Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thatās a great example. How many do you think would be dead if he had 30 round magazines?And you're the expert on how people hell bent on murder think?Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I donāt think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.If ifs and buts were candy and nut, we'd all have a merry Christmas.
Anyone hell bent on murder will bring whatever he thinks he needs to get the job done so instead of one rifle and 5 30 round mags he'll bring 15 10 round mags if he has it in his twisted mind that he needs 150 rounds
Or he'll bring 2 rifles or any combination of rifles and handguns etc
And wouldnāt you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.
FYI Cruz only had 10 round magazines
What stopped him was a jammed gun because it was a piece of shit and he didn't know how to operate it very well
No more since it takes about a second and a half to drop and swap a magazine.
Did you see this yet
Are you really not getting it or are you just trying to be difficult?
He brought a gun with some magazines. If his magazines would have held 30 rounds instead of 10 there would have been more shots and more dead. You said yourself he had a shitty gun that locked up that cut him short and prevented more from dying. Same concept
And yet in advanced countries which have stricter gun control than we do, their homicide rate is considerably lower.I think citizens should have tools to defend themselves and I think limiting the firepower of the tools we sell that end up being used to kill people is also a smart move. Yes people will always be murdered, nothing is going to STOP it but the damage could be LIMITED.Then make them go 3D print one... no need to make it easy and readily available in stores.
They could go make a machine gun too if they had the know how. Bombs as well. Iām not seeing your point
Murderers Murder, it is what they do. Limiting their tools is not the answer, if a murderer wants to murder, they find a way.
You think limiting law abiding citizens from a tool to defend themselves against someone that wants to murder or rape them will stop them, you are naive. Murderers murder and rapists rape. I, for one, don't want to make their job easier.
If somebody wanted to inflict max damage then a machine gun would be the weapon of choice. Instead we havenāt seen them being used. Why is that?
Mass shootings with rifles are more rare than lawn mower deaths..... knives are used to murder more people every single year than 35 years of rifles used by mass shooters....
You are irrational and a fool.......
There is a reason......
Murderers don't really care what the tool is, they just use another
Try again.
Gun free means no guns. You just said there was an armed guard, thatās not gun freeIf either shooter had a machine gun is there any doubt there wouldnāt have been more deaths? I think not. Luckily, machine guns are heavily regulated. Get the point?Thatās a great example. How many do you think would be dead if he had 30 round magazines?And you're the expert on how people hell bent on murder think?
FYI Cruz only had 10 round magazines
What stopped him was a jammed gun because it was a piece of shit and he didn't know how to operate it very well
About the same....since the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with 2 pistols and a mix of 10 round and 15 round magazines.....the problem isn't the magazine the attacker uses, the problem is he is using magazines in democrat gun free zones where the victims are unarmed and unable to fight back.
The math is simple....
Florida, no armed guard, no armed staff, 17 dead.
Maryland ....one armed guard, 1 dead.
See the difference?
Then you have the deadliest tool of all...the rental truck. Had he simply used a rental truck he could have killed a lot more people....the muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and murdered 86 people in 5 minutes.....more people murdered in one go than in any of our mass public shootings.....
Rental trucks are deadlier than guns .....
Also Parkland wasnāt gun free, there was an armed deputy on campus
Yes, there is doubt....since he was working in a building, and considering his inexperience he would have likely had a malfunction sooner in the process.....
Parkland was gun free......there were 3,000 students and staff and over 10 buildings on campus....and one armed resource officer who stayed outside instead of attacking the killer....
Law abiding gun owners were not allowed to carry their legal guns on campus..
It was a democrat gun free zone.
Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
Gentleman breaking into the persons home with a machete with the intention of killing the man and his wife.
Fucking left wingers are losers. Esepcially the rich hypocritical white ones.
What is your proposal for mitigating the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US each year?
Arm the law abiding. Kill the criminals.
Everyone who wants a gun has one. That's kind of the problem!
Try again.
Thatās all fine and dandy thanks for the information, Iām sure you will be voting against any and all gun control measures. Iām curious though, do you support the regulations in place for machine guns or do you think they should be readily available for sale, no questions asked?Then make them go 3D print one... no need to make it easy and readily available in stores.In theory, I suppose. The time it takes to drop and reload is less that a second.Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I donāt think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.
And wouldnāt you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.
Wouldn't a more realistic option be to shoot back at him, rather than try to take him down bare-handed?
But seriously, with today's technology, a high capacity magazine would be easy to 3D print.
They could go make a machine gun too if they had the know how. Bombs as well. Iām not seeing your point
You are irrational...magazine capacity has no bearing on casualty rates in mass shootings........
Here...educate yourself....
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 āmass murderā 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 ānonaffectableā 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 FBIās 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 shooterās immediate possession,
(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,
(3) the number of guns in the shooterās 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 āTakedown of Alleged Shooter Recountedā 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 āgrabbed a full magazineā 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 gunās slide locked back ā 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 storyās headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as āperhaps the only fortunate event of the dayā (New York Times āA Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,ā 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 āShooter Paused, and Six Escaped,ā 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 āvictims escapeā 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
-----
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926
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 shootersā 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 shooterās need to change magazines.
It's strange the NRA hates any measures which would keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
It's almost as if they care more about gun sales than the 11,000+ people murdered by guns each year.
And yet in advanced countries which have stricter gun control than we do, their homicide rate is considerably lower.I think citizens should have tools to defend themselves and I think limiting the firepower of the tools we sell that end up being used to kill people is also a smart move. Yes people will always be murdered, nothing is going to STOP it but the damage could be LIMITED.Then make them go 3D print one... no need to make it easy and readily available in stores.
They could go make a machine gun too if they had the know how. Bombs as well. Iām not seeing your point
Murderers Murder, it is what they do. Limiting their tools is not the answer, if a murderer wants to murder, they find a way.
You think limiting law abiding citizens from a tool to defend themselves against someone that wants to murder or rape them will stop them, you are naive. Murderers murder and rapists rape. I, for one, don't want to make their job easier.
If somebody wanted to inflict max damage then a machine gun would be the weapon of choice. Instead we havenāt seen them being used. Why is that?
Mass shootings with rifles are more rare than lawn mower deaths..... knives are used to murder more people every single year than 35 years of rifles used by mass shooters....
You are irrational and a fool.......
There is a reason......
Murderers don't really care what the tool is, they just use another
Try again.
Their homicide rates are well below ours. Not even close.And yet in advanced countries which have stricter gun control than we do, their homicide rate is considerably lower.I think citizens should have tools to defend themselves and I think limiting the firepower of the tools we sell that end up being used to kill people is also a smart move. Yes people will always be murdered, nothing is going to STOP it but the damage could be LIMITED.
If somebody wanted to inflict max damage then a machine gun would be the weapon of choice. Instead we havenāt seen them being used. Why is that?
Mass shootings with rifles are more rare than lawn mower deaths..... knives are used to murder more people every single year than 35 years of rifles used by mass shooters....
You are irrational and a fool.......
There is a reason......
Murderers don't really care what the tool is, they just use another
Try again.
Yet, in many of those countries the rates are increasing, but ours is actually falling.
Also, as pointed out before, if you controlled the rate in just a few of the major cities, you see us near the bottom.
Not rising. And not even close to our homicide rate.Their rates are well below ours. Not even close.And yet in advanced countries which have stricter gun control than we do, their homicide rate is considerably lower.There is a reason......
Murderers don't really care what the tool is, they just use another
Try again.
Yet, in many of those countries the rates are increasing, but ours is actually falling.
Also, as pointed out before, if you controlled the rate in just a few of the major cities, you see us near the bottom.
But rising WITH GUN CONTROL.
Not even close.
And yet stricter gun control results in lower homicide rates.Everyone believes in "gun control" to one extent or another. Possibly excepting Ted Nugent...
Very few people believe we should all have access to nukes or tanks or artillery. Very few people believe we should all have unrestricted access to fully automatic machine guns.
Very few people believe a convicted murderer on parole should be allowed a gun.
Very few people believe a six year old should be allowed to buy a gun.
Everyone believes in gun control to one extent or another.
"Allowed to buy"
You don't exhibit much of a thought process. Criminals really don't care if they are "allowed"
You are making shit up in your denial of this reality. That is telling.
Homicide rate UK: 0.92 per 100,000
Homicide rate US: 4.88 per 100,000
The US homicide rate is 5.3 TIMES HIGHER than the UK.
This is just a mental fantasy of yours which you are sticking to in total denial of reality.Another straw man.You seem terrified to answer his simple question.
You think a criminal can't get their hands on one? Too funny dude
We can make it harder for a criminal to get a gun. That's the whole point.
It works in other countries like ours. They have MUCH LOWER HOMICIDE RATES.
Keep reading that last sentence until it finally sinks in.
Idiot, criminals don't obey laws. A law doesn't make it any harder for a CRIMINAL to commit CRIME
If you make it harder for criminals to get a gun, you deter crime. This simple fact is borne out by the FACT that the UK has less than one fifth the homicide rate we do.
So you can keep spewing your fantasy nonsense, or you can join the real world. Up to you.
Itās about access. If crazy Carl wants to go shoot up a school and he can stop by the local Walmart to pick up a machine gun with unlimited ammo on his way to the school... is that something you think our system should allow? You donāt care?Whatās no giving a shit? Are you trying to say that you donāt care if machine guns are regulated? Come on man, use your wordsCars are not a constitutional right so itās a different discussion now isnāt it? How do you feel about machine guns being regulated? Do you support it or not?We regulate the shit out of cars, seems someone used one to kill 6 kids last week.
You have a point?
Murderers murder, they give a crap out of laws and regulations, it's not within the nature of a killer to care.
No giving a shit is not an answer?
Wouldn't care if they had no restrictions.
What you fail to grasp is that NO LAW ABIDING CITIZEN would use them in the commission of a crime. And Criminals, they don't care if they are regulated or not.
You seem to worry about criminals far more than law abiding citizens.
So since they canāt easily get machine guns which far more effective tool have shooters found to use?Did you know that poison is more dangerous in food than guns?Why is knife crime rising? Would you rather go up against a guy with a knife or a guy with a gun?London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises
But British politicians and police are increasingly expressing concern about Londonās rising murder rate, which is driven by a surge in knife crime. Of the 47 murders in London so far this year, 31 have been committed with knives.
Britainās interior ministry said it was consulting on new laws to further restrict dangerous weapons, including banning online stores from delivering knives to residential addresses and making it an offence to possess certain weapons in public.
Knives āmore dangerousā at close range than guns | Toronto Star
.
And would likely be used more if guns were banned.
You actually proved a post I made several times earlier. If you remove a tool from a murderer, they will just find another tool, it's what they do. The horrible part of this is, you may just drive them to find a far more effective tool.
An unexpected backup is still appreciated
Thanks
Did you see this news report of another man wielding a machete and broke into 2 apartments? They had no weapons and felt helpless as to what to do if he had attacked them with it. Fortunately, he didnāt, but what if he had? They were defenseless.
Who is saying that law abiding families shouldnāt have the right to own a gun to protect their families in their home? Please show who is saying that or stop dishonestly implying that is the sentiment of the āleftā
Your right for self defense doesn't end at your front door.
.
It can definately be limited if your right for self defense becomes a public safety issue. Hence the debate
Yep, 1.5 million defensive uses a year says it is a public safety issue, guns keep people safer than they otherwise would be.
.
I was mocking your knife articleDid you know that poison is more dangerous in food than guns?Why is knife crime rising? Would you rather go up against a guy with a knife or a guy with a gun?London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises
But British politicians and police are increasingly expressing concern about Londonās rising murder rate, which is driven by a surge in knife crime. Of the 47 murders in London so far this year, 31 have been committed with knives.
Britainās interior ministry said it was consulting on new laws to further restrict dangerous weapons, including banning online stores from delivering knives to residential addresses and making it an offence to possess certain weapons in public.
Knives āmore dangerousā at close range than guns | Toronto Star
.
So is bacteria, so your point would be?
.
How can I be deflecting from a conversation about regulating weapons by asking you if you support the regulations that we have already put on weapons. Do you realize how dumb you sound? My questing goes directly to the heart of the topic and the only answer youāve given is āI donāt careāSo since they canāt easily get machine guns which far more effective tool have shooters found to use?Did you know that poison is more dangerous in food than guns?Why is knife crime rising? Would you rather go up against a guy with a knife or a guy with a gun?
Knives āmore dangerousā at close range than guns | Toronto Star
.
And would likely be used more if guns were banned.
You actually proved a post I made several times earlier. If you remove a tool from a murderer, they will just find another tool, it's what they do. The horrible part of this is, you may just drive them to find a far more effective tool.
An unexpected backup is still appreciated
Thanks
We all see the game you are playing fool......
You want to deflect from the argument. The argument being, why regulate the use of weapons when solutions to the problem are ignored.
You actually want a ban, then when I'm proven right, because the shooter will use a handgun, blame handguns. You will continue to ignore the base problem until more killings happen when the killer uses a shotgun.
BUT BUT, MACHINE GUNS!
Deflect all the fuck you want junior. Some of want to STOP what creates MONSTERS, not wait until we've CREATED THEM and cry about it.
It matters because it goes to the principle behind the law and our governments right to regulate weapons. Why canāt you just answer a simple question?At this point, what difference does it make if the machine gun is regulated or not. We the People cannot get them unless we have a legal means to purchase, or are criminal like Eric Holder and get them from the DOJ..Whatās no giving a shit? Are you trying to say that you donāt care if machine guns are regulated? Come on man, use your wordsCars are not a constitutional right so itās a different discussion now isnāt it? How do you feel about machine guns being regulated? Do you support it or not?What does that have to do with gun regulations?
We regulate the shit out of cars, seems someone used one to kill 6 kids last week.
You have a point?
Murderers murder, they give a crap out of laws and regulations, it's not within the nature of a killer to care.
No giving a shit is not an answer?
Thatās a great example. How many do you think would be dead if he had 30 round magazines?And you're the expert on how people hell bent on murder think?Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I donāt think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.
And wouldnāt you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.
FYI Cruz only had 10 round magazines
What stopped him was a jammed gun because it was a piece of shit and he didn't know how to operate it very well
No more since it takes about a second and a half to drop and swap a magazine.
Did you see this yet
Are you really not getting it or are you just trying to be difficult?
He brought a gun with some magazines. If his magazines would have held 30 rounds instead of 10 there would have been more shots and more dead. You said yourself he had a shitty gun that locked up that cut him short and prevented more from dying. Same concept
You don't know that. Why are you pretending to know what was going through that wack job's mind
I don't know how many magazines he had but if had 30 round mags he may have brought less of them
Most likely he bough x number of rounds and filled as many magazines as he could with the ammo he bought if that was 3 30 round mags or 9 10 round mags it makes no difference
Thereās a guy with a gun on campus paid to protect the school, it isnāt gun free, this isnāt a hard concept. Complain that he didnāt do his job or one guy isnāt enough but donāt lie and call it a gun free zone and then claim Iām lying.Gun free means no guns. You just said there was an armed guard, thatās not gun freeIf either shooter had a machine gun is there any doubt there wouldnāt have been more deaths? I think not. Luckily, machine guns are heavily regulated. Get the point?Thatās a great example. How many do you think would be dead if he had 30 round magazines?
About the same....since the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with 2 pistols and a mix of 10 round and 15 round magazines.....the problem isn't the magazine the attacker uses, the problem is he is using magazines in democrat gun free zones where the victims are unarmed and unable to fight back.
The math is simple....
Florida, no armed guard, no armed staff, 17 dead.
Maryland ....one armed guard, 1 dead.
See the difference?
Then you have the deadliest tool of all...the rental truck. Had he simply used a rental truck he could have killed a lot more people....the muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and murdered 86 people in 5 minutes.....more people murdered in one go than in any of our mass public shootings.....
Rental trucks are deadlier than guns .....
Also Parkland wasnāt gun free, there was an armed deputy on campus
Yes, there is doubt....since he was working in a building, and considering his inexperience he would have likely had a malfunction sooner in the process.....
Parkland was gun free......there were 3,000 students and staff and over 10 buildings on campus....and one armed resource officer who stayed outside instead of attacking the killer....
Law abiding gun owners were not allowed to carry their legal guns on campus..
It was a democrat gun free zone.
When the armed resource officer does not engage the shooter and he is the only one legally permitted to have a gun in the democrat gun free zone...it is a gun free zone. You nuts can lie as much as you want, but one armed cop, on a campus of over 10 buildings and over 3,000 students where normal, law abiding gun owners are prohibited from carrying their legal guns is a gun free zone...
