Honest debate: Libs...would the "AR15-pistol" w 10 Rd mag still be an "Assault Weapon"

[Bassman007]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that neither the news media nor critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible, the semi,automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an,assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

While there are many, many examples of mass shooters and gang bangers using high capacity magazines, any examples of a defender actually needing a high cap mag seem to not exist. In fact the gun nuts will tell you like 99.999% of defenses don't involve shooting at all.

99.999 percent of defenses do not involve shooting at all, has there ever been an attack on an NRA meeting in Texas?

Do you have a point?

Yes, I did not let this shooter buy his gun, and neither did the NRA, Obama did by his purge decree. Sad but true

 

[Brain357]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that neither the news media nor critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible, the semi,automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an,assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

While there are many, many examples of mass shooters and gang bangers using high capacity magazines, any examples of a defender actually needing a high cap mag seem to not exist. In fact the gun nuts will tell you like 99.999% of defenses don't involve shooting at all.

99.999 percent of defenses do not involve shooting at all, has there ever been an attack on an NRA meeting in Texas?

Do you have a point?

Yes, I did not let this shooter buy his gun, Obama did by his purge decree. Sad but true

Republican made them legal to buy. Sad but true.

 

[Bassman007]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that neither the news media nor critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible, the semi,automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an,assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

While there are many, many examples of mass shooters and gang bangers using high capacity magazines, any examples of a defender actually needing a high cap mag seem to not exist. In fact the gun nuts will tell you like 99.999% of defenses don't involve shooting at all.

99.999 percent of defenses do not involve shooting at all, has there ever been an attack on an NRA meeting in Texas?

Do you have a point?

Yes, I did not let this shooter buy his gun, Obama did by his purge decree. Sad but true

Republican made them legal to buy. Sad but true.

This killer would have been on the restricted list, except that Obama purged him from it. Sad but true

 

[Brain357]

While there are many, many examples of mass shooters and gang bangers using high capacity magazines, any examples of a defender actually needing a high cap mag seem to not exist. In fact the gun nuts will tell you like 99.999% of defenses don't involve shooting at all.

99.999 percent of defenses do not involve shooting at all, has there ever been an attack on an NRA meeting in Texas?

Do you have a point?

Yes, I did not let this shooter buy his gun, Obama did by his purge decree. Sad but true

Republican made them legal to buy. Sad but true.

This killer would have been on the restricted list, except that Obama purged him from it. Sad but true

On what restricted list? What are you even talking about? Republicans don't allow us to have resticted lists for buying guns. He passed the background check and legally bought the gun because Republicans made them legal.

 

[Bassman007]

99.999 percent of defenses do not involve shooting at all, has there ever been an attack on an NRA meeting in Texas?

Do you have a point?

Yes, I did not let this shooter buy his gun, Obama did by his purge decree. Sad but true

Republican made them legal to buy. Sad but true.

This killer would have been on the restricted list, except that Obama purged him from it. Sad but true

On what restricted list? What are you even talking about? Republicans don't allow us to have resticted lists for buying guns. He passed the background check and legally bought the gun because Republicans made them legal.

The FBI allowed Omar Mateen to buy the gun that he used in Orlando CNN will not report on this so you will have to watch FOX news, and if what the judge reported is not true, she should be sued tonight. But the truth is the truth

 

[80zephyr]

Yes, reloading never slows anyone down. You guys don't believe your own lies.

I have a question. While a shooter can have trouble reloading, what changes? I mean, as he is shooting, I assume people would be running away from him. So, if he drops a magazine, he should have more than enough time to pick it up and reload anyway.

Mark

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No it was less than 5 minutes and armed he did it while armed security tried to stop him. The problem is 49 dead and over 50 injured is too many no matter what you call the gun. It is a mass killing weapon.

Why are you not asking why Obama's decrees took this man off of the watch list, which allowed him to buy guns?

Ah if it was 5 minutes why did you say 50? You making stuff up as u go huh

You don't read very well. I said killed 49 and injured over 50 in minutes.

You do not comprehend what a real assault rifle is at all,

No it was less than 5 minutes and armed he did it while armed security tried to stop him. The problem is 49 dead and over 50 injured is too many no matter what you call the gun. It is a mass killing weapon.

Why are you not asking why Obama's decrees took this man off of the watch list, which allowed him to buy guns?

Ah if it was 5 minutes why did you say 50? You making stuff up as u go huh

You don't read very well. I said killed 49 and injured over 50 in minutes.

You still can not grasp that an assault rifle can fire at least 800 rounds per minute, so the rifle used was a semi auto that looks like an assault rifle. Something you have never shot, so you know nothing about it.

Now why are you not outraged that Obamas purge decree allowed Mateen to buy guns?

Because the answer tells the truth, that is why

You cannot comprehend very well. The shooter killed 49 and injured over 50 in just minutes. I don't care what you call the gun it is a mass killing weapon and you are helping terrorists by letting them legally buy them. We need magazine capacity limits.

Again I did not let this shooter buy his gun, Obama did by his purge decree. Sad but true

Get off the Obama kick. He had nothing to do with it. Unless he is directly supervising each and every federal employee. Talk about Micro Managing. The fact remains that the shooter had every legal right to purchase that gun and he excercised his right. You don't like the law, change it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes, reloading never slows anyone down. You guys don't believe your own lies.

I have a question. While a shooter can have trouble reloading, what changes? I mean, as he is shooting, I assume people would be running away from him. So, if he drops a magazine, he should have more than enough time to pick it up and reload anyway.

Mark

He drops the mag and doesn't pick it up. He does pull another mag out and slam that home. Takes less than 2 seconds.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's not 1934, there are limits to the 2nd amendment.

You stopped reading at 1934.
Well, that was the year when gun grabbing started in earnest under whom? FDR the New Deal guy. Read the whole thing to have an understanding about the Second Amendment.

From that, it's clear that you know (or should know) that it is no more realistic to expect criminals to abide by laws regulating magazine capacity than it is for them to respect laws against making meth.

Mag capacity doesn't matter right? So what difference does it make? And well getting caught with a high cap mag and being thrown in jail before killing is a win.

Damn. . . why didn't you say so?

So, the threat of going to jail will keep CRIMINALS from having these high capacity mags!?!

That's Brilliant!


Do tell us why does that deterrence only work for high capacity mags and not for rapes, murders, robberies, assaults, stabbings, drug crimes or car thefts?

What's your solution smart guy?

What is my solution for. . . . what?

Be specific.

 

[2aguy]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

and there is no rational basis for it...... actual research, rather than pulling the number out of your ass, shows that magazine limits do not save lives...in fact the Virginia tech shooter changed magazines repeatedly and killed 32 people....as did the Sandy hook shooter.......

you are an idiot and a troll......does it hurt to keep pulling things out of your ass?

Physics proves you wrong moron. As does the giffords and other shootings when shooter was stopped at reload. 49 dead and over 50 injured with high capacity magazines. That is proof enough.

Wrong...you know it is wrong....I have posted the witnesses and the people at the giffords shooting and you know it was dumb luck that allowed them to tackle the guy....you know this and continue to post as if you don't...you are lying.

And no, nothing is proven, you have also seen the study on magazine capacity and mass shootings and the research showed that the rate of fire of mass shooters and their relaxed attitude would not effect their ability to change magazines quickly and smoothly........not one mass shooting that was studied where magazine capacity would have been an issue supports your claim.....you are lying again.

 

[2aguy]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

In the middle of chaos? Quite a bit, it's what stopped the shooter in Tuscon after he emptied his extended clip.

Wrong....you and brain...you are both wrong..

The shooter at the giffords shooting shot a man in the head. He thought the man was dead and kept walking toward the guy. The guy was not dead, he was simply grazed in the head. As the shooter walked past the guy on the ground, the guy on the ground got up and tackled him. Had the guy on the ground not been lucky, he would have been dead. Then, the old lady who grabbed the magazine.....she saw the attacker approaching and decided to lay on the ground in the hope he would ignore her......when the shooter was tackled, he fell right in front of the old woman, so close she reached out and plucked the magazine out of his hand....more luck in the same shooting, they believe he changed that magazine because a spring failed....

And had they not grabbed him...there was an armed civilian with a concealed pistol ready to shoot him..he also saw this happen but decided he didn't need to shoot...he did however hold his gun on the guy after they tackled him, and then the police arrived, notice...they did not shoot the good guy with the gun when they arrived, dispelling another myth of the anti gunners.

 

[2aguy]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

How many takes he need for that? This is what happens in the real world:

Wrong.....actual research of actual mass shootings shows you are wrong....real world examintation of real world mass shootings.....you know this, you have seen the post and the links....you are lying to the people on this thread...you are a troll...

 

[2aguy]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

How many takes he need for that? This is what happens in the real world:

Brain...you have seen this research several times...that you pretend you don't know it exists shows that you are a liar...

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

It is reasonable to expect fewer people shot if fewer rounds were fired, but Koper did not explain why, for example, the use of three 10-round magazines would result in fewer shots fired than if a 30-round magazine were used.

After all, three 10-round magazines and one 30-round magazine both contain 30 cartridges and thus allow 30 shots to be fired.

Semiautomatic guns do not fire any faster when they have a larger magazine inserted in them than when they have a 5 smaller magazine, nor is the lethality of any one shot affected by the size of the magazine from which it came.

A limit on the number of cartridges that the shooter could fit into any one magazine would not limit the total number of rounds of ammunition that a would-be mass shooter could bring to the scene of their crime, or even the total number loaded into multiple detachable 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

-----

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]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

How many takes he need for that? This is what happens in the real world:

You are entitled to your ignorance.

You are ignorant if you think there aren't reload fails constantly. Need more proof?

yeah...asswipe....you know the actual research from actual mass shootings....and you pretend you don't know about it....so you are a liar......

 

[2aguy]

Why do you guys not want to slow down mass killers? Defenders aren't using high capacity magazines, only killers are:

it doesn't slow down mass killers asshole....we know this from actual research...not pulling it out of your ass....

if the police and military have a magazine, civilians need that magazine too....that is how you keep Mexico from happening here.

 

[HappyJoy]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

In the middle of chaos? Quite a bit, it's what stopped the shooter in Tuscon after he emptied his extended clip.

Wrong....you and brain...you are both wrong..

The shooter at the giffords shooting shot a man in the head. He thought the man was dead and kept walking toward the guy. The guy was not dead, he was simply grazed in the head. As the shooter walked past the guy on the ground, the guy on the ground got up and tackled him. Had the guy on the ground not been lucky, he would have been dead. Then, the old lady who grabbed the magazine.....she saw the attacker approaching and decided to lay on the ground in the hope he would ignore her......when the shooter was tackled, he fell right in front of the old woman, so close she reached out and plucked the magazine out of his hand....more luck in the same shooting, they believe he changed that magazine because a spring failed....

And had they not grabbed him...there was an armed civilian with a concealed pistol ready to shoot him..he also saw this happen but decided he didn't need to shoot...he did however hold his gun on the guy after they tackled him, and then the police arrived, notice...they did not shoot the good guy with the gun when they arrived, dispelling another myth of the anti gunners.

Really?

Woman Stopped Tucson Shooter From Reloading

By all accounts he was reloading when he was tackled. He used a 33 round magazine and was able to get off 32 shots, if he had a normal magazine he would have had to already reload and potentially could have saved some lives.

Nice way to try to rewrite history.

Clown.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

I see you avoided the question.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Its not an assault weapon its a defense weapon used for defense don't listen to the liberal's LIES!

Interesting take. Who was Mateen defending?

Radical islam.

 

[Slade3200]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

I see you avoided the question.

What question?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

I see you avoided the question.

What question?

I cant believe you just said that....