Perfect example for 2nd amendment rights.

[Pop23]

Knives ‘more dangerous’ at close range than guns | Toronto Star


.

Did you know that poison is more dangerous in food than guns?

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

So since they can’t easily get machine guns which far more effective tool have shooters found to use?

A rental truck.....a rental truck used by a muslim in Nice, France murdered 86 people...more people in one go than each of our mass shooters with rifles or pistols......

And guess what... vehicles are highly regulated, we need to be of age, licensed, and insured to drive. the actual vehicles have safety standards to be sold and drivers need to abide by a sea of traffic laws to use them on our roads.

And yet, with all that being true they are still used as murder weapons by those who don’t give a shit about the law.

What’s your argument again?

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a great example. How many do you think would be dead if he had 30 round magazines?

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

It makes a huge difference. It means carrying the 9 magazines in a backpack versus the 3 in his pockets. It means reloading 9 times instead of three, it means purchasing 9 magazines instead of three.

You realize that you can not carry 3 30 round magazines in your pockets right? Retard?

Are 3 30 round magazines easier to carry than 9 10 round magazines? Yes, so please STFU

 

[Slade3200]

Did you know that poison is more dangerous in food than guns?

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

So since they can’t easily get machine guns which far more effective tool have shooters found to use?

A rental truck.....a rental truck used by a muslim in Nice, France murdered 86 people...more people in one go than each of our mass shooters with rifles or pistols......

And guess what... vehicles are highly regulated, we need to be of age, licensed, and insured to drive. the actual vehicles have safety standards to be sold and drivers need to abide by a sea of traffic laws to use them on our roads.

Actually millions drive unlicensed and with out even registering their cars, DUMB ASS.

And they are breaking the law and get busted if they get caught. What’s up with you tonight? Hit the sauce a little too hard?

 

[Slade3200]

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. I’m 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 “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

-----


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 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.

That’s all fine and dandy thanks for the information, I’m sure you will be voting against any and all gun control measures. I’m 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?

I think those regulations should be repealed. Citizens should have access to the same weapons as the infantry in our military....if you don't want the military to have select fire weapons, that's fine....but if they have them, our servants, then we, their bosses, should have them.....we are not subjects, we are the ones who pay them......

And if criminals wanted fully automatic weapons they would get them already....they get them in France easily, and the drug cartels arm their people with them as well.....fully automatic weapons and/or select fire weapons are not used by American criminals.....it is a choice since they can get whatever they want.

Are we the citizens permitted to have these weapons, no questions asked, or is a well regulated militia permitted? something like a police force?

Police forces aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, and no where does it refer to "the People" as anything but the individual citizen.


.

What’s your definition of a well regulated militia ?

 

[Slade3200]

Did you know that poison is more dangerous in food than guns?

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

So since they can’t easily get machine guns which far more effective tool have shooters found to use?

A rental truck.....a rental truck used by a muslim in Nice, France murdered 86 people...more people in one go than each of our mass shooters with rifles or pistols......

And guess what... vehicles are highly regulated, we need to be of age, licensed, and insured to drive. the actual vehicles have safety standards to be sold and drivers need to abide by a sea of traffic laws to use them on our roads.

And yet, with all that being true they are still used as murder weapons by those who don’t give a shit about the law.

What’s your argument again?

My arguement is that taking guns that are capable of mass destruction off the market, like machine guns, and making safer guns available saves lives. Just like, having safer cars by adding airbags and seatbelts and having regulations like drivers training, licenses, speed limits etc saves lives.

And you still haven’t answered my question. Do you agree with regulations on machine guns? Yes or no

 

[OKTexas]

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 “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

-----


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 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.

That’s all fine and dandy thanks for the information, I’m sure you will be voting against any and all gun control measures. I’m 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?

I think those regulations should be repealed. Citizens should have access to the same weapons as the infantry in our military....if you don't want the military to have select fire weapons, that's fine....but if they have them, our servants, then we, their bosses, should have them.....we are not subjects, we are the ones who pay them......

And if criminals wanted fully automatic weapons they would get them already....they get them in France easily, and the drug cartels arm their people with them as well.....fully automatic weapons and/or select fire weapons are not used by American criminals.....it is a choice since they can get whatever they want.

Are we the citizens permitted to have these weapons, no questions asked, or is a well regulated militia permitted? something like a police force?

Police forces aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, and no where does it refer to "the People" as anything but the individual citizen.


.

What’s your definition of a well regulated militia ?

I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.


.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

It makes a huge difference. It means carrying the 9 magazines in a backpack versus the 3 in his pockets. It means reloading 9 times instead of three, it means purchasing 9 magazines instead of three.

You realize that you can not carry 3 30 round magazines in your pockets right? Retard?

Are 3 30 round magazines easier to carry than 9 10 round magazines? Yes, so please STFU

You can NOT put them in your pockets. So finding something to carry 3 or 9 is the same thing retard.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

That’s a great example. How many do you think would be dead if he had 30 round magazines?

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

It makes a huge difference. It means carrying the 9 magazines in a backpack versus the 3 in his pockets. It means reloading 9 times instead of three, it means purchasing 9 magazines instead of three.

You don't seem to understand how fast a magazine can be changed. And it's easy when no one is shooting back. And magazines are pretty cheap

How many shots did he get off before his rifle jammed? Had had to change magazines at least once maybe more it's not really the issue you seem to think it is

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Must of been a 9mm. I use the 45 auto, only have to shoot the liberal once.

357 Mag is the perfect round for self defense.

I really like a 10mm

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

It makes a huge difference. It means carrying the 9 magazines in a backpack versus the 3 in his pockets. It means reloading 9 times instead of three, it means purchasing 9 magazines instead of three.

You realize that you can not carry 3 30 round magazines in your pockets right? Retard?

Are 3 30 round magazines easier to carry than 9 10 round magazines? Yes, so please STFU

Depends on how you carry them.

It's not hard to figure out.

I don't know how many times you need to be told that magazine size is not the defining variable as to how many shots you can get off

 

[Pop23]

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

So since they can’t easily get machine guns which far more effective tool have shooters found to use?

A rental truck.....a rental truck used by a muslim in Nice, France murdered 86 people...more people in one go than each of our mass shooters with rifles or pistols......

And guess what... vehicles are highly regulated, we need to be of age, licensed, and insured to drive. the actual vehicles have safety standards to be sold and drivers need to abide by a sea of traffic laws to use them on our roads.

And yet, with all that being true they are still used as murder weapons by those who don’t give a shit about the law.

What’s your argument again?

My arguement is that taking guns that are capable of mass destruction off the market, like machine guns, and making safer guns available saves lives. Just like, having safer cars by adding airbags and seatbelts and having regulations like drivers training, licenses, speed limits etc saves lives.

And you still haven’t answered my question. Do you agree with regulations on machine guns? Yes or no

You got a list of school shootings using machine guns prior to their regulation then?

Let’s see them?

Cars, although highly regulated are used by criminals to murder.

And your explanation? Criminals don’t care?

Sweet.

 

[danielpalos]

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 “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

-----


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 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.

That’s all fine and dandy thanks for the information, I’m sure you will be voting against any and all gun control measures. I’m 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?

I think those regulations should be repealed. Citizens should have access to the same weapons as the infantry in our military....if you don't want the military to have select fire weapons, that's fine....but if they have them, our servants, then we, their bosses, should have them.....we are not subjects, we are the ones who pay them......

And if criminals wanted fully automatic weapons they would get them already....they get them in France easily, and the drug cartels arm their people with them as well.....fully automatic weapons and/or select fire weapons are not used by American criminals.....it is a choice since they can get whatever they want.

Are we the citizens permitted to have these weapons, no questions asked, or is a well regulated militia permitted? something like a police force?

Police forces aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, and no where does it refer to "the People" as anything but the individual citizen.


.

What’s your definition of a well regulated militia ?

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States, must be prescribed by our federal Congress.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s all fine and dandy thanks for the information, I’m sure you will be voting against any and all gun control measures. I’m 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?

I think those regulations should be repealed. Citizens should have access to the same weapons as the infantry in our military....if you don't want the military to have select fire weapons, that's fine....but if they have them, our servants, then we, their bosses, should have them.....we are not subjects, we are the ones who pay them......

And if criminals wanted fully automatic weapons they would get them already....they get them in France easily, and the drug cartels arm their people with them as well.....fully automatic weapons and/or select fire weapons are not used by American criminals.....it is a choice since they can get whatever they want.

Are we the citizens permitted to have these weapons, no questions asked, or is a well regulated militia permitted? something like a police force?

Police forces aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, and no where does it refer to "the People" as anything but the individual citizen.


.

What’s your definition of a well regulated militia ?

I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.


.

How do you define the “well regulated” part

 

[Slade3200]

So since they can’t easily get machine guns which far more effective tool have shooters found to use?

A rental truck.....a rental truck used by a muslim in Nice, France murdered 86 people...more people in one go than each of our mass shooters with rifles or pistols......

And guess what... vehicles are highly regulated, we need to be of age, licensed, and insured to drive. the actual vehicles have safety standards to be sold and drivers need to abide by a sea of traffic laws to use them on our roads.

And yet, with all that being true they are still used as murder weapons by those who don’t give a shit about the law.

What’s your argument again?

My arguement is that taking guns that are capable of mass destruction off the market, like machine guns, and making safer guns available saves lives. Just like, having safer cars by adding airbags and seatbelts and having regulations like drivers training, licenses, speed limits etc saves lives.

And you still haven’t answered my question. Do you agree with regulations on machine guns? Yes or no

You got a list of school shootings using machine guns prior to their regulation then?

Let’s see them?

Cars, although highly regulated are used by criminals to murder.

And your explanation? Criminals don’t care?

Sweet.

I don’t have a list and don’t believe there have been any. Has nothing to do with my point. You’re running to the straw man again instead of answering my question.

Yes, criminals don’t care, but criminals are also limited by the tools they have access to, are they not?

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a great example. How many do you think would be dead if he had 30 round magazines?

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

It makes a huge difference. It means carrying the 9 magazines in a backpack versus the 3 in his pockets. It means reloading 9 times instead of three, it means purchasing 9 magazines instead of three.

You don't seem to understand how fast a magazine can be changed. And it's easy when no one is shooting back. And magazines are pretty cheap

How many shots did he get off before his rifle jammed? Had had to change magazines at least once maybe more it's not really the issue you seem to think it is

I don’t know what point you are trying to make but it’s not landing. Common sense tells us that high capacity magazines, and weapons with high rates of fire contain more damage potential. It’s a simple point

 

[Slade3200]

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

It makes a huge difference. It means carrying the 9 magazines in a backpack versus the 3 in his pockets. It means reloading 9 times instead of three, it means purchasing 9 magazines instead of three.

You realize that you can not carry 3 30 round magazines in your pockets right? Retard?

Are 3 30 round magazines easier to carry than 9 10 round magazines? Yes, so please STFU

Depends on how you carry them.

It's not hard to figure out.

I don't know how many times you need to be told that magazine size is not the defining variable as to how many shots you can get off

If somebody goes into a store and buys a gun with two extra magazines they can have 30 shots or 90 shots. Simple point. If they want 90 shots then yes they can buy 9 magazines so you think that makes it a non factor, I disagree.

 

[OKTexas]

I think those regulations should be repealed. Citizens should have access to the same weapons as the infantry in our military....if you don't want the military to have select fire weapons, that's fine....but if they have them, our servants, then we, their bosses, should have them.....we are not subjects, we are the ones who pay them......

And if criminals wanted fully automatic weapons they would get them already....they get them in France easily, and the drug cartels arm their people with them as well.....fully automatic weapons and/or select fire weapons are not used by American criminals.....it is a choice since they can get whatever they want.

Are we the citizens permitted to have these weapons, no questions asked, or is a well regulated militia permitted? something like a police force?

Police forces aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, and no where does it refer to "the People" as anything but the individual citizen.


.

What’s your definition of a well regulated militia ?

I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.


.

How do you define the “well regulated” part

Can you not read, it's irrelevant to the discussion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Everything after the comma in the 2nd can stand alone. It's a right of the people, not the government, not the State and not any militia. The founders said the people can't be disarmed and the supreme court agreed. Deal with it.


.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

It makes a huge difference. It means carrying the 9 magazines in a backpack versus the 3 in his pockets. It means reloading 9 times instead of three, it means purchasing 9 magazines instead of three.

You don't seem to understand how fast a magazine can be changed. And it's easy when no one is shooting back. And magazines are pretty cheap

How many shots did he get off before his rifle jammed? Had had to change magazines at least once maybe more it's not really the issue you seem to think it is

I don’t know what point you are trying to make but it’s not landing. Common sense tells us that high capacity magazines, and weapons with high rates of fire contain more damage potential. It’s a simple point

A semiautomatic has a rate of fire of one round per trigger pull. It matters not if that semiautomatic is a rifle or a handgun. It matters not if that semiautomatic has pistol grips or barrel shrouds. It matters not if that semiautomatic has a plastic or a wooden stock.

Is one round per trigger pull a "high rate of fire"? It's the same rate of fire as a revolver or a lever action rifle or a shot gun for that matter

And I posted a very good video that basically proves that larger capacity magazines do not equate to more shots being fired

 

[Slade3200]

Are we the citizens permitted to have these weapons, no questions asked, or is a well regulated militia permitted? something like a police force?

Police forces aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, and no where does it refer to "the People" as anything but the individual citizen.


.

What’s your definition of a well regulated militia ?

I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.


.

How do you define the “well regulated” part

Can you not read, it's irrelevant to the discussion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Everything after the comma in the 2nd can stand alone. It's a right of the people, not the government, not the State and not any militia. The founders said the people can't be disarmed and the supreme court agreed. Deal with it.


.

I agree. The people have a right to bare arms. Now can you answer my question on what “well regulated” means?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

It makes a huge difference. It means carrying the 9 magazines in a backpack versus the 3 in his pockets. It means reloading 9 times instead of three, it means purchasing 9 magazines instead of three.

You realize that you can not carry 3 30 round magazines in your pockets right? Retard?

Are 3 30 round magazines easier to carry than 9 10 round magazines? Yes, so please STFU

Depends on how you carry them.

It's not hard to figure out.

I don't know how many times you need to be told that magazine size is not the defining variable as to how many shots you can get off

If somebody goes into a store and buys a gun with two extra magazines they can have 30 shots or 90 shots. Simple point. If they want 90 shots then yes they can buy 9 magazines so you think that makes it a non factor, I disagree.

It's not a factor because a person will buy as many as he thinks he needs or as many as he wants

I happen to have 5 10 round magazines for my carry pistol so what?