Is An Assault Rifle Necessary

[OnePercenter]

Now there a loud call to ban assault rifles. Like the AR15 that Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people in Parkland, FL. The banners are saying they're unecessary.One person said "You don't need 600 rounds to stop 1 intruder."

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in

It is illegal to buy an assault rifle, dufus.

Paddock killed 58 and injured 500+ in nine minutes with AR-15's. How is an AR-15 NOT an assault rifle?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Now there a loud call to ban assault rifles. Like the AR15 that Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people in Parkland, FL. The banners are saying they're unecessary.One person said "You don't need 600 rounds to stop 1 intruder."

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in

It is illegal to buy an assault rifle, dufus.

Paddock killed 58 and injured 500+ in nine minutes with AR-15's. How is an AR-15 NOT an assault rifle?

No, it is not.

Fertilizer is not an assault weapon nor is a 767 jet.

 

[Scamp]

Are automobiles a necessity? We have horses. And cars kill way more people than guns.

 

[OnePercenter]

i'm surprised you guys come out from under your beds long enough to post

I find you fuckin retards so humorous. You dont want to be able to protect yourself and your family, you need a corrupt failure of a govt to do it. Thats how ridiculously desperate you are. You are THAT MUCH of a coward. Yet people that want to defend themselves and their family are the scared ones?
You are a complete dipshit.
Go jerk off to cuck porn, faggot

You can't figure out how to protect your family without an AR-15?

Sure I can. How about any other semiautomatic rifle, or a handgun, or a shotgun.

Firearms the the single best tool for self defense

The single best tool for self defence is not putting yourself in the situation.

 

[OnePercenter]

Are automobiles a necessity? We have horses. And cars kill way more people than guns.

If people are dying, why would you want to add to the carnage?

 

[OnePercenter]

Now there a loud call to ban assault rifles. Like the AR15 that Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people in Parkland, FL. The banners are saying they're unecessary.One person said "You don't need 600 rounds to stop 1 intruder."

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in

It is illegal to buy an assault rifle, dufus.

Paddock killed 58 and injured 500+ in nine minutes with AR-15's. How is an AR-15 NOT an assault rifle?

No, it is not.

Fertilizer is not an assault weapon nor is a 767 jet.

Your bloviating aside I'll ask again.

Paddock killed 58 and injured 500+ in nine minutes with AR-15's. How is an AR-15 NOT an assault rifle?

 

[2aguy]

Old lady.........they want to ban the AR-15 because it fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger....that is how all semi automatic rifles and also pistols work. If they can ban the AR-15...they can logically ban all the rest of those rifles...since they are the exact same thing. Every car has an engine...every semi automatic rifle and pistol has the same engine....you can look at it like that...cars have different body styles but if you say we want to ban Toyota Camry's because their engine makes them dangerous...you are essentially saying all the other cars would need to be banned too...since they all have the same engine.....

This isn't about the AR-15...this is about creating the argument to ban all semi auto rifles and pistols.......that is why we are fighting to keep the AR-15....and why the anti gunners want it so bad.....

You do realize the AR-15 is less deadly than knives..right?

According to Quora, an AR-15 can theoretically fire 180 bullets per minute. That's why anti-gunners want it so bad.

Theoretically?

The rate of fire of any semiautomatic rifle is limited by how fast a person can pull the trigger. I can fire my semiautomatic .223 ranch rifle just as fast as I can an AR 15 or any other semiautomatic rifle

3 time per second doesn't seem out of the realm for a very short time but then you have to add in magazine changes etc and you will have ZERO accuracy firing like that

This? Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, Semi-Automatic, 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington, 18.5" Barrel, 5+1 Rounds - 637956, Semi-Automatic at Sportsman's Guide
What does capacity 5+1 mean? Accepts 5 round mags, but what is the +1?
I think that might slow down your theoretical shooting, putting in a new mag every 5 bullets?

the +1 refers to a round in the firing chamber.

All Semiautomatics can be designated as magazine capacity +1.

And IMO magazine size is irrelevant.

It doesn't slow down your trigger finger, but doesn't stopping to load a new magazine every five bullets slow down the number you can shoot in a minute? Is that what you mean by "irrelevant?"

Here is the work you need to read to know about magazines in mass public shootings.......read this and you will know why magazine limits are dumb.....except if you are a gun grabber...they know that if you ban magazines, you essentially ban the pistol that holds them.....

Now there a loud call to ban assault rifles. Like the AR15 that Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people in Parkland, FL. The banners are saying they're unecessary.One person said "You don't need 600 rounds to stop 1 intruder."

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle...it isn't even a military rifle.....a bolt action rifle is a military rifle, a pump action shotgun is a military weapon....the AR-15 has never been used in war, and has never been issued to the military......both the bolt action rifle and pump action shotgun have been used in war.....as have 6 shot revolvers and lever action rifles....

You're really trying there buddy. The M16 is the goto combat weapon for the military, and the AR is a slightly modified clone being sold to civilians. We don't need that slightly modified combat weapon on the street.

Wrong......they are not the same weapon.....and you are lying when you make the comparison.....you want to use words to lie to the uninformed.

So other than the slight modification to disable the select fire capability, what is the difference between the two?

The difference is one can fire in a 3 roung burst, the AR-15 can't.......and as I pointed out....all semi auto rifles fire the same way the AR-15 does......you know this, your anti gun extremist leaders know this...if you ban the AR-15 you also get to make the case that you can now ban all the other semi auto rifles..........since they are the same rifle........and this is your plan...

 

[Weatherman2020]

Now there a loud call to ban assault rifles. Like the AR15 that Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people in Parkland, FL. The banners are saying they're unecessary.One person said "You don't need 600 rounds to stop 1 intruder."

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in

It is illegal to buy an assault rifle, dufus.

Paddock killed 58 and injured 500+ in nine minutes with AR-15's. How is an AR-15 NOT an assault rifle?

No, it is not.

Fertilizer is not an assault weapon nor is a 767 jet.

Your bloviating aside I'll ask again.

Paddock killed 58 and injured 500+ in nine minutes with AR-15's. How is an AR-15 NOT an assault rifle?

It’s a legal definition and it doesn’t include how many it can kill, Dufus.

 

[2aguy]

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in.
............................

Jesus, I am really scared. Funny thing is, I am over 70, and have several guns. I hunt, and have since I was a kid. And I have yet to have to pull a gun on anyone. Ever.
If you think an AR is going to keep you alive when a group of whomever comes to get you, then you are nuts. Better to get inside, call the cops. Then, you may want to wonder what you did to piss that group off. I would suggest if you reflect on it, you would see you are a dipshit. Cause gangs do not attack those who have not irritated them for no reason. And you do yourself, and your family, little good in getting yourself killed by a gang you just pissed off. You simply proved yourself stupid.

But...but...but... That's not how it is in the movies, or in my fantasys here I pretend I'm Dirty Harry

We saw people with AR-15s stopping violent looters from burning their stores in the Los Angeles riots and the Black Lives Matter riots..the only stores that weren't looted and burned were stores protected by people with AR-15 rifles.....so you don't know what you are talking about......

And on the border, where ranchers are isolated and can't simply call the police and have them there in 5 minutes...they have to deal with drug gangs moving drugs and illegals across their property...and the drug cartels actually have military weapons......they don't have AR-15s they have M4 carbines...provided to them by the Mexican police and military...

Yes, I'm sure an assault weapon would be very effective in those situations. Do you think that is the only gun that would have worked?

There are lots of rifles that would work.....and they all work the same as the AR-15, they just don't look the same as the AR-15...the same way a Camry and a Jeep have the same engine dynamics........so if you get the AR-15 you will be able to make a claim on all the other rifles too...since they all work the same........

Sure, but the Camry and Jeep aren't essentially the same, and the parts aren't interchangeable. An AR and an M16 are, and the parts are ALL interchangeable, other than the slight modification to disable select fire.. Do any other guns have 100% interchangeability with the M16 military assault weapon?[/QUOTE]


Yep...they are the same, they use an internal combustion engine....so saying you want to ban the Camry because of it's engine...but only the Camry shows us that you plan on banning all the other cars too, since they all use the same engine......

 

[2aguy]

Now there a loud call to ban assault rifles. Like the AR15 that Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people in Parkland, FL. The banners are saying they're unecessary.One person said "You don't need 600 rounds to stop 1 intruder."

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in

Was it necessary for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus?

And what is the big deal if you charge a Tax for people to vote...or require them to pass a test before they vote?

 

[2aguy]

Now there a loud call to ban assault rifles. Like the AR15 that Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people in Parkland, FL. The banners are saying they're unecessary.One person said "You don't need 600 rounds to stop 1 intruder."

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in

It is illegal to buy an assault rifle, dufus.

Paddock killed 58 and injured 500+ in nine minutes with AR-15's. How is an AR-15 NOT an assault rifle?

No, it is not.

Fertilizer is not an assault weapon nor is a 767 jet.

Your bloviating aside I'll ask again.

Paddock killed 58 and injured 500+ in nine minutes with AR-15's. How is an AR-15 NOT an assault rifle?

Because it doesn't have a select fire that allows it to fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic......all rifles that are semi auto fire the same way an AR-15 does...which is why you want to ban the AR....then, you can say, "hey...all those other rifles are the same as the AR-15, so if we banned the AR-15 we have to ban all those others too.....'

But if the guy in Vegas really wanted to kill more people...he should have used a rental truck....

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and murdered 86 people and injured 458....in 5 minutes........

Rental trucks and knives are deadlier than the AR-15 rifle.....

 

[2aguy]

I find you fuckin retards so humorous. You dont want to be able to protect yourself and your family, you need a corrupt failure of a govt to do it. Thats how ridiculously desperate you are. You are THAT MUCH of a coward. Yet people that want to defend themselves and their family are the scared ones?
You are a complete dipshit.
Go jerk off to cuck porn, faggot

You can't figure out how to protect your family without an AR-15?

Sure I can. How about any other semiautomatic rifle, or a handgun, or a shotgun.

Firearms the the single best tool for self defense

My point, actually. I haven't heard anyone say ban all guns here. Everyone is acting as if they'll have to go back to sticks and stone arrows to protect themselves if AR-s and other rifles that shoot obscenely fast are off the market.

Old lady.........they want to ban the AR-15 because it fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger....that is how all semi automatic rifles and also pistols work. If they can ban the AR-15...they can logically ban all the rest of those rifles...since they are the exact same thing. Every car has an engine...every semi automatic rifle and pistol has the same engine....you can look at it like that...cars have different body styles but if you say we want to ban Toyota Camry's because their engine makes them dangerous...you are essentially saying all the other cars would need to be banned too...since they all have the same engine.....

This isn't about the AR-15...this is about creating the argument to ban all semi auto rifles and pistols.......that is why we are fighting to keep the AR-15....and why the anti gunners want it so bad.....

You do realize the AR-15 is less deadly than knives..right?

According to Quora, an AR-15 can theoretically fire 180 bullets per minute. That's why anti-gunners want it so bad.

And all the other semi auto rifles can do the same thing.......that is why they are lying and saying they just want the AR-15........the AR-15 will give them the justification for demanding all the other rifels.....and also all the pistols....

The semi auto pistol fires the same way as a rifle, it uses a magazine and fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger....

The Virginia Tech shooter used 2 semi auto pistols and murdered 32 people...

The AR-15 is the gateway drug for gun grabbers.....

 

[2aguy]

For normal self defense there are better options than the AR-15.

However, that doesn't mean the government should ban AR-15s.

I'll make the decision on what arms I should have. I don't need some filthy ass bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by special interest groups, making the decision for me.

The thing is...they know that.....they know that it is the Semi Auto operation that they want to ban......the other rifles...fire the same way.......and they want those too...and the pistols...

 

[2aguy]

Sure I can. How about any other semiautomatic rifle, or a handgun, or a shotgun.

Firearms the the single best tool for self defense

My point, actually. I haven't heard anyone say ban all guns here. Everyone is acting as if they'll have to go back to sticks and stone arrows to protect themselves if AR-s and other rifles that shoot obscenely fast are off the market.

Old lady.........they want to ban the AR-15 because it fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger....that is how all semi automatic rifles and also pistols work. If they can ban the AR-15...they can logically ban all the rest of those rifles...since they are the exact same thing. Every car has an engine...every semi automatic rifle and pistol has the same engine....you can look at it like that...cars have different body styles but if you say we want to ban Toyota Camry's because their engine makes them dangerous...you are essentially saying all the other cars would need to be banned too...since they all have the same engine.....

This isn't about the AR-15...this is about creating the argument to ban all semi auto rifles and pistols.......that is why we are fighting to keep the AR-15....and why the anti gunners want it so bad.....

You do realize the AR-15 is less deadly than knives..right?

According to Quora, an AR-15 can theoretically fire 180 bullets per minute. That's why anti-gunners want it so bad.

Theoretically?

The rate of fire of any semiautomatic rifle is limited by how fast a person can pull the trigger. I can fire my semiautomatic .223 ranch rifle just as fast as I can an AR 15 or any other semiautomatic rifle

3 time per second doesn't seem out of the realm for a very short time but then you have to add in magazine changes etc and you will have ZERO accuracy firing like that

This? Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, Semi-Automatic, 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington, 18.5" Barrel, 5+1 Rounds - 637956, Semi-Automatic at Sportsman's Guide
What does capacity 5+1 mean? Accepts 5 round mags, but what is the +1?
I think that might slow down your theoretical shooting, putting in a new mag every 5 bullets?

No...it doesn't....make sure to read this....an actual study on magazines used during mass shootings...

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]

Sure I can. How about any other semiautomatic rifle, or a handgun, or a shotgun.

Firearms the the single best tool for self defense

My point, actually. I haven't heard anyone say ban all guns here. Everyone is acting as if they'll have to go back to sticks and stone arrows to protect themselves if AR-s and other rifles that shoot obscenely fast are off the market.

Old lady.........they want to ban the AR-15 because it fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger....that is how all semi automatic rifles and also pistols work. If they can ban the AR-15...they can logically ban all the rest of those rifles...since they are the exact same thing. Every car has an engine...every semi automatic rifle and pistol has the same engine....you can look at it like that...cars have different body styles but if you say we want to ban Toyota Camry's because their engine makes them dangerous...you are essentially saying all the other cars would need to be banned too...since they all have the same engine.....

This isn't about the AR-15...this is about creating the argument to ban all semi auto rifles and pistols.......that is why we are fighting to keep the AR-15....and why the anti gunners want it so bad.....

You do realize the AR-15 is less deadly than knives..right?

According to Quora, an AR-15 can theoretically fire 180 bullets per minute. That's why anti-gunners want it so bad.

Theoretically?

The rate of fire of any semiautomatic rifle is limited by how fast a person can pull the trigger. I can fire my semiautomatic .223 ranch rifle just as fast as I can an AR 15 or any other semiautomatic rifle

3 time per second doesn't seem out of the realm for a very short time but then you have to add in magazine changes etc and you will have ZERO accuracy firing like that

This? Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, Semi-Automatic, 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington, 18.5" Barrel, 5+1 Rounds - 637956, Semi-Automatic at Sportsman's Guide
What does capacity 5+1 mean? Accepts 5 round mags, but what is the +1?
I think that might slow down your theoretical shooting, putting in a new mag every 5 bullets?

That is the same rifle as the AR-15.....just like the Camry and the Jeep are the same vehicle because they both use the same engine........

If you had an environmental activist who said the internal combustion engine was destroying the planet, and you knew they wanted it banned......would you trust their motives if they told you that no, they don't want to ban all cars...just the camry?

That is the same argument we have here......banning the AR-15 doesn't change anything since every other semi auto rifle is the same rifle as the AR-15....as are all semi auto pistols.......they all have the same engine.....

 

[2aguy]

Are automobiles a necessity? We have horses. And cars kill way more people than guns.

Cars and trucks should only be allowed for government agents.......everyone else should be forced to take buses and trains...no one needs a killing machine....

The muslim terrorist in France used a killing machine, a rental truck, to murder 86 peolpe......no civilian needs a killing machine....only cops, soldiers, politicians and movie stars should have privately owned cars...

 

[JimH52]

The only reason for assault rifle is threaten or kill people. Oh...and it makes little men feel big.

 

[2aguy]

Now there a loud call to ban assault rifles. Like the AR15 that Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people in Parkland, FL. The banners are saying they're unecessary.One person said "You don't need 600 rounds to stop 1 intruder."

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in

It is illegal to buy an assault rifle, dufus.

Paddock killed 58 and injured 500+ in nine minutes with AR-15's. How is an AR-15 NOT an assault rifle?

No, it is not.

Fertilizer is not an assault weapon nor is a 767 jet.

Your bloviating aside I'll ask again.

Paddock killed 58 and injured 500+ in nine minutes with AR-15's. How is an AR-15 NOT an assault rifle?

Again....a military rifle has select fire capability...the AR-15 like all civilian semi auto rifles do not have that ability......

And the muslim terrorist in Nice, France murdered 86 people and injured 450 with a rental truck....

All mass shooters since 1982.......35 years, murdered 795 people....knives murder over 1,600 people every single year....

Knives and rental trucks are deadlier than AR-15s....

 

[jon_berzerk]

Now there a loud call to ban assault rifles. Like the AR15 that Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people in Parkland, FL. The banners are saying they're unecessary.One person said "You don't need 600 rounds to stop 1 intruder."

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in

exactly take the Korean store owners during the L.A. riots

they had to defend themselves against multitudes of rioters

 

[2aguy]

Now there a loud call to ban assault rifles. Like the AR15 that Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people in Parkland, FL. The banners are saying they're unecessary.One person said "You don't need 600 rounds to stop 1 intruder."

That might be true - but what about if you're confronted by a menacing crowd of people >> a gang of violent thugs, MS-13, mafia, organized crime, a mean motorcycle gang, a lynch mob who mistakes you for someone else, or maybe just a bunch of drunk, dopey, street punks.

These all sound unlikely ? Until one of these situations occurs, and then it's too late to think abot the odds of it. A machine gun may be improper as Nikolas Cruz used it, but there are some scenarios in which it would be jsut the right thing to have. In some rural areas, where wolces travel around in

exactly take the Korean store owners during the L.A. riots

they had to defend themselves against multitudes of rioters

And the black lives matter riots.....the store owners there had to stop the democrats from looting and burning their stores too....