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.
Iām not ignoring that. Iāve actually written those exact words serveral times. The people have a right to own firearms.I never said anything about government bureaucrats, I just asked a question... when the constitution says a well regulated militia youāre saying that the founders meant to say that people should be ordered and disciplined and held accountable by just anyone who feels like holding them accountable? Thatās how you think itās intended?How is order and discipline measured and enforced?I agree. The people have a right to bare arms. Now can you answer my question on what āwell regulatedā means?
It means ordered or disciplined which does not necessarily mean government controlled,
And that applies to the militia the right to keep and bear arms is clearly stated as belonging to the people.
By anyone.
You don't need a government bureaucrat to be discplined
The second says nothing about accountability.
If a group of people were to form a militia they could decide who their leader would be.
But you ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people whether they are serving in a militia or not.
Iām not ignoring that. Iāve actually written those exact words serveral times. The people have a right to own firearms.I never said anything about government bureaucrats, I just asked a question... when the constitution says a well regulated militia youāre saying that the founders meant to say that people should be ordered and disciplined and held accountable by just anyone who feels like holding them accountable? Thatās how you think itās intended?How is order and discipline measured and enforced?It means ordered or disciplined which does not necessarily mean government controlled,
And that applies to the militia the right to keep and bear arms is clearly stated as belonging to the people.
By anyone.
You don't need a government bureaucrat to be discplined
The second says nothing about accountability.
If a group of people were to form a militia they could decide who their leader would be.
But you ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people whether they are serving in a militia or not.
So back to the discussion. If there was an unregulated militia that showed lack of order and discipline, what do you think should happen?
You sound like a tough guy. Way to stay strong on principle.I already agreed that the people have the right to bare arms, if you donāt want to further engage in understanding our laws when it comes to the second amendment then thatās your call but it is a rather lazy moveI agree. The people have a right to bare arms. Now can you answer my question on what āwell regulatedā means?How do you define the āwell regulatedā 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 chose not to because it's nothing but a deflection from the topic at hand. You can deal with that too. BTW the people have a right to KEEP and bear arms, not just bear arms at the whim of the government.
.
Yet you can't seem to find the courage to include the word "keep", meaning to possess, you're being disingenuous. Also I understand our gun laws and how they infringe on the rights of the people. To anyone who says they want to further infringe on the peoples rights, I say go to hell, no more yielding, no more compromise.
.
Pop23 was the only other one that tried to answer that question and he said the same as you āI donāt careā. What a cop out.Just like the rest of the dupes, another dodge. Why canāt any of you answer a simple yes or no question? You are the 5th person who has dodged answering. P@triot is the one person with the balls enough to answer so farThey aren't really that highly regulated.Iāve posted at least 10 times asking whether yāall support the regulations of machine guns. I know they arenāt illegal, but do you think it a good thing that they are so highly regulated?Machine guns have much higher rates of fire and you still havenāt answered whether you support the regulations in automatic weapons.
High capacity magazines are definately a grey area and a good subject for debate.
You never asked me about fully automatic weapons.
FYI they are not illegal.
And "high capacity" is just another catch phrase
For decades 20 and 30 round magazines were standard sizes. My Ruger came with a 20 round magazine when i bought it
And I posted a very good video that explains why magazine size isn't really a factor
All you need is a permit that any law abiding person can get and to pay the tax involved.
Fully automatic weapons are however extremely expensive
Who Can Own a Full-Auto Machine Gun? ā RocketFFL
My honest answer is I don't give a fuck about the regulation of machine guns because I never wanted one.
But they really are not that highly regulated as you say they are.
And what's point you're trying to make with that question?
That you have to be 21?
Why would we worry about that? The odds are pretty thin that there would be a mass shooter anywaysYeah youāre right, fuck it. Those students who want safer schools are drama queens anyways, letās not do shit.Youāre right, you could... if I was hiding under a table while some nutjob was walking around shooting up the joint Iād much rather he had the 15 10 round mags instead of the 5 30 round mags, wouldnāt you? id be looking very closely during each reload when the guys gotta go to the bag to get another mag, to try and take him out. But hey if you donāt see a difference then thereās nothin I can say to convince you otherwise.So some people would buy that because they want to carry 50 shots and some will buy that because they want 5 magazines for their gun.
In my opinion somebody walking around with 5 30 round magazines shooting a crowd is more dangerous than somebody somebody walking around with 5 10 round magazines. Somebody walking around with 5 30 round magazines is more dangerous than 15 10 round magazines. They either have to carry the magazines in a vest or a backpack and have to go through the process of retrieving the magazine and reloading, which creates opportunity to disarm or escape.
It has an effect whether you like to admit it or not. The debate is whether that effect is enough to make a law regulating the high cap mags.
It really doesn't because if I wanted to carry 150 round I could just as easily carry 15 10 round magazines or 10 15 round magazines
And the fact that 1% of all murders occur in the scenarios you are fixated on adds to the fact that magazine size isn't really a factor
Funny how that never happens during a mass shooting isn't it?
And in all honesty I don't worry abut getting killed in a mass shooting as the odds are pretty thin
There are a lot better ways to secure schools than telling law abiding people they can't own certain guns.
Gee I don't know maybe we start by controlling who can walk onto the school grounds or into the school buildings
DUH
Yes you look at hypothetical situations to understand the definitions of our laws. If this happens how is it handled. You keep dodging instead of answering. Why?Iām not ignoring that. Iāve actually written those exact words serveral times. The people have a right to own firearms.I never said anything about government bureaucrats, I just asked a question... when the constitution says a well regulated militia youāre saying that the founders meant to say that people should be ordered and disciplined and held accountable by just anyone who feels like holding them accountable? Thatās how you think itās intended?How is order and discipline measured and enforced?
By anyone.
You don't need a government bureaucrat to be discplined
The second says nothing about accountability.
If a group of people were to form a militia they could decide who their leader would be.
But you ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people whether they are serving in a militia or not.
So back to the discussion. If there was an unregulated militia that showed lack of order and discipline, what do you think should happen?
Hypothetical bull shit.
If those people were not breaking any laws there need be nothing done.
You sound like a tough guy. Way to stay strong on principle.I already agreed that the people have the right to bare arms, if you donāt want to further engage in understanding our laws when it comes to the second amendment then thatās your call but it is a rather lazy moveI agree. The people have a right to bare arms. Now can you answer my question on what āwell regulatedā means?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 chose not to because it's nothing but a deflection from the topic at hand. You can deal with that too. BTW the people have a right to KEEP and bear arms, not just bear arms at the whim of the government.
.
Yet you can't seem to find the courage to include the word "keep", meaning to possess, you're being disingenuous. Also I understand our gun laws and how they infringe on the rights of the people. To anyone who says they want to further infringe on the peoples rights, I say go to hell, no more yielding, no more compromise.
.
Yes it says keep and bear arms. It also gives our congress the responsibility to protect the people, so if something causes a public safety hazard, like a crazy guy with a machine gun, or a prankster yelling bomb on a crowded airplane, our lawmakers have the right to outlaw it and enforce those laws, do they not?
We don't need too it is irrelevant to the right to own firearms.How do you define the āwell regulatedā partWhatās your definition of a well regulated militia ?Are we the citizens permitted to have these weapons, no questions asked, or is a well regulated militia permitted? something like a police force?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.
Police forces aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, and no where does it refer to "the People" as anything but the individual citizen.
.
I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.
.
The Supreme Court already ruled that the PEOPLE have a right to arms NOT associated with MILITIA'S in any way do try and keep up.I never said anything about government bureaucrats, I just asked a question... when the constitution says a well regulated militia youāre saying that the founders meant to say that people should be ordered and disciplined and held accountable by just anyone who feels like holding them accountable? Thatās how you think itās intended?How is order and discipline measured and enforced?I agree. The people have a right to bare arms. Now can you answer my question on what āwell regulatedā means?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.
.
It means ordered or disciplined which does not necessarily mean government controlled,
And that applies to the militia the right to keep and bear arms is clearly stated as belonging to the people.
By anyone.
You don't need a government bureaucrat to be discplined
Progressives will always push for more and conservatives will always push for less, this is why a healthy balance between both is important. If only would could have productive and honest debate instead of overbloated and hateful rhetoric.You sound like a tough guy. Way to stay strong on principle.I already agreed that the people have the right to bare arms, if you donāt want to further engage in understanding our laws when it comes to the second amendment then thatās your call but it is a rather lazy moveI agree. The people have a right to bare arms. Now can you answer my question on what āwell regulatedā means?
I chose not to because it's nothing but a deflection from the topic at hand. You can deal with that too. BTW the people have a right to KEEP and bear arms, not just bear arms at the whim of the government.
.
Yet you can't seem to find the courage to include the word "keep", meaning to possess, you're being disingenuous. Also I understand our gun laws and how they infringe on the rights of the people. To anyone who says they want to further infringe on the peoples rights, I say go to hell, no more yielding, no more compromise.
.
Yes it says keep and bear arms. It also gives our congress the responsibility to protect the people, so if something causes a public safety hazard, like a crazy guy with a machine gun, or a prankster yelling bomb on a crowded airplane, our lawmakers have the right to outlaw it and enforce those laws, do they not?
The greater public safety hazard would be telling the 1.5 million people who use guns defensively every year that they can no longer defend themselves with equal or greater firepower than the bad guy has. And I don't know of anyone who died as a result of a prankster yelling bomb on an airplane.
The left keeps trying to chip away at our rights, this time magazines and a style of weapon, they get that, they'll just move on to the next one and then next one and the next one. No more yielding, no more compromise.
.
Nobody needs to do anything but we are trying to have a productive conversation so when you run and hide from answering simple questions it just makes you sound uninformed.We don't need too it is irrelevant to the right to own firearms.How do you define the āwell regulatedā partWhatās your definition of a well regulated militia ?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.
.
I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.
.
Iāve state that about 5 times now. This is 6, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Try and keep upThe Supreme Court already ruled that the PEOPLE have a right to arms NOT associated with MILITIA'S in any way do try and keep up.I never said anything about government bureaucrats, I just asked a question... when the constitution says a well regulated militia youāre saying that the founders meant to say that people should be ordered and disciplined and held accountable by just anyone who feels like holding them accountable? Thatās how you think itās intended?How is order and discipline measured and enforced?I agree. The people have a right to bare arms. Now can you answer my question on what āwell regulatedā means?
It means ordered or disciplined which does not necessarily mean government controlled,
And that applies to the militia the right to keep and bear arms is clearly stated as belonging to the people.
By anyone.
You don't need a government bureaucrat to be discplined
Progressives will always push for more and conservatives will always push for less, this is why a healthy balance between both is important. If only would could have productive and honest debate instead of overbloated and hateful rhetoric.You sound like a tough guy. Way to stay strong on principle.I already agreed that the people have the right to bare arms, if you donāt want to further engage in understanding our laws when it comes to the second amendment then thatās your call but it is a rather lazy moveI chose not to because it's nothing but a deflection from the topic at hand. You can deal with that too. BTW the people have a right to KEEP and bear arms, not just bear arms at the whim of the government.
.
Yet you can't seem to find the courage to include the word "keep", meaning to possess, you're being disingenuous. Also I understand our gun laws and how they infringe on the rights of the people. To anyone who says they want to further infringe on the peoples rights, I say go to hell, no more yielding, no more compromise.
.
Yes it says keep and bear arms. It also gives our congress the responsibility to protect the people, so if something causes a public safety hazard, like a crazy guy with a machine gun, or a prankster yelling bomb on a crowded airplane, our lawmakers have the right to outlaw it and enforce those laws, do they not?
The greater public safety hazard would be telling the 1.5 million people who use guns defensively every year that they can no longer defend themselves with equal or greater firepower than the bad guy has. And I don't know of anyone who died as a result of a prankster yelling bomb on an airplane.
The left keeps trying to chip away at our rights, this time magazines and a style of weapon, they get that, they'll just move on to the next one and then next one and the next one. No more yielding, no more compromise.
.
There can be a balance between responsible gun ownership and public safety. But gun people need to recognize that smart regulations do help and gun grabbers need to recognize our second amendment right to bear arms and understand the protection element of it.
I guess that makes you no better than them if youāre gonna fight fire with fire, also making your complaints about them hypocritical.Progressives will always push for more and conservatives will always push for less, this is why a healthy balance between both is important. If only would could have productive and honest debate instead of overbloated and hateful rhetoric.You sound like a tough guy. Way to stay strong on principle.I already agreed that the people have the right to bare arms, if you donāt want to further engage in understanding our laws when it comes to the second amendment then thatās your call but it is a rather lazy move
Yet you can't seem to find the courage to include the word "keep", meaning to possess, you're being disingenuous. Also I understand our gun laws and how they infringe on the rights of the people. To anyone who says they want to further infringe on the peoples rights, I say go to hell, no more yielding, no more compromise.
.
Yes it says keep and bear arms. It also gives our congress the responsibility to protect the people, so if something causes a public safety hazard, like a crazy guy with a machine gun, or a prankster yelling bomb on a crowded airplane, our lawmakers have the right to outlaw it and enforce those laws, do they not?
The greater public safety hazard would be telling the 1.5 million people who use guns defensively every year that they can no longer defend themselves with equal or greater firepower than the bad guy has. And I don't know of anyone who died as a result of a prankster yelling bomb on an airplane.
The left keeps trying to chip away at our rights, this time magazines and a style of weapon, they get that, they'll just move on to the next one and then next one and the next one. No more yielding, no more compromise.
.
There can be a balance between responsible gun ownership and public safety. But gun people need to recognize that smart regulations do help and gun grabbers need to recognize our second amendment right to bear arms and understand the protection element of it.
That's crap, the left has never engaged in honest debate. They intentionally inflate numbers and outright lie. The only way to defeat their tactics is to fight fire with fire. They're not the only ones who can read rules for radicals and effectively use its tactics.
The left would be better served in pushing States to input data in NICS so it can better detect nut jobs like Cruz. Congress just passed the Fix NICS bill to incentivize States to do just that. BTW, the NRA has been pushing for that bill for 25 years.
.
How do you define the āwell regulatedā partWhatās your definition of a well regulated militia ?Are we the citizens permitted to have these weapons, no questions asked, or is a well regulated militia permitted? something like a police force?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.
Police forces aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, and no where does it refer to "the People" as anything but the individual citizen.
.
I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.
.
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 donāt know what point you are trying to make but itās not landing. Common sense tells us that high capacity magazines, and weapons with high rates of fire contain more damage potential. Itās a simple point
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 donāt know what point you are trying to make but itās not landing. Common sense tells us that high capacity magazines, and weapons with high rates of fire contain more damage potential. Itās a simple point
So what is your understanding here. A well regulated militia is congressionally organized of 18-45 year old able bodied white males? Is that were we at?How do you define the āwell regulatedā partWhatās your definition of a well regulated militia ?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.
.
I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.
.
Scalia defined it in the D.C v. Heller decision....he did it in great detail....
From Heller....p.22
2. Prefatory Clause.
The prefatory clause reads: āA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .ā a. āWell-Regulated Militia.ā In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that āthe Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.ā That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (āThe militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupationsā); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (ānear half a million of citizens with arms in their handsā); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (ā[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear armsā). Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that ā[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, Ā§.....
Although we agree with petitionersā interpretive assumption that āmilitiaā means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (āto raise . . . Armiesā; āto provide . . . a Navy,ā Art. I, Ā§8, cls. 12ā13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to āprovide for calling forth the militia,ā Ā§8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to āorganiz[e]ā itāand not to organize āaā militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize ātheā militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that āeach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.ā Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.
Finally, the adjective āwell-regulatedā implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (āRegulateā: āTo adjust by rule or methodā); Rawle 121ā122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights Ā§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to āa wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
Thatās funny, so you are trying to prove that LCMs donāt increase the killing power of criminals in mass shootings and then your next paragraph you are making a case that restricting LCMs weakens law abiding citizens abilities to defend themselves. You do see the irony here donāt you?I donāt know what point you are trying to make but itās not landing. Common sense tells us that high capacity magazines, and weapons with high rates of fire contain more damage potential. Itās a simple pointIt 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.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
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
Actual research shows you are wrong...
https://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf
Even in these rare events, however, LCMās are irrelevant to the number of victims shot. For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded. Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded. Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCMās would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings. While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attackā13 to be exact. The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety. The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them. Simply put, these killers do not need LCMās to fire many rounds without reloading ā they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to...
---------
But there are potential costs to restricting magazine capacity as well as possible benefits. Any restrictions that limit the number of rounds available for criminal purposes also limit the number rounds available to law-abiding persons for self-protection. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey reveal that roughly 20 percent of all violent crime victims in a given year will be attacked by two or more offenders. One can easily imagine a scenario in which an armed victim facing multiple attackers is able to save their own life by having enough rounds to thwart multiple attackers. And there is strong empirical evidence showing that the use of guns for self-protection is both frequent and effective.
USMB rules are to not copy and paste long articles or text strings. Post a link or write summaries in your own words to make concise points.I donāt know what point you are trying to make but itās not landing. Common sense tells us that high capacity magazines, and weapons with high rates of fire contain more damage potential. Itās a simple pointIt 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.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
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
No...they don't....you have been shown the research into magazine capacity and you don't care....you want to ban these things because you have an irrational fear of them....
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.
