Background checks and increase age to own a gun.

[2aguy]

just reinstate the assault weapons ban that was in place under Clinton and Congress or Bush2 let expire...

enough already....

yes, bad guys could still get a gun on the black market, but when they are banned, the price on the black market will sky rocket, making it much much harder for these 20 to 30 yr old guys to afford them....

if it cuts these mass murders with assault/rapid fire/destructive powered weapons, it's good enough for me, for now.

yes, some rich guy like the Las Vegas shooter may still be out there, able to afford black market prices, but parkland, el paso, and Dayton, the synagogue etc mass murders would likely not have occurred by these young men, or likely to not have been as destructive without semi automatics, by these young men.

And that didn't do anything......criminals don't use them, cause they can't hide them in their baby momma's purse, and mass shooters will use the same semi-automatic rifle but with wood features.....

You moron.

The only thing we need to do? Life in prison for any crime committed with a gun. 15-30 if a convicted felon is caught with an illegal gun....

That dries up 95% of all gun crime right there......

Life in prison for gun crimes would not have stopped our mass shootings.

Nope......and mass shootings were 12 in 2018, with 93 dead.

Actual gun murder by criminals in criminal life.....10,982 in 2017......

the way you stop mass shooters is through people reporting the nuts.....and by getting girls to stop having babies without fathers.

How many mass shooters don’t have fathers?

Look em up....Vegas....broken home, Parkland, no father.....the list goes on and on........

Fix broken homes, report the nuts, and you improve the odds of stopping mass shooters...

For the rest....if you commit an actual crime with a gun....rape, robbery and murder...life......without parole......15-30 if you are a criminal caught with a gun...

That is how you actually do it....and it has the magic of not taking anyones guns away from them who don't use them for crime.

 

[2aguy]

[

What would dry up gun crime the minute it was signed? Life Sentence for any crime comitted with a gun......and 30 years if a convicted criminal is caught in possession of a gun....

Here in Florida we passed a law for concealed weapon carry a couple of decades ago.

In the bill was the stipulation that if a gun was used illegally then there would be some pretty stiff mandatory sentences. 3-10-20.

Millions of people got the CWP and gun crime went down.

Those are the type of laws that work, not silly meaningless backgrounds checks.

and they know it......they could care less.....all they want are the guns normal people have.....and they will not stop till they get them..

 

[Brain357]

We need to stop selling all semi auto rifles capable of using large capacity magazines immediately.

Why? Knives kill more people

Mass shooting deaths....total, all guns.... 93

knives every single year....1,500

cars, 38,000

over 18,000,000 AR-15 rifles in private hands.....3 were misused.....according to your logic, the 38,000 deaths mean all cars need to be banned.....you moron....knives too......

Because they kill masses of people really quickly. Same reason bombs are illegal.

 

[Brain357]

just reinstate the assault weapons ban that was in place under Clinton and Congress or Bush2 let expire...

enough already....

yes, bad guys could still get a gun on the black market, but when they are banned, the price on the black market will sky rocket, making it much much harder for these 20 to 30 yr old guys to afford them....

if it cuts these mass murders with assault/rapid fire/destructive powered weapons, it's good enough for me, for now.

yes, some rich guy like the Las Vegas shooter may still be out there, able to afford black market prices, but parkland, el paso, and Dayton, the synagogue etc mass murders would likely not have occurred by these young men, or likely to not have been as destructive without semi automatics, by these young men.

And that didn't do anything......criminals don't use them, cause they can't hide them in their baby momma's purse, and mass shooters will use the same semi-automatic rifle but with wood features.....

You moron.

The only thing we need to do? Life in prison for any crime committed with a gun. 15-30 if a convicted felon is caught with an illegal gun....

That dries up 95% of all gun crime right there......

Life in prison for gun crimes would not have stopped our mass shootings.

Nope......and mass shootings were 12 in 2018, with 93 dead.

Actual gun murder by criminals in criminal life.....10,982 in 2017......

the way you stop mass shooters is through people reporting the nuts.....and by getting girls to stop having babies without fathers.

How many mass shooters don’t have fathers?

Look em up....Vegas....broken home, Parkland, no father.....the list goes on and on........

Fix broken homes, report the nuts, and you improve the odds of stopping mass shooters...

For the rest....if you commit an actual crime with a gun....rape, robbery and murder...life......without parole......15-30 if you are a criminal caught with a gun...

That is how you actually do it....and it has the magic of not taking anyones guns away from them who don't use them for crime.

Other countries have more broken homes and no mass shooters.

 

[Brain357]

[

Life in prison for gun crimes would not have stopped our mass shootings.

Just like the background check didn't prevent the crimes.

Banning weapons for mass killing is certainly the best option.

 

[2aguy]

We need to stop selling all semi auto rifles capable of using large capacity magazines immediately.

Moron.....

Gilroy....3 dead with a rifle and magazines...

Dayton...100 round drum 9 people

Russian Polytechnic shooting....tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun 20 killed 40 injured.


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

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

I.

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----


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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

 

[Flopper]

As a certified RTKABA supporter I don't think we need any background checks at all. The crime should never be the possession of a gun but the crime that was done with the gun. That is reasonable.

Given the fact that we do have the despicable NICS checks I can live with the fact that we expand it to include more of the crazies which is what I think Trump is talking about. I don't like it but I can live with it. However, if he is talking about some stupid Universal Background Check for the transfer of any firearm then he has lost me as a supporter. Not only him but any Republican Senator that votes for it.

We hire Republicans to protect our Liberties from the filthy Liberals. If they can't do it then we need to find somebody else to do it.

Most of the people that commit these horrible crimes are not crazy. They may be emotional disturbed but that's a description that probably describes about 50 million people.

These people are unable to cope with problems many of us face such as failed marriages, lost of job, failure in school, drug abuse, and rejection of peers. Instead of looking for fixes for their problems they look for scapegoats to blame for their failures latching on to negative racial, ethnic, and social stereotypes.

Nothing would help more that counseling, marriage, family, mental health, ect..

What we also know is that taking away firearms from law abiding citizens because an asshole did something bad with one is totally anti freedom, especially when we have a Bill of Rights protect the Liberty to keep and bear arms.

The difficulty in balancing individual freedoms against protection of the individual is such a difficult problem that many nations turn to totalitarian measures. The US is still struggling to find that balance as we see with gun ownership and freedom of speech..

The founding founders were so afraid of democracy that they put almost no protections for individual freedoms in the constitution and added the Bill of Rights as an afterthought.

Only 3 countries in the world today protect the right to bear arms in their constitutions: the US, Mexico, and Guatemala. Both Mexico and Guatemala have now curtailed legal rights to own guns but fail to enforce those curtailments. Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, an Liberia followed the US example but have have rescinded those rights as violence and instability rose. None of these countries have been successful and controlling the guns or gun violence.

It appears that once gun ownership and the resulting violence catches hold in a nation, removing it becomes almost impossible.

 

[2aguy]

And that didn't do anything......criminals don't use them, cause they can't hide them in their baby momma's purse, and mass shooters will use the same semi-automatic rifle but with wood features.....

You moron.

The only thing we need to do? Life in prison for any crime committed with a gun. 15-30 if a convicted felon is caught with an illegal gun....

That dries up 95% of all gun crime right there......

Life in prison for gun crimes would not have stopped our mass shootings.

Nope......and mass shootings were 12 in 2018, with 93 dead.

Actual gun murder by criminals in criminal life.....10,982 in 2017......

the way you stop mass shooters is through people reporting the nuts.....and by getting girls to stop having babies without fathers.

How many mass shooters don’t have fathers?

Look em up....Vegas....broken home, Parkland, no father.....the list goes on and on........

Fix broken homes, report the nuts, and you improve the odds of stopping mass shooters...

For the rest....if you commit an actual crime with a gun....rape, robbery and murder...life......without parole......15-30 if you are a criminal caught with a gun...

That is how you actually do it....and it has the magic of not taking anyones guns away from them who don't use them for crime.

Other countries have more broken homes and no mass shooters.

No....they had World War Two disrupting their society and culture....read the book "Life at the Bottom," about the British under class.......they have caught up in their family destruction and with the importation of violent men from the 3rd world.

 

[Brain357]

We need to stop selling all semi auto rifles capable of using large capacity magazines immediately.

Moron.....

Gilroy....3 dead with a rifle and magazines...

Dayton...100 round drum 9 people

Russian Polytechnic shooting....tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun 20 killed 40 injured.


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

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

I.

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----


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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

Yes Dayton. 9 dead in 30 seconds with lots
of law enforcement present. Too dangerous for public safety.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Trump went on air this morning promoting background checks, increasing the age to purchase a gun, and getting rid of the policy that expunges the records of minors when they turn 18.

Thoughts?

Trump: Congress discussing 'meaningful' gun background checks, NRA will have input

Depends on the crime for expunging and disagree the age increase because if you can serve at 18 then you should be able too own a firearm...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

[

Life in prison for gun crimes would not have stopped our mass shootings.

Just like the background check didn't prevent the crimes.

Banning weapons for mass killing is certainly the best option.

You're gonna have to define "weapons for mass killing" for it to be any good. We already can't get WMDs. Iran can't even get them.

.

 

[2aguy]

As a certified RTKABA supporter I don't think we need any background checks at all. The crime should never be the possession of a gun but the crime that was done with the gun. That is reasonable.

Given the fact that we do have the despicable NICS checks I can live with the fact that we expand it to include more of the crazies which is what I think Trump is talking about. I don't like it but I can live with it. However, if he is talking about some stupid Universal Background Check for the transfer of any firearm then he has lost me as a supporter. Not only him but any Republican Senator that votes for it.

We hire Republicans to protect our Liberties from the filthy Liberals. If they can't do it then we need to find somebody else to do it.

Most of the people that commit these horrible crimes are not crazy. They may be emotional disturbed but that's a description that probably describes about 50 million people.

These people are unable to cope with problems many of us face such as failed marriages, lost of job, failure in school, drug abuse, and rejection of peers. Instead of looking for fixes for their problems they look for scapegoats to blame for their failures latching on to negative racial, ethnic, and social stereotypes.

Nothing would help more that counseling, marriage, family, mental health, ect..

What we also know is that taking away firearms from law abiding citizens because an asshole did something bad with one is totally anti freedom, especially when we have a Bill of Rights protect the Liberty to keep and bear arms.

The difficulty in balancing individual freedoms against protection of the individual is such a difficult problem that many nations turn to totalitarian measures. The US is still struggling to find that balance as we see with gun ownership and freedom of speech..

The founding founders were so afraid of democracy that they put almost no protections for individual freedoms in the constitution and added the Bill of Rights as an afterthought.

Only 3 countries in the world today protect the right to bear arms in their constitutions: the US, Mexico, and Guatemala. Both Mexico and Guatemala have now curtailed legal rights to own guns but fail to enforce those curtailments. Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, an Liberia followed the US example but have have rescinded those rights as violence and instability rose. None of these countries have been successful and controlling the guns or gun violence.

It appears that once gun ownership and the resulting violence catches hold in a nation, removing it becomes almost impossible.

You are a moron......

Mexico has one gun store, controlled by the military, and if you aren't poitically connected you don't get a gun from that limited selection....all of those countries have strict gun control.....but their criminals and their governments have guns and they murder people with those guns....you moron.

With all of our guns we are less violent than all of those countries....hence...you theory is stupid...

The anti-gun theory and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

So your argument wasn't that crime goes up, crime goes down....your theory, your argument is More Guns (regardless of any other factors) = More Gun Crime

Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...

The exact opposite of your theory happened....in science that means your theory is wrong.
Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...

 

[keepitreal]

Let’s see if I have this straight....

Age is considered a factor to own a gun,
as far as, increasing the age for gun ownership...

But, a 3 year old is old enough to know and decide
they are the opposite gender they were assigned at birth

Got it

 

[2aguy]

We need to stop selling all semi auto rifles capable of using large capacity magazines immediately.

Why? Knives kill more people

Mass shooting deaths....total, all guns.... 93

knives every single year....1,500

cars, 38,000

over 18,000,000 AR-15 rifles in private hands.....3 were misused.....according to your logic, the 38,000 deaths mean all cars need to be banned.....you moron....knives too......

Because they kill masses of people really quickly. Same reason bombs are illegal.

Over 18 million of them.....

3 were used illegally....

Cars kill over 38,000 every year......

A truck in Nice, France was used to kill 86, and wound 435....

Cars are death machines and according to your logic need to be banned.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We need to stop selling all semi auto rifles capable of using large capacity magazines immediately.

Moron.....

Gilroy....3 dead with a rifle and magazines...

Dayton...100 round drum 9 people

Russian Polytechnic shooting....tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun 20 killed 40 injured.


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

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

I.

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----


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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

Yes Dayton. 9 dead in 30 seconds with lots
of law enforcement present. Too dangerous for public safety.

You don't seem to understand that there is little difference between weapons. You don't want to accept that ALL firearms are lethal.

A shotgun can do much worse, much faster.

Are we banning shotguns too?

This is why we KNOW you want a complete ban. You cannot be this stupid, or maybe you are.

.

 

[Brain357]

[

Life in prison for gun crimes would not have stopped our mass shootings.

Just like the background check didn't prevent the crimes.

Banning weapons for mass killing is certainly the best option.

You're gonna have to define "weapons for mass killing" for it to be any good. We already can't get WMDs. Iran can't even get them.

.

Any semi auto rifle capable of using large capacity magazines.

 

[2aguy]

We need to stop selling all semi auto rifles capable of using large capacity magazines immediately.

Moron.....

Gilroy....3 dead with a rifle and magazines...

Dayton...100 round drum 9 people

Russian Polytechnic shooting....tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun 20 killed 40 injured.


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

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

I.

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----


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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

Yes Dayton. 9 dead in 30 seconds with lots
of law enforcement present. Too dangerous for public safety.

You are a moron.........


Tube fed, pump action, 5 shot shot gun killed 20 and wounded 40...more than Gilroy and Dayton combined......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Increasing the age to purchase a firearm is fundamentally pointless – as the Sandy Hook mass shooting illustrates.

UBCs are a viable measure – they have been upheld by the courts as Constitutional, are functioning without incident in jurisdictions where they’ve been implemented, and don’t involve the regulation of the types or classes of firearms.

Of course, UBCs are not a ‘panacea’ for gun crime and violence – no one has said that they are; that criminals might ignore UBC laws doesn’t undermine their merit.

 

[2aguy]

We need to stop selling all semi auto rifles capable of using large capacity magazines immediately.

Moron.....

Gilroy....3 dead with a rifle and magazines...

Dayton...100 round drum 9 people

Russian Polytechnic shooting....tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun 20 killed 40 injured.


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

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

I.

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----


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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

Yes Dayton. 9 dead in 30 seconds with lots
of law enforcement present. Too dangerous for public safety.

You don't seem to understand that there is little difference between weapons. You don't want to accept that ALL firearms are lethal.

A shotgun can do much worse, much faster.

Are we banning shotguns too?

This is why we KNOW you want a complete ban. You cannot be this stupid, or maybe you are.

.

He/she/it knows......they/them, are a troll.......and a fascist.

 

[Flash]

[

What would dry up gun crime the minute it was signed? Life Sentence for any crime comitted with a gun......and 30 years if a convicted criminal is caught in possession of a gun....

Here in Florida we passed a law for concealed weapon carry a couple of decades ago.

In the bill was the stipulation that if a gun was used illegally then there would be some pretty stiff mandatory sentences. 3-10-20.

Millions of people got the CWP and gun crime went down.

Those are the type of laws that work, not silly meaningless backgrounds checks.

and they know it......they could care less.....all they want are the guns normal people have.....and they will not stop till they get them..

The agenda of the Left has never been public safety. They know that the right to keep and bear arms is an impediment into make the US a socialist shithole. Like all Left assholes they know they have to take away the ability of the people to defend themselves and to resist tyranny.