Maybe it is the scary looking gun

[2aguy]

What “sport” are they used for ?

You gun nerds failed to answer .

Sport.....3 gun competitions.....in particular, I could care less about sport, they are a self defense rifle.....

 

[RealDave]

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

So you are saying that we should not ban them because they just look nasty?

In otherwords you & you gun nuts are so fricken crazy that you are going ape shit because you can't own a gun that looks ugly when you can own the same think that looks more conventional?

No...we are saying that once you get the AR-15 civilian rifle, you will come back to get the other rifles too, because they operate the same way.......so no, you don't get to ban any of them......

Semi automatic rifles that accept a large magazine.

So in that ten year ban, how many other guns were made illegal?

How many guns did Obama take away from you people?

 

[2aguy]

I entered first grade in the autumn of 1963. I graduated high school in 1975, got my degree in 1979. There were no school shootings during my matriculation.

Three questions:

When was the AR-15 introduced to the American consumer market?

1959

When did the plague of current mass shootings begin?

1995

Can any correlation be drawn between those two events?

Not between those two events.

Correlation can be drawn to one event.

From 1945 to 1995 there were three mass school shootings. From 1995 until today, there were 35 mass school shootings. What happened in 1995? Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995.

It was never enforced, in fact, it's enforcement was constantly blocked by Democrats. Dare to ask and I'll explain.

How about some stats on AR ownership in that time frame ?

There are now over 8 million of them in private hands.......and only around 6 or so have been used for mass shootings....check mother jones to get the more accurate number.......

8,000,000 AR-15s and more knives murder people......

 

[2aguy]

No to say that the AR 15 that shoots a 5.56 mm cartridge is more deadly than any other rifle that shoots the same cartridge is stupid

OK, so if the ability to shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger with a large capacity magazine is as good as a single shot that shoots the same caliper.

You people are sooooooooooooooo smart.

then what is your answer?

limit the mag to 10 rounds? make it a fixed mag that can't be swapped out?

great. they have speed loaders that will reload the fixed mag faster than swapping the mag to begin with.

and it's caliber unless you're working on your brakes. it's kinda a good idea to be correct when insulting peoples intelligence.

Ban the semi-automatic rifle that accepts large magazines. Like was done before but your party refused to renew it - killing all those children. NRA money is so wonderful.

Ban large magazibes

And as actual research showed....that ban did nothing to stop crime or mass shootings.....


You keep attacking the NRA...the NRA supports the FIX NICS act....the democrats oppose it.

You keep attacking the NRA...the NRA supports armed security and armed staff in the schools, the democrats oppose it.

The NRA teaches fun safety to millions of children...the democrats fight teaching gun safety to kids.

The NRA supports keeping violent gun offenders in prison, the democrats let violent gun offenders out of jail and pass laws letting them out early.

The NRA doesn't support the PROMISE PROGRAM, of obama, which allowed the shooter to get the gun...the democrats created and support the Promise program...which allowed the shooter to get his gun...

Since those are the facts, the truth and the reality.....

Of the two groups...the democrats are the ones supporting violent murder, not the NRA...

Now you are back to being the lying POS we all know.

Democrats do not oppose fixing NICS. They oppose the watered down useless POS plan you & the NRA put out & doing nothing else.

Not only are you stupid but you can't tell the fricken truth.

The NRA is a bunch of fucking assholes who know that sending a 18 year old kid to prison will make him more apt to be a criminal & become another gun & ammo buyer.

You & the bloodthirsty NRA let that kid buty that gun. Quit making excuses.

You keep attacking the NRA...the NRA supports the FIX NICS act....the democrats oppose it.

You keep attacking the NRA...the NRA supports armed security and armed staff in the schools, the democrats oppose it.

The NRA teaches fun safety to millions of children...the democrats fight teaching gun safety to kids.

The NRA supports keeping violent gun offenders in prison, the democrats let violent gun offenders out of jail and pass laws letting them out early.

The NRA doesn't support the PROMISE PROGRAM, of obama, which allowed the shooter to get the gun...the democrats created and support the Promise program...which allowed the shooter to get his gun...

Since those are the facts, the truth and the reality.....

Of the two groups...the democrats are the ones supporting violent murder, not the NRA...

 

[2aguy]

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

So you are saying that we should not ban them because they just look nasty?

In otherwords you & you gun nuts are so fricken crazy that you are going ape shit because you can't own a gun that looks ugly when you can own the same think that looks more conventional?

No...we are saying that once you get the AR-15 civilian rifle, you will come back to get the other rifles too, because they operate the same way.......so no, you don't get to ban any of them......

Semi automatic rifles that accept a large magazine.

So in that ten year ban, how many other guns were made illegal?

How many guns did Obama take away from you people?

Magazine capacity has no bearing on casualty rates in mass public shootings...since mass shooters pick gun free zones, they have all the time in the world to change magazines...

The Florida shooter, the Santa Barbara shooter and even the Columbine shooters used 10 round magazines...

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

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

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

 

[2aguy]

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

So you are saying that we should not ban them because they just look nasty?

In otherwords you & you gun nuts are so fricken crazy that you are going ape shit because you can't own a gun that looks ugly when you can own the same think that looks more conventional?

No...we are saying that once you get the AR-15 civilian rifle, you will come back to get the other rifles too, because they operate the same way.......so no, you don't get to ban any of them......

Semi automatic rifles that accept a large magazine.

So in that ten year ban, how many other guns were made illegal?

How many guns did Obama take away from you people?

Obama stacked the 4th and 9th circuit courts...the 4th ruled against all Supreme Court Precedent that military rifles are not protected by the 2ne Amendment.....that is what bama did......

 

[jc456]

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

So you are saying that we should not ban them because they just look nasty?

In otherwords you & you gun nuts are so fricken crazy that you are going ape shit because you can't own a gun that looks ugly when you can own the same think that looks more conventional?

we don't need your advice on gun purchases.

 

[Brain357]

we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style

The common thread to these shootings isn't the weapon ... which are handguns more than 2 to 1. The common thread is the state of mental health of the shooter ... which is always crazy as an outhouse rat.

There are plenty of crazies in countries with strong gun control, they just don’t have easy access to guns for mass killing.

 

[RealDave]

Oh boy . Here come the gun nerds with their spam .

Let’s cut to the chase . They are weapons of war specifically designed to kill lots of people quickly .

Lol
Na,They are just sporting rifles you watch far too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types... so quit falling down the fucking well you little weasel

Yeah sure. If hunting people is your “sport”.

so get rid of the AR15 and that "sport" goes away. is that your premise?

how many people are killed a year with an AR15? now a .45 or 9mm?

I don’t know . The nra uses its power to stop any gov sponcered studies .

It does seem like a popular weapon in the weekly barricaded nut cop shootinbg .

The nra uses its power to stop any gov sponcered studies .


That is a lie....

No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.


Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.

Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.

And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.

In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.

It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.

Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.

The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.

Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.

-------

There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

So government studies are skewed but not the ones sponsored by the NRA & Republicans & Gun makers.

I get it.

My God.

Further note, Mr lying POIS, the Dickey Amendment said the CDC could not use any funding for the study of injury prevention or control to advocate or promote gun violence. So what? They can study it & only report their findings if they don't show anything negative on gun control? This was heavily lobbied for by the NRA.

 

[jc456]

we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style

The common thread to these shootings isn't the weapon ... which are handguns more than 2 to 1. The common thread is the state of mental health of the shooter ... which is always crazy as an outhouse rat.

There are plenty of crazies in countries with strong gun control, they just don’t have easy access to guns for mass killing.

sure they do, they actually use trucks and bombs. how did the concert hall in Paris get hit if they are a no guns country?

 

[Brain357]

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

So you are saying that we should not ban them because they just look nasty?

In otherwords you & you gun nuts are so fricken crazy that you are going ape shit because you can't own a gun that looks ugly when you can own the same think that looks more conventional?

No...we are saying that once you get the AR-15 civilian rifle, you will come back to get the other rifles too, because they operate the same way.......so no, you don't get to ban any of them......

Semi automatic rifles that accept a large magazine.

So in that ten year ban, how many other guns were made illegal?

How many guns did Obama take away from you people?

Magazine capacity has no bearing on casualty rates in mass public shootings...since mass shooters pick gun free zones, they have all the time in the world to change magazines...

The Florida shooter, the Santa Barbara shooter and even the Columbine shooters used 10 round magazines...

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

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

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

Sure would be a different story if Vegas shooter had a bolt action...

 

[RealDave]

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

So you are saying that we should not ban them because they just look nasty?

In otherwords you & you gun nuts are so fricken crazy that you are going ape shit because you can't own a gun that looks ugly when you can own the same think that looks more conventional?

we don't need your advice on gun purchases.

That is too bad because I seroiusly doubt you morons are smart enough to do it on your own.

 

[2aguy]

we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style

The common thread to these shootings isn't the weapon ... which are handguns more than 2 to 1. The common thread is the state of mental health of the shooter ... which is always crazy as an outhouse rat.

There are plenty of crazies in countries with strong gun control, they just don’t have easy access to guns for mass killing.

You mean except for Britain, France, Norway, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Belgium...you mean other than all of those countries...they don't use AR15 civilian rifles in Europe, they actually use fully automatic military rifles.......dumb luck is not good gun control policy.

 

[jc456]

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

So you are saying that we should not ban them because they just look nasty?

In otherwords you & you gun nuts are so fricken crazy that you are going ape shit because you can't own a gun that looks ugly when you can own the same think that looks more conventional?

we don't need your advice on gun purchases.

That is too bad because I seroiusly doubt you morons are smart enough to do it on your own.

we don't take mentally ill advice.

 

[Brain357]

we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style

The common thread to these shootings isn't the weapon ... which are handguns more than 2 to 1. The common thread is the state of mental health of the shooter ... which is always crazy as an outhouse rat.

There are plenty of crazies in countries with strong gun control, they just don’t have easy access to guns for mass killing.

sure they do, they actually use trucks and bombs. how did the concert hall in Paris get hit if they are a no guns country?

When was their last mass killing? We have them regularly.

 

[2aguy]

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

So you are saying that we should not ban them because they just look nasty?

In otherwords you & you gun nuts are so fricken crazy that you are going ape shit because you can't own a gun that looks ugly when you can own the same think that looks more conventional?

No...we are saying that once you get the AR-15 civilian rifle, you will come back to get the other rifles too, because they operate the same way.......so no, you don't get to ban any of them......

Semi automatic rifles that accept a large magazine.

So in that ten year ban, how many other guns were made illegal?

How many guns did Obama take away from you people?

Magazine capacity has no bearing on casualty rates in mass public shootings...since mass shooters pick gun free zones, they have all the time in the world to change magazines...

The Florida shooter, the Santa Barbara shooter and even the Columbine shooters used 10 round magazines...

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

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

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

Sure would be a different story if Vegas shooter had a bolt action...

Yes...he would have killed more than 58 people...the rifle would have been more powerful and more accurate......considering he had 23 rifles with him...

And if he really wanted to murder more than 58 people, he could have used a rental truck like the terrorist in Nice, France, who murdered 89 people with a rental truck.....

 

[RealDave]

What “sport” are they used for ?

You gun nerds failed to answer .

Sport.....3 gun competitions.....in particular, I could care less about sport, they are a self defense rifle.....

So you just can't shoot at a target if you have to load the chamber yourself?

The only purpose is to kill.

 

[jc456]

we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style

The common thread to these shootings isn't the weapon ... which are handguns more than 2 to 1. The common thread is the state of mental health of the shooter ... which is always crazy as an outhouse rat.

There are plenty of crazies in countries with strong gun control, they just don’t have easy access to guns for mass killing.

sure they do, they actually use trucks and bombs. how did the concert hall in Paris get hit if they are a no guns country?

When was their last mass killing? We have them regularly.

we do? hmmmmm

 

[Brain357]

we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style

The common thread to these shootings isn't the weapon ... which are handguns more than 2 to 1. The common thread is the state of mental health of the shooter ... which is always crazy as an outhouse rat.

There are plenty of crazies in countries with strong gun control, they just don’t have easy access to guns for mass killing.

You mean except for Britain, France, Norway, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Belgium...you mean other than all of those countries...they don't use AR15 civilian rifles in Europe, they actually use fully automatic military rifles.......dumb luck is not good gun control policy.

And the last mass shooting in those countries?

 

[2aguy]

we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style

The common thread to these shootings isn't the weapon ... which are handguns more than 2 to 1. The common thread is the state of mental health of the shooter ... which is always crazy as an outhouse rat.

There are plenty of crazies in countries with strong gun control, they just don’t have easy access to guns for mass killing.

sure they do, they actually use trucks and bombs. how did the concert hall in Paris get hit if they are a no guns country?

When was their last mass killing? We have them regularly.

They could have them all the time...their criminals have fully automatic military rifles....they just don't have the desire to murder people....but they do have a lot of muslim terrorists......