How Did 15-18 Year Old Kids Organize A Nationwide Movement In Less Than A Week?

[2aguy]

Your talent is mediocre at best.

Every one of your opponents have turned you inside out, 2aguy.

Says the sore losers.......

 

[Asclepias]

These little kids can't even decide which videogame to play next. Yet have managed to set a date for a March on our nation's capitol in less than a week. Is anyone really buying this? Not to mention they magically came up with the same tired old talking points Democrats have failingly foisted for decades...
So... How'd they do it? Or did they at all...?

Kids are better at social media than anyone else. Thats how.

 

[2aguy]

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

A magazine limit is stupid.....really ,really stupid. It is a back door ban on semi auto pistols, since many of them are manufactured for 15-19 round magazines.....ban those, and the pistols are useless....since gun makers won't reconfigure their process for guns that hold those magazines.....that is the only reason for the magazine ban.....

Here...try some actual research into magazines....

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.

What is the virtue of LCMs? Why are they good? Why should they be protected?

They are protected by the 2nd Amendment......moron....

Regular magazines allow normal, law abiding citizens to defend themselves...the same way you don't limit how much water a Fire Department can use to put out a house fire , you do not limit how much ammo an innocent person can have in their gun to save their lives.....

doofus.

And as the actual research from the link shows...you have no rational argument to ban them...

The second amendment does not specifically mention LCMs. The framers of the second amendment could not imagine LCMs, or sewage treatment plants or cotton candy for that matter.

And, again, it's not necessary to sign your posts, my dear moron. If I were you, I'd try to find a more complimentary moniker for myself. Doofus makes you sound as if you don't have much confidence in yourself. Personally, I rarely find the need to apply a signature to my posts, but I will in this particular one.

Signed,
More clever than you can aspire to be.

Moron....you didn't read Heller.......try doing that first...

 

[JakeStarkey]

A tax on guns to pay for securing schools from shooters is a peachy idea.

A use tax, yeah

 

[Nosmo King]

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

I outlined which weapons would be protected and not banned. Revolvers holding six rounds or fewer, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds. These guns are designed and used for sport or self defense.

Well, you are a dumbass, so....

Only slightly more sophisticated than 'neener neener neener'. Well said!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Let's see how many Righties condemn the kids. The argument the Right proffers is; sit down and shut up, man up and arm yourselves and your teachers, buy a bullet-proof backpack, you're just kids and don't understand that your deaths in schools is just the cost of doing business, our personal arsenals are much cooler than you, the problem is one of mental health (that's why last year true Americans in congress and on the NRA payroll passed a bill allowing the mentally frazzled to have easy access to guns because their 2nd amendment rights are more valuable than your petty little lives).

The kids will march. They will protest. They will demand a ban on the unnecessary assault weapons. And then they will be disparaged, mocked, ridiculed and dismiss by the Right.

I would ask you to provide a link to that stupid ass claim, but since it doesn't exist, I'll save you the time looking.

 

[2aguy]

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

A magazine limit is stupid.....really ,really stupid. It is a back door ban on semi auto pistols, since many of them are manufactured for 15-19 round magazines.....ban those, and the pistols are useless....since gun makers won't reconfigure their process for guns that hold those magazines.....that is the only reason for the magazine ban.....

Here...try some actual research into magazines....

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.

What is the virtue of LCMs? Why are they good? Why should they be protected?

They are protected by the 2nd Amendment......moron....

Regular magazines allow normal, law abiding citizens to defend themselves...the same way you don't limit how much water a Fire Department can use to put out a house fire , you do not limit how much ammo an innocent person can have in their gun to save their lives.....

doofus.

And as the actual research from the link shows...you have no rational argument to ban them...

The second amendment does not specifically mention LCMs. The framers of the second amendment could not imagine LCMs, or sewage treatment plants or cotton candy for that matter.

And, again, it's not necessary to sign your posts, my dear moron. If I were you, I'd try to find a more complimentary moniker for myself. Doofus makes you sound as if you don't have much confidence in yourself. Personally, I rarely find the need to apply a signature to my posts, but I will in this particular one.

Signed,
More clever than you can aspire to be.

Moron....

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Moron....you didn't read Heller.......try doing that first...

You refuse to accept the normal reading of Heller, so your interp can be ignored.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

These little kids can't even decide which videogame to play next. Yet have managed to set a date for a March on our nation's capitol in less than a week. Is anyone really buying this? Not to mention they magically came up with the same tired old talking points Democrats have failingly foisted for decades...
So... How'd they do it? Or did they at all...?

you clearly don't have kids. high school kids aren't "little kids"

and when you watch 17 of your classmates and teachers murdered because of NRA imbeciles, you get active quickly.

you seem pretty desperate.

What does the NRA have to do with it?

What really galls me is idiots like you who can't back up your stupid claims!

 

[2aguy]

A tax on guns to pay for securing schools from shooters is a peachy idea.

A use tax, yeah

UnConstitutional......

Yes.....democrat racists such as yourself did use Poll Taxes to keep blacks from voting....but that too was found to be unConstitutional....you can't charge a tax for he exercise of a Right, dumb ass.......

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

That is a minority position unaccepted by the courts. Heller certainly does not support that type of thinking, and certainly does not include bearable "weapons of war", according to the 4th. SCOTUS will assuredly follow the 4th.

 

[2aguy]

Let's see how many Righties condemn the kids. The argument the Right proffers is; sit down and shut up, man up and arm yourselves and your teachers, buy a bullet-proof backpack, you're just kids and don't understand that your deaths in schools is just the cost of doing business, our personal arsenals are much cooler than you, the problem is one of mental health (that's why last year true Americans in congress and on the NRA payroll passed a bill allowing the mentally frazzled to have easy access to guns because their 2nd amendment rights are more valuable than your petty little lives).

The kids will march. They will protest. They will demand a ban on the unnecessary assault weapons. And then they will be disparaged, mocked, ridiculed and dismiss by the Right.

I would ask you to provide a link to that stupid ass claim, but since it doesn't exist, I'll save you the time looking.

They can't back up their claims with the truth, facts or reality...that is why they wait with great anticipation for kids to be murdered in mass shootings......for them, dead kids are gold.....they can drag their dead bodies in front of cameras and then truth, facts and reality no longer matter.......

 

[Nosmo King]

Let's see how many Righties condemn the kids. The argument the Right proffers is; sit down and shut up, man up and arm yourselves and your teachers, buy a bullet-proof backpack, you're just kids and don't understand that your deaths in schools is just the cost of doing business, our personal arsenals are much cooler than you, the problem is one of mental health (that's why last year true Americans in congress and on the NRA payroll passed a bill allowing the mentally frazzled to have easy access to guns because their 2nd amendment rights are more valuable than your petty little lives).

The kids will march. They will protest. They will demand a ban on the unnecessary assault weapons. And then they will be disparaged, mocked, ridiculed and dismiss by the Right.

I would ask you to provide a link to that stupid ass claim, but since it doesn't exist, I'll save you the time looking.

Trump signs bill revoking Obama-era gun checks for mental illness

 

[JakeStarkey]

A tax on guns to pay for securing schools from shooters is a peachy idea.

A use tax, yeah

UnConstitutional......<snip>

A constitution illiterate might think that it is unconstitutional, yes.

 

[2aguy]

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.

That is a minority position unaccepted by the courts. Heller certainly does not support that type of thinking, and certainly does not include bearable "weapons of war", according to the 4th. SCOTUS will assuredly follow the 4th.

Moron....it was the Majority opinion of the court....you fucking moron....do you just pretend to be this stupid when you post....or are you really even more stupid than this...

Moron, the 4th is a lesser court.......and violated the Heller decision.....

 

[Nosmo King]

Let's see how many Righties condemn the kids. The argument the Right proffers is; sit down and shut up, man up and arm yourselves and your teachers, buy a bullet-proof backpack, you're just kids and don't understand that your deaths in schools is just the cost of doing business, our personal arsenals are much cooler than you, the problem is one of mental health (that's why last year true Americans in congress and on the NRA payroll passed a bill allowing the mentally frazzled to have easy access to guns because their 2nd amendment rights are more valuable than your petty little lives).

The kids will march. They will protest. They will demand a ban on the unnecessary assault weapons. And then they will be disparaged, mocked, ridiculed and dismiss by the Right.

I would ask you to provide a link to that stupid ass claim, but since it doesn't exist, I'll save you the time looking.

They can't back up their claims with the truth, facts or reality...that is why they wait with great anticipation for kids to be murdered in mass shootings......for them, dead kids are gold.....they can drag their dead bodies in front of cameras and then truth, facts and reality no longer matter.......

Trump signs bill revoking Obama-era gun checks for mental illness

 

[2aguy]

Let's see how many Righties condemn the kids. The argument the Right proffers is; sit down and shut up, man up and arm yourselves and your teachers, buy a bullet-proof backpack, you're just kids and don't understand that your deaths in schools is just the cost of doing business, our personal arsenals are much cooler than you, the problem is one of mental health (that's why last year true Americans in congress and on the NRA payroll passed a bill allowing the mentally frazzled to have easy access to guns because their 2nd amendment rights are more valuable than your petty little lives).

The kids will march. They will protest. They will demand a ban on the unnecessary assault weapons. And then they will be disparaged, mocked, ridiculed and dismiss by the Right.

I would ask you to provide a link to that stupid ass claim, but since it doesn't exist, I'll save you the time looking.

Trump signs bill revoking Obama-era gun checks for mental illness

Yes.......the ACLU demanded that he do that since it attacked innocent people...

Gun Control Laws Should Be Fair

But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.

The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular.

To the contrary, studies show that people with mental disabilities are less likely to commit firearm crimes than to be the victimsof violence by others.

--------------------------
The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns. Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Moron2aguy does not understand Heller. Scalia himself wrote that the 2d in not unlimited. The court has reserved the right to rule on guns as it sees fit. SCOTUS will support the 4th's findings on "weapons of war."

You are illiterate on the Constitution, 2aguy.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If even this solution is beyond the grasp of the gun lover's mind, we must ask why are they in the debate at all.

No one is really debating anything ... They are expressing their desires.

So far ... The left has come up with a list of things they want accomplished ...
As well as promises they think they can provide for.

But in reality there is really nothing to argue ... The left simply wants to take away something the gun owners already have.
They have nothing to negotiate with other than their desire to limit the liberties of others.

I mean damn ... Good luck, not that it is going to help you.

.

Expand and improve the background check system. Prevent the mentally disturbed from owning guns. Reinsitiute and perfect the assault weapons ban. Stop concealed carry reciprocity.

Reasonable demands that do not infringe on anyone or anything.

Expand the background check how? Repeal HIPAA? Ban all registered Democrats from buying firearms?

How well did that assault weapons ban do at Columbine?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A gun use tax for securing the schools would be a happy trade of for all gun owners.