Ex-Supreme Court Justice Wants to Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons-What Is a Semi-Automatic Weapon?

[Brain357]

Prove it. The gun he used comes with 30 round magazines.

Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review

Sounds like that’s what slowed him down. Many more would have died had he had 30 rd mags.

Oh, so you are just going to make this up as you go along; making a claim without any proof of such claim?

How about the truth: Magazine size is not going to stop one killer. Magazines can be switched in less than two seconds and has no impact on the amount of people killed. And my question once again: if we had a law that stopped Cruz from getting a larger magazine and he used the ones he did, would you be happy with the outcome today?

From gun nut site:
There is a school of thought that believes the proper loading of a magazine is an art of sorts. You need to be sure you are using enough force to properly seat the magazine without being so rough that you dislodge ammunition. You can misalign the ammunition inside the magazine or, if it’s backed by a strong magazine spring, you could even knock loose a round to try to jump into the chamber prematurely. Either of which will inevitably cause AR-15 jamming.

Yeah sounds like we want mass killers reloading often.

WTF are you even talking about?

For one, there is no art to loading a magazine. You drop one and put the next one in. You can't go too far or push too hard because it clicks into proper position. You can't misalign rounds in a magazine. Unless you are stupid enough to put them in backwards, they only go in one way.

The spring in the magazine is designed for the weapon you are using. As far as jamming or misfiring, that can happen, but my experience is that it usually takes place when you use cheap reloaded ammo.

And yet a quick search turns up many people who have issues with reloading. Again, you aren't being very honest.

 

[Brain357]

Prove it. The gun he used comes with 30 round magazines.

Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review

Sounds like that’s what slowed him down. Many more would have died had he had 30 rd mags.

Oh, so you are just going to make this up as you go along; making a claim without any proof of such claim?

How about the truth: Magazine size is not going to stop one killer. Magazines can be switched in less than two seconds and has no impact on the amount of people killed. And my question once again: if we had a law that stopped Cruz from getting a larger magazine and he used the ones he did, would you be happy with the outcome today?

A source not authorized to speak on the record confirmed to the Herald that Cruz struggled with his gun during the onslaught, either due to the weapon jamming or because he fumbled trying to reload it.

“I believe that there will be evidence that at a key moment in this incident, three or four people — three or four people might be alive today because of something that this deranged killer did, had to do,” Rubio said at a nationally televised town hall with CNN last week.


Had Cruz used high-capacity magazines, he would not have had to reload as frequently. That’s the reason Rubio is reconsidering his position on the the sale of high-capacity magazines, according to DeFede.



Read more here: Florida school shooter’s AR-15 may have jammed, saving lives, report says

So an "anonymous" source and one politician favors your opinion? Gee.......you certainly got me convinced.

He had a lot of ammunition that wasn't fired so clearly something happened. And clearly Rubio who knows more about it than either of us thinks it saved lives that he had to reload often. If you would try to be honest you would be convinced.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Florida school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. Aren't you happy with the results?????

Prove it. The gun he used comes with 30 round magazines.

Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review

Sounds like that’s what slowed him down. Many more would have died had he had 30 rd mags.

Oh, so you are just going to make this up as you go along; making a claim without any proof of such claim?

How about the truth: Magazine size is not going to stop one killer. Magazines can be switched in less than two seconds and has no impact on the amount of people killed. And my question once again: if we had a law that stopped Cruz from getting a larger magazine and he used the ones he did, would you be happy with the outcome today?

From gun nut site:
There is a school of thought that believes the proper loading of a magazine is an art of sorts. You need to be sure you are using enough force to properly seat the magazine without being so rough that you dislodge ammunition. You can misalign the ammunition inside the magazine or, if it’s backed by a strong magazine spring, you could even knock loose a round to try to jump into the chamber prematurely. Either of which will inevitably cause AR-15 jamming.

Yeah sounds like we want mass killers reloading often.

According to the TOS on this website you must link a source that you are attributing the quote from. Please link it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review

Sounds like that’s what slowed him down. Many more would have died had he had 30 rd mags.

Oh, so you are just going to make this up as you go along; making a claim without any proof of such claim?

How about the truth: Magazine size is not going to stop one killer. Magazines can be switched in less than two seconds and has no impact on the amount of people killed. And my question once again: if we had a law that stopped Cruz from getting a larger magazine and he used the ones he did, would you be happy with the outcome today?

A source not authorized to speak on the record confirmed to the Herald that Cruz struggled with his gun during the onslaught, either due to the weapon jamming or because he fumbled trying to reload it.

“I believe that there will be evidence that at a key moment in this incident, three or four people — three or four people might be alive today because of something that this deranged killer did, had to do,” Rubio said at a nationally televised town hall with CNN last week.


Had Cruz used high-capacity magazines, he would not have had to reload as frequently. That’s the reason Rubio is reconsidering his position on the the sale of high-capacity magazines, according to DeFede.



Read more here: Florida school shooter’s AR-15 may have jammed, saving lives, report says

So an "anonymous" source and one politician favors your opinion? Gee.......you certainly got me convinced.

He had a lot of ammunition that wasn't fired so clearly something happened. And clearly Rubio who knows more about it than either of us thinks it saved lives that he had to reload often. If you would try to be honest you would be convinced.

If you were honest you would have answered my question.......maybe you forgot, so one more time....

Are you satisfied with the results of the school shooting? Yes or no? After all, as you state, Cruz must have ran into some problems and your anonymous source says it's possible during reloading even though that's never been reported in spite of the event taking place nearly a month and a half ago.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review

Sounds like that’s what slowed him down. Many more would have died had he had 30 rd mags.

Oh, so you are just going to make this up as you go along; making a claim without any proof of such claim?

How about the truth: Magazine size is not going to stop one killer. Magazines can be switched in less than two seconds and has no impact on the amount of people killed. And my question once again: if we had a law that stopped Cruz from getting a larger magazine and he used the ones he did, would you be happy with the outcome today?

From gun nut site:
There is a school of thought that believes the proper loading of a magazine is an art of sorts. You need to be sure you are using enough force to properly seat the magazine without being so rough that you dislodge ammunition. You can misalign the ammunition inside the magazine or, if it’s backed by a strong magazine spring, you could even knock loose a round to try to jump into the chamber prematurely. Either of which will inevitably cause AR-15 jamming.

Yeah sounds like we want mass killers reloading often.

WTF are you even talking about?

For one, there is no art to loading a magazine. You drop one and put the next one in. You can't go too far or push too hard because it clicks into proper position. You can't misalign rounds in a magazine. Unless you are stupid enough to put them in backwards, they only go in one way.

The spring in the magazine is designed for the weapon you are using. As far as jamming or misfiring, that can happen, but my experience is that it usually takes place when you use cheap reloaded ammo.

And yet a quick search turns up many people who have issues with reloading. Again, you aren't being very honest.

Okay, since you can't be honest, let's try this:

You are in a mall restaurant. There is only one entrance to the place. A crazy comes in with an AR and several magazines. Are you willing to bet that he screws up reloading and you can walk out safely?

 

[Norman]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

Wait, was US supreme court in question? The country where the judge swore an oath to defend the constitution including the 2nd amendment?

What a clown. Why doesn't he move to his favored country (undoubtedly Venezuela) already and leave us be.

 

[Flash]

[Q

If the Democrats wanted to ban all guns they'd get voted out massively.

.

You would think the Democrats would have learned by now.

Slick Willy lost his Democrat Congress because of that stupid Assault Weapons Ban. That is the same Congressional House that filed a Bill of Impeachment against him. He even said so himself that gun control cost him his Democrat Congress and that gun control was a losing issue.

I guess his stupid wife didn't listen to him because she ran on a platform to demonize the NRA and to do "sensible" gun control and look where it got her. Everybody knows she would not have been sensible seeing that she was batshit crazy on everything else, not to mention dishonest.

The louder these idiot Moon Bats shout gun control the less likely they will be to get elected or reelected.

That is why I have a bumper sticker on my truck that says "I'm the NRA and I Vote". Just to remind these idiots while I drive the road.

 

[cnm]

A double action revolver is technically a semi auto, a new round is advanced and fired with each trigger pull.

No. It would have to chamber a new round after the trigger pull to be semi automatic. But please, continue the circle jerk.

 

[cnm]

The louder these idiot Moon Bats shout gun control the less likely they will be to get elected or reelected.

Yet the polls say citizens desire gun control.

http://news.gallup.com

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 185547

upper- hunting rifle - 5 shot

lower - assault style - 30 shot

big difference in terms of fire power.

end of story.

The one on the bottom isn't an AR-15 civilian rifle...but thanks for playing.....magazine capacity has no bearing on mass shootings or crime....

Why on earth do you want a law abiding citizen to only have 10 bullets in their magazine to stop a violent criminals? Yeah....John Q. Citizen...you get 10 chances to stop the 2 criminals from raping, and murdering your wife and daughters...if you can't do it with 10...you are fucked....

That is your stance......and it is irrational and insane...criminals can get 10 round magazines.....mass shooters will just use 10 round magazines like the Florida shooter did, killing 17, or the Santa Barbar shooter did.....and the Navy Yard shooter used a shotgun....10 round tube capacity.......

you have no rational argument for limiting the magazines law abiding people can carry to stay alive against criminals and mass shooters....

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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.

 

[2aguy]

For a long time I have thought those on the right that claimed the left was coming for our guns were exaggerating, now I apologize because this is exactly what the left would like to do.

Yet when in power they haven't.....

They are using local and state level gun grabbers to pass gun control and obama appointed judges on the courts of appeals to make them Constitutional.....

 

[2aguy]

No. For example, a single-action revolver is not a semi-automatic weapon. A bolt action rifle is not a semi-auto. A semi-auto prepares the ammo for firing without any action needed by the shooter.

It is important to know that even when "assault rifles" were "banned" under the Brady Bill, or full auto rifles were "banned" decades ago, you still could purchase and own such arms if you applied to the ATF for essentially what is a "trust account." They check your background, make you wait, and make you pay for the "license." I bought two "assault rifles" while the Brady Ban was in effect. The claim that all firearms will become "Illegal" is just a fear tactic used by the NRA to ensure that they can profit off firearm sales by being able to sell such to anyone including the mentally disabled, criminal population or those that cannot afford to pay for paperwork. Sensible firearms laws should be: 'If you can qualify, you can own.' Qualification means you lessen the amount of firearms in the hands of those who should not have access to such.

If you need permission from government to exercise a right, it is no longer a right. Is that too damn difficult to understand? A license is permission from government to exercise a constitutional right.

Do you need to register to vote? To own and drive a car? To go to school? To own a business? To earn any money at all? You are confusing the "rights" of citizens within a certain country to the rights of someone living alone on a deserted island.

I don’t mind registering a fire arm but other than voting none of those examples are rights.

You should be against that too......the reason they want you to register the gun you have is so that when they get the political power, they know where it is when they tell you to get rid of it or turn it in.....it happened this way in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, Chicago.......

There is no need to register guns...they do not use registration to solve crimes or to stop crimes, as police will tell you...the only reason, is to know who has them for confiscation....

A vote for any conservative is a vote to allow Putin and his communist ideals to rule over the United States of America. I'm guessing you have a poster of a shirtless Putin pasted to the very computer you post from, right comrade?

No...putin wanted hilary to win...that is why he gave her 145 million dollars.........just ask the FBI under cover agent who documented the Uranium One deal....he already had hilary bought and paid for...Trump through a wrench in his plans...

 

[2aguy]

The louder these idiot Moon Bats shout gun control the less likely they will be to get elected or reelected.

Yet the polls say citizens desire gun control.

http://news.gallup.com

Yes.....because they don't know what they are talking about.......and the anti gunners are lying about gun control issues....the democrat journalists and talking heads are lying about guns control issues, and the pollsters aren't asking the questions that would explain the issue before the uninformed Americans answer the question.......

 

[2aguy]

Since only citizens are allowed to vote we have voter registration.

You do not need a license to drive a car unless you are driving it on roads paid for out of public funds.

Business licenses are nothing more than the locals getting some of your tax dollars.

In my life I have earned all kinds of money without government permission.

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Go look it up.

That is the only license an American citizen needs to keep and bear arms.

Funny that "only a citizen can vote" yet the conservatives are now and always have been all in for illegal criminals, even those on the no-fly list, to buy guns.
If you BUY a car you still have to have it registered AND have a license, unless you buy a car from a private citizen (like a car thief for example).
Business licenses are there to make sure you are paying your taxes (as all citizens and most illegals do) as well as complying with this countries laws. Only law breakers try to justify not following the law with taxes. Like Don't tax you and don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree (or laws apply to you and not me).
If you earned money and did not report it you are a criminal. It's funny because many "Illegals" do report all their money and as such are less criminal than you in that sense.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the first four words of the Second. Well regulated MEANS the government can regulated (or pass any laws concerning guns). Go look it up yourself. And while you are there look up all the regulations regarding guns that were imposed by the actual writers of that amendment also known as our forefathers. Derp.

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the first four words of the Second. Well regulated MEANS the government can regulated (or pass any laws concerning guns). Go look it up yourself.

Another bonehead speaks up. So, in other words, sedwin, your infarctive cranial cesspool of a mind has decided that the Framers intended that a well regulated militia with the intention of being able to stand up against a standing army in order to insure the security of a Free State be defined and controlled by the very authority it might be called upon to oppose?

ARE YOU THAT FREEKING STUPID?

So in other words, if the government wanted to assert autocratic control, all they would need to do is "regulate" the militia to having only slingshots? Get them out of the way. Take their guns. No more militia to get in their way. Maybe you ought to read THIS:

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

Actually you mom was the incredibly stupid one when she didn't have an abortion.

To be clear, that's EXACTLY what the framers said and anyone with a basic education has read all these opinions. The framers DID NOT want a standing Army, thus they created the "militia" concept which is obvious by the verbiage in the 2cd MORON. Further the wanted a WELL REGUALTED (for morons like you REGULATION MEANS LAWS -Derp), and your conservative heroes like Scalia have said so.

Can you legally own a bazooka or a fully auto gun, idiot? No, you cannot under laws proposed and passed by conservatives with the support of the NRA. There is ZERO difference for those who have read and understand the 2cd and existing law.

Go back to watching your buddies on Fox News tell you lies in order that their profits do not drop as owners of gun company stock. YOU are the idiot specifically targeted by thee propaganda campaigns because of your extremely low intelligence quotient.

Incidentally, when we fought the English we were NOT citizens but rather colonists. We did not have the rights of actual ENGLISH citizens who used their ARMY to fight us over our rights. THIS IS YOUR government not some occupying force, (or perhaps you are Russian), however I would LOVE to see you and all your friends try to shoot down an attack helicopter with your teeny, tiny, semi-auto weapons while it is sitting 5 miles away, behind a hill and spraying you with 200 .50 cal bullets a second. YOU are literally an imbecile.

Sorry Moon Bat but that silly militia bullshit was put to bed in the Heller case where the right to keep and bear arms was declared to be an individual right. Probably didn't hear that from Rachael Maddow, Democratunderground or Comedy Central, did you?

You stupid Moon Bats can claim all day long that our Founding Fathers did not intend for Americans to have the right to keep and bear arms but that dog don't hunt.

Look another idiot with an IQ lower than room temperature telling me what Heller said. IF you had read Heller the decision says we have a right to own firearms BUT the government has the right to pass gun laws. If you could read I would suggest you actually do so. Derp.

You need to actually read Heller....

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

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

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

--------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”

 

[2aguy]

We should limit magazine capacity. Ends all this definition silliness.

Wrong....it does nothing of the sort....

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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

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

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

-------

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----

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

-----

 

[2aguy]

For a long time I have thought those on the right that claimed the left was coming for our guns were exaggerating, now I apologize because this is exactly what the left would like to do.

Yet when in power they haven't.....

Only because we have a constitution that prohibits them and judges that protect it.

If the Democrats wanted to ban all guns they'd get voted out massively.

The states do put certain restrictions on gun ownership, as well as "destructive devices". Huge caliber stuff gets categorized as DDs, although a lot of that stuff needs a stand to be fired.

That is why obama used the courts...and why gun control extremists are now passing gun control at the local and state level, then using obama judges in the courts of appeals to make them Constitutional...knowing that the Supreme Court lacks a 5th vote to overturn their bans and confiscations.

 

[2aguy]

We should limit magazine capacity. Ends all this definition silliness.

The Florida school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. Aren't you happy with the results?????

Prove it. The gun he used comes with 30 round magazines.

Moron...the shooter used a dufflebag filled with 10 round magazines....the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazins...the Navy Yard Shooter used a shotgun with a 10 round tube magazine...

 

[2aguy]

We should limit magazine capacity. Ends all this definition silliness.

The Florida school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. Aren't you happy with the results?????

Prove it. The gun he used comes with 30 round magazines.

Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review

Sounds like that’s what slowed him down. Many more would have died had he had 30 rd mags.

Moron......

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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.

 

[2aguy]

We should limit magazine capacity. Ends all this definition silliness.

The Florida school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. Aren't you happy with the results?????

Prove it. The gun he used comes with 30 round magazines.

Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review

Sounds like that’s what slowed him down. Many more would have died had he had 30 rd mags.

Oh, so you are just going to make this up as you go along; making a claim without any proof of such claim?

How about the truth: Magazine size is not going to stop one killer. Magazines can be switched in less than two seconds and has no impact on the amount of people killed. And my question once again: if we had a law that stopped Cruz from getting a larger magazine and he used the ones he did, would you be happy with the outcome today?

Exactly, he knows this, he has seen the information over and over again..he is a troll...

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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.

 

[2aguy]

The Florida school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. Aren't you happy with the results?????

Prove it. The gun he used comes with 30 round magazines.

Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review

Sounds like that’s what slowed him down. Many more would have died had he had 30 rd mags.

Oh, so you are just going to make this up as you go along; making a claim without any proof of such claim?

How about the truth: Magazine size is not going to stop one killer. Magazines can be switched in less than two seconds and has no impact on the amount of people killed. And my question once again: if we had a law that stopped Cruz from getting a larger magazine and he used the ones he did, would you be happy with the outcome today?

A source not authorized to speak on the record confirmed to the Herald that Cruz struggled with his gun during the onslaught, either due to the weapon jamming or because he fumbled trying to reload it.

“I believe that there will be evidence that at a key moment in this incident, three or four people — three or four people might be alive today because of something that this deranged killer did, had to do,” Rubio said at a nationally televised town hall with CNN last week.


Had Cruz used high-capacity magazines, he would not have had to reload as frequently. That’s the reason Rubio is reconsidering his position on the the sale of high-capacity magazines, according to DeFede.



Read more here: Florida school shooter’s AR-15 may have jammed, saving lives, report says

Moron......he used 10 round magazines....you were shown the information....and the rifle malfunctioned and he didn't have the experience to clear it.....

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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