NJ criminalizes 10+ round high capacity magazines today

[RealDave]

The morons who support this have to apply this logic....the Fire Department only gets 1,000 gallons of water to put out your house fire....and if they needed more, they were dumb and you deserve to lose your home anyway...

Firefighters run out of water while battling house fire

So people are using huge tanks of water & fire hoses to kill people.

No, moron......we do not tell the fire dept. they can only use so many gallons of water to put out a house fire...they get all the water they need....so you don't get to tell a law abiding, good person, how many bullets they get to keep themselves or family members alive and safe from violent criminals....

Putting out a fire in nothing like you shooting a fucking gun.

You van keep all ther bullets you want. Just can put them all in a single magazine/

You still can't explain why it is so important to asshats like yourself to keep those bullets out of a magazine......we show you the actual research, we show you why you are wrong....but you start weeping, pulling out your hair and start yelling...."Because I say so..." as if that is a legitimate argument...

You gave two contradicting arguments. Make up your tiny little mind.

 

[2aguy]

Multiple targets.

Also, it ain't like on TV. One shot may not stop the attack.

So, if you had to reload, you are afraid the targets would have run away???

No...moron.....law abiding people who are attacked by criminals are usually attacked when they are alone, without help around, that means that the good guy only has the ammo he is carrying at the time of the attack. That is why having as much ammo as possible in the gun to start with is so important......if you are injured at the outset of the attack, and shoot more than your allowed 10 rounds, now you have to change magazines under the stress of combat and with an injury....so you have adrenaline screwing up your small motor functions, and possibly an injury making it even worse...whereas if you had a regular magazine of 15 rounds, that gives you 5 more chances to save your life, or the life of a family member.....especially if there is more than one attacker....

I recall on the threads about the advantage of larger magazines to allow mass murderers to kill more & you arguing that larger clips had little effect because you can change magazines so quickly.

You, being such a lying, dishonest fuck, now argue that are of great value.

You have been caught being the asshole I always knew you were.

They are two very different situations...as I have explained in other posts...as the research shows, murdering unarmed, helpless people in a gun free zone isn't slowed down by changing a magazine, it isn't helped by having 30 rounds in your magazine....

Since you are not a real thinker........let me explain now why a good person, being attacked by criminal, or criminals, need the extra bullets....

1) They will likely be attacked where they can't get immediate, or any help. So extra bullets that they have to carry will be all they have, so those extra 5-9 bullets may mean their life or death.....or their families.

2) The stress of combat all by itself is different for a victim of criminals, vs. a mass shooter...the mass shooter is in control, he is attacking people who can't fight back, and as actual witnesses state, they are calm and relaxed as they murder people...the exact opposite is true for the victim of a violent criminal attack...they get an adrenaline dump in their system, and one of the results is the reduction of small motor control...hands that will become harder to use for detail work like changing a magazine..so those extra 5-9 bullets will mean they may not have to change a magazine during an encounter, helping them to survive.

3) The innocent victim may start the fight being injured by the attacker or attackers...which makes it harder to change magazines.....so those extra 5-9 bullets in the gun may mean the difference between living and dying...what if the victims is cut, or shot in one of their hands? What if they fall and break an arm......how easy will it be to change a magazine in combat with one hand or arm?

You guys don't think...you spew emotions all over these debates...and if you would sit down, and think, you wouldn't be left wingers anymore....

Run away little boy. You just got caught being a dishonest POS.

If a larger magazine would help you fend of attackers then it woulds help a mass murderer kill more people.

Quit making excuses for your stupidity & ignorance.

Okay, you doofus.....here is the actual research into mass public shootings and magazine capacity...you have seen it before, you close your eyes and put your hands over your ears...but here is the truth, the facts and the reality...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

-----


-----
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

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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

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

 

[2aguy]

The morons who support this have to apply this logic....the Fire Department only gets 1,000 gallons of water to put out your house fire....and if they needed more, they were dumb and you deserve to lose your home anyway...

Firefighters run out of water while battling house fire

So people are using huge tanks of water & fire hoses to kill people.

No, moron......we do not tell the fire dept. they can only use so many gallons of water to put out a house fire...they get all the water they need....so you don't get to tell a law abiding, good person, how many bullets they get to keep themselves or family members alive and safe from violent criminals....

Putting out a fire in nothing like you shooting a fucking gun.

You van keep all ther bullets you want. Just can put them all in a single magazine/

You still can't explain why it is so important to asshats like yourself to keep those bullets out of a magazine......we show you the actual research, we show you why you are wrong....but you start weeping, pulling out your hair and start yelling...."Because I say so..." as if that is a legitimate argument...

You gave two contradicting arguments. Make up your tiny little mind.

No moron.....a mass public shooter, murdering unarmed, helpless people in a gun free zone is a different situation from a law abiding, good person under attack by one or more criminals....completely different dynamics...... you know it...which is why you refuse to acknowledge it....

 

[2aguy]

The morons who support this have to apply this logic....the Fire Department only gets 1,000 gallons of water to put out your house fire....and if they needed more, they were dumb and you deserve to lose your home anyway...

Firefighters run out of water while battling house fire

So people are using huge tanks of water & fire hoses to kill people.

No, moron......we do not tell the fire dept. they can only use so many gallons of water to put out a house fire...they get all the water they need....so you don't get to tell a law abiding, good person, how many bullets they get to keep themselves or family members alive and safe from violent criminals....

Putting out a fire in nothing like you shooting a fucking gun.

You van keep all ther bullets you want. Just can put them all in a single magazine/

You still can't explain why it is so important to asshats like yourself to keep those bullets out of a magazine......we show you the actual research, we show you why you are wrong....but you start weeping, pulling out your hair and start yelling...."Because I say so..." as if that is a legitimate argument...

You gave two contradicting arguments. Make up your tiny little mind.

A mass public shooter can change magazines without fear of attack.....a victim of crime can't. A mass public shooter can murder innocent people regardless of magazine size....an innocent, law abiding person under attack may not be able to change a magazine quickly enough or at all.....two different situations......please, engage your brain before you post...

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.

-----------

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.

 

[rightwinger]

NJ once again shows why they are a great state

Keeping us safe

 

[Claudette]

NJ once again shows why they are a great state

Keeping us safe

Sure as long as no one shows up with a gun to rob your stupid ass.

You can always hope he doesn't decide to shoot you in the head.

Safe indeed.

 

[2aguy]

The morons who support this have to apply this logic....the Fire Department only gets 1,000 gallons of water to put out your house fire....and if they needed more, they were dumb and you deserve to lose your home anyway...

Firefighters run out of water while battling house fire

So people are using huge tanks of water & fire hoses to kill people.

No, moron......we do not tell the fire dept. they can only use so many gallons of water to put out a house fire...they get all the water they need....so you don't get to tell a law abiding, good person, how many bullets they get to keep themselves or family members alive and safe from violent criminals....

Putting out a fire in nothing like you shooting a fucking gun.

You van keep all ther bullets you want. Just can put them all in a single magazine/

You still can't explain why it is so important to asshats like yourself to keep those bullets out of a magazine......we show you the actual research, we show you why you are wrong....but you start weeping, pulling out your hair and start yelling...."Because I say so..." as if that is a legitimate argument...

You gave two contradicting arguments. Make up your tiny little mind.

The shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun...he murdered 20 people. The Shooter in Parkland used an AR-15 .... murdered 18. The pump action shotgun had to be reloaded after every 5 shots.....and he killed 20 college students....magazine capacity doesn't make a difference in a mass public shooting since the victims can't fight back....

 

[rightwinger]

Really?

I was in the Air National Guard. I was trained to use a weapon.

Are you saying that our nation doesn't properly train our troops how to use a weapon?

Outlawing more than 10 bullets in a clip isn't illegal and won't take any weapon from anyone.

If you can't hit your target with the first few bullets, you need to go to the shooting range to learn how to use that weapon properly.

No one who knows how to properly use a weapon should need 10 much less more than 10 bullets to hit their target.

No one who uses a weapon for sport hunting needs more than 10 bullets at a time.

No one who uses a weapon for sport competition shooting needs more than 10 bullets at a time.

So stop with the dramatics. You're dealing with someone who was properly trained by our government how to use a weapon. I grew up in a family that hunted. In fact my aunt used to sit on her back porch waiting for the right size deer to walk by, she had meat in her freezer for the winter. My dad and grandfather loved to hunt birds, especially pheasant.

My grandfather was such a good shot his dog became very disgusted with him the one time he missed. I saw that dog flush out that bird but my grandfather missed. That dog turned his back on my grandfather and walked back to the car in disgust that he had done all that work and my grandfather missed. He just wasn't used to the bird not falling from the sky and he not being able to go get it for my grandfather.

So try your stupid slogans and BS on someone else. I actually know what I'm talking about.

You obviously don't.

The founding fathers were pretty smart dudes. The phrase arms means the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Today that means semi-automatic weapons with high capacity mags.

They aren't "High Capacity." That is just the term anti gunners came up with to fool uninformed Americans....

Call it what you want. 30 rounds is pretty standard for light infantry.

Yes....30 rounds is a normal magazine for rifles..... it is not "High Capacity." The anti-gun extremists lied to uninformed Americans by trotting out 100 round drum magazines as "High Capacity" magazines.....the uninformed believed this is what was meant, and voted to ban these magazines....but failed to realize the anti gunners were lying to them and planned on banning every magazine they could get their hands on, as a back door gun ban...making large numbers of semi auto pistols unusable because their regular magazine holds more than 10 bullets...

Wasn’t it Arizona where the 9 year old girl killed her instructor with an Uzi?

Thank God I live in NJ

 

[rightwinger]

NJ once again shows why they are a great state

Keeping us safe

Sure as long as no one shows up with a gun to rob your stupid ass.

You can always hope he doesn't decide to shoot you in the head.

Safe indeed.

Lived here 40 years and haven’t needed a 10 round magazine

 

[DandyDonovan]

NJ once again shows why they are a great state

Keeping us safe

Sure as long as no one shows up with a gun to rob your stupid ass.

You can always hope he doesn't decide to shoot you in the head.

Safe indeed.

Lived here 40 years and haven’t needed a 10 round magazine

Have you NEEDED your 5th Amendment rights? I never have. I'm still glad I have them, just in case.

Duh

 

[airplanemechanic]

New Jersey citizens who possess firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition will be violating state law starting Tuesday.

NJ criminalizes 10+ round 'high capacity' magazines today


Trendy loons would say " They aren't trying to take the guns" lmfao....... These idiots wouldn't know if their ass was being taken from them lol.

If you need more than 10 bullets to hit your target, you need to go to the shooting range to learn how to shoot that weapon.

No one is taking any weapons from anyone.

Multiple targets.

Also, it ain't like on TV. One shot may not stop the attack.

So, if you had to reload, you are afraid the targets would have run away???

No...moron.....law abiding people who are attacked by criminals are usually attacked when they are alone, without help around, that means that the good guy only has the ammo he is carrying at the time of the attack. That is why having as much ammo as possible in the gun to start with is so important......if you are injured at the outset of the attack, and shoot more than your allowed 10 rounds, now you have to change magazines under the stress of combat and with an injury....so you have adrenaline screwing up your small motor functions, and possibly an injury making it even worse...whereas if you had a regular magazine of 15 rounds, that gives you 5 more chances to save your life, or the life of a family member.....especially if there is more than one attacker....

I recall on the threads about the advantage of larger magazines to allow mass murderers to kill more & you arguing that larger clips had little effect because you can change magazines so quickly.

You, being such a lying, dishonest fuck, now argue that are of great value.

You have been caught being the asshole I always knew you were.

Having to stop and change mags in an offensive situation is far different than when you are shooting to save your own life.

 

[danielpalos]

Prohibition never works. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[RealDave]

If you need more than 10 bullets to hit your target, you need to go to the shooting range to learn how to shoot that weapon.

No one is taking any weapons from anyone.

Multiple targets.

Also, it ain't like on TV. One shot may not stop the attack.

So, if you had to reload, you are afraid the targets would have run away???

No...moron.....law abiding people who are attacked by criminals are usually attacked when they are alone, without help around, that means that the good guy only has the ammo he is carrying at the time of the attack. That is why having as much ammo as possible in the gun to start with is so important......if you are injured at the outset of the attack, and shoot more than your allowed 10 rounds, now you have to change magazines under the stress of combat and with an injury....so you have adrenaline screwing up your small motor functions, and possibly an injury making it even worse...whereas if you had a regular magazine of 15 rounds, that gives you 5 more chances to save your life, or the life of a family member.....especially if there is more than one attacker....

I recall on the threads about the advantage of larger magazines to allow mass murderers to kill more & you arguing that larger clips had little effect because you can change magazines so quickly.

You, being such a lying, dishonest fuck, now argue that are of great value.

You have been caught being the asshole I always knew you were.

Having to stop and change mags in an offensive situation is far different than when you are shooting to save your own life.

One you are doing the shooting & the other you are getting shot at.

 

[RealDave]

So, if you had to reload, you are afraid the targets would have run away???

No...moron.....law abiding people who are attacked by criminals are usually attacked when they are alone, without help around, that means that the good guy only has the ammo he is carrying at the time of the attack. That is why having as much ammo as possible in the gun to start with is so important......if you are injured at the outset of the attack, and shoot more than your allowed 10 rounds, now you have to change magazines under the stress of combat and with an injury....so you have adrenaline screwing up your small motor functions, and possibly an injury making it even worse...whereas if you had a regular magazine of 15 rounds, that gives you 5 more chances to save your life, or the life of a family member.....especially if there is more than one attacker....

I recall on the threads about the advantage of larger magazines to allow mass murderers to kill more & you arguing that larger clips had little effect because you can change magazines so quickly.

You, being such a lying, dishonest fuck, now argue that are of great value.

You have been caught being the asshole I always knew you were.

They are two very different situations...as I have explained in other posts...as the research shows, murdering unarmed, helpless people in a gun free zone isn't slowed down by changing a magazine, it isn't helped by having 30 rounds in your magazine....

Since you are not a real thinker........let me explain now why a good person, being attacked by criminal, or criminals, need the extra bullets....

1) They will likely be attacked where they can't get immediate, or any help. So extra bullets that they have to carry will be all they have, so those extra 5-9 bullets may mean their life or death.....or their families.

2) The stress of combat all by itself is different for a victim of criminals, vs. a mass shooter...the mass shooter is in control, he is attacking people who can't fight back, and as actual witnesses state, they are calm and relaxed as they murder people...the exact opposite is true for the victim of a violent criminal attack...they get an adrenaline dump in their system, and one of the results is the reduction of small motor control...hands that will become harder to use for detail work like changing a magazine..so those extra 5-9 bullets will mean they may not have to change a magazine during an encounter, helping them to survive.

3) The innocent victim may start the fight being injured by the attacker or attackers...which makes it harder to change magazines.....so those extra 5-9 bullets in the gun may mean the difference between living and dying...what if the victims is cut, or shot in one of their hands? What if they fall and break an arm......how easy will it be to change a magazine in combat with one hand or arm?

You guys don't think...you spew emotions all over these debates...and if you would sit down, and think, you wouldn't be left wingers anymore....

Run away little boy. You just got caught being a dishonest POS.

If a larger magazine would help you fend of attackers then it woulds help a mass murderer kill more people.

Quit making excuses for your stupidity & ignorance.

Okay, you doofus.....here is the actual research into mass public shootings and magazine capacity...you have seen it before, you close your eyes and put your hands over your ears...but here is the truth, the facts and the reality...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

-----


-----
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

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

Blah Blah Blah

You made two contracting arguments.

You know it.

 

[RealDave]

So people are using huge tanks of water & fire hoses to kill people.

No, moron......we do not tell the fire dept. they can only use so many gallons of water to put out a house fire...they get all the water they need....so you don't get to tell a law abiding, good person, how many bullets they get to keep themselves or family members alive and safe from violent criminals....

Putting out a fire in nothing like you shooting a fucking gun.

You van keep all ther bullets you want. Just can put them all in a single magazine/

You still can't explain why it is so important to asshats like yourself to keep those bullets out of a magazine......we show you the actual research, we show you why you are wrong....but you start weeping, pulling out your hair and start yelling...."Because I say so..." as if that is a legitimate argument...

You gave two contradicting arguments. Make up your tiny little mind.

The shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun...he murdered 20 people. The Shooter in Parkland used an AR-15 .... murdered 18. The pump action shotgun had to be reloaded after every 5 shots.....and he killed 20 college students....magazine capacity doesn't make a difference in a mass public shooting since the victims can't fight back....

So, no one has ever tried to fight back? Really?

 

[RealDave]

So people are using huge tanks of water & fire hoses to kill people.

No, moron......we do not tell the fire dept. they can only use so many gallons of water to put out a house fire...they get all the water they need....so you don't get to tell a law abiding, good person, how many bullets they get to keep themselves or family members alive and safe from violent criminals....

Putting out a fire in nothing like you shooting a fucking gun.

You van keep all ther bullets you want. Just can put them all in a single magazine/

You still can't explain why it is so important to asshats like yourself to keep those bullets out of a magazine......we show you the actual research, we show you why you are wrong....but you start weeping, pulling out your hair and start yelling...."Because I say so..." as if that is a legitimate argument...

You gave two contradicting arguments. Make up your tiny little mind.

No moron.....a mass public shooter, murdering unarmed, helpless people in a gun free zone is a different situation from a law abiding, good person under attack by one or more criminals....completely different dynamics...... you know it...which is why you refuse to acknowledge it....

So, why not use a muzzle loader in these attacks. Accorduing to you, the victims just stand still & allow you to shoot them.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The Constitutionality of that is dicey at best.

 

[koshergrl]

The founding fathers were pretty smart dudes. The phrase arms means the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Today that means semi-automatic weapons with high capacity mags.

They aren't "High Capacity." That is just the term anti gunners came up with to fool uninformed Americans....

Call it what you want. 30 rounds is pretty standard for light infantry.

Yes....30 rounds is a normal magazine for rifles..... it is not "High Capacity." The anti-gun extremists lied to uninformed Americans by trotting out 100 round drum magazines as "High Capacity" magazines.....the uninformed believed this is what was meant, and voted to ban these magazines....but failed to realize the anti gunners were lying to them and planned on banning every magazine they could get their hands on, as a back door gun ban...making large numbers of semi auto pistols unusable because their regular magazine holds more than 10 bullets...

Child abuse. 2 or 3 do not have the mental development to fully understand the risks and handling a gun.

nobody in that picture is 2 or 3 you imbecile.

Meanwhile..Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

"...Between 1819 and 1845, as veterans of the Revolutionary War were filing applications to receive pensions for their service, the government was surprised to learn that many of the soldiers were not men, but boys, many of whom were under the age of sixteen, and some even as young as nine."

Project MUSE - Boy Soldiers of the American Revolution

 

[DandyDonovan]

Multiple targets.

Also, it ain't like on TV. One shot may not stop the attack.

So, if you had to reload, you are afraid the targets would have run away???

No...moron.....law abiding people who are attacked by criminals are usually attacked when they are alone, without help around, that means that the good guy only has the ammo he is carrying at the time of the attack. That is why having as much ammo as possible in the gun to start with is so important......if you are injured at the outset of the attack, and shoot more than your allowed 10 rounds, now you have to change magazines under the stress of combat and with an injury....so you have adrenaline screwing up your small motor functions, and possibly an injury making it even worse...whereas if you had a regular magazine of 15 rounds, that gives you 5 more chances to save your life, or the life of a family member.....especially if there is more than one attacker....

I recall on the threads about the advantage of larger magazines to allow mass murderers to kill more & you arguing that larger clips had little effect because you can change magazines so quickly.

You, being such a lying, dishonest fuck, now argue that are of great value.

You have been caught being the asshole I always knew you were.

Having to stop and change mags in an offensive situation is far different than when you are shooting to save your own life.

One you are doing the shooting & the other you are getting shot at.

Be real, you can't simultaneously argue that a 10 round magazine limit will not slow down mass shooters and argue that a 10 round magazine limit would slow down someone defending themselves.

I don't even know why yall let them drag you into these arguments. A right is a right, I mean why does anyone NEED to be able to post things on the internet, you can just go print things in the newspaper right, so therefor barring you from using the internet would not be a violation of your free speech rights............. Of course it would be LOL

 

[ding]

NJ once again shows why they are a great state

Keeping us safe

Sure as long as no one shows up with a gun to rob your stupid ass.

You can always hope he doesn't decide to shoot you in the head.

Safe indeed.

Lived here 40 years and haven’t needed a 10 round magazine

I’ve lived in my current home for 23 years. I’ve never had a fire but I keep two working fire extinguishers on the premise at all times.

What was your point exactly?