the guns so that we can tell if a background check was done." And that is the sole reason you guys want universal background checks....to give you the argument to get uninformed people to vote in gun registration.....

And you want gun registration because you know that that is what you need to ban and confiscate guns.....as actual history shows......Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California.....all of their gun bans and confiscation needed gun registration first...so they had lists of gun owners so they couldn't hide their guns before the ban went into effect....

 

[2aguy]

So what do you think is going to be taken away from you if we use universal background checks? If you say it is a gun owners database so the government can confiscate your guns, this conversation is over.

I am not worried about anyone taking anything away from me.
We have universal background checks for licensed dealers ... It didn't stop the Vegas nor Texas shooters.

I don't know about everywhere ... But in the state where I live ... Background check documents are required by law to be destroyed within 48 hours of approval.
It is possible the ATF keeps a record ... I don't know/care.

The things I care about are protecting my liberties ... My life and the people around me ... And trying to avoid the crap that will hit the fan if all this gets out of hand.
It could turn into an ungodly mess with no real winners.

.

Background checks have nothing to do with our liberties. They are just another method to try to keep guns from people who shouldn't have them. Destroying documents within 48 hours is federal law, so every state does that. No reason it couldn't be the same for individual sales.

You will demand gun registration to make your universal background checks work...that will be your argument to the uninformed Americans when you make it....

 

[2aguy]

Different cultures, different conditions.

The only difference is they don't have some foolish idea that gun ownership is a "right". If they give you a gun at all, they've made sure you aren't a nut or a crook.

Melodrama, nothing more.

33,000 deaths.
75,000 injuries
400,000 gun crimes
270 BILLION in economic losses

Every Year.

"But the Founding Fathers said I can have me a gun!"

That's melodrama.

22,000 suicides......

1,500,000 times lives are saved by Americans using their private guns.....

Close to 1 trillion dollars saved by gun owners stopping criminals.......

 

[2aguy]

Different cultures, different conditions.

The only difference is they don't have some foolish idea that gun ownership is a "right". If they give you a gun at all, they've made sure you aren't a nut or a crook.

Melodrama, nothing more.

33,000 deaths.
75,000 injuries
400,000 gun crimes
270 BILLION in economic losses

Every Year.

"But the Founding Fathers said I can have me a gun!"

That's melodrama.

Savings through gun use...

How much money, how many lives are saved by armed americans...

Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

Our man Bruce Krafft — whose posts we dearly miss — did the math back in 2012. Here it is:
Our fearless leader suggested that I take a look at the flip side of the anti’s latest attack on our freedoms (a recycled strategy from the Clinton-era Public Health model of gun control): the monetary cost of gun violence.
For example, the Center for American Progress touted the “fact” that the Virginia Tech massacre cost taxpayers $48.2 million (including autopsy costs and a fine against Virginia Tech for failing to get their skates on when the killer started shooting).
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
The Kleck-Gertz DGU study estimated that there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs a year in the U.S. The Ludwig-Cook study came up with 1.46 million. So let’s split the difference and call it 1.88 million DGUs per year.
In the K-G article Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 15.7 percent of people who had a DGU reckoned they almost certainly saved a life. Ignoring the ‘probably’ and ‘might have’ saved a life categories for simplicity, 15.7 percent of 1.88 million gives us 295,160 lives saved annually.
[NB: A number of people have questioned the 15.7 percent stat. Remember: many states regard the mere act of pulling a gun on someone a form of deadly force. In addition, virtually every jurisdiction in the nation requires that an armed self-defender must be in “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” before using (or in some places even threatening to use) deadly force.]
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.
I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million).

But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.


When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”


Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”


So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.

 

[2aguy]

The Heller decision was a gift to the anti-gun control crowd

They found that the DC restrictions on handguns were excessive and were not supported by a pressing government interest

But even Heller made it clear that the government had a right to ban certain firearms if they could prove a pressing societal reason for the ban

Given the preference of mass murderers to use assault type weapons with large capacity magazines and the lack of a pressing reason why private citizens need so much firepower...Even Heller would agree with the ban

Yeah....no. Considering there are 13 million AR-15 rifles in private hands...and 2 were used for crimes......one by a guy who was already banned from owning one and who the government screwed up in his background check.....and no, you don't get to ban them.....

And magazine size has nothing to do with how many people die.....you have seen the research...here it is again...

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

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
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

-----

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.

You still haven't said why the military always uses large capacity magazines in combat, if it doesn't make any difference anyway.

30 round magazines are the standard in the military.

As they had been in the civilian market for decades.

only recently has "large capacity" come to mean more than 10

Just because the military has 30, doesn't mean civilians should have access unless they belong to a well regulated militia

Civillans need them just as much as the military, since a civilian and a soldier are both in the same position of not knowing when they will have to fight for their lives....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....no. Considering there are 13 million AR-15 rifles in private hands...and 2 were used for crimes......one by a guy who was already banned from owning one and who the government screwed up in his background check.....and no, you don't get to ban them.....

And magazine size has nothing to do with how many people die.....you have seen the research...here it is again...

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

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
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

-----

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.

You still haven't said why the military always uses large capacity magazines in combat, if it doesn't make any difference anyway.

30 round magazines are the standard in the military.

As they had been in the civilian market for decades.

only recently has "large capacity" come to mean more than 10

Just because the molitary has 30, doesn't mean civilians should have access unless they belong to a well regulated militia

Why not?

Semiautomatic automatic rifles with 30 round magazines have been around for many decades and rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders.

How many other rifles come standard with a 30 round clip? I know you can buy them, but how many come with it?

Most.......13 million AR-15s, all of the AK civilan models.....so we are talking millions and millions of rifles that have been around for decades, and only recently have they been used in mass shootings....and only on rare occasions compared to the times they aren't........

You have no argument based in the truth, facts or reality......so no....you don't get to ban over 13 million rifles over 2 people who misuse them....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....no. Considering there are 13 million AR-15 rifles in private hands...and 2 were used for crimes......one by a guy who was already banned from owning one and who the government screwed up in his background check.....and no, you don't get to ban them.....

And magazine size has nothing to do with how many people die.....you have seen the research...here it is again...

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

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
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

-----

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.

You still haven't said why the military always uses large capacity magazines in combat, if it doesn't make any difference anyway.

30 round magazines are the standard in the military.

As they had been in the civilian market for decades.

only recently has "large capacity" come to mean more than 10

Just because the molitary has 30, doesn't mean civilians should have access unless they belong to a well regulated militia

Why not?

Semiautomatic automatic rifles with 30 round magazines have been around for many decades and rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders.

And if we ban high capacity magazines it will still be less than 2 percent. But those 2 percent will not result in dozens of deaths

Yes...they would since magazine capacity has nothing to do with the number of victims killed.....the target choice is the determinant in the number of deaths...not magazine capacity......

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

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
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

-----

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.

 

[rightwinger]

The Second Amendment says nothing about 30 round magazines
Now, tell me how you belong to a well regulated militia and that you need one

First there is a comma between anything about a well regulated militia (we don't even need to talk about what they meant) ... Then a specific statement as to the People.

Furthermore ... The Founding Fathers could not know what technology had in store ... Such as 30 round mags.
BUT ... They damn sure knew they had just used the arms they had available to overthrow an oppressive government in a Revolution.

You can pretend that little gem might have slipped their mind when they were writing the Second Amendment ...

.

OMG!

A COMMA!

Everyone knows, don't believe anything written before a comma

 

[2aguy]

You still haven't said why the military always uses large capacity magazines in combat, if it doesn't make any difference anyway.

30 round magazines are the standard in the military.

As they had been in the civilian market for decades.

only recently has "large capacity" come to mean more than 10

Just because the molitary has 30, doesn't mean civilians should have access unless they belong to a well regulated militia

Why not?

Semiautomatic automatic rifles with 30 round magazines have been around for many decades and rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders.

How many other rifles come standard with a 30 round clip? I know you can buy them, but how many come with it?

They need a 30 round magazine

What if you are hunting and come upon a herd of Grizzly Bears?

No...if you own a store and are in the middle of a democrat, black lives matter riot when they are burning and looting everyone elses store...but not yours....because they see you have a rifle with a 30 round magazine..

No....if you are a rancher on the border and you have drug cartels and other coyotes moving across your land and the police are an hour away.....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be your only lifeline...considering the drug cartels arme their people with fully automatic, military rifles.....

No.....if you are in the middle of the aftermath of a hurricane or other natural disaster and the police can't be everywhere all the time....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be the only thing between your family and the thugs roaming the wreckage....

So no....you are wrong.....

 

[rightwinger]

You still haven't said why the military always uses large capacity magazines in combat, if it doesn't make any difference anyway.

30 round magazines are the standard in the military.

As they had been in the civilian market for decades.

only recently has "large capacity" come to mean more than 10

Just because the molitary has 30, doesn't mean civilians should have access unless they belong to a well regulated militia

Why not?

Semiautomatic automatic rifles with 30 round magazines have been around for many decades and rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders.

And if we ban high capacity magazines it will still be less than 2 percent. But those 2 percent will not result in dozens of deaths

Yes...they would since magazine capacity has nothing to do with the number of victims killed.....the target choice is the determinant in the number of deaths...not magazine capacity......

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

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
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

-----

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.

tl;dr

 

[rightwinger]

30 round magazines are the standard in the military.

As they had been in the civilian market for decades.

only recently has "large capacity" come to mean more than 10

Just because the molitary has 30, doesn't mean civilians should have access unless they belong to a well regulated militia

Why not?

Semiautomatic automatic rifles with 30 round magazines have been around for many decades and rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders.

How many other rifles come standard with a 30 round clip? I know you can buy them, but how many come with it?

They need a 30 round magazine

What if you are hunting and come upon a herd of Grizzly Bears?

No...if you own a store and are in the middle of a democrat, black lives matter riot when they are burning and looting everyone elses store...but not yours....because they see you have a rifle with a 30 round magazine..

No....if you are a rancher on the border and you have drug cartels and other coyotes moving across your land and the police are an hour away.....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be your only lifeline...considering the drug cartels arme their people with fully automatic, military rifles.....

No.....if you are in the middle of the aftermath of a hurricane or other natural disaster and the police can't be everywhere all the time....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be the only thing between your family and the thugs roaming the wreckage....

So no....you are wrong.....

Everyone knows that three10 round magazines can be reloaded just as fast as a 30 round magazine and they weigh less and are less likely to jam

So who needs a 30 round magazine?

 

[2aguy]

David Kopel explains why magazine limits are stupid........anyone else who likes this article...please use it .....

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control



In 2012, Arizona repealed its limitations on magazine capacity for hunters precisely because of the possible need for self-defense against unexpected encounters with cartel gangs in the southern part of the state.36 In that region, it is well known that drug traffickers and human traffickers use the same wild and lonely lands that hunters do.



---

For the firearms that are most often chosen for self-defense, the claim that any magazine holding more than 10 (or 7) rounds is “high capacity” or “large” is incorrect. The term “high-capacity magazine” might have a legitimate meaning when it refers to a magazine that extends far beyond that intended for the gun’s optimal operation. For example, although a semiautomatic handgun can accept a 40-round magazine, such a magazine typically extends far beneath the gun grip, and it is therefore impractical to use with a concealed-carry permit. For most handguns, a 40-round magazine could be called “high-capacity.”

------

The persons who have the most need for actual high-capacity magazines are those who would have great difficulty changing a magazine — such as elderly persons or persons with disabilities. For an able-bodied person, changing a magazine only takes a few seconds. Typically a gun’s magazine-release button is near the trigger. To change a magazine, the person holding the gun presses the magazine-release button with a thumb or finger. The magazine instantly drops to the floor. While one hand was pushing the magazine-release button, the other hand can grab a fresh magazine (which might be carried in a special holster on a belt) and bring it toward the gun. The moment the old magazine drops out, a fresh one is inserted.37


-----


Although one can quickly change magazines, persons being attacked by criminals will typically prefer not to spend even a few seconds for a magazine change. The stress of being attacked usually impedes fine motor skills, making it much more difficult to insert the magazine.38 That is why many semiautomatic handguns come factory-standard with a magazine of 11 to 20 rounds. Thus, a ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds means a ban on some of the most common and most useful magazines purchased for purposes of recreational target practice and self-defense.

Why might someone need a factory-standard 17-round magazine for a common 9mm handgun? As noted, standard-capacity magazines can be very useful for self-defense. This is especially true if a defender faces multiple attackers, an attacker is wearing heavy clothing or body armor, an attacker who is turbo-charged by methamphetamine or cocaine, or an attacker who poses an active threat from behind cover. In stressful circumstances, police as well as civilians often miss when firing a handgun even at close range, so having the extra rounds can be crucial.



It is important to consider the advantages a criminal has over his intended victims. The criminal has the element of surprise, whereas the victim is the one surprised. The criminal can decide at leisure what weaponry he will bring; whereas the victim must respond with what’s at hand at the moment of attack. A criminal can bring several guns, or lots of magazines; whereas the victim will usually have on hand, at most, a single defensive gun with only as much ammunition as is in that gun. Thus, legislation confining law-abiding victims to magazines of 10 or fewer magnifies the criminal’s advantage over his intended victim
Violent confrontations are unpredictable; for example, if a person is fighting against one or two perpetrators, he may not know if there is an additional, hidden attacker. Thus, defensive gun users need to keep a reserve of ammunition. So even though armed defenders do not usually fire more than 10 shots, reducing reserve capacity (e.g., from a standard 17-round magazine to a 10-round substitute) will reduce the number of defensive shots. Fewer shots fired at the attacker reduces the risk of injury to the attacker, and thereby raises the risk of injury to the victim.


Would a Magazine Ban Be Beneficial?

The National Institute of Justice study found that the 1994-2004 federal ban on the manufacture of large magazines had no discernible benefit because the existing supply of such magazines was so vast.40

The types of criminals most likely to get into shootouts with the police or with other criminals are precisely those who are very aware of what is available on the black market. Although gun prohibitionists often link assault weapons to gang violence associated with the illegal drug trade, they miss the irony of their argument.41 They are, in effect, claiming that the very gangs operating the black market in drugs will somehow be restricted from acquiring high-capacity magazines by legislation limiting the manufacture and sale of such magazines. The claim — at least as it pertains to career criminals — is ludicrous.

If gangsters can obtain all the cocaine they want, despite a century of prohibition, they will be able to obtain 15-round magazines.

What about the typical perpetrators of random mass attacks — mentally ill young men? They, too, could acquire magazines by theft, or on the black market. Given that 36 percent of American high school seniors illegally acquire and consume marijuana, it is clear that plenty of people who are not gangsters or career criminals use the black market.42 Besides that, the truly high-capacity magazines, such as a 100-round drum, are very prone to malfunction. For example, during the 2012 mass murder at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, the murderer’s 100-round magazine jammed, allowing people to escape.43 Hundred-round magazines are novelty items and are not standard for self-defense by civilians or police.

Advocates of a ban on standard-capacity magazines assert that while the attacker is changing the magazine, an intended victim might be able to subdue him — yet they cannot point to a single instance where this actually happened. They cite a trilogy of events that happened in Tucson, Arizona (2011), Aurora, Colorado (2012), and Newtown, Connecticut (2013). In fact, all of those events involved gun jams, not magazine changes. At Newtown, the criminal changed magazines seven times and no one escaped, but when his rifle jammed, people did escape. Clearing a gun jam takes much longer than changing a magazine. Fixing a gun jam involves all the steps of a magazine change (remove the empty magazine and insert a new one) plus all the intermediate steps of doing whatever is necessary to fix the jam. Similarly, in the Luby’s cafeteria murders (24 dead), the perpetrator replaced magazines multiple times. In the Virginia Tech murders (32 dead), the perpetrator changed magazines 17 times.44

----

When one also takes into account rifle magazines, the number of American magazines holding more than 10 rounds could be more than 100 million. That in itself is sufficient, according to the Supreme Court’s Hellerprecedent, to make the ban unconstitutional.

 

[2aguy]

Just because the molitary has 30, doesn't mean civilians should have access unless they belong to a well regulated militia

Why not?

Semiautomatic automatic rifles with 30 round magazines have been around for many decades and rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders.

How many other rifles come standard with a 30 round clip? I know you can buy them, but how many come with it?

They need a 30 round magazine

What if you are hunting and come upon a herd of Grizzly Bears?

No...if you own a store and are in the middle of a democrat, black lives matter riot when they are burning and looting everyone elses store...but not yours....because they see you have a rifle with a 30 round magazine..

No....if you are a rancher on the border and you have drug cartels and other coyotes moving across your land and the police are an hour away.....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be your only lifeline...considering the drug cartels arme their people with fully automatic, military rifles.....

No.....if you are in the middle of the aftermath of a hurricane or other natural disaster and the police can't be everywhere all the time....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be the only thing between your family and the thugs roaming the wreckage....

So no....you are wrong.....

Everyone knows that three10 round magazines can be reloaded just as fast as a 30 round magazine and they weigh less and are less likely to jam

So who needs a 30 round magazine?

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control





------

The persons who have the most need for actual high-capacity magazines are those who would have great difficulty changing a magazine — such as elderly persons or persons with disabilities. For an able-bodied person, changing a magazine only takes a few seconds. Typically a gun’s magazine-release button is near the trigger. To change a magazine, the person holding the gun presses the magazine-release button with a thumb or finger. The magazine instantly drops to the floor. While one hand was pushing the magazine-release button, the other hand can grab a fresh magazine (which might be carried in a special holster on a belt) and bring it toward the gun. The moment the old magazine drops out, a fresh one is inserted.37


-----


Although one can quickly change magazines, persons being attacked by criminals will typically prefer not to spend even a few seconds for a magazine change. The stress of being attacked usually impedes fine motor skills, making it much more difficult to insert the magazine.38 That is why many semiautomatic handguns come factory-standard with a magazine of 11 to 20 rounds. Thus, a ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds means a ban on some of the most common and most useful magazines purchased for purposes of recreational target practice and self-defense.

Why might someone need a factory-standard 17-round magazine for a common 9mm handgun? As noted, standard-capacity magazines can be very useful for self-defense. This is especially true if a defender faces multiple attackers, an attacker is wearing heavy clothing or body armor, an attacker who is turbo-charged by methamphetamine or cocaine, or an attacker who poses an active threat from behind cover. In stressful circumstances, police as well as civilians often miss when firing a handgun even at close range, so having the extra rounds can be crucial.



It is important to consider the advantages a criminal has over his intended victims. The criminal has the element of surprise, whereas the victim is the one surprised. The criminal can decide at leisure what weaponry he will bring; whereas the victim must respond with what’s at hand at the moment of attack. A criminal can bring several guns, or lots of magazines; whereas the victim will usually have on hand, at most, a single defensive gun with only as much ammunition as is in that gun. Thus, legislation confining law-abiding victims to magazines of 10 or fewer magnifies the criminal’s advantage over his intended victim

 

[rightwinger]

Why not?

Semiautomatic automatic rifles with 30 round magazines have been around for many decades and rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders.

How many other rifles come standard with a 30 round clip? I know you can buy them, but how many come with it?

They need a 30 round magazine

What if you are hunting and come upon a herd of Grizzly Bears?

No...if you own a store and are in the middle of a democrat, black lives matter riot when they are burning and looting everyone elses store...but not yours....because they see you have a rifle with a 30 round magazine..

No....if you are a rancher on the border and you have drug cartels and other coyotes moving across your land and the police are an hour away.....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be your only lifeline...considering the drug cartels arme their people with fully automatic, military rifles.....

No.....if you are in the middle of the aftermath of a hurricane or other natural disaster and the police can't be everywhere all the time....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be the only thing between your family and the thugs roaming the wreckage....

So no....you are wrong.....

Everyone knows that three10 round magazines can be reloaded just as fast as a 30 round magazine and they weigh less and are less likely to jam

So who needs a 30 round magazine?

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control





------

The persons who have the most need for actual high-capacity magazines are those who would have great difficulty changing a magazine — such as elderly persons or persons with disabilities. For an able-bodied person, changing a magazine only takes a few seconds. Typically a gun’s magazine-release button is near the trigger. To change a magazine, the person holding the gun presses the magazine-release button with a thumb or finger. The magazine instantly drops to the floor. While one hand was pushing the magazine-release button, the other hand can grab a fresh magazine (which might be carried in a special holster on a belt) and bring it toward the gun. The moment the old magazine drops out, a fresh one is inserted.37


-----


Although one can quickly change magazines, persons being attacked by criminals will typically prefer not to spend even a few seconds for a magazine change. The stress of being attacked usually impedes fine motor skills, making it much more difficult to insert the magazine.38 That is why many semiautomatic handguns come factory-standard with a magazine of 11 to 20 rounds. Thus, a ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds means a ban on some of the most common and most useful magazines purchased for purposes of recreational target practice and self-defense.

Why might someone need a factory-standard 17-round magazine for a common 9mm handgun? As noted, standard-capacity magazines can be very useful for self-defense. This is especially true if a defender faces multiple attackers, an attacker is wearing heavy clothing or body armor, an attacker who is turbo-charged by methamphetamine or cocaine, or an attacker who poses an active threat from behind cover. In stressful circumstances, police as well as civilians often miss when firing a handgun even at close range, so having the extra rounds can be crucial.



It is important to consider the advantages a criminal has over his intended victims. The criminal has the element of surprise, whereas the victim is the one surprised. The criminal can decide at leisure what weaponry he will bring; whereas the victim must respond with what’s at hand at the moment of attack. A criminal can bring several guns, or lots of magazines; whereas the victim will usually have on hand, at most, a single defensive gun with only as much ammunition as is in that gun. Thus, legislation confining law-abiding victims to magazines of 10 or fewer magnifies the criminal’s advantage over his intended victim

Nobody needs a magazine larger than ten rounds

Larger magazines are only useful in slaughtering small children

 

[BlackSand]

OMG!

A COMMA!

Everyone knows, don't believe anything written before a comma

OMG ... You think we can forget what is written after the comma ... It is specific.
You ... Really have to ignore everything to make your irrelevant point ... And you actually think that is an argument worth making.

Damn dude ... Good luck with that ... It obviously hasn't stopped me from owning what I want ...

.

 

[2aguy]

How many other rifles come standard with a 30 round clip? I know you can buy them, but how many come with it?

They need a 30 round magazine

What if you are hunting and come upon a herd of Grizzly Bears?

No...if you own a store and are in the middle of a democrat, black lives matter riot when they are burning and looting everyone elses store...but not yours....because they see you have a rifle with a 30 round magazine..

No....if you are a rancher on the border and you have drug cartels and other coyotes moving across your land and the police are an hour away.....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be your only lifeline...considering the drug cartels arme their people with fully automatic, military rifles.....

No.....if you are in the middle of the aftermath of a hurricane or other natural disaster and the police can't be everywhere all the time....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be the only thing between your family and the thugs roaming the wreckage....

So no....you are wrong.....

Everyone knows that three10 round magazines can be reloaded just as fast as a 30 round magazine and they weigh less and are less likely to jam

So who needs a 30 round magazine?

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control





------

The persons who have the most need for actual high-capacity magazines are those who would have great difficulty changing a magazine — such as elderly persons or persons with disabilities. For an able-bodied person, changing a magazine only takes a few seconds. Typically a gun’s magazine-release button is near the trigger. To change a magazine, the person holding the gun presses the magazine-release button with a thumb or finger. The magazine instantly drops to the floor. While one hand was pushing the magazine-release button, the other hand can grab a fresh magazine (which might be carried in a special holster on a belt) and bring it toward the gun. The moment the old magazine drops out, a fresh one is inserted.37


-----


Although one can quickly change magazines, persons being attacked by criminals will typically prefer not to spend even a few seconds for a magazine change. The stress of being attacked usually impedes fine motor skills, making it much more difficult to insert the magazine.38 That is why many semiautomatic handguns come factory-standard with a magazine of 11 to 20 rounds. Thus, a ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds means a ban on some of the most common and most useful magazines purchased for purposes of recreational target practice and self-defense.

Why might someone need a factory-standard 17-round magazine for a common 9mm handgun? As noted, standard-capacity magazines can be very useful for self-defense. This is especially true if a defender faces multiple attackers, an attacker is wearing heavy clothing or body armor, an attacker who is turbo-charged by methamphetamine or cocaine, or an attacker who poses an active threat from behind cover. In stressful circumstances, police as well as civilians often miss when firing a handgun even at close range, so having the extra rounds can be crucial.



It is important to consider the advantages a criminal has over his intended victims. The criminal has the element of surprise, whereas the victim is the one surprised. The criminal can decide at leisure what weaponry he will bring; whereas the victim must respond with what’s at hand at the moment of attack. A criminal can bring several guns, or lots of magazines; whereas the victim will usually have on hand, at most, a single defensive gun with only as much ammunition as is in that gun. Thus, legislation confining law-abiding victims to magazines of 10 or fewer magnifies the criminal’s advantage over his intended victim

Nobody needs a magazine larger than ten rounds

Larger magazines are only useful in slaughtering small children

Yeah....you can't refute the points made by David Kopel in his article...so you drag out dead children....murdered in a gun free zone by a guy who changed his magazines over and over again...while the teachers were completely unarmed.......because of you ......

 

[BlackSand]

Nobody needs a magazine larger than ten rounds

Nobody asked you ... Nor should we be that concerned with what you think ...
Talk to your Representatives ... Maybe they can help you understand how insignificant your opinion on the matter is.


.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just because the molitary has 30, doesn't mean civilians should have access unless they belong to a well regulated militia

Why not?

Semiautomatic automatic rifles with 30 round magazines have been around for many decades and rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders.

How many other rifles come standard with a 30 round clip? I know you can buy them, but how many come with it?

They need a 30 round magazine

What if you are hunting and come upon a herd of Grizzly Bears?

No...if you own a store and are in the middle of a democrat, black lives matter riot when they are burning and looting everyone elses store...but not yours....because they see you have a rifle with a 30 round magazine..

No....if you are a rancher on the border and you have drug cartels and other coyotes moving across your land and the police are an hour away.....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be your only lifeline...considering the drug cartels arme their people with fully automatic, military rifles.....

No.....if you are in the middle of the aftermath of a hurricane or other natural disaster and the police can't be everywhere all the time....your AR-15 and your 30 round magazine may be the only thing between your family and the thugs roaming the wreckage....

So no....you are wrong.....

Everyone knows that three10 round magazines can be reloaded just as fast as a 30 round magazine and they weigh less and are less likely to jam

So who needs a 30 round magazine?

3 ten round mags are heavier than 1 30 round mag.

and the 30 round mags don't jam more than 10 round mags.

30 round mags have been standard capacity for decades